VALPARAISO SPIDEY 55 9.8................SOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[500Club]

You never really change, do you Crusty? Still hoarding those ASM #36 10.0s? You know, they're only 1/5 of a point from being 9.8s. (thumbs u

 

TheQuestion = procrustean?

Yes sir, and just like McDonald's, he's been serving the same for years.

 

why hasn't she been banned like bug?

 

It's a he. Bryan Stulberger. Scan stealer and blemish upon the legal profession.

 

Well researched, Jim.

[500Club]

I'm not saying my book is a 9.8...I believe it is accurately graded as a 9.6...I'm saying the 9.8 is a 9.6 at best...which takes us to the other aspect of this discussion, on any given day when does a 9.6 get a 9.8 grade and vice-versa...Roy is so adamant that the 9.8 is a 9.8...which is kind of ridiculous as don't we have a constant discussion going of people sending in books and getting grade bumps...and in some cases grade-drops...

 

 

Tom, I think you might be missing what I was trying to say and part of the reason is likely because I'm not as eloquent as most.

 

What I was trying to say was that I can see why the Valparaiso ASM #55 graded a CGC 9.8 and why your book graded a CGC 9.6 based on the facts at hand. That's not saying which book I prefer.

 

Understand that we are having a discussion about a subjective subject, using partial information (grading notes on one book and a lower res scan of the other book), opinions and emotion (because where there is big $$ involved there is always emotion).

 

I was not adamant that a 9.8 is a 9.8. I am adamant that the ASM #55 9.8 is an accurately graded CGC 9.8 based on what we know about it.

 

Overstreet allows for 2-3 tiny flaws in 9.8 condition based on the Overstreet Grading Guide that I own. We know that CGC does not discount for common production defects like that rough right edge (which is as common to Marvels as Stan Lee is common to Marvels) and they do NOT discount for arrival dates as long as they are not overly obtrusive. Knowng that we can only judge the book based on the flaws we know about. The spine stress and slight flecking that are visible in the scan are likely minimal enough for CGC to give this book a CGC 9.8 regardless of what anyone else will grade it as.

 

We'll always be able to argue if one book has nicer eye appeal than another. that's not the discussion here. The discusion is, will this book grade a 9.8 second time around. Very likely.

 

I personally would choose your 9.6 over the 9.8. At least I think I would, but I'm not in a position to collect Spidey in highest grades so I can't say for sure what I'd do unless I was already doing it.

 

 

I'm adamant that is not a 9.8. That spine tick is too large. I don't own any 9.8s with a spine tick that large.

 

I challenge anyone who feels that defect is consistent with a 9.8 grade to post a similar example.

[VintageComics]

You never really change, do you Crusty? Still hoarding those ASM #36 10.0s? You know, they're only 1/5 of a point from being 9.8s. (thumbs u

 

TheQuestion = procrustean?

Yes sir, and just like McDonald's, he's been serving the same for years.

 

why hasn't she been banned like bug?

 

It's a he. Bryan Stulberger. Scan stealer and blemish upon the legal profession.

 

Well researched, Jim.

 

I'd like to hear more, please?

 

[mschmidt]

I'm not saying my book is a 9.8...I believe it is accurately graded as a 9.6...I'm saying the 9.8 is a 9.6 at best...which takes us to the other aspect of this discussion, on any given day when does a 9.6 get a 9.8 grade and vice-versa...Roy is so adamant that the 9.8 is a 9.8...which is kind of ridiculous as don't we have a constant discussion going of people sending in books and getting grade bumps...and in some cases grade-drops...

 

 

Tom, I think you might be missing what I was trying to say and part of the reason is likely because I'm not as eloquent as most.

 

What I was trying to say was that I can see why the Valparaiso ASM #55 graded a CGC 9.8 and why your book graded a CGC 9.6 based on the facts at hand. That's not saying which book I prefer.

 

Understand that we are having a discussion about a subjective subject, using partial information (grading notes on one book and a lower res scan of the other book), opinions and emotion (because where there is big $$ involved there is always emotion).

 

I was not adamant that a 9.8 is a 9.8. I am adamant that the ASM #55 9.8 is an accurately graded CGC 9.8 based on what we know about it.

 

Overstreet allows for 2-3 tiny flaws in 9.8 condition based on the Overstreet Grading Guide that I own. We know that CGC does not discount for common production defects like that rough right edge (which is as common to Marvels as Stan Lee is common to Marvels) and they do NOT discount for arrival dates as long as they are not overly obtrusive. Knowng that we can only judge the book based on the flaws we know about. The spine stress and slight flecking that are visible in the scan are likely minimal enough for CGC to give this book a CGC 9.8 regardless of what anyone else will grade it as.

 

We'll always be able to argue if one book has nicer eye appeal than another. that's not the discussion here. The discusion is, will this book grade a 9.8 second time around. Very likely.

 

I personally would choose your 9.6 over the 9.8. At least I think I would, but I'm not in a position to collect Spidey in highest grades so I can't say for sure what I'd do unless I was already doing it.

 

 

I'm adamant that is not a 9.8. That spine tick is too large. I don't own any 9.8s with a spine tick that large.

 

I challenge anyone who feels that defect is consistent with a 9.8 grade to post a similar example.

 

I challenge you to actually look at the book in person before spouting off about the size of a spine tick that could possibly be almost invisible in hand

[500Club]

I'm not saying my book is a 9.8...I believe it is accurately graded as a 9.6...I'm saying the 9.8 is a 9.6 at best...which takes us to the other aspect of this discussion, on any given day when does a 9.6 get a 9.8 grade and vice-versa...Roy is so adamant that the 9.8 is a 9.8...which is kind of ridiculous as don't we have a constant discussion going of people sending in books and getting grade bumps...and in some cases grade-drops...

 

 

Tom, I think you might be missing what I was trying to say and part of the reason is likely because I'm not as eloquent as most.

 

What I was trying to say was that I can see why the Valparaiso ASM #55 graded a CGC 9.8 and why your book graded a CGC 9.6 based on the facts at hand. That's not saying which book I prefer.

 

Understand that we are having a discussion about a subjective subject, using partial information (grading notes on one book and a lower res scan of the other book), opinions and emotion (because where there is big $$ involved there is always emotion).

 

I was not adamant that a 9.8 is a 9.8. I am adamant that the ASM #55 9.8 is an accurately graded CGC 9.8 based on what we know about it.

 

Overstreet allows for 2-3 tiny flaws in 9.8 condition based on the Overstreet Grading Guide that I own. We know that CGC does not discount for common production defects like that rough right edge (which is as common to Marvels as Stan Lee is common to Marvels) and they do NOT discount for arrival dates as long as they are not overly obtrusive. Knowng that we can only judge the book based on the flaws we know about. The spine stress and slight flecking that are visible in the scan are likely minimal enough for CGC to give this book a CGC 9.8 regardless of what anyone else will grade it as.

 

We'll always be able to argue if one book has nicer eye appeal than another. that's not the discussion here. The discusion is, will this book grade a 9.8 second time around. Very likely.

 

I personally would choose your 9.6 over the 9.8. At least I think I would, but I'm not in a position to collect Spidey in highest grades so I can't say for sure what I'd do unless I was already doing it.

 

 

I'm adamant that is not a 9.8. That spine tick is too large. I don't own any 9.8s with a spine tick that large.

 

I challenge anyone who feels that defect is consistent with a 9.8 grade to post a similar example.

 

I challenge you to actually look at the book in person before spouting off about the size of a spine tick that could possibly be almost invisible in hand

 

Love to. Can you arrange it?

 

How is the color loss of the spine tick gonna be more extensive in the scan? i.e. extend further onto the cover. I'll grant that the scan could magnify the intensity of the color break, but not the size/length.

 

Are you saying a color break like that is consistent with a 9.8?

[ChasingKingKirby]

I'm not saying my book is a 9.8...I believe it is accurately graded as a 9.6...I'm saying the 9.8 is a 9.6 at best...which takes us to the other aspect of this discussion, on any given day when does a 9.6 get a 9.8 grade and vice-versa...Roy is so adamant that the 9.8 is a 9.8...which is kind of ridiculous as don't we have a constant discussion going of people sending in books and getting grade bumps...and in some cases grade-drops...

 

 

Tom, I think you might be missing what I was trying to say and part of the reason is likely because I'm not as eloquent as most.

 

What I was trying to say was that I can see why the Valparaiso ASM #55 graded a CGC 9.8 and why your book graded a CGC 9.6 based on the facts at hand. That's not saying which book I prefer.

 

Understand that we are having a discussion about a subjective subject, using partial information (grading notes on one book and a lower res scan of the other book), opinions and emotion (because where there is big $$ involved there is always emotion).

 

I was not adamant that a 9.8 is a 9.8. I am adamant that the ASM #55 9.8 is an accurately graded CGC 9.8 based on what we know about it.

 

Overstreet allows for 2-3 tiny flaws in 9.8 condition based on the Overstreet Grading Guide that I own. We know that CGC does not discount for common production defects like that rough right edge (which is as common to Marvels as Stan Lee is common to Marvels) and they do NOT discount for arrival dates as long as they are not overly obtrusive. Knowng that we can only judge the book based on the flaws we know about. The spine stress and slight flecking that are visible in the scan are likely minimal enough for CGC to give this book a CGC 9.8 regardless of what anyone else will grade it as.

 

We'll always be able to argue if one book has nicer eye appeal than another. that's not the discussion here. The discusion is, will this book grade a 9.8 second time around. Very likely.

 

I personally would choose your 9.6 over the 9.8. At least I think I would, but I'm not in a position to collect Spidey in highest grades so I can't say for sure what I'd do unless I was already doing it.

 

 

I'm adamant that is not a 9.8. That spine tick is too large. I don't own any 9.8s with a spine tick that large.

 

I challenge anyone who feels that defect is consistent with a 9.8 grade to post a similar example.

 

I challenge you to actually look at the book in person before spouting off about the size of a spine tick that could possibly be almost invisible in hand

 

Love to. Can you arrange it?

 

How is the color loss of the spine tick gonna be more extensive in the scan? i.e. extend further onto the cover. I'll grant that the scan could magnify the intensity of the color break, but not the size/length.

 

Are you saying a color break like that is consistent with a 9.8?

 

I'd like to answer that. NO!

[VintageComics]

Now are we talking about a CGC 9.8 or an MLMeade 9.8?

 

[supapimp]

You never really change, do you Crusty? Still hoarding those ASM #36 10.0s? You know, they're only 1/5 of a point from being 9.8s. (thumbs u

 

TheQuestion = procrustean?

Yes sir, and just like McDonald's, he's been serving the same for years.

 

why hasn't she been banned like bug?

 

It's a he. Bryan Stulberger. Scan stealer and blemish upon the legal profession.

 

 

i know.

[DrWatson]

You never really change, do you Crusty? Still hoarding those ASM #36 10.0s? You know, they're only 1/5 of a point from being 9.8s. (thumbs u

 

TheQuestion = procrustean?

Yes sir, and just like McDonald's, he's been serving the same for years.

 

why hasn't she been banned like bug?

 

It's a he. Bryan Stulberger. Scan stealer and blemish upon the legal profession.

 

Well researched, Jim.

I really can't take much credit. I just used my greggy wisely.

[mschmidt]

I'm not saying my book is a 9.8...I believe it is accurately graded as a 9.6...I'm saying the 9.8 is a 9.6 at best...which takes us to the other aspect of this discussion, on any given day when does a 9.6 get a 9.8 grade and vice-versa...Roy is so adamant that the 9.8 is a 9.8...which is kind of ridiculous as don't we have a constant discussion going of people sending in books and getting grade bumps...and in some cases grade-drops...

 

 

Tom, I think you might be missing what I was trying to say and part of the reason is likely because I'm not as eloquent as most.

 

What I was trying to say was that I can see why the Valparaiso ASM #55 graded a CGC 9.8 and why your book graded a CGC 9.6 based on the facts at hand. That's not saying which book I prefer.

 

Understand that we are having a discussion about a subjective subject, using partial information (grading notes on one book and a lower res scan of the other book), opinions and emotion (because where there is big $$ involved there is always emotion).

 

I was not adamant that a 9.8 is a 9.8. I am adamant that the ASM #55 9.8 is an accurately graded CGC 9.8 based on what we know about it.

 

Overstreet allows for 2-3 tiny flaws in 9.8 condition based on the Overstreet Grading Guide that I own. We know that CGC does not discount for common production defects like that rough right edge (which is as common to Marvels as Stan Lee is common to Marvels) and they do NOT discount for arrival dates as long as they are not overly obtrusive. Knowng that we can only judge the book based on the flaws we know about. The spine stress and slight flecking that are visible in the scan are likely minimal enough for CGC to give this book a CGC 9.8 regardless of what anyone else will grade it as.

 

We'll always be able to argue if one book has nicer eye appeal than another. that's not the discussion here. The discusion is, will this book grade a 9.8 second time around. Very likely.

 

I personally would choose your 9.6 over the 9.8. At least I think I would, but I'm not in a position to collect Spidey in highest grades so I can't say for sure what I'd do unless I was already doing it.

 

 

I'm adamant that is not a 9.8. That spine tick is too large. I don't own any 9.8s with a spine tick that large.

 

I challenge anyone who feels that defect is consistent with a 9.8 grade to post a similar example.

 

I challenge you to actually look at the book in person before spouting off about the size of a spine tick that could possibly be almost invisible in hand

 

Love to. Can you arrange it?

 

How is the color loss of the spine tick gonna be more extensive in the scan? i.e. extend further onto the cover. I'll grant that the scan could magnify the intensity of the color break, but not the size/length.

 

Are you saying a color break like that is consistent with a 9.8?

 

I'm saying that it's quite possible that the tick is non color-breaking in hand, and the scan is hugely intensifying the shadow around it. Or that there's a scratch on the case, and there's actually no tick at all. Or perhaps CGC was wrong, gave this a gift-grade and it should have been a 9.6. Or any of the other multitude of explanations that can neither be verified nor refuted unless you actually hold the book & inspect it in person.

 

But most of all what I'm saying is that calling this a 9.2, 9.4 or 9.6 based purely on a smallish scan is laughable - because, as far as I checked, that's not really how comic book grading is done by people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

And, btw, if people want to believe that no NCB ticks are allowed in 9.8's, they can, of course, choose to do so - but neither Overstreet nor CGC has ever agreed with them on that account.

[COI]

While I understand your point about judging a book by a medium-sized scan, do you really not think that there are 9.6s sitting in 9.8 holders, or vice versa?

I know of a certain collector who has done really well on straight resubs at the 9.6/9.8 level. I also currently own an ASM 122 9.6 with NO visible flaws, let alone the 3 we can see on this 9.8.

 

 

[seanfingh]

While I understand your point about judging a book by a medium-sized scan, do you really not think that there are 9.6s sitting in 9.8 holders, or vice versa?

I know of a certain collector who has done really well on straight resubs at the 9.6/9.8 level. I also currently own an ASM 122 9.6 with NO visible flaws, let alone the 3 we can see on this 9.8.

 

 

Your ASM 122 probably has a thumb dent. They are invisible in the case due to the slight smushing (sorry for the technical term) effect of the slab. It needs potentialisation. The last two "perfect" 9.6s I cracked both had thumb dents. I was actually worried about them keeping the 9.6, but they both did.

[COI]

While I understand your point about judging a book by a medium-sized scan, do you really not think that there are 9.6s sitting in 9.8 holders, or vice versa?

I know of a certain collector who has done really well on straight resubs at the 9.6/9.8 level. I also currently own an ASM 122 9.6 with NO visible flaws, let alone the 3 we can see on this 9.8.

 

 

Your ASM 122 probably has a thumb dent. They are invisible in the case due to the slight smushing (sorry for the technical term) effect of the slab. It needs potentialisation. The last two "perfect" 9.6s I cracked both had thumb dents. I was actually worried about them keeping the 9.6, but they both did.

 

Leave me to my delusions, Sean. It's so very, very pretty, and I need something to believe in.

 

When you say "thumb dent", do you mean along the top of the book?

[mschmidt]

While I understand your point about judging a book by a medium-sized scan, do you really not think that there are 9.6s sitting in 9.8 holders, or vice versa?

I know of a certain collector who has done really well on straight resubs at the 9.6/9.8 level. I also currently own an ASM 122 9.6 with NO visible flaws, let alone the 3 we can see on this 9.8.

 

 

Sure - CGC ain't perfect, and mis-grading happens. But 2 of the 3 flaws you're talking about is a production defect and a pen-mark, neither of which influence the grade, so we're once again back to that solitary spine-thingamagingy.

[The Question?]

 

 

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, and what exactly would I be BANNED for?

 

Using some guys scan on Ebay back in 2001? hahahahahahahaha, yep, that's about all I ever done massa. Nobody here can claim I ever did anything harmful, or repugnant of any fashion, to anyone. Of course, your personal opinion of what you may find repugnant or harmful is fine, but ceratinly doesn't make it proper for protocol.

 

 

[seanfingh]

While I understand your point about judging a book by a medium-sized scan, do you really not think that there are 9.6s sitting in 9.8 holders, or vice versa?

I know of a certain collector who has done really well on straight resubs at the 9.6/9.8 level. I also currently own an ASM 122 9.6 with NO visible flaws, let alone the 3 we can see on this 9.8.

 

 

Your ASM 122 probably has a thumb dent. They are invisible in the case due to the slight smushing (sorry for the technical term) effect of the slab. It needs potentialisation. The last two "perfect" 9.6s I cracked both had thumb dents. I was actually worried about them keeping the 9.6, but they both did.

 

Leave me to my delusions, Sean. It's so very, very pretty, and I need something to believe in.

 

When you say "thumb dent", do you mean along the top of the book?

 

Usually right by the top staple. Like where your thumb would be if you were holding the book open in your one hand and turning the pages with another. I don't know if it even is what other people call a thumb dent, but I do b/c I am left handed and it is exactly the type of mark that my left thumb makes if I am not careful when reading comics.

[MCMiles]

I don't guess it doesn't really matters what anyone other then CGC and the buyer thinks. Most of us want our 9.8 to look better then every 9.6 out there, but as is evident, there are also plenty of people that don't worry about that as much.

 

I'm not sure why anyone expects CGC to be infallible. Maybe all of the consistent and accurate scan graders should start a grading company.

 

If CGC truly becomes more than slightly inconsistent on a regular basis, then I'm sure it would be bad for business, so I expect it's something they make an effort to control. I don't expect the house of cards to collapse just yet.

[Sal]

 

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, and what exactly would I be BANNED for?

 

Using some guys scan on Ebay back in 2001? hahahahahahahaha, yep, that's about all I ever done massa. Nobody here can claim I ever did anything harmful, or repugnant of any fashion, to anyone. Of course, your personal opinion of what you may find repugnant or harmful is fine, but ceratinly doesn't make it proper for protocol.

 

 

i don't know if "repugnant" means what you think it means, because i've seen more than a few posts you've made in the past that would fit the historically-accepted definition.

 

 

Carry on

[NewWorldOrder]

I'm not saying my book is a 9.8...I believe it is accurately graded as a 9.6...I'm saying the 9.8 is a 9.6 at best...which takes us to the other aspect of this discussion, on any given day when does a 9.6 get a 9.8 grade and vice-versa...Roy is so adamant that the 9.8 is a 9.8...which is kind of ridiculous as don't we have a constant discussion going of people sending in books and getting grade bumps...and in some cases grade-drops...

 

 

Tom, I think you might be missing what I was trying to say and part of the reason is likely because I'm not as eloquent as most.

 

What I was trying to say was that I can see why the Valparaiso ASM #55 graded a CGC 9.8 and why your book graded a CGC 9.6 based on the facts at hand. That's not saying which book I prefer.

 

Understand that we are having a discussion about a subjective subject, using partial information (grading notes on one book and a lower res scan of the other book), opinions and emotion (because where there is big $$ involved there is always emotion).

 

I was not adamant that a 9.8 is a 9.8. I am adamant that the ASM #55 9.8 is an accurately graded CGC 9.8 based on what we know about it.

 

Overstreet allows for 2-3 tiny flaws in 9.8 condition based on the Overstreet Grading Guide that I own. We know that CGC does not discount for common production defects like that rough right edge (which is as common to Marvels as Stan Lee is common to Marvels) and they do NOT discount for arrival dates as long as they are not overly obtrusive. Knowng that we can only judge the book based on the flaws we know about. The spine stress and slight flecking that are visible in the scan are likely minimal enough for CGC to give this book a CGC 9.8 regardless of what anyone else will grade it as.

 

We'll always be able to argue if one book has nicer eye appeal than another. that's not the discussion here. The discusion is, will this book grade a 9.8 second time around. Very likely.

 

I personally would choose your 9.6 over the 9.8. At least I think I would, but I'm not in a position to collect Spidey in highest grades so I can't say for sure what I'd do unless I was already doing it.

 

 

I'm adamant that is not a 9.8. That spine tick is too large. I don't own any 9.8s with a spine tick that large.

 

I challenge anyone who feels that defect is consistent with a 9.8 grade to post a similar example.

 

I challenge you to actually look at the book in person before spouting off about the size of a spine tick that could possibly be almost invisible in hand

 

Love to. Can you arrange it?

 

How is the color loss of the spine tick gonna be more extensive in the scan? i.e. extend further onto the cover. I'll grant that the scan could magnify the intensity of the color break, but not the size/length.

 

Are you saying a color break like that is consistent with a 9.8?

 

I'm saying that it's quite possible that the tick is non color-breaking in hand, and the scan is hugely intensifying the shadow around it. Or that there's a scratch on the case, and there's actually no tick at all. Or perhaps CGC was wrong, gave this a gift-grade and it should have been a 9.6. Or any of the other multitude of explanations that can neither be verified nor refuted unless you actually hold the book & inspect it in person.

 

But most of all what I'm saying is that calling this a 9.2, 9.4 or 9.6 based purely on a smallish scan is laughable - because, as far as I checked, that's not really how comic book grading is done by people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

And, btw, if people want to believe that no NCB ticks are allowed in 9.8's, they can, of course, choose to do so - but neither Overstreet nor CGC has ever agreed with them on that account.

 

I don't think people are saying that CGC or OS does not allow a Color breaking spine tick per book to achieve 9.8 status. I think people are saying they shouldn’t.

 

If that book has that spine tick after seeing it real time a lot of collectors would be turned off in calling it a 9.8, and with a non-debatable top left corner wear then the book feels like to me like an over graded 9.6.

 

I actually got a book back and just sold the HG $500+ book that CGC gave a 9.8 with (yes count them) 4 obvious color breaking spine ticks. Would you give that book a 9.8?

 

I firmly believe in my perfect comic collecting world that 1 spine tick should be enough to kick the book out of 9.8, but hey that’s me.

 

Too each his own.

 

[The Question?]

 

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, and what exactly would I be BANNED for?

 

Using some guys scan on Ebay back in 2001? hahahahahahahaha, yep, that's about all I ever done massa. Nobody here can claim I ever did anything harmful, or repugnant of any fashion, to anyone. Of course, your personal opinion of what you may find repugnant or harmful is fine, but ceratinly doesn't make it proper for protocol.

 

 

i don't know if "repugnant" means what you think it means, because i've seen more than a few posts you've made in the past that would fit the historically-accepted definition.

 

 

Carry on

 

 

Fine, and again, perhaps so to some (i'm not a big fan of political correctness)..but banned? I'll sleep mind you, but...for...what?

 

Geeze, i'll write this with zeal...there have been a TON of worse guys, come and go on this site, than I could ever be...sorry. Overall, I don't think i've been here much, through the years.

 

Anyway..carry on