I can't believe this is a 9.0

[Flaming_Telepath]

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, anybody who gives a book with that level of foxing alone a 9.0 is not doing their job. I don't need no steeking notes to see that foxing.

 

And you've also admitted that the Crippen is overgraded, which implies that, well, somebody's not doing their job.

[shortstack comics]

 

the things they used to be able to get away with... the "Krak a Jap"

 

 

On topic, it does seem unfair that both those books got the same grade.

[Flaming_Telepath]

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

 

Yup. Agree 100% with this. A QP scale, 1 through to 10, covering cut, wrap, staple placement, cover inks, etc. The label gets changed slightly so that it reads 9.2 (7), or 9.0 (3), etc.

[Ze-man]

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.

 

 

No need to be snarky George, my comment had to do with your book having flaws not visible from the cover when people were comparing the two books against each other(grade wise, not eye appeal wise) We could post examples all day of Ped books getting possible gift grades, or how certain flaws are given a pass when others get hammered. Or even how two books might share a similar numerical grade, but nothing else.

 

So when I saw your 9.0 the first thing I thought of was "whats wrong with it? , cause it sure looks nicer then a 9.0" So I called and got the notes which helped paint a better picture of the book, and the grade. Where the notes on the Crippen book were all cover centric even if I personally diasgree with how CGC treats them.

 

Who knows if they hammered your book for the rust stain that migrated to the centerfold more then the stains/ foxing the Crippen copy displays. Who knows if the Crippen copy got a gift grade Ped bump, I don't know , and was not ever my point to argue one against the other.

 

What I do know is which copy I would prefer, that was never in question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ze-man]

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, anybody who gives a book with that level of foxing alone a 9.0 is not doing their job. I don't need no steeking notes to see that foxing.

 

And you've also admitted that the Crippen is overgraded, which implies that, well, somebody's not doing their job.

 

Just because I do not agree with how CGC graded the Crippen book, or treats foxing in general does not mean they are not doing their job. It means they deal with Foxing differently then most everyone else I know and I work around it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

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, anybody who gives a book with that level of foxing alone a 9.0 is not doing their job. I don't need no steeking notes to see that foxing.

 

And you've also admitted that the Crippen is overgraded, which implies that, well, somebody's not doing their job.

 

Just because I do not agree with how CGC graded the Crippen book, or treats foxing in general does not mean they are not doing their job. It means they deal with Foxing differently then most everyone else I know and I work around it.

 

 

And here was me thinking that CGC were all about standardizing grading.

[VintageComics]

I can see both sides of the discussion, but it still just proves that you can't please everyone.

 

I do understand that most people severaly dislike foxing and feel it should be treated as a stain...and yet I can understand why CGC doesn't treat it like a stain: It's not something external that has been added on to the book like a spilled coffee...rather it's coming from inside the paper itself.

 

Ask the guys who love Larson books. They don't get bothered by the foxing like some people do...just like some people don't mind a book with Marvel chipping while others dislike it.

 

With so many variables, at some point you are going to have intersections where certain defects conflict with others when you are trying to judge a book based on eye appeal.

 

I tend to agree with Kenny in that every set of rules has a "work around" once you get to know them.

[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 . . .

 

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

 

No conspircay theorist here . . . just responding "in kind" to tongue-in-cheek Q

[divad]

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, anybody who gives a book with that level of foxing alone a 9.0 is not doing their job. I don't need no steeking notes to see that foxing.

 

And you've also admitted that the Crippen is overgraded, which implies that, well, somebody's not doing their job.

 

Just because I do not agree with how CGC graded the Crippen book, or treats foxing in general does not mean they are not doing their job. It means they deal with Foxing differently then most everyone else I know and I work around it.

 

And here was me thinking that CGC were all about standardizing grading.

 

 

[Ze-man]

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, anybody who gives a book with that level of foxing alone a 9.0 is not doing their job. I don't need no steeking notes to see that foxing.

 

And you've also admitted that the Crippen is overgraded, which implies that, well, somebody's not doing their job.

 

Just because I do not agree with how CGC graded the Crippen book, or treats foxing in general does not mean they are not doing their job. It means they deal with Foxing differently then most everyone else I know and I work around it.

 

 

And here was me thinking that CGC were all about standardizing grading.

 

We heard you the first time

 

So what about books with severe miscuts, miswraps, production defects. People are all over the map in how they deal with those things and how CGC deals with them too.

 

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I do understand that most people severaly dislike foxing and feel it should be treated as a stain...and yet I can understand why CGC doesn't treat it like a stain: It's not something external that has been added on to the book like a spilled coffee...rather it's coming from inside the paper itself.

 

So by that logic, brittle pages should get a free pass, too? Oh, and how about front covers severely faded?

 

Nothing has been added, but just like foxing, the book has reacted to its environment.

[Flaming_Telepath]

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, anybody who gives a book with that level of foxing alone a 9.0 is not doing their job. I don't need no steeking notes to see that foxing.

 

And you've also admitted that the Crippen is overgraded, which implies that, well, somebody's not doing their job.

 

Just because I do not agree with how CGC graded the Crippen book, or treats foxing in general does not mean they are not doing their job. It means they deal with Foxing differently then most everyone else I know and I work around it.

 

 

And here was me thinking that CGC were all about standardizing grading.

 

We heard you the first time

 

So what about books with severe miscuts, miswraps, production defects. People are all over the map in how they deal with.. like/dislike those things and how CGC deals with them too.

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think production defects should be taken into account, but I can understand why they're not. They are not after-market damage/deterioration and CGC has drawn a line.

 

However, foxing didn't happen in production. Foxing is a deterioration of quality...just like brittle pages, or cover fading...in response to environment. It's a defect and damage, so should be treated as such.

[DrWatson]

Oh, and how about front covers severely faded?

I don't believe they are that hard on fading.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Oh, and how about front covers severely faded?

I don't believe they are that hard on fading.

 

[VintageComics]

I do understand that most people severaly dislike foxing and feel it should be treated as a stain...and yet I can understand why CGC doesn't treat it like a stain: It's not something external that has been added on to the book like a spilled coffee...rather it's coming from inside the paper itself.

 

So by that logic, brittle pages should get a free pass, too? Oh, and how about front covers severely faded?

 

Nothing has been added, but just like foxing, the book has reacted to its environment.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you but I can understand see their train of thought.

 

Brittle pages are destructive. The book can crumble into dust.

 

Fading, while fugly when extreme, is often difficult to pin point because it is so gradual so I won't even go there....it could just as easily be mistaken for a printing defect when slight.

 

Foxing? Well we don't even know what it is quite honestly...isn't there a question among scholars as to what it actually is?...is it destructive? Is it harmful? I honestly don't know.

 

 

[Comicopolis]

Foxes are always harmful - we kill them for sport over here you know.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

The problem with exceptions is its too easy to lose sight of what a Near Mint book is supposed to be. Somehow in the process of grading Golden Age, everything from bindery chips to foxing to dust shadows all became okay for books that are 9.4 or better.

 

I guess I just don't like the "grading on a curve" mentality, because as I stated before, its too easy to subject to the whims of the grader.

 

I believe when you see a 9.0+ whatever book, especially Golden Age, there should be no doubt that its one of the finest around. When you have to explain away the grade and the thought process of the grader, and the book on its own merits itself can't convey the assigned grade, then what you have is a rationalization, and not something special.

 

 

[DrWatson]

When you have to explain away the grade and the thought process of the grader, and the book on its own merits itself can't convey the assigned grade, then what you have is a rationalization, and not something special.

...and therefore GA books suck. It all makes perfect sense. Thank you for the excellent clarification. (thumbs u

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

When you have to explain away the grade and the thought process of the grader, and the book on its own merits itself can't convey the assigned grade, then what you have is a rationalization, and not something special.

...and therefore GA books suck. It all makes perfect sense. Thank you for the excellent clarification. (thumbs u

 

Weenie.

[DrWatson]

I've never claimed otherwise.