Firelake Collection (RE: Distributor Ink...)

[awe4one]

Will a comic with distributor ink such as this be graded 9.6 or 9.8?

 

[Foolkiller]

I'm pretty sure I own a book or two with distributor ink that is a 9.6

[nik]

9.6, probably

 

9.8, probably not

[awe4one]

9.6, probably

 

9.8, probably not

 

My thought was 9.6 maybe...9.8 no.

 

Jim

[thirdgreenham]

Not too sure about the 9.6 or 9.8. You could ask CGC, but I don't think you'll get an answer. Everytime I make a post in the "Ask CGC" section, asking about their grading, the thread is never shown.

 

My on this subject- A little distributor ink is alright, I guess, but when it's just slopped on, that really bugs me.

 

Andy

[awe4one]

Personally, I think there should be a deduction for it. A comic should get no higher than 9.4 in my opinion (like my opinion matters to CGC). The reason being is some people detest it (I'm not one) and if it's not obvious on the front cover a person buying one on the Internet would likely never know since you rarely see back covers in auctions.

 

The reason I ask is back when I had way more time on my hands than I do now, I saved all the front and back cover scans of the Zillaf4 auctions held awhile back where the majority were won by raymond_giles for what was widely believed at the time to be stupid high bids. I suspected they would show up again and they have in the current Comiclink auction under the Firelake Collection. I also suspect some without the notation are also from the Zilla auctions. And let me say, whoever is doing the comic cleaning and pressing work for him is doing a bang-up job. Also, a number of the 9.6/9.8 comics have/had distro ink on the back covers but you'd never know it by looking at the auction.

 

Jim

[TempusFugitivus]

I do detest Distributor Ink and notice that a lot of books that keep getting resold over and over have it on them. But CGC does not subtract AT ALL for distributor ink. In other words, your book will be graded as if the ink is not even on it. My understanding of the situation is that, when CGC was formed, this policy was adopted because there were many dealers who did not want their distributor-inked up inventory devalued. The argument I guess was that this would be unfair as distributor ink is worse is some parts of the country than other parts. And, always remember, CGC was formed by dealers not buyers. Which is also probably why detailed notes on CGCs (which would hurt sales of books whose defects, like distributor ink can be hidden) have never been available.

 

 

[Sal]

I do detest Distributor Ink and notice that a lot of books that keep getting resold over and over have it on them. But CGC does not subtract AT ALL for distributor ink. In other words, your book will be graded as if the ink is not even on it. My understanding of the situation is that, when CGC was formed, this policy was adopted because there were many dealers who did not want their distributor-inked up inventory devalued. The argument I guess was that this would be unfair as distributor ink is worse is some parts of the country than other parts. And, always remember, CGC was formed by dealers not buyers. Which is also probably why detailed notes on CGCs (which would hurt sales of books whose defects, like distributor ink can be hidden) have never been available.

 

 

I disagree with your second sentence. I believe that they treat distro ink much in the same way they treat date stamps/writing. If it's nonobtrusive, then they may ignore it, but if it's really sloppy, I suspect they consider that a flaw and grade accordingly.

 

Of course, you could be speaking from a position of knowledge, and not opinion, but unless you have a quote or comment from the PTB about it, I'd not be comfortable making such a statement personally

[TempusFugitivus]

On Raymond St. Giles and the Zilla4 auction, it was unbelievable how many of those (so-called) Fire Lake collection books were distributor-marked (kind of like the Hollywood Hills collection which is also all badly distributor marked). Weirdly, many of the Fire Lake books did not seem like they came from the same source (some bright white, some dingy as hell, some marked up bad, some seemingly clean). In any case, the books may not have even been pressed. I bid Giles up all over the place to way past Guide or GPA. I actually won 2 books accidentally that I thought were flat beautiful for way over guide (both listed as 9.2). Afterwards, I was kicking myself for succumbing to auction fever.

 

I got them back from CGC 2 weeks ago.

 

Both are 9.6 white (and neither was pressed, of course).

 

Now I think I didn't bid high enough.

[TempusFugitivus]

Sal

As I hate distributor ink, I've talked to plenty of dealers about it. What I said was told to me by a large dealer who was around during the formation of CGC. Another rationale for the decision supposedly was that all books have a form of 'distributor ink' on them now (i.e. the comic companies color code the books themselves).

 

Of course, you do not have to believe me. But I have seen many (and unfortunately own some) books graded 9.6 and 9.8 that are distributor inked up. If there was any subtraction for this ink, none of these books would be 9.6 or 9.8.

 

For the grade, it's ignored just like a ridiculously bad miswrap. The only problem is that you often can't see it while a miswrap is obvious.

 

 

[awe4one]

On Raymond St. Giles and the Zilla4 auction, it was unbelievable how many of those (so-called) Fire Lake collection books were distributor-marked (kind of like the Hollywood Hills collection which is also all badly distributor marked). Weirdly, many of the Fire Lake books did not seem like they came from the same source (some bright white, some dingy as hell, some marked up bad, some seemingly clean). In any case, the books may not have even been pressed. I bid Giles up all over the place to way past Guide or GPA. I actually won 2 books accidentally that I thought were flat beautiful for way over guide (both listed as 9.2). Afterwards, I was kicking myself for succumbing to auction fever.

 

I got them back from CGC 2 weeks ago.

 

Both are 9.6 white (and neither was pressed, of course).

 

Now I think I didn't bid high enough.

 

When I get time later, I'll post some before and after scans. It's clear alot of these were pressed and cleaned before being slabbed...

 

Jim

[Foolkiller]

On Raymond St. Giles and the Zilla4 auction, it was unbelievable how many of those (so-called) Fire Lake collection books were distributor-marked (kind of like the Hollywood Hills collection which is also all badly distributor marked). Weirdly, many of the Fire Lake books did not seem like they came from the same source (some bright white, some dingy as hell, some marked up bad, some seemingly clean). In any case, the books may not have even been pressed. I bid Giles up all over the place to way past Guide or GPA. I actually won 2 books accidentally that I thought were flat beautiful for way over guide (both listed as 9.2). Afterwards, I was kicking myself for succumbing to auction fever.

 

I got them back from CGC 2 weeks ago.

 

Both are 9.6 white (and neither was pressed, of course).

 

Now I think I didn't bid high enough.

 

When I get time later, I'll post some before and after scans. It's clear alot of these were pressed and cleaned before being slabbed...

 

Jim

 

... and cleaned? Not sure how this is not restoration.

[awe4one]

On Raymond St. Giles and the Zilla4 auction, it was unbelievable how many of those (so-called) Fire Lake collection books were distributor-marked (kind of like the Hollywood Hills collection which is also all badly distributor marked). Weirdly, many of the Fire Lake books did not seem like they came from the same source (some bright white, some dingy as hell, some marked up bad, some seemingly clean). In any case, the books may not have even been pressed. I bid Giles up all over the place to way past Guide or GPA. I actually won 2 books accidentally that I thought were flat beautiful for way over guide (both listed as 9.2). Afterwards, I was kicking myself for succumbing to auction fever.

 

I got them back from CGC 2 weeks ago.

 

Both are 9.6 white (and neither was pressed, of course).

 

Now I think I didn't bid high enough.

 

When I get time later, I'll post some before and after scans. It's clear alot of these were pressed and cleaned before being slabbed...

 

Jim

 

... and cleaned? Not sure how this is not restoration.

 

I assume the dirty back covers were cleaned before getting 9.4 and up?

 

Jim

[Mr. Zipper]

Another rationale for the decision supposedly was that all books have a form of 'distributor ink' on them now (i.e. the comic companies color code the books themselves).

 

This is somewhat contrary to my experience. Here is the best looking 8.0 on the planet. The only thing in the graders notes are distributor ink (back cover only) and "thumb dents." (There are 2 small thumb dents that are almost impossible to see through the slab.) I presumed the distributor overspray on the back cover was what knocked it down... because the remainder of the flaws would not knock it down lower than 9.0 IMO.

 

 

 

[Mr. Zipper]

... and cleaned? Not sure how this is not restoration.

 

Someone piping in with the ol' scraping a booger off the cover analogy in

 

3...

 

2..

 

 

[awe4one]

On Raymond St. Giles and the Zilla4 auction, it was unbelievable how many of those (so-called) Fire Lake collection books were distributor-marked (kind of like the Hollywood Hills collection which is also all badly distributor marked). Weirdly, many of the Fire Lake books did not seem like they came from the same source (some bright white, some dingy as hell, some marked up bad, some seemingly clean). In any case, the books may not have even been pressed. I bid Giles up all over the place to way past Guide or GPA. I actually won 2 books accidentally that I thought were flat beautiful for way over guide (both listed as 9.2). Afterwards, I was kicking myself for succumbing to auction fever.

 

I got them back from CGC 2 weeks ago.

 

Both are 9.6 white (and neither was pressed, of course).

 

Now I think I didn't bid high enough.

 

When I get time later, I'll post some before and after scans. It's clear alot of these were pressed and cleaned before being slabbed...

 

Jim

 

... and cleaned? Not sure how this is not restoration.

 

I assume the dirty back covers were cleaned before getting 9.4 and up?

 

Jim

 

Back cover to ASM #66...now a 9.4...

 

[Foolkiller]

Another rationale for the decision supposedly was that all books have a form of 'distributor ink' on them now (i.e. the comic companies color code the books themselves).

 

This is somewhat contrary to my experience. Here is the best looking 8.0 on the planet. The only thing in the graders notes are distributor ink (back cover only) and "thumb dents." (There are 2 small thumb dents that are almost impossible to see through the slab.) I presumed the distributor overspray on the back cover was what knocked it down... because the remainder of the flaws would not knock it down lower than 9.0 IMO.

 

 

 

 

I dunno Steve... the wear at the bottom and sides of the back cover seem consistent with 8.0s along with the thumb indents. I don't think it was the overspray as I've seen 9.4s with that level of overspray -- and I'm pretty sure I owned a 9.6 with that level. But I didn't think it could be acceptable in the 9.8 range.

[joeypost]

Another rationale for the decision supposedly was that all books have a form of 'distributor ink' on them now (i.e. the comic companies color code the books themselves).

 

This is somewhat contrary to my experience. Here is the best looking 8.0 on the planet. The only thing in the graders notes are distributor ink (back cover only) and "thumb dents." (There are 2 small thumb dents that are almost impossible to see through the slab.) I presumed the distributor overspray on the back cover was what knocked it down... because the remainder of the flaws would not knock it down lower than 9.0 IMO.

 

 

 

 

Steve, I have to agree that it is the nicest 8.0 I have seen. Thumb dents get hit oretty hard but I can't see a 3 grade hit here. No mention of slight staining in the notes? Looks like the bottom edge BC has some light staining or soiling going on.

[Mr. Zipper]

Steve, I have to agree that it is the nicest 8.0 I have seen. Thumb dents get hit oretty hard but I can't see a 3 grade hit here. No mention of slight staining in the notes? Looks like the bottom edge BC has some light staining or soiling going on.

 

No mention of staining or soiling in the notes. I don't know what it is at the bottom of the back cover, but I almost think it is a few drops of a different color overspray... it looks like a very light orange ink. The little dimple at the bottom appears to be production related almost like a printers crease. I'd hardly call the light dirt along the spine soiling... the scan contrast makes it look darker than it is and I've seen worse on slabbed 9.4s.

 

Compared to the other slabbed 8.0s I've seen, there is just no comparision with this book. And the guy that sold it to me at an 8.0 price has been trying to get it back from me for a long time.

 

[thirdgreenham]

Steve, I have to agree that it is the nicest 8.0 I have seen. Thumb dents get hit oretty hard but I can't see a 3 grade hit here. No mention of slight staining in the notes? Looks like the bottom edge BC has some light staining or soiling going on.

 

No mention of staining or soiling in the notes. I don't know what it is at the bottom of the back cover, but I almost think it is a few drops of a different color overspray... it looks like a very light orange ink. The little dimple at the bottom appears to be production related almost like a printers crease. I'd hardly call the light dirt along the spine soiling... the scan contrast makes it look darker than it is and I've seen worse on slabbed 9.4s.

 

Compared to the other slabbed 8.0s I've seen, there is just no comparision with this book. And the guy that sold it to me at an 8.0 price has been trying to get it back from me for a long time.

 

 

I'd say a definite candidate for a re-sub. (thumbs u

 

Andy