The Pre-Robin Tec Club 17 17

[sacentaur]

Saw the Detective 37, Larson copy, at SDCC - very pretty book (CGC 7.0) except for a corner piece missing on the front cover.

The book remains unsold at $50k.

[lou_fine]

On 7/25/2017 at 6:53 AM, Johnny545 said:

On 7/25/2017 at 4:40 AM, Gotham Kid said:

I knew it looked familiar.

No words. Really.

Sold 3/1/2017 at auction on ComicLink.

Here it is, this time graded by the other guys.

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=725876

Yeah, ok.

 

A real blow to their credibility.  Not good...

+2

Johnny & Peter;

Can't agree more with the two of you here.   

Although you certainly can't grade from just scans alone without having the actual book in hand, based upon what I am seeing here, this certainly appears to be a blow to CGC's credibility and hopefully some explanation will be forthcoming from them , although I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one as I definitely doubt any would be forthcoming.  

Especially if you also threw in this other CGC graded copy of 'Tec 29 into the mix: 

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=676561

Now, if you compare all 3 slabbed graded copies, it makes it a whole lot easier to see which one of them is more likely to be out of synch in terms of its overall final assigned grade.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by lou_fine

[Gotham Kid]

actually, we're pointing the finger at CBCS

[Gotham Kid]

actually, we're pointing the finger at the other company ( with an established track record for gift grading )

I agree with the 1.8 grade, CGC no doubt hammered for the brittleness.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[sacentaur]

Dean, you have it backwards - it's not CGC's credibility being called into question here.

[fishbone]

On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 7:40 AM, Gotham Kid said:

I knew it looked familiar.

No words. Really.

Sold 3/1/2017 at auction on ComicLink.

Here it is, this time graded by the other guys.

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=725876

Yeah, ok.

 

That is my former copy that I sold on CLink earlier this year,

Sorry, no way it's a 3.0 in any universe.  And quite a lot of brittleness.

Now the other 1.8 brittle I sold at the same time - the Tec 31 - could never understand how it got the same "brittle" pages designation, in hand was quite supple, just some minor problems at edges is all.

Edited July 26, 2017 by fishbone

[Gotham Kid]

Just now, fishbone said:

Sorry, no way it's a 3.0 in any universe.  And quite a lot of brittleness.

Thank you. Nuff said.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[Gotham Kid]

1 minute ago, fishbone said:

Now the other 1.8 brittle I sold at the same time - the Tec 31 - could never understand how it got the same "brittle" pages designation, but in hand was quite supple, just some minor problems at edges is all.

This one

http://www.comiclink.com/Auctions/item.asp?back=%2FComicTrack%2FAuctions%2Fbids.asp&id=1163818

 

[fishbone]

3 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

This one

http://www.comiclink.com/Auctions/item.asp?back=%2FComicTrack%2FAuctions%2Fbids.asp&id=1163818

 

Yes......... and I really miss that 31 especially    !!!!

I think Ben would also agree (another former owner) that this one made no sense for brittle PQ

[lou_fine]

16 hours ago, sacentaur said:

17 hours ago, woowoo said:

Peter it does look more like a 3.0 than a 1.8 I would hope you agree.

The book has tape, so if CGC ignored the tape and took into account the seen defects (e.g., splitting of the spine due to brittleness) then the 1.8 is accurate.

Steve;

I believe you may actually be correct here depending upon the extent of the damage which the 3 pieces of tape on the back cover is covering up, but only if the book was graded using CGC's current published policy with respect to the application of tape which only came into effect with all submissions after May 3 of 2013. 

But since this particular copy of 'Tec 29 was graded back in April of 2011:

https://www.cgccomics.com/grading/verify-cgc-comic.aspx?cgc-comic-cert=1027841002&grader-notes=yes

or prior to CGC's revised policy on the use of tape, it probably should have received a higher grade due to the tape being there to "fix" what should have been otherwise a defect in terms of CGC's unpublished grading policy at the time.   

It should also be noted that there might be slight differences in the grading policies between the 2 major grading companies.  Just because CGC made a grading policy change with respect to the application of tape does not mean that the other grading company(s) have to followed suit.  Although it might not be a good idea to link to the other company's official published grading guidelines here, especially when our current host here has no published grading policy at all , I will simply point out that the other grading company does allow the application of tape in grades up to 3.0 and simply leave it at that.

At the same time, I am a bit perplexed here because if tape was one of the primary reasons why the above 'Tec 29 received the CGC 1.8 grade, then why did the following 'Tec 29 received a CGC 3.0 grade when it also had tape denoted on the label and yet this copy was graded when CGC 's new tape policy was in full force:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=684452

My guess is this was most likely very minor tape use and probably was not covering up that much damage, as this copy in fact looks much nicer than its assigned 3.0 grade  , but who really knows unless you have the actual book in hand.  

 

[Gotham Kid]

4 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=684452

Gorgeous 3.0

[sacentaur]

3 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

But since this particular copy of 'Tec 29 was graded back in April of 2011:

Looks like it was re-holdered then since it's in a new slab.

If the prior owner says it had quite a lot of brittleness, then that's most likely the reason for the assigned 1.8 grade (and not the tape).

[lou_fine]

47 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

actually, we're pointing the finger at CBCS

 

47 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

actually, we're pointing the finger at the other company ( with an established track record for gift grading )

I agree with the 1.8 grade, CGC no doubt hammered for the brittleness.

 

46 minutes ago, sacentaur said:

Dean, you have it backwards - it's not CGC's credibility being called into question here.

Not sure why my last post tuned all pink and say Hidden, so this is just a repeat of my previous post:

Come on, you guys..........of course I knew exactly what you meant. 

You didn't notice my    emoticons when I said that I couldn't agree with you more. 

As I stated, I was simply basing my comment upon the 3 slabbed scan only since I do not have the actual books in hand.  If you compared all 3 of them, the CGC 1.8 copy sure as heck looks a lot nicer than the CGC 2.0 copy that was graded by them a couple of years later.  Sitting in front of a computer screen, we have nothing else to go by except what we see, especially when we are also too cheap to buy the Graders Notes. 

[lou_fine]

18 minutes ago, sacentaur said:

23 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

But since this particular copy of 'Tec 29 was graded back in April of 2011:

Looks like it was re-holdered then since it's in a new slab.

If the prior owner says it had quite a lot of brittleness, then that's most likely the reason for the assigned 1.8 grade (and not the tape).

Would agree with you here since we do not have the book in hand and you can never truly grade from just a scan. 

[Knightsofold]

Sorry if discussed already, but Detective #36 got a huge value increase in the new Overstreet guide (47th 2017-2018 ).

2016-2017     2.0 - 3,500 4.0 - 7,000 6.0 - 10,500 8.0 - 26,000 9.0 - 40,500 9.2 - 55,000

2017-2018     2.0 - 5,500 4.0 - 11,000 6.0 - 16,500 8.0 - 40,000 9.0 - 60,000 9.2 - 80,000

57% increase at 2.0-6.0!!

The book moved up 11 spots in the top 100 Golden Age Comic NM list from 46th to 35th place.  

And had the 3rd highest gain in the top 100 at 46%.  Only behind the predictable Wonder Woman #1 at 47% and All Star Comics #8 at 49%.

I don't use Overstreet for FMV, but I feel it can help validate a book's "bluechip" status.

[woowoo]

39 minutes ago, sacentaur said:

Looks like it was re-holdered then since it's in a new slab.

If the prior owner says it had quite a lot of brittleness, then that's most likely the reason for the assigned 1.8 grade (and not the tape).

[fishbone]

3 hours ago, woowoo said:

Not the tape that gets it a 1.8, amount of brittleness is the issue......still nice-looking book though I always thought, but I put it in a holder (the original CGC one in 2011) and figured that's where it should  stay forever. Not a book to be flipped through for sure

[Gotham Kid]

I won't expect a strong result in light of the discussion here (as I am sure there are also lurkers digesting this)

Edited July 26, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[Chicago Boy]

Still a beautiful presenting book in my opinion.  1.8 or 3.0. Beautiful book to have in a blue label.  Wonder where that old cgc 1.8 blue with the top left cover piece missing is these days that was hanging around eBay forever at 12 k a couple-three years back ......

Edited July 26, 2017 by Chicago Boy

[Johnny545]

13 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

Still a beautiful presenting book in my opinion.  1.8 or 3.0. Beautiful book to have in a blue label.  Wonder where that old cgc 1.8 blue with the top left cover piece missing is these days that was hanging around eBay forever at 12 k a couple-three years back ......

Was a 1.5 and it auctioned for $30K last summer.