How much of a difference does miscut make?

[FFB]

I have a Sgt. Fury #50 that is in nice shape, but has a right edge miscut. How much does this type of miscut affect the grade? It looks to be a 9.2 or 9.4 apart from the miscut. (There are three microscopic 1/16-3/16" spine stresses that don't really break color, plus the bottom spine corner is slightly abraded. Top spine is sharp, but with a tiny color fleck. All other corners are razors.) The book is not trimmed (I grabbed it out of my LCS's cheapie Silver Age bin, if you can believe this), it just has a miscut right edge. Here's a pic, thanks for your opinions (the pic in the Yahoo link below is higher resolution than in the "attachment" above):

 

[murph0]

Diff for CGC? None. Not knocked off at all.

Diff for most other people? A lot. Probably 1/4 to 1/2 grade IMO

 

Brian

[FFB]

Yeah, it matters to me too. I actually didn't notice the miscut when I grabbed it out of the cheapie miscellaneous silver age bin because I was so excited about the ink reflectivity and the lack of creasing or stress marks on the book. (The purple background, which looks brown in the photo, is actually a beautiful, rich purple in person and the entire cover has great reflectivity, and the cover whites are bone white.) Even if I had noticed it, I would have still bought the book, since it was priced at something like $10.

 

Are you sure that CGC does not mark down for miscut? I know that Overstreet does and that most people do. I also know that CGC does not mark down NM books for miswrap, but thought that maybe miscut was a different rule. Anyway, thanks for the response.

 

 

Diff for CGC? None. Not knocked off at all.

Diff for most other people? A lot. Probably 1/4 to 1/2 grade IMO

 

Brian

[fantastic_four]

Are you sure that CGC does not mark down for miscut?

 

I've seen several books with a right-edge slant like your Sgt. Fury receive at least up to the CGC 9.4 grade. Here's one below:

 

[murph0]

A Better Example

 

Brian

[FFB]

Thanks guys. I appreciate the info.

[fantastic_four]

A Better Example

 

It depends on what you mean by "miscut". Fantasyfootball's book has a slanted edge, which is what I believe he meant by "miscut" since the "wrap" on his book is rather nice. That Spidey you linked to on ComicLink is often referred to as a "miswrap," although CGC is right in calling it a "miscut" because the uneven cover placement is a result of the covers having been cut incorrectly prior to assembly.

 

The Overstreet Grading Guide calls them both "bindery trimming defects" and it has a taxonomy for the different types which has two categories--"cover cut squarely" and "cover not cut squarely". Unfortunately OGG isn't clear as to whether both types of bindery trimming defects should be downgraded equally, although as joe_collector pointed out once before, page 233 shows a GS Conan #1 which is cut VERY unsquarely that looks 8.0 or better from the scan but was given a 6.0 Fine by the guide, presumably due to the unsquare cut.

 

CGC doesn't seem to downgrade much for either type of defect, although I have seen them apparently downgrade a bit for bad unsquare cuts that are much worse than fantasyfootball's. I view unsquare cuts as worse than "miswraps" myself.

[FFB]

FF is correct about what I meant by my original question. I meant "not cut squarely," and as you can see from the right edge of my book, that's the main flaw on the Sgt. Fury 50.

 

 

 

 

A Better Example

 

It depends on what you mean by "miscut". Fantasyfootball's book has a slanted edge, which is what I believe he meant by "miscut" since the "wrap" on his book is rather nice. That Spidey you linked to on ComicLink is often referred to as a "miswrap," although CGC is right in calling it a "miscut" because the uneven cover placement is a result of the covers having been cut incorrectly prior to assembly.

 

The Overstreet Grading Guide calls them both "bindery trimming defects" and it has a taxonomy for the different types which has two categories--"cover cut squarely" and "cover not cut squarely". Unfortunately OGG isn't clear as to whether both types of bindery trimming defects should be downgraded equally, although as joe_collector pointed out once before, page 233 shows a GS Conan #1 which is cut VERY unsquarely that looks 8.0 or better from the scan but was given a 6.0 Fine by the guide, presumably due to the unsquare cut.

 

CGC doesn't seem to downgrade much for either type of defect, although I have seen them apparently downgrade a bit for bad unsquare cuts that are much worse than fantasyfootball's. I view unsquare cuts as worse than "miswraps" myself.

[blowout]

CGC don't appear to downgrade at all for 'production defects' like mis-cuts, mis-wraps etc. The market does however downgrade for these defects and if you are looking to sell your CGCed book don't expect to get as much for it as a perfectly centred book with the same CGC label.

 

Maybe you should get The Beyonder to explain his whole QP argument.

[AtomicPaul-migration]

Here's my view on the discussion, for what it's worth. These two production flaws, the misfold/slanted assembly, and the miscut/not cut squarely, when pretty severe like in the examples pictured above, seriously affect the overall appearance. Isn't grade about overall appearance? A system to determine which are the better copies on a level, comparative scale?

 

When these production flaws don't affect the grade (or at least minimally), not as much as a slight spine stress, or slightly dented corner, you'll have slabbed comics with lower grades that look far better than those with high grades.

IMO, many 9.2s without production defects, having only a few light spine stresses, look far superior to 9.6s and even some 9.8s I've seen that have been cut and/or folded like the above examples.

 

IMO, if the production of the comic is way off, the book can't be high grade, even if free from wear.

 

Another defect I see that doesn't seem to deduct points is distributor overspray. I've seen the entire tops of some comics looking as though ink has dripped down the cover along a fairly large sized portion of the entire top edge. Many have been Universal 9.2s to 9.6s. This is the hardest for me to understand, a 9.4 or 9.6 having this ugly, high visibility defect that the eye is drawn to and can't seem to escape.

Shouldn't a book like this get a green label? When there's paint on a good deal of the cover?

[FFB]

So what would you guys grade this Sgt. Fury anyway? If no takeaway for miscut, I am thinking it's a 9.2 or so. It has a slightly fuzzy LLC and three tiny (1/16th to 1/8th) spine stress that barely break color. Here are pictures. Keep in mind that all of the stress lines are greatly magnified in the photos (if you see the photo at the top of this thread, that's more what the book looks like in person). Also, the red in the ULC is not worn away -- that's just the glare from the lamp. It's deep red, shiny, and has great reflectivity. And what looks like color flaking on the LRC is also just glare. The color is solid and the edge is basically perfect.

 

[DaethWalker]

Well, I'd grade it lower because of the miscut, but as noted earlier CGC want. So, with that in mind I'd agree with you ... about a 9.2.

[FFB]

Bump due to reposting pictures that had been dropped. What would you grade this Sgt. Fury #50?

[murph0]

The front cover looks like an 8.5

 

Brian