"Eye appeal" as a grading factor

[rjpb]

In the new Heritage catalougue there are two copies of Superman 1. The 4.5 has some ugly foxing at the top and the 2.0 has a loose cover and centerfold. Resale considerations aside, which copy would you rather be looking at in your collection?

 

The catalougues two copies of All-Star 1, also bring up "eye-appeal" considerations. The picture of the 5.0 with a loose centerfold looks a hell of a lot nicer in the scan than the 7.0 with some hideous discoloration on the right edge.

 

I'd be curious to know how collectors, especially those in the market for big-ticket slabbed books, feel about the relative difference in the grades assigned to these comics.

 

In general I've noticed that CGC does not seem to penalize a book's grade that much for things like foxing, dust shadows, and tanning to covers, all of which hinder the attractiveness of a book in it's holder to a greater degree than a few small tears or corner folds, or even a loose cover IMHO.

[Timely]

I always pick the beautiful 8.0 over the structurally nicer yet uglier 9.0!

 

Timely

[Doug014-migration]

I personally value eye appeal over the technical grade, but that's just me.

[harveyfan323]

Me too...Eye appeal is what matters. I'd rather have a nice, aesthetically pleasing 6.0 than a miscut, date-stamped, ugly 9.4, assuming that I paid the market price for either one. I used to be more hung up on the grade, but thankfully, I've moved beyond that and now I "buy the book, not the grade."

[seank]

I'll go with eye appeal over grade also. But us GA folk seem to be less hung up over the label than the modern folk.

 

 

[PUNYHUMAN]

[SilverAgeGuy]

Eye appeal is the #1 decision maker for me. I have several books in 9.2 that I specifically chose over 9.6 copies. The 9.2's looked better! Technically they did have more signs of wear, but I will always take a bright new looking 9.2 over a tired yellowed 9.6.

 

Edit:

Oh, and I'm talking from a silver age standpoint here.

[FlComicFan]

eye appeal ! You will get a better looking book for less and in the end the aesthetic appeal is what guides the majority of collectors anyways. I love to get otherwise nice looking books with loose centerfolds, small spine splits, etc

[rjpb]

So much for "eye appeal". The grossly overgraded 7.0 All-Star #1 sells for $4,255, and the nicer looking 5.0 with a loose centerfold goes begging for $2530.

 

While I believe many collectors do value eye appeal over technical grade, its obvious that some are more impressed by the the number in the top left corner than by what there eyes tell them.

[tth2]

So much for "eye appeal". The grossly overgraded 7.0 All-Star #1 sells for $4,255, and the nicer looking 5.0 with a loose centerfold goes begging for $2530.

 

While I believe many collectors do value eye appeal over technical grade, its obvious that some are more impressed by the the number in the top left corner than by what there eyes tell them.

 

Does this really come as a surprise to anyone? How many of us have seen sellers on eBay claiming that CGC undergraded their book, and the 9.2 is supersharp and really a 9.4? First, do you ever believe them? And even if you do believe them (unlikely as that might be), are you going to pay a 9.4 price for that book? NFW!

 

And if you buy the 5.0 from the example above, guess what? When it comes time to sell (whether it's you or your heirs), you (or your ungrateful wife/children who are liquidating your collection despite your dying wishes) can argue until you're blue in the face that the book has great eye appeal and is better than the 7.0 book, but NO ONE is going to pay you anything other than a price based upon the 5.0 grade. So congratulations, you'll have a great looking 5.0, but everyone else in the market will say a 5.0 is a 5.0 is a 5.0. Call me cynical, but I will always buy the higher grade, even if it looks worse than the lower grade book, because the market in the long-term always seems to favor higher grade books.

 

Now, if two books are of the same grade, and one clearly looks better than the other for any number of reasons, that is a different issue, and eye appeal should clearly prevail.

[rjpb]

I would never argue that the 5.0 copy should sell for more than what that grade would indicate, and in this case the reserve was about 85% of guide including commision. I just find it surprising that the 7.0 copy sold for over 80% guide value when I seriously doubt that, had the grade not been "guaranteed" by CGC, most if any of the bidders would have agreed that it was anywhere near a F/VF copy. As CGC is the first to admit, grading is subjective, and even with 3 graders reviewing the book, it is always possible that a book gets seriously misgraded by the standards of the larger collecting community.

 

As to arguements that higher grade books are automatically better investments, this depends largely on the relative prices paid, as well as assumptions about further price spreads in the future. Other factors, like general scarcity of a book in any grade, and lack of affordability of a book to many collectors in anything other than low grade have often resulted in higher percentages of guide paid for a low grade book than a mid-grade copy.

[Aman619]

there will probably come a time when the CGC grade is not the ABSOLUTE factor it is today. Many 9.0s, 9.2s and 9.4s differ only in the severity of one or two faults in CGCs eyes. Standards may change yet again altering our views of how much CGC has chosen to downgrade for certain flaws and blur the distinctions (in price) between the top grades.

 

How do you really quantify between one more than a little dinged corner and three very slight spine breaks?? CGC makes judgement calls that may not hold up later on for collectors. I agree strongly with those who now make sure to buy the best 9.4 or whatever with an eye to a reevaluation later on down the road. When it comes, you wont be happy holding the 'wrong' books like the PLOD complaining chorus is today!!

[THE_BEYONDER]

Thanks to QP considerations, I am able to purchase 9.2's & 9.4's....whereas prior I wasn't happy with anything less than a 9.6.

[Bonds25]

there will probably come a time when the CGC grade is not the ABSOLUTE factor it is today. Many 9.0s, 9.2s and 9.4s differ only in the severity of one or two faults in CGCs eyes. Standards may change yet again altering our views of how much CGC has chosen to downgrade for certain flaws and blur the distinctions (in price) between the top grades.

 

I've seen this a lot on the Heritage coin auctions. The same grade coin will have been auctioned a bunch of time, and there is a huge variance in the final price paid, so even though they all have the same grade, certain specimans with great eye appeal will sell for more.

[Zanarkand]

I'm a structural grader. Eye-appeal only enters into it when I'm in the higher grades, say 7.0 and up. Often, Fine+ and F/VF have the same general type of defects and the only difference between them is that F/VF "looks" nicer. Brighter color, more gloss, less foxing, what have you.

 

In lower grades, eye-appeal can be a big factor in collectibility though. It's perfectly possible to have a bright, clean book that grades Fine due to creases or whatever. Held next to a muted, dingy VF book with foxing, a lot of collectors will buy the Fine.

[MW1]

This is somewhat off the subject but it is something about the collectibles industry that has always confounded me. The phrase "eye appeal" is an idiomatic figure of speech that has found widespread favor among some grammar-oblivious dealers (yes, I'm anal rententive). In this case, the proper terminology would be "visual appeal." The eye is a conduit for sensory perception but it is not, in and of itself, one of our four senses (sight is). In a literal sense, someone or something cannot appeal to one's eye. But it can appeal to one's vision; hence, "visual appeal." An adverbial context makes this issue even more clear. A woman can be "visually appealing" but she cannot be "eye appealing."

 

On a somewhat related tangent, I am reminded of a famous linguist's humorous explanation of the often-misused word "flammable":

 

"An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. The common word meaning 'combustible' is inflammable. But some people are thrown off by the in- and think inflammable means 'not combustible.' For this reason, trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable."

[ScarFace-migration]

Can you verify if this signature of yours is authentic?

 

[MW1]

Yup. Looks good.

[ScarFace-migration]

Thanks, Cliff.

[Aman619]

This is somewhat off the subject but it is something about the collectibles industry that has always confounded me. The phrase "eye appeal" is an idiomatic figure of speech that has found widespread favor among some grammar-oblivious dealers (yes, I'm anal rententive). In this case, the proper terminology would be "visual appeal." The eye is a conduit for sensory perception but it is not, in and of itself, one of our four senses (sight is). In a literal sense, someone or something cannot appeal to one's eye. But it can appeal to one's vision; hence, "visual appeal." An adverbial context makes this issue even more clear. A woman can be "visually appealing" but she cannot be "eye appealing."

 

On a somewhat related tangent, I am reminded of a famous linguist's humorous explanation of the often-misused word "flammable":

 

"An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. The common word meaning 'combustible' is inflammable. But some people are thrown off by the in- and think inflammable means 'not combustible.' For this reason, trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable."

 

I agree wholeheartedly!

You are most definitely anal retentive!!