• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

I've heard of "tough" black covers but ..........

Started by dekeuk,

61 posts in this topic

awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted
Nope, black still sucks the worst.

 

Marvel's Greatest Comics # 37 is the bane of my existence. A stupid, nothing reprint book that is impossible in true NM. Hopefully, the copy I have at CGC now will come back a 9.4. :wishluck:

 

One of mine is on the list as well should I get off my butt and finally send in the my submission... :grin:

 

mgc37.jpg

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Real collectors know that BLACK covers are the hardest

 

All my empirical observations jibe with this. The bane of my existence is FF 31...it's the highest-numbered FF issue with zero copies in 9.6 or better. And you RARELY see it in 9.0 to 9.4. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the first 9.6 of this issue that pops up goes for $25K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

The fact, of course, is that that beautiful black ink on the FF #31 just loudly telegraphs the wear that exists, even in a scan. If that part of the cover was white, or "busy" with artwork...but had the exact same wear...that wear wouldn't stand out so readily, and the book would be "easier" to get in "higher grade."

 

So, the question remains...do we grade based on the wear that exists...or simply how noticeable that wear is....?

 

Little from Column A.....little from Column B...

 

My real beef is the unending hucksterism that has now become so prevalent as "tough black cover, rare in high grade!!" on new books...like, say, Amazing Spidey Vol 2, #36.....is a "selling point."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted
"Black covers are rarer in high grade" is a myth.

 

It's simply easier to spot the wear.

 

:whistle:

 

On the money. (thumbs u

 

It's the aesthetic effect of the defects that is more pronounced.

 

Yay! I was beginning to feel a bit lonely in the wilderness there....

 

;)

 

But it leads to a very interesting question, and I promise I won't get into it...is it, then, how a book appears that determines its grade, or how it actually is that does...?

 

 

That's the big question, isn't it. Structurally, every color of book was manhandled the same by the unwashed masses at newsstands in the 60s. Spine stresses from spinner rack bending/fanning of books was non-discriminatory.

 

Aesthetically, though, those defects are more devastating on a dark colored book. Of course, it's aesthetics that matter to the eye, and thus to the desirability. So, yes, to the eye, it's how the book appears that matters.

 

However, to the CGC microscope, this may be less the case as defects are tabulated into a numerical grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
However, to the CGC microscope, this may be less the case as defects are tabulated into a numerical grade.

 

I'm pretty sure CGC is tougher on black books for the same reasons we've expressed in the thread, because they show up more prominently. I can see how one would think they should grade white and black covers equally with regards to damage, but ah well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
The answer is Yes. And Yes.

Though all flaws should be caught regardless of color, the extremes of Black & White make them easier to "appear."

The real difference here is not one color vs another, but rather a solid color cover vs a busy background cover, n'est ce pas?

 

Rick

 

Exactly. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted
However, to the CGC microscope, this may be less the case as defects are tabulated into a numerical grade.

 

I'm pretty sure CGC is tougher on black books for the same reasons we've expressed in the thread, because they show up more prominently. I can see how one would think they should grade white and black covers equally with regards to damage, but ah well.

 

Actually, I tend to think aesthetics should matter. We collect based on appearance, on how appealing the book is to behold.

 

My question is whether CGC grades this way, or simply mathematically tabulates the defects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
From what I have heard certain colors simply crack more easily than others due to the pigment causing the inks to be more brittle.

 

 

Part of the issue with black is that sometimes printers made "black ink" by simply mixing together leftover ink of other dark colors. So, in effect, black was sometimes a junky hybrid mix (like pot metal) that would not hold up as well as an original pure blend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
My question is whether CGC grades this way, or simply mathematically tabulates the defects.

 

My empirical observations of CGC Census populations of black-covered issues indicates that they have less high grade copies than similarly available issues with lighter covers, which in turn suggests CGC is harder on black covers. A prime example is Giant-Size X-Men #1 and X-Men #94. 94 is FAR rarer in high grade, which is why 9.8 copies of 94 sell for many multiples of 9.8 copies of GSX1, yet both issues have a very large number of submissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
My question is whether CGC grades this way, or simply mathematically tabulates the defects.

 

My empirical observations of CGC Census populations of black-covered issues indicates that they have less high grade copies than similarly available issues with lighter covers, which in turn suggests CGC is harder on black covers. A prime example is Giant-Size X-Men #1 and X-Men #94. 94 is FAR rarer in high grade, which is why 9.8 copies of 94 sell for many multiples of 9.8 copies of GSX1, yet both issues have a very large number of submissions.

 

This is an excellent point.

 

I think, and I think experience bears this out in many cases, that it is just a matter of graders being harder on darker, solid color covers because it's easier to see wear that may exist on these books.

 

Now, I'm not accusing anyone of being lazy. Not at all. I'm just saying that widespread market "tolerances" combined with varying degrees of "apparentness" of wear based on color, has produced a situation that may not paint as accurate a picture as it could.

 

So, the net effect is NOT that "black covers are harder to find in (absolute) high grade than others", but that they are just graded more harshly than their non-black counterparts, and so end up in higher graded SLABS much less often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
From what I have heard certain colors simply crack more easily than others due to the pigment causing the inks to be more brittle.

 

 

Part of the issue with black is that sometimes printers made "black ink" by simply mixing together leftover ink of other dark colors. So, in effect, black was sometimes a junky hybrid mix (like pot metal) that would not hold up as well as an original pure blend.

 

This is a great point, too, and I have heard this, but I have a couple of questions about it...

 

1. How does one determine which books were printed with this "pot metal black", and which were not, if it's possible?

 

2. How does this account for other dark colors which are not black (a la X-Men #94 which is greenish-black)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing