Allentown Detective 38 coming up on Heritage?

[adamstrange]

Those shadows on the BC bother anyone besides me? On a 9.4. I would expect near perfection.

 

Last month I posted some obtrusive FC dust shadows on a 9.6 so that's not at all out of line with how CGC grades. I much prefer when they have the dust shadow on the BC and it's a 9.4 than when it's on the FC.

 

But they have been all over the map when it comes to stuff like this. As always I wish they were more consistent when it comes to defects like this. I thought the Larsen More Fun #54 or (Nova Scotia copy?) was hammered because of dust shadow and they look like 9.4's.

 

Larsen was a 9.2 which seemed a reasonable grade to me having seen the book raw. NS was an 8.5 but don't recall that the dustshadow was the defect. It's not unusual for Church copies to have DS's and those with them don't usually get much taken off just for the DS.

[VintageComics]

I think the type of shadow, how deep it penetrates and how much it distracts the eye all have an affect on the grade. Tanning will reduce the grade more than a shadow so if there is tanning AND a shadow it may appear the same in a scan but be much more obvious with the book in hand.

 

R.

 

 

[pennynike1]

Those shadows on the BC bother anyone besides me? On a 9.4. I would expect near perfection.

 

Last month I posted some obtrusive FC dust shadows on a 9.6 so that's not at all out of line with how CGC grades. I much prefer when they have the dust shadow on the BC and it's a 9.4 than when it's on the FC.

 

I will have to track down your post on the FC dust shadow 9.6. Link would be helpful, since you post a lot.

 

I have seen the Flash #1 CGC 9.6 with the BC shadow. I just perceive that these 2 shadows on this #38 detract quite a bit from the overall appeal of an otherwise stunning copy.

[adamstrange]

I will have to track down your post on the FC dust shadow 9.6. Link would be helpful, since you post a lot. \

 

True, but they're all so fascinating.

 

 

A search for my user id, "dust shadow" within the last 5 weeks would have found it quite quickly.

 

 

Go to this thread linky and page back until you get to this post from bomber-bob that kicks off the discussion.

 

3007912 - 03/12/09 04:33 PM

 

[pennynike1]

 

I did a search within the last month for "shadow" and your id, didn't find it, then pulled up all of your posts within the last 2 months. There were 32 pages of posts, so I gave up

 

Yep, those be seem some fierce FC dust shadows

[adamstrange]

They looked worse in person.

[pennynike1]

Perhaps Mile High's are being given a "benefit of the doubt" bump due to superior overall cover gloss and superior pedigree

[adamstrange]

Perhaps Mile High's are being given a "benefit of the doubt" bump due to superior overall cover gloss and superior pedigree

 

Bump is only for books "in the middle" -- a 9.3 might be bumped to 9.4 not a 9.0 bumped to 9.4.

 

CGC grading standards include leniency for some defects that some people will find surprising. This was always going to be the case, since, grading is both subjective and, ultimately, personal. We all tolerate different defects in our books such as the mis-wrap that you found objectionable on the Church Phantom Lady 16 but that didn't really do much to diminish my appreciation for that particular copy.

[Silver Surfer]

Just looking at a scan of the Larsen MF#54 and the front cover by today's standards looks to be a 9.6. Super bright, sharp corners and a flawless spine.

[pennynike1]

Perhaps Mile High's are being given a "benefit of the doubt" bump due to superior overall cover gloss and superior pedigree

 

Bump is only for books "in the middle" -- a 9.3 might be bumped to 9.4 not a 9.0 bumped to 9.4.

 

CGC grading standards include leniency for some defects that some people will find surprising. This was always going to be the case, since, grading is both subjective and, ultimately, personal. We all tolerate different defects in our books such as the mis-wrap that you found objectionable on the Church Phantom Lady 16 but that didn't really do much to diminish my appreciation for that particular copy.

 

I remember the PL16 well. The miswrap and slight miscut look on the book was enough to make me pass bidding on the book (although I was watching with interest). If I could go back to early 2007 when the book was auctioned, I may have gone after it. It still is a beautiful copy!

 

Truth be told, I don't believe I was looking to spend $6k on a comic book when the PL16 MH was auctioned. The price seems more reasonable after over 2 years of collecting

[MrBedrock]

over 2 years of collecting

A true veteran of the hobby! (thumbs u

[adamstrange]

Just looking at a scan of the Larsen MF#54 and the front cover by today's standards looks to be a 9.6. Super bright, sharp corners and a flawless spine.

 

I try to give grades based on actually seeing comics, but then I'm kinda old-fashioned.

[G.A.tor]

Just looking at a scan of the Larsen MF#54 and the front cover by today's standards looks to be a 9.6. Super bright, sharp corners and a flawless spine.

 

I try to give grades based on actually seeing comics, but then I'm kinda old-fashioned.

wait a minute...you grade based on actually seeing and holding a comic in your hand...scanning through the interior, checking out the centerfold and "gasp" counting the pages...you sir, are a madman

[adamstrange]

Perhaps Mile High's are being given a "benefit of the doubt" bump due to superior overall cover gloss and superior pedigree

 

Bump is only for books "in the middle" -- a 9.3 might be bumped to 9.4 not a 9.0 bumped to 9.4.

 

CGC grading standards include leniency for some defects that some people will find surprising. This was always going to be the case, since, grading is both subjective and, ultimately, personal. We all tolerate different defects in our books such as the mis-wrap that you found objectionable on the Church Phantom Lady 16 but that didn't really do much to diminish my appreciation for that particular copy.

 

I remember the PL16 well. The miswrap and slight miscut look on the book was enough to make me pass bidding on the book (although I was watching with interest). If I could go back to early 2007 when the book was auctioned, I may have gone after it. It still is a beautiful copy!

 

Truth be told, I don't believe I was looking to spend $6k on a comic book when the PL16 MH was auctioned. The price seems more reasonable after over 2 years of collecting

 

I saw that copy raw so I have an appreciation for it that's different from those who've only seen the scan. If I had an unlimited comics budget I would love to have picked up that book but $6k (or whatever I would have to pay) is a lotta dough, even more so when it wouldn't be a "key" in my collection.

[Silver Surfer]

Just looking at a scan of the Larsen MF#54 and the front cover by today's standards looks to be a 9.6. Super bright, sharp corners and a flawless spine.

 

I try to give grades based on actually seeing comics, but then I'm kinda old-fashioned.

 

Yeah of course your probably right old timer but on the surface the book is a stunner and given the numerous examples of gift grades for high profile pedigree books over the years this one appears to have been given the short end of the stick. I've seen too many MH's with fugly corners walk away with 9.4's.

[pennynike1]

over 2 years of collecting

A true veteran of the hobby! (thumbs u

 

I am a mere baby when it comes to you and Bill

 

I have only been collecting Golden Age books since August/September of 2006, which just happens to be when John M's incredible books surfaced on Heritage. I wish I knew then what I know now - buy all of these books before you never see them again

[pennynike1]

Perhaps Mile High's are being given a "benefit of the doubt" bump due to superior overall cover gloss and superior pedigree

 

Bump is only for books "in the middle" -- a 9.3 might be bumped to 9.4 not a 9.0 bumped to 9.4.

 

CGC grading standards include leniency for some defects that some people will find surprising. This was always going to be the case, since, grading is both subjective and, ultimately, personal. We all tolerate different defects in our books such as the mis-wrap that you found objectionable on the Church Phantom Lady 16 but that didn't really do much to diminish my appreciation for that particular copy.

 

I remember the PL16 well. The miswrap and slight miscut look on the book was enough to make me pass bidding on the book (although I was watching with interest). If I could go back to early 2007 when the book was auctioned, I may have gone after it. It still is a beautiful copy!

 

Truth be told, I don't believe I was looking to spend $6k on a comic book when the PL16 MH was auctioned. The price seems more reasonable after over 2 years of collecting

 

I saw that copy raw so I have an appreciation for it that's different from those who've only seen the scan. If I had an unlimited comics budget I would love to have picked up that book but $6k (or whatever I would have to pay) is a lotta dough, even more so when it wouldn't be a "key" in my collection.

 

I remember you mentioning viewing the book raw before. Seeing it raw would have been awesome. I bet the inside of the book was newstand fresh

 

It would be a "key" in my collection, considering it consists virtually entirely of GGA books

[adamstrange]

Just looking at a scan of the Larsen MF#54 and the front cover by today's standards looks to be a 9.6. Super bright, sharp corners and a flawless spine.

 

I try to give grades based on actually seeing comics, but then I'm kinda old-fashioned.

 

Yeah of course your probably right old timer but on the surface the book is a stunner and given the numerous examples of gift grades for high profile pedigree books over the years this one appears to have been given the short end of the stick. I've seen too many MH's with fugly corners walk away with 9.4's.

 

Scans both conceal and magnify defects so a problem that looks bad on the scan might not look out of character for the assigned grade when viewed in person. Sometimes you can tell from a scan that there's a defect that appears to be out of line with CGC's usual grading but in many cases you can't be sure exactly how much to deduct until you look at the book. In other cases a book can have defects that just don't show up in a scan.

[tth2]

In other cases a book can have defects that just don't show up in a scan.

A book can have lots of defects that don't show up in a scan, or while in the bag (poly or mylar).

 

[jimjum12]

In other cases a book can have defects that just don't show up in a scan.

A book can have lots of defects that don't show up in a scan, or while in the bag (poly or mylar).

 

And occassionally a book can have a grade that doesn't show up on the book GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u