• 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.

I don't mean to be a hater....

Started by ArAich,

23 posts in this topic

fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
the top left corner is rounded

 

I can't see any rounding...it doesn't look razor sharp, but it's predominantly square. There might be very slight blunting around 1/64" to 1/128" in size, but I can't tell that for sure from the scan.

 

That lower-left corner is definitely one of the worst defects I've seen on a CGC 9.6...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illiterati-migration

Illiterati-migration

Posted
Posted
well maybe the remaining elements made up for it??? OR those "defects" jsut look more pronounced in the slab....?

 

Yes. That must be it. The other elements were superior to all other books (11.0-12.0 range) and they pulled the book up from an otherwise dismal doom of mere Vf/NM status.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illiterati-migration

Illiterati-migration

Posted
Posted
the top left corner is rounded

 

I can't see any rounding...it doesn't look razor sharp, but it's predominantly square. There might be very slight blunting around 1/64" to 1/128" in size, but I can't tell that for sure from the scan.

 

That lower-left corner is definitely one of the worst defects I've seen on a CGC 9.6...

 

Corner looks bunged to me. Looks pretty clear that it's smashed down... but that's probably just from the case.

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif893whatthe.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garthgantu

garthgantu

Posted
Posted
I don't recall seeing any 9.2's or 9.4's with a bottom corner like that let alone a 9.6? If I sent that book in and got that grade back, I would feel like I won the lotto cloud9.gif

 

ah, but you and I would *never* get a 9.6 out of a book like that... and the fact that anyone else did is ludicrous. The lack of consistency from CGC is probably their single biggest failing, and the new bigger (and alpha-nomenclature-free!) labels only illustrate the fact that this trend has not improved in recent months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mushroom

Mushroom

Posted
Posted

I am watching this auction simply because I have two of these books (one slabbed at 9.4 the other raw) that both look better than this, it is not only the bung corner but the cover colours that to me stop it from being 9.6. I know that PQ is not a criteria for reducing the structural rating but anybody paying over the top for this book (i.e. what other B&B 9.6's have gone for) is paying for the label not the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tomega

Tomega

Posted
Posted
Defintiely not a 9.6 - 9.0 to 9.2 is more accurate.

 

I'm no CGC fanboy, but a 9.0 is pretty harsh, don't ya think?

 

Not at all, I have never seen a 9.2 with a corner like that. It appears to be about 1/8" by 3/16" missing piece - if I went simply on that alone and by the Overstreet guidelines it would pull a 9.2. Now I take into account a slight blunting on the corners, slightly diminished cover reflectivity, cream to off white pages, a very slight staple discoloration, and the fact I have to go by the assumption that the back is nearly in the same shape as the front.

 

Take a look at these copies of issue 71 cgc 9.0. The picture is not great in the eBay auction but the Heritage is pretty good. How far off are these issues from the one that pulled a 9.6?

 

Brave and Bold 71 CGC 9.0

 

Heritage Brave and Bold 71

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing