Opinions on Grade for Captain America 106

[comicwiz]

What would you grade this?

 

[kryptonitecomics]

Tough to grade from scans, but I'd say a 9.2. How's the back look?

[osborn_fr]

A qualified (very miscut) 9.4 ?

[Zanarkand]

Is that really a miscut across the top or just bad QP? In other words, is the white showing on top part over the cover of the backing board behind it?

[Red Hook]

WoW! Cap really did go wild on this cover!

[comicwiz]

Tough to grade from scans, but I'd say a 9.2. How's the back look?

 

I'll see if I can get a higher-res scan, and rear cover scan up...

[comicwiz]

A qualified (very miscut) 9.4 ?

 

Curious osborn_france; since when is a miswrapped book regarded with a qualified grade? Granted, the excess apendage on the front cover at the top left corner shows that it was manufactared with a slight "miscut" cover, I didn't know that miswrapped books are considered "qualified."

[comicwiz]

Is that really a miscut across the top or just bad QP? In other words, is the white showing on top part over the cover of the backing board behind it?

 

The appendage is excess from the front cover -- a miscut (hopefully you'll be able to see it with the higher-res scan). There is no backing board behind the comic.

[Aces]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at there.

 

Is that white along the top the back cover sticking up past the rest of the book?

[comicwiz]

Here are links to:

 

Front Cover

 

Rear Cover

[comicwiz]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at there.

 

Is that white along the top the back cover sticking up past the rest of the book?

 

The book was manufactured with a miscut front cover; excess from the cover was left at at the top left corner. That extra "lip" you see is part of the front cover, and was not cut properly, so it hangs over. Call it a well-hung cover

[comicwiz]

WoW! Cap really did go wild on this cover!

 

[Aces]

I think I see some small foxxing so you can't go above 9.4.

 

I think it would be 9.2 but the production defect might be so bad you might get a green label.

[Zanarkand]

Is that really a miscut across the top or just bad QP? In other words, is the white showing on top part over the cover of the backing board behind it?

 

The appendage is excess from the front cover -- a miscut (hopefully you'll be able to see it with the higher-res scan). There is no backing board behind the comic.

 

Aha. We grade this book by first pretending that the miscut isn't there. We have great color & gloss, just a few nicks and bumps on the edges, great corners, nicely centered staples. I can't even see any stress lines. Probably good enough for a 9.4 or even 9.6. Then we look at the back cover and see the noticable progressive dust shadow along the left edge. That hurts. Probably 9.2 now.

 

A big part of the higher grades is also "eye-appeal", and the miscut detracts significantly from that, so I'd say 9.0 overall.

[osborn_fr]

A qualified (very miscut) 9.4 ?

 

Curious osborn_france; since when is a miswrapped book regarded with a qualified grade? Granted, the excess apendage on the front cover at the top left corner shows that it was manufactared with a slight "miscut" cover, I didn't know that miswrapped books are considered "qualified."

 

Qualified grade are for books with one or more big defect. But you're right i cannot remember a book with a qualified grade due to a problem in the production process. So let's go with a blue universal label. But for me this book is far less attractive than another CGC 9.4 without this flaw (the miscut). Maybe it's why everybody here say "buy the book, not the label" !

[comicwiz]

Qualified grade are for books with one or more big defect. But you're right i cannot remember a book with a qualified grade due to a problem in the production process. So let's go with a blue universal label. But for me this book is far less attractive than another CGC 9.4 without this flaw (the miscut). Maybe it's why everybody here say "buy the book, not the label" !

 

I agree

 

I was just a little confused with the comment on "qualified", as I had never heard that used regarding miscut/miswrapped books.

 

 

[comicwiz]

I think I see some small foxxing so you can't go above 9.4.

 

I think it would be 9.2 but the production defect might be so bad you might get a green label.

 

You would think that from the rear cover scan, but there is NO foxing whatsoever. What you are seeing are artifacts produced by the scanner. Granted, there are some early signs of tanning along the outer edges of the book. But definitely no foxing, and for the most part, the rear cover is as clean, and is the same colour as the misrwrapped-white portion of the front cover.

[comicwiz]

hen we look at the back cover and see the noticable progressive dust shadow along the left edge. That hurts. Probably 9.2 now.

 

Again, I'm not sure why the scanner produced such artifacts, as I too looked at it after I took the scan, and said -- dust shadowing. I took one last look at the rear cover, and NONE of the artifacts that you see on the scan appear. There are however some early signs of tanning edges.

[osborn_fr]

...and now i have seen the back cover, i change my mind and i'll say that this is a nice miscut and miswrapped CGC 9.2 comic

[comicwiz]

I think I see some small foxxing so you can't go above 9.4.

 

I think it would be 9.2 but the production defect might be so bad you might get a green label.

 

I'm really confused; what defect are you referring too; assuming you are referring to the miswrap or miscut cover, since when does either of these defects constitue a "qualified" grade?