Do you think this book should have been graded lower by CGC?

[dekeuk]

I came across this book on Comiclink.

 

With that large dust shadow and name written on the cover, do you think this book should have been graded lower than 9.4 by CGC? (see poll below)

 

 

 

 

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

I'm guessing it is a 9.2 but gets a GA bump.

[Comicopolis]

You mean it's been over-graded

[MutantKeys]

No

[The Question?]

 

 

Need we go through the laundry list of GA books that are significantly over graded? Or that have restoration, yet sit in blue labels?

 

Nahhhhh, lets just let this die rapidly...

[oakman29]

It says 9.4 on the label,it must be a 9.4

[gaz973]

IMHO, no way should that be a 9.4.

[Flaming_Telepath]

It's a CGC 9.4...the label says so.

 

However, it's not a NM. I concluded some time ago that what used to be old school NM now corresponds with CGC 9.6 and CGC 9.8.

[Limited66]

The writing looks like it's in pencil, its the dust shadow that gives pause, but that is a very, very nice Sensation #1.

[osborn_fr]

A bad looking 9.0... at best...

[agro23]

Say it's a 9.8 in hand...do the graders then say, "Dust shadow. Ding! 9.6. Name in pencil. Ding! 9.4"? Because that's the only way I can see that getting such a grade.

 

My one-time belief was that CGC didn't discriminate between various sorts of flaws on a book and that they are all assigned point values. The graders just start at 10 subtracting for each imperfection until they are done evaluating a book.

 

But it reminds me of the pre-eBay days...

 

"Cover detached, tears sealed with glue, tape on the spine, centerfold missing, otherwise near mint!"

[homerwannabee]

I guess CGC is not as strict on dust shadows as they once were. It probably is a 9.4 if you don't count the dust shadow.

[szelim]

I guess CGC is not as strict on dust shadows as they once were. It probably is a 9.4 if you don't count the dust shadow.

graded in 2001.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

I guess CGC is not as strict on dust shadows as they once were. It probably is a 9.4 if you don't count the dust shadow.

 

I've seen darker dust shadows get 9.4 even in the early days of CGC. They have consistently not marked off much for them, but I, too, think they should.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Stuff that everyone should know, but which bears repeating now and then...

 

1. CGC's grade is just an opinion, despite the end-all, be-all status which the market has bestowed upon them.

 

2. It's ok to disagree with CGC's opinion.

 

3. CGC needs legitimate competition.

[dekeuk]

If this was a New Mutants #98 with the same wear, writing, and dust shadow would it still get a 9.4?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

[G.A.tor]

nope

[Hawkman]

i don't think it's a 9.4. i wouldn't pay 9.4 prices for it. but the name on the front cover doesn't both me at all, nor would i downgrade for it.

[Mr 9.8]

The name on the cover dosen't bother me, but that dust shadow is pretty noticable. I would give it a 9.2 .

[the blob]

VF?

 

Yeah, the rest of the book looks terrific, but the book is down to 9.2 tops after the name on the cover and the dust shadow needs to knock it down some more.

 

And that includes a GA bump, because it should be a Fine if it's just a regular ole silver age book...and that might be generous.