• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

How is this not a PLOD?

Started by Jeffro.,

30 posts in this topic

Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted

very minor amount of color touch on cover (????)

 

Anyone ever see anything like this? Simple label error maybe?

 

 

 

http://www.comiclink.com/./itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fcgc%2Easp%3F%5FSORT%3DYES%26f1%3Di%2ELastUpdate%26ODire1%3DDESC%26f2%3Di%2ETitle%26ODire2%3DASC%26f3%3Di%2EIssueNumber%252C%2Bi%2EVolumeNumber%26ODire3%3DASC%26pg%3D2&id=658445

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sal

Sal

Posted
Posted

I think the distinction is made when the colour touch doesn't affect the look of the book in a positive sense. It's considered a defect at that point. Maybe this book had more extensive - or the same amount of - colour touch at one point which was then mostly removed? (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cd4ever

cd4ever

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

And since day 1 I've railed strongly against this asinine policy. A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
silverage12c

silverage12c

Posted
Posted
A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

Tough to argue with that. Deeming any detected resto as "not warranting" the PLOD gives a perception of subjectivity or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally's Comics

Wally's Comics

Posted
Posted
A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

Tough to argue with that. Deeming any detected resto as "not warranting" the PLOD gives a perception of subjectivity or worse.

 

NUTZ!

 

:insane:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonker

Zonker

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

And since day 1 I've railed strongly against this asinine policy. A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

 

:gossip: Part of the price to pay for getting the "big boys" to buy in to the CGC mission at its inception. Too many color touched Mile Highs to have them all in purple labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kc120us

kc120us

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

And since day 1 I've railed strongly against this asinine policy. A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

 

To play devils' advocate, how is the consumer confused? The work is clearly noted on the label, the restoration has been disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

And since day 1 I've railed strongly against this asinine policy. A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

 

To play devils' advocate, how is the consumer confused? The work is clearly noted on the label, the restoration has been disclosed.

 

Right. It seems as though noting it may not be enough... the book must be punished with a purple label.

 

There is a good possibility the book would be a 4.5 with or without the tiny color touch... so what's the point of a PLOD?

 

Frankly, I think it's insane whenever I see a low grade book in a PLOD noting small amount of color touch or a tear seal. If it's a 1.8, who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

Tough to argue with that. Deeming any detected resto as "not warranting" the PLOD gives a perception of subjectivity or worse.

 

Isn't CGC paid all day long for their "subjective" opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted

It has always been my perception that Golden Age books have a different set of grading standards than the latter ages. This being one of the reasons why you will never see a published list of evaluation criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted

So if I drop a marker and it makes a dot that's the wrong color on the cover or drop some Elmer's on the cover, it should get a PLOD? I say no. Grade it with a blue label and consider it a defect.

 

As for other times when the thing done is to improve the appearance, it should either get a PLOD or GLOD. GLOD seems more appropriate when it doesn't have any real impact on the perceived grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cd4ever

cd4ever

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

And since day 1 I've railed strongly against this asinine policy. A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

 

To play devils' advocate, how is the consumer confused? The work is clearly noted on the label, the restoration has been disclosed.

Then why have the purple label at all? Make them all blue and just note the restoration. I would be fine with this although it might be an advantage to small scanning scammers. But since they've created the purple label and its sole purpose is to identify restored books, then it should be used as such. Consistently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JazzMan

JazzMan

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that pre-1950 books (this one was from 1951, so it's probably borderline) with minor restoration (color touch or glue but not trimming) would get a blue label with a propper annotation under the title, as with this one. SA books do not receive the same treatment and any restoration detected would give it a PLOD no matter how minor. Anyone have a SA w/ minor resto that's received a blue label?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kc120us

kc120us

Posted
Posted
Plus I've heard (and I might be totally off on this one) that GA books are given a little more leeway with minor glue and color touching?

 

I think the policy of blue labels for books with minor color touch/glue only applies to GA books, regardless, CGC has been certifying books like this since day 1.

And since day 1 I've railed strongly against this asinine policy. A book is restored or it ain't. If it is, Purple. If not, Blue. It should be no more complicated than that. Why confuse the consumer?

 

To play devils' advocate, how is the consumer confused? The work is clearly noted on the label, the restoration has been disclosed.

Then why have the purple label at all? Make them all blue and just note the restoration. I would be fine with this although it might be an advantage to small scanning scammers. But since they've created the purple label and its sole purpose is to identify restored books, then it should be used as such. Consistently.

 

I agree with you. I, personally, do not see a need for different label colors as long as all work is clearly disclosed. When collectors buy raw books, are restored comics sold in different color mylars? No, they typically have a label denoting the work affixed to the sleeve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing