10?

[szelim]

I don't know what would garner a CGC 10, but the top edge of this book (small dings) doesn't look like it would warrant such a grade. But perhaps this could have resulted after slabbing?

 

[Mr. Zipper]

It's a 10 in label only now.

 

One would think a Gem Mint 10 would mean absolutely no flaws production or otherwise... the perfectly printed and preserved exemplar.

[VintageComics]

Well, there will always be a production defect or an allowance for some sort of variation.

 

There is no exact spot staples need to be in...they can be perfectly on the apex and yet still differ in height on a perfect 10.

 

As well, color and ink strike can differ on a perfect 10.

 

In this case it looks like just a little roughness on the cut but probably too small to be called a chip or pre chip.

 

Do you actually own the book Szelim, or are you just looking at a scan?

 

R.

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

No way, dude. 10 is 10. No flaws and perfect in every way. If those little dents are little dents then it is no longer a 10. I wonder whether it is an effect of light being refracted or something in the case casting a micro-shadow. Of course, this is pure conjecture. But one thing is not conjecture; no CGC 10 should have little dents on the top edge.

[VintageComics]

No way, dude. 10 is 10. No flaws and perfect in every way. If those little dents are little dents then it is no longer a 10. I wonder whether it is an effect of light being refracted or something in the case casting a micro-shadow. Of course, this is pure conjecture. But one thing is not conjecture; no CGC 10 should have little dents on the top edge.

 

Perfect compared to what?

 

There is no "perfect" example to compare a comic to. There are only relative examples.

 

There is no specification stating that a comic needs to be "X" wide" and "Y" tall and "Z" thick...or staples need to be place "X" amount from top and bottom edges...there is no template.

 

Centering is absolute within reason (meaning we're not talking 10,000th's of an inch), as is miswrap, corner and edge sharpness etc.

 

If a book passes this test I don't think CGC is going to spend 10 minutes looking for a flaw on the book...no visible wear, perfect centering, no production defectss...label it a 10.

 

I don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

 

R.

[divad]

I don't disagree Roy, but I bet even a 6.0 gets at least 10 minutes!

[Mr. Zipper]

[i don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

R.

 

Gotta disagree. That is the difference between 9.8s, 9.9s and 10.0s.

 

9.8s can have the tiniest flaw.

 

9.9s should be structurally perfect, but may have tiny imperfection such as slightly misaligned staple.

 

10.0s - perfect in every way. A better copy is not possible. Unimprovable.

 

The term GEM MINT means exactly that... flawless and produced to exact specifications.

 

If a book with tiny chips on the top edge could be a 10.0, what would a copy without the flaw get? 10.1?

[seanfingh]

No way, dude. 10 is 10. No flaws and perfect in every way. If those little dents are little dents then it is no longer a 10. I wonder whether it is an effect of light being refracted or something in the case casting a micro-shadow. Of course, this is pure conjecture. But one thing is not conjecture; no CGC 10 should have little dents on the top edge.

 

Perfect compared to what?

 

There is no "perfect" example to compare a comic to. There are only relative examples.

 

There is no specification stating that a comic needs to be "X" wide" and "Y" tall and "Z" thick...or staples need to be place "X" amount from top and bottom edges...there is no template.

 

Centering is absolute within reason (meaning we're not talking 10,000th's of an inch), as is miswrap, corner and edge sharpness etc.

 

If a book passes this test I don't think CGC is going to spend 10 minutes looking for a flaw on the book...no visible wear, perfect centering, no production defectss...label it a 10.

 

I don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

 

R.

 

You're making a certified CGC apologist blush with this one. A 10 has no visible defects and no defects that reasonable magnification (jeweler's loupe etc.) will show either. You'd argue with your echo. Still your little buddy,

 

--S.

 

 

[VintageComics]

[i don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

R.

 

Gotta disagree. That is the difference between 9.8s, 9.9s and 10.0s.

 

9.8s can have the tiniest flaw.

 

9.9s should be structurally perfect, but may have tiny imperfection such as slightly misaligned staple.

 

10.0s - perfect in every way. A better copy is not possible. Unimprovable.

 

The term GEM MINT means exactly that... flawless and produced to exact specifications.

If a book with tiny chips on the top edge could be a 10.0, what would a copy without the flaw get? 10.1?

 

Zip old buddy. What specifications? There are no specs for comics. This isn't NASA. A perfect 10 is not actually perfect...it's a book that CGC thought was flawless on that day for that particular issue.

 

You guys are trying to make it sound like CGC gets out their vernier calipers, micrometers and microscopes to find a "10"

 

Sorry. This book is a 10.

 

R.

 

[VintageComics]

No way, dude. 10 is 10. No flaws and perfect in every way. If those little dents are little dents then it is no longer a 10. I wonder whether it is an effect of light being refracted or something in the case casting a micro-shadow. Of course, this is pure conjecture. But one thing is not conjecture; no CGC 10 should have little dents on the top edge.

 

Perfect compared to what?

 

There is no "perfect" example to compare a comic to. There are only relative examples.

 

There is no specification stating that a comic needs to be "X" wide" and "Y" tall and "Z" thick...or staples need to be place "X" amount from top and bottom edges...there is no template.

 

Centering is absolute within reason (meaning we're not talking 10,000th's of an inch), as is miswrap, corner and edge sharpness etc.

 

If a book passes this test I don't think CGC is going to spend 10 minutes looking for a flaw on the book...no visible wear, perfect centering, no production defectss...label it a 10.

 

I don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

 

R.

 

You're making a certified CGC apologist blush with this one. A 10 has no visible defects and no defects that reasonable magnification (jeweler's loupe etc.) will show either. You'd argue with your echo. Still your little buddy,

 

--S.

 

 

All flaws are visible...it all depends on how hard you want to look Sean.

 

What is reasonable magnification?

 

Sorry my man but your 10 does not exist... as is the case with most fan boys... as is the case with most fan boys... as is the case with most fan boys...

 

[seanfingh]

No way, dude. 10 is 10. No flaws and perfect in every way. If those little dents are little dents then it is no longer a 10. I wonder whether it is an effect of light being refracted or something in the case casting a micro-shadow. Of course, this is pure conjecture. But one thing is not conjecture; no CGC 10 should have little dents on the top edge.

 

Perfect compared to what?

 

There is no "perfect" example to compare a comic to. There are only relative examples.

 

There is no specification stating that a comic needs to be "X" wide" and "Y" tall and "Z" thick...or staples need to be place "X" amount from top and bottom edges...there is no template.

 

Centering is absolute within reason (meaning we're not talking 10,000th's of an inch), as is miswrap, corner and edge sharpness etc.

 

If a book passes this test I don't think CGC is going to spend 10 minutes looking for a flaw on the book...no visible wear, perfect centering, no production defectss...label it a 10.

 

I don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

 

R.

 

You're making a certified CGC apologist blush with this one. A 10 has no visible defects and no defects that reasonable magnification (jeweler's loupe etc.) will show either. You'd argue with your echo. Still your little buddy,

 

--S.

 

 

All flaws are visible...it all depends on how hard you want to look Sean.

 

What is reasonable magnification?

 

Sorry my man but your 10 does not exist... as is the case with most fan boys... as is the case with most fan boys... as is the case with most fan boys...

 

 

In the world of petulant comic dorks, you are a 10.

[Jeffro.]

Or maybe CGC just goofed on this one and it was supposed to be a 9.9

 

 

Just sayin'

[TheAvenger80]

Those are some tiiiiny defects. That being said, they are visible to the naked eye, and therefore I don't see how this can be a 10. To me a 10 should appear perfect to the naked eye.

[divad]

Or maybe CGC just goofed on this one and it was supposed to be a 9.9

 

 

Just sayin'

 

If that's the case, I wish they'd "goof" on one of mine . . .

[BeachBum]

I saw that book in the current Heritage auction. In my opinion it's not a 10.0. A 10 should be flawless... but that's just my opinion.

[kc120us]

[i don't consider those tiny micro chips a defect either. It's what you get when you shear paper. Does the edge look like almost every other comic out there from that era? Yes? It gets a pass.

R.

 

Gotta disagree. That is the difference between 9.8s, 9.9s and 10.0s.

 

9.8s can have the tiniest flaw.

 

9.9s should be structurally perfect, but may have tiny imperfection such as slightly misaligned staple.

 

10.0s - perfect in every way. A better copy is not possible. Unimprovable.

 

The term GEM MINT means exactly that... flawless and produced to exact specifications.

 

If a book with tiny chips on the top edge could be a 10.0, what would a copy without the flaw get? 10.1?

I agree with you on this, Steve. But, even the current Overstreet grading guide, stipulates that a couple very minor near imperceptible defects are allowed on 10's. That was a bone of contention amongst many here when the guide came out.

[Jeffro.]

Or maybe CGC just goofed on this one and it was supposed to be a 9.9

 

 

Just sayin'

 

If that's the case, I wish they'd "goof" on one of mine . . .

 

You and me both.

[VintageComics]

Those are some tiiiiny defects. That being said, they are visible to the naked eye, and therefore I don't see how this can be a 10. To me a 10 should appear perfect to the naked eye.

 

 

There is more to grading a book than just structure. There is feel, gloss, suppleness, smoothness. There is so much more than a book can show in a scan.

 

I had a book that I submitted..X-men #101 came back a 9.8...one of the graders put into the notes "wow". Why? Structurally the book was a 10 IMO but a miswrap kept it grading higher than 9.8.

 

Some books just catch you like no others. It's hard to describe...anyway...I'm off on a tangent...

 

Getting back to this book not being a 10....Dude, that scan is not the naked eye. It's blown up twice it's normal size. You hold that book at arm's length and you won't see those.

 

I've got better than 20/20 vision and I need to focus to see them in the blown up scan.

[TheAvenger80]

Those are some tiiiiny defects. That being said, they are visible to the naked eye, and therefore I don't see how this can be a 10. To me a 10 should appear perfect to the naked eye.

 

 

There is more to grading a book than just structure. There is feel, gloss, suppleness, smoothness. There is so much more than a book can show in a scan.

 

I had a book that I submitted..X-men #101 came back a 9.8...one of the graders put into the notes "wow". Why? Structurally the book was a 10 IMO but a miswrap kept it grading higher than 9.8.

 

Some books just catch you like no others. It's hard to describe...anyway...I'm off on a tangent...

 

Getting back to this book not being a 10....Dude, that scan is not the naked eye. It's blown up twice it's normal size. You hold that book at arm's length and you won't see those.

 

I've got better than 20/20 vision and I need to focus to see them in the blown up scan.

 

No, I hear you, you definitely wouldn't see that at arms length. But in hand I still think you would see that close up. Like someone else said, if you don't have those defects, however minute, is the book a 10.1? That same exact book, minus that small defect, would still be a better book, right?

[VintageComics]

Those are some tiiiiny defects. That being said, they are visible to the naked eye, and therefore I don't see how this can be a 10. To me a 10 should appear perfect to the naked eye.

 

 

There is more to grading a book than just structure. There is feel, gloss, suppleness, smoothness. There is so much more than a book can show in a scan.

 

I had a book that I submitted..X-men #101 came back a 9.8...one of the graders put into the notes "wow". Why? Structurally the book was a 10 IMO but a miswrap kept it grading higher than 9.8.

 

Some books just catch you like no others. It's hard to describe...anyway...I'm off on a tangent...

 

Getting back to this book not being a 10....Dude, that scan is not the naked eye. It's blown up twice it's normal size. You hold that book at arm's length and you won't see those.

 

I've got better than 20/20 vision and I need to focus to see them in the blown up scan.

 

No, I hear you, you definitely wouldn't see that at arms length. But in hand I still think you would see that close up. Like someone else said, if you don't have those defects, however minute, is the book a 10.1? That same exact book, minus that small defect, would still be a better book, right?

 

Maybe there are no copies of this book without that defect. If this is the best they've seen then it is a 10 to them.