I can't believe this is a 9.0

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I bet if I poll 100 Boardies on which book they would rather have, we'd have the first unanamious polling result in the Forum's history,

 

You know someone will be contrary just to be contrary...

 

But your copy is clearly the superior copy.

 

If it makes you feel better, they're doing the same thing with the 9.8 grade on Cronze and Modern books. There are some pretty hideous 9.8s, and nearly flawless 9.8s that are clearly, clearly not in the same league as each other...yet they're both 9.8s.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

 

I bet if I poll 100 Boardies on which book they would rather have, we'd have the first unanamious polling result in the Forum's history,

 

You know someone will be contrary just to be contrary...

 

But your copy is clearly the superior copy.

 

If it makes you feel better, they're doing the same thing with the 9.8 grade on Cronze and Modern books. There are some pretty hideous 9.8s, and nearly flawless 9.8s that are clearly, clearly not in the same league as each other...yet they're both 9.8s.

 

Yes, this phenomenon became clearly evident to me when I bought a few Copper 9.8 G.I. Joes last summer from Heritage in the weekly auctions. Most looked like 9.8s, or at least 9.6s, but there were few that I wouldn't of passed for a 9.0/9.2 (black cover books with 3-4 visible spine stresses in 9.8? WTF?!?)

 

I promptly dumped my Joe collection realizing that most everything in Copper 9.8 was headed for a crash. I made some decent coin on my own subs, but barely broke even on the rest. The Joe market, and most Copper books, has yet to fully recover from the abhorently loose grading standards on Moderns in the last 12-24 months.

 

At least with GA, books in true high grade are often so rare, even a badly graded book won't really skew the census too much. But when you have 8 copies of a Copper book in 9.8 in the first 7-8 years of CGC, then watch the population explode to 50+ in the next two years, you start to wonder about it all.

 

I have no problem playing the game, as long as I understand the rules and don't have to worry about them being switched on me mid-stream. That's exactly what I feel has happened with Copper/Modern grading the last 2 years or so.

[rjpb]

Before we get too bent out of shape about CGC same graded books being obviously unequal, do we know for sure that the market place doesn't take these flaws into consideration?

 

I realize there are generally not enough sales for a particular GA book in a given grade for GPA to be a solid measuring stick, but with some Silver and Bronze books there should be enough data to see if "lesser" books of a given grade sell for as much as "better" books on average (realizing that venue and timing of a sale can matter as much as anything else).

 

There does seem be a belief that with more recent eras that page quality can make a big difference in comparitive prices realized. I would be surprised if those defects that CGC takes more lightly than the collecting community at large (foxing, fading, dust/sun shadows and slightly rusted staples) don't impact the price, especially in an auction format, where even if some buyers are only looking at the label, they are not competing with those that look at the book.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Before we get too bent out of shape about CGC same graded books being obviously unequal, do we know for sure that the market place doesn't take these flaws into consideration?

 

I can only speak for myself, but I know I do, and I'm sure most collectors do as well.

 

But to me, that's not the point.

 

Whenever you see two comparably graded CGC books, and one is clearly superior, it makes you wonder what the standard is.

 

I've often heard from the graders and from the people on this Board "They can only grade what's in front of them." That to me is a cop out, and a clear indication that there are no grading standards to adhere to, which will open the door for personal subjectivity.

 

And that, I'm afraid, is a bad thing.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Before we get too bent out of shape about CGC same graded books being obviously unequal, do we know for sure that the market place doesn't take these flaws into consideration?

 

I can only speak for myself, but I know I do, and I'm sure most collectors do as well.

 

But to me, that's not the point.

 

Whenever you see two comparably graded CGC books, and one is clearly superior, it makes you wonder what the standard is.

 

I've often heard from the graders and from the people on this Board "They can only grade what's in front of them." That to me is a cop out, and a clear indication that there are no grading standards to adhere to, which will open the door for personal subjectivity.

 

And that, I'm afraid, is a bad thing.

 

Agreed.

 

And I would add that the whole idea of CGC...the whole concept behind its formation...was that they would standardise matters to such an extent that you could buy anything sight unseen and know precisely what you're going to receive.

 

Now, how many informed collectors are now prepared to buy a CGC book without a scan?

 

Quite.

[Annihilus]

CGC is notoriously easy on rusty staples and foxing on Golden Age books.

 

There are quite a few examples of books with gnarly looking foxing, and rusty staples, sitting in a 9.0 or better holder.

 

This is the one that still bothers me the most (only because I own the other 9.0 copy on the census, without a shred of foxing or rust on the staple).

 

and my copy:

 

I bet if I poll 100 Boardies on which book they would rather have, we'd have the first unanamious polling result in the Forum's history, yet CGC doesn't consider it a defect, and will continue to grade 'em that way.

 

At the end of the day, do your research, and always buy the book, not the label.

 

 

Aye caramba!

[Blind Owl]

One of the recent Action #1's that sold for over $1mil....also had rusty staples...not sure if it was the 8.0 copy, or the 8.5 copy.

 

I'm sure someone will post a scan...

[Gatsby77]

This is one of the many reasons GPA is inherently flawed:

 

1) It captures only 10-15% of sales, excluding venues like Comiclink and private sales such as conventions and these boards.

 

2) by not taking PQ and presentation into account, you can have wide swings in reported price for the same numeric grade when in fact it was justified--sellers bought the book and not the grade, paying more for one that presented well and less for one that was fugly.

 

This problem is amplified in certain rare Golden Age books, where they may be only 1-2 reported sales per year.

[LordRahl]

Before we get too bent out of shape about CGC same graded books being obviously unequal, do we know for sure that the market place doesn't take these flaws into consideration?

 

I can only speak for myself, but I know I do, and I'm sure most collectors do as well.

 

But to me, that's not the point.

 

Whenever you see two comparably graded CGC books, and one is clearly superior, it makes you wonder what the standard is.

 

I've often heard from the graders and from the people on this Board "They can only grade what's in front of them." That to me is a cop out, and a clear indication that there are no grading standards to adhere to, which will open the door for personal subjectivity.

 

And that, I'm afraid, is a bad thing.

 

Agreed.

 

And I would add that the whole idea of CGC...the whole concept behind its formation...was that they would standardise matters to such an extent that you could buy anything sight unseen and know precisely what you're going to receive.

 

Now, how many informed collectors are now prepared to buy a CGC book without a scan?

 

Quite.

 

First let me say I agree with everyone that the book with all the foxing looks like mess next to the other 9.0. CGC's take on foxing and their relative laxness in grading foxing has always bugged me. Although they seem to have gotten harsher on it recently.

 

That said, I'm not sure that the bolded sentence in your post was ever the concept Nick If it was, it was a flawed concept to begin with.

 

There was a Hulk 1 for sale recently graded a 5.5. Front cover looked like an easy 8.5/9.0 but the back cover had a couple of pieces of tape holding a tear together that had browned badly. Technical grade on the book was certainly a 5.5 but the book went for double what most 5.5s go for. Deservedly so since it presented as a high grade book from the front cover. No amount of standardization can account for this. At the end of the day, you have to be able to see the book regardless of grade assigned.

[Flaming_Telepath]

This is one of the many reasons GPA is inherently flawed:

 

1) It captures only 10-15% of sales, excluding venues like Comiclink and private sales such as conventions and these boards.

 

2) by not taking PQ and presentation into account, you can have wide swings in reported price for the same numeric grade when in fact it was justified--sellers bought the book and not the grade, paying more for one that presented well and less for one that was fugly.

 

This problem is amplified in certain rare Golden Age books, where they may be only 1-2 reported sales per year.

 

This has zero to do with GPA.

 

If CGC did their job properly, GPA would be a very acurate tool. (thumbs u

[LordRahl]

This is one of the many reasons GPA is inherently flawed:

 

1) It captures only 10-15% of sales, excluding venues like Comiclink and private sales such as conventions and these boards.

 

2) by not taking PQ and presentation into account, you can have wide swings in reported price for the same numeric grade when in fact it was justified--sellers bought the book and not the grade, paying more for one that presented well and less for one that was fugly.

 

This problem is amplified in certain rare Golden Age books, where they may be only 1-2 reported sales per year.

 

This has zero to do with GPA.

 

If CGC did their job properly, GPA would be a very acurate tool. (thumbs u

 

GPA really needs to track PQ in order for it to be really accurate.

 

CGC needs to incorporate a second grade for eye appeal, which would help a lot too (thumbs u

[divad]

Its got rusty staples and spots on the spine and top edge.....

 

Am I missing something?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Police-Comics-70-CGC-9-0-Off-White-Pages_W0QQitemZ310212151451QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item483a15c89b

 

That's embarassing to both Heritage and CGC . . .

[Hero Restoration]

I really can't see how both of these books could have the same grade. I don’t think anyone who reads this topic would agree with CGC on this one so it makes you wonder, how good is CGC's grading after all? This isn't the first fugly 9.0 I have seen from them either. So, if you can’t trust the accuracy of their grade then why are slabs worth more?

 

 

 

 

[shadroch]

Its got rusty staples and spots on the spine and top edge.....

 

Am I missing something?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Police-Comics-70-CGC-9-0-Off-White-Pages_W0QQitemZ310212151451QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item483a15c89b

 

That's embarassing to both Heritage and CGC . . .

 

 

Is there a difference between the two?

[Ze-man]

CGC is notoriously easy on rusty staples and foxing on Golden Age books.

 

There are quite a few examples of books with gnarly looking foxing, and rusty staples, sitting in a 9.0 or better holder.

 

This is the one that still bothers me the most (only because I own the other 9.0 copy on the census, without a shred of foxing or rust on the staple).

 

 

and my copy:

 

 

I bet if I poll 100 Boardies on which book they would rather have, we'd have the first unanamious polling result in the Forum's history, yet CGC doesn't consider it a defect, and will continue to grade 'em that way.

 

At the end of the day, do your research, and always buy the book, not the label.

 

 

 

I am not going to deny which copy I woud prefer, yours presents much, much better regardless of grade.

 

But I cannot really fault CGC for how they graded both copies. You copy was noted as having a rusted staple with a migration stain, and also a 1" tear at the centerfold.

 

While the Crippen copy was noted as having a rusted staple, minor foxing but NO tear.

 

So to sit here and bash CGC for "not doing their job" is not really fair once the notes on each book are known. It's fine to dissagree with them, especially on how they deal with foxing. But to compare 2 grades based only on cover scans alone isn't accurate, or fair.

 

Personally I think the Crippen is overgraded, but your 9.0 seems about right given it's flaws, even thought it presents much higher.

 

 

[Hero Restoration]

CGC is notoriously easy on rusty staples and foxing on Golden Age books.

 

There are quite a few examples of books with gnarly looking foxing, and rusty staples, sitting in a 9.0 or better holder.

 

This is the one that still bothers me the most (only because I own the other 9.0 copy on the census, without a shred of foxing or rust on the staple).

 

 

and my copy:

 

 

I bet if I poll 100 Boardies on which book they would rather have, we'd have the first unanamious polling result in the Forum's history, yet CGC doesn't consider it a defect, and will continue to grade 'em that way.

 

At the end of the day, do your research, and always buy the book, not the label.

 

 

 

I am not going to deny which copy I woud prefer, yours presents much, much better regardless of grade.

 

But I cannot really fault CGC for how they graded both copies. You copy was noted as having a rusted staple with a migration stain, and also a 1" tear at the centerfold.

 

While the Crippen copy was noted as having a rusted staple, minor foxing but NO tear.

 

So to sit here and bash CGC for "not doing their job" is not really fair once the notes on each book are known. It's fine to dissagree with them, especially on how they deal with foxing. But to compare 2 grades based only on cover scans alone isn't accurate, or fair.

 

Personally I think the Crippen is overgraded, but your 9.0 seems about right given it's flaws, even thought it presents much higher.

 

 

I stand corrected but I didn't see the graders notes posted Kenny so how did you get those,did you call CGC?

[divad]

Its got rusty staples and spots on the spine and top edge.....

 

Am I missing something?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Police-Comics-70-CGC-9-0-Off-White-Pages_W0QQitemZ310212151451QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item483a15c89b

 

That's embarassing to both Heritage and CGC . . .

 

 

Is there a difference between the two?

You'd have to ask Steve . . .

[LordRahl]

Its got rusty staples and spots on the spine and top edge.....

 

Am I missing something?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Police-Comics-70-CGC-9-0-Off-White-Pages_W0QQitemZ310212151451QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item483a15c89b

 

That's embarassing to both Heritage and CGC . . .

 

 

Is there a difference between the two?

You'd have to ask Steve . . .

 

Ahhh yes, more conspiracy theories. So when are the aliens taking over again?

[Sal]

i wonder how bad the foxing looks in-hand, as opposed to how it looks in the scan.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

CGC is notoriously easy on rusty staples and foxing on Golden Age books.

 

There are quite a few examples of books with gnarly looking foxing, and rusty staples, sitting in a 9.0 or better holder.

 

This is the one that still bothers me the most (only because I own the other 9.0 copy on the census, without a shred of foxing or rust on the staple).

 

 

and my copy:

 

 

I bet if I poll 100 Boardies on which book they would rather have, we'd have the first unanamious polling result in the Forum's history, yet CGC doesn't consider it a defect, and will continue to grade 'em that way.

 

At the end of the day, do your research, and always buy the book, not the label.

 

 

 

I am not going to deny which copy I woud prefer, yours presents much, much better regardless of grade.

 

But I cannot really fault CGC for how they graded both copies. You copy was noted as having a rusted staple with a migration stain, and also a 1" tear at the centerfold.

 

While the Crippen copy was noted as having a rusted staple, minor foxing but NO tear.

 

So to sit here and bash CGC for "not doing their job" is not really fair once the notes on each book are known. It's fine to dissagree with them, especially on how they deal with foxing. But to compare 2 grades based only on cover scans alone isn't accurate, or fair.

 

Personally I think the Crippen is overgraded, but your 9.0 seems about right given it's flaws, even thought it presents much higher.

 

 

Kenny, the staple rust CGC notes is barely noticeable, and if there is migration, it has to be on the centerfold and I must've entirely missed it, as it is not on either the front or back covers. I sure don't remember it.

 

As for the tear....who knows, and who cares....there are higher graded books, SA and BA too, with internal tears....its a entirely negligible defect in CGC's eyes, just like foxing. I also never claimed my book to be undergraded, or harshly graded, I think its fairly graded, but the point here is that you can have two books that have the three same exact characteristics/attributes that CGC assesses (Level of Restoration, Grade, and Page Quality), but yet there isn't even a contest as to which one people prefer.

 

And you're right, I really should've posted the scans of the back covers.....please let me know which copy has the heavy rust migration on the back cover.

 

The Crippen:

 

 

and mine: