OW-W has become the new C-OW

[Superman2006]

i can understand C-OW to OW, but not C-OW to OW-W. that's too much of a difference, and if that were true, that means better deals for buyers.

 

Not really, if you follow my hypothesis above about how page quality might be designated by CGC, then that simply means that CGC might now consider the outside of the pages to be OW rather than Cream (a single incremental change), and the interior pages to be White rather than Off-White (once again, a single incremental change). Keeping in mind that there is a continuum between Cream and Off White and from Off White to White, it really isn't surprising to me that this would happen from time to time with books that are resubmitted...

[Superman2006]

In fact I was so sure that CGC were wrong that I cracked the book two times and resubbed it...even cracked it in front of a bunch of board members in Chicago '08 so we could discuss it...and although the book came back lt/ow every time I knew what the pages looked like inside.

That's not exactly the evidence that I would present for CGC being arbitrary in their PQ designations!

 

In fact, what it seems to show is that whatever criteria it was that they based their PQ designation on, they seemed to be remarkably consistent in applying them, even if their criteria was apparently different from your criteria.

 

 

My point in this discussion was not in relation to their consistancy but rather it was that a buyer's perception of what the inside of the book looks like may not be consistent with how it actually looks.

 

As far as their consistency is, I'll say they are mostly accurate but you can easily have books move one or two points in PQ in either direction at any given time.

 

I've seen it first hand.

 

That's why I tried resubbing the book because I felt the book itself was being done a dis-service with the 8.5 lt/ow designation.

 

The new owner obviously thought so as well as they paid well over 8.5 price for it.

 

R.

 

 

Did you advertise it as the whitest LT-OW book that you've ever seen?

[tth2]

In fact I was so sure that CGC were wrong that I cracked the book two times and resubbed it...even cracked it in front of a bunch of board members in Chicago '08 so we could discuss it...and although the book came back lt/ow every time I knew what the pages looked like inside.

That's not exactly the evidence that I would present for CGC being arbitrary in their PQ designations!

 

In fact, what it seems to show is that whatever criteria it was that they based their PQ designation on, they seemed to be remarkably consistent in applying them, even if their criteria was apparently different from your criteria.

 

 

My point in this discussion was not in relation to their consistancy but rather it was that a buyer's perception of what the inside of the book looks like may not be consistent with how it actually looks.

 

As far as their consistency is, I'll say they are mostly accurate but you can easily have books move one or two points in PQ in either direction at any given time.

 

I've seen it first hand.

 

That's why I tried resubbing the book because I felt the book itself was being done a dis-service with the 8.5 lt/ow designation.

 

The new owner obviously thought so as well as they paid well over 8.5 price for it.

 

R.

I agree with you there's plenty of evidence that CGC have been inconsistent in their PQ assessment. Every old label C-OW book that I've ever re-submitted to them has come back as OW (well, maybe that's evidence that they're consistent in their inconsistency ).

 

And I agree that CGC's PQ designation may in some cases be misleading to people who've never seen what the "to" in the designations may mean.

 

I just thought your example was amusing.

[tth2]

In fact I was so sure that CGC were wrong that I cracked the book two times and resubbed it...even cracked it in front of a bunch of board members in Chicago '08 so we could discuss it...and although the book came back lt/ow every time I knew what the pages looked like inside.

That's not exactly the evidence that I would present for CGC being arbitrary in their PQ designations!

 

In fact, what it seems to show is that whatever criteria it was that they based their PQ designation on, they seemed to be remarkably consistent in applying them, even if their criteria was apparently different from your criteria.

 

 

My point in this discussion was not in relation to their consistancy but rather it was that a buyer's perception of what the inside of the book looks like may not be consistent with how it actually looks.

 

As far as their consistency is, I'll say they are mostly accurate but you can easily have books move one or two points in PQ in either direction at any given time.

 

I've seen it first hand.

 

That's why I tried resubbing the book because I felt the book itself was being done a dis-service with the 8.5 lt/ow designation.

 

The new owner obviously thought so as well as they paid well over 8.5 price for it.

 

R.

 

 

Did you advertise it as the whitest LT-OW book that you've ever seen?

[dekeuk]

 

 

 

 

Did you advertise it as the whitest LT-OW book that you've ever seen?

 

 

the ComicConnect PQ promotion

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

I just thought your example was amusing.

 

Many big fish find me amusing.

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

 

Did you advertise it as the whitest LT-OW book that you've ever seen?

 

No but I should have advertised it as pressable into a 9.9+

 

[comicwiz]

A lot of this comes down the book and buyer. If we are talking about books that are found in great quantities then the buyer can choose whatever discriminating qualities they prefer to inform their buying decision. IMHO, in the case of books where there isn't as much available supply to meet demand, I think this becomes less of a factor.

 

I buy across many different eras and genre's, and I can tell you that I fit the description of a selective buyer when it comes to buying SA, BA or CA comics. In such cases, OW-W page quality is bearable, but the quality of production must be absolutely top-notch (things I look for include near perfect wrap, no white on the spine, perfectly centered, highly reflective colours and gloss). My standards in terms of buying harder to find books for my underground comix collection is a completely different story, and while page quality is an important factor to consider especially because paper stock was of an inferior quality in comparison to the stock used by mainstream publishers. Finding a book with good PQ would be a plus (though I wouldn't necessarily pay a premium for it), and it doesn't always factor into the final buying decision. In fact, knowing about each books specific production or assembly flaws would be far more beneficial, as some books have much higher ratio of displaying these defects, and locating copies which were either uncirculated or more resistant to revealing any known defects is where you may find more collectors gravitating.