CGC 9.2 with holes? just skip the piss match

[PovertyRow]

If I decided to punch holes into my Amazing Spidey #300 CGC 9.6, I highly doubt that it would come back a green label 9.6. I'm so sure of it, i'd put money on it.

 

Ahhh - light dawns on Marblehead (you have to know the East Coast to appreciate that! )

 

Anyway...having so little (aka nothing) to do with modern age since about 1985 I have to admit that you may be on to something.

 

Why not try Ask CGC? They actually finally answered my question about "Restoration Includes" - it took them a long while but they did. I feel if this is acceptable for older books it should be acceptable for newer ones. Agree there 100,000%!

 

...edited to replace "light damns" with "light dawns"

[Joanna]

I agree with POV on this one. Maybe the holes intersect the margins in the interior (that's actually what I'm far more interested in than the cover, since holes through story panels would wreck the reading of the book). If they were through the margins, then they wouldn't bother me a bit, and I could get an expensive book for cheap.

 

As for a modern book with the same defect, we don't know the answer. So go ahead and do your test. I'd acutally guess that it would get the same treatment. This bindery hole thing is a decision CGC has already made, so why toy with it via era? Just grade it like the others you've seen.

 

-- Joanna

[Arty]

I totally agree (with povertyrow). I'm glad that at least someone thinks in the same way. I tried to say something like that in my earlier post written in bad english.

[snizzenfixit]

Let's imagine that I have a Golden age key and it has a couple of gouges in the cover. If I line up a 3 hole punch just right I can punch it and make those gouges into holes. With the gouges the book cannot possibly grade 9.2 but with the holes punched into it, it can get a Qualified 9.2 Will the Qualified 9.2 sell for a higher price than the book with the gouged cover?

 

Phil

 

 

[PovertyRow]

I really think this book goes far beyond your "writing on the cover" or "coupon clipped" examples and is a serious, serious flaw that should be graded fairly without any voodoo CGC magic.

 

I have to disagree (yes, oh yes, I must! )

 

Again the conundrum comes down to two factors:

 

1) the book without that SINGLE defect would be graded much higher

 

2) the book WITH that single defect but otherwise much higher grade brings it into the realm of writing, marvel chipping, corner folds AND tan pages (all inclusive).

 

And structurally speaking, a true VF or NM book with binder holes is in a hell of a lot better shape overall than your average VG.

[Rickdogg]

"When you open up the door to letting hole-punched comics into Qualified, you really have trouble keeping anything out. If a comic with three large holes punched out through the ENTIRE BOOK is Qualified, what isn't?

 

I couldn't help but think of the philosophical "slippery slope" argument.

 

Although I do believe that books with MVS cut out should receive the green label. Bindery holes IMO are in a total different category similar to writing on covers since it detracts from the cover's appearance and IMO alters the grade drastically. If we allow writing on covers and holes to be allowed with "NM" books than we do fall down the "slippery slope." The argument of it being a certain grade w/o the defect is fallacious because we can argue that for any flaw then. If we allowed this CGC could also put a green label on a book with grader's notes that read, "NM 9.4 if it didn't have spine stress or creased corners." I think Overstreet did the right thing by downgrading books for cover flaws.

[comicinvestor-migration]

Let's imagine that I have a Golden age key and it has a couple of gouges in the cover. If I line up a 3 hole punch just right I can punch it and make those gouges into holes. With the gouges the book cannot possibly grade 9.2 but with the holes punched into it, it can get a Qualified 9.2 Will the Qualified 9.2 sell for a higher price than the book with the gouged cover?

 

That's one of the inherent problems with giving a Qualified grade to something with pieces of the cover missing, as it's impossible to say that it would have graded NM without the holes.

 

With a clipped coupon or missing centerfold, I agree with the Qualified grade somwhat, since the cover is intact and gradeable, but not otherwise.

[snizzenfixit]

CGC could also put a green label on a book with grader's notes that read, "NM 9.4 if it didn't have spine stress or creased corners

 

 

Phil

 

 

[Arty]

I will bet 10$ that your Amazing Spidey #300 CGC 9.6 (with punch holes) will come back a green label 9.6

 

Simply because CGC don't know how to grade this book under blue label. They don't have grading criterias for these unusual defects.

[Guest]

To better their grading I think someone should tell Steve about this. Maybe they would change this. They seem to be consistent in their grading but this hole punch 9.2 stuff is a HUGE mistake!

[lighthouse]

If I decided to punch holes into my Amazing Spidey #300 CGC 9.6, I highly doubt that it would come back a green label 9.6. I'm so sure of it, i'd put money on it.

 

I offered to test this theory earlier in the thread... I have a stack of 100 Ultimates 1 here. I'd be more than willing to 3-hole-punch a 9.8 copy and see what happens... Anybody willing to throw a dollar at the cause to find out?

 

 

[PovertyRow]

They seem to be consistent in their grading but this hole punch 9.2 stuff is a HUGE mistake!

 

I really do not get this. It is not a blue label 9.2. It is a green label 9.2. If someone does not know the difference they should not be buying cgc (jeeze! that from someone who usually does not buy gc? Oy!)

 

Now if some dillweed puts this 9.2 green label up on ebay without a scan or a mantion of the 9.2 then there could be cause for concern.

 

You know what CGC should do? Use a single alpha qualifier! A 9.R4 (R=restoration) an a 9.Q4 (Q=qualified).

 

Embedding the Q and the R within the grading would give someone recourse if it is advertised as a simple 9.4.

 

But I have absolutely NO argument about the Qualified concept. it is what it should be.

[snizzenfixit]

I have a stack of 100 Ultimates 1 here. I'd be more than willing to 3-hole-punch a 9.8 copy and see what happens

 

Hmmm, you just gave CGC a heads up though. Now they will be looking for that submission and then they can spin the grade however they want. Might as well just ask them to respond here probably.

 

Phil

 

 

[Rickdogg]

Here's a lesson I learned in VALID arguments. I'm sure clobberintime knows what I am talking about since he's a lawyer.

 

Argument #1

 

Premise: If covers of a comic book have extremely minor or no flaws at all, it can be considered NM/MT. (Valid argument)

Premise: If a book has flaws on the front and back covers, a comic is downgraded accordingly. (Valid Argument)

Statement: If a book has 3 big holes on the front and back cover it is not NM/MT. (Valid argument)

 

Argument #2

Premise: If covers of a comic book have extremely minor or no flaws at all, it can be considered NM/MT. (Valid Argument)

Premise: If a book has flaws on the front and back covers, a comic is downgraded accordingly. (Valid Argument)

Statement: If a book has 3 big holes on the front and back covers, it can be considered NM/MT. (Invalid Argument)

 

 

-Using philisophical logic reasoning the 2nd argument is fallacious and is therefore false.

[snizzenfixit]

Using philisophical logic reasoning the 2nd argument is fallacious and is therefore false.

 

Uhhh, OK. I am totally baffled by that post but I sure can't argue with it.

 

Phil

 

 

[lighthouse]

Well there's a few dozen different books that I have 100 HG copies of... I just figured Ultimates 1 would be cool... I could make it Powers 1 it really wouldn't matter...

 

And the fact is, they wouldn't spin the grade anyway... They couldn't afford the perception that the grading is anything but impartial. And they wouldn't have anything to gain from doing so on my silly Ultimates 1...

 

Personally I think it would come back Qualified 9.4 or better. The only reason I doubt it's a Q9.8 is that I am liable to put a spine stress or two in it while punching it...

[snizzenfixit]

Oh, Duh. Never mind. I thought they all said Valid. I just looked again and now I see the Invalid.

 

Phil

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Argument if someone does not know how to read and decipher a CGC label they should not be buying CGC.

[PovertyRow]

Might as well just ask them to respond here probably.

 

Already suggested that!

[Rickdogg]

Yup.

 

Basically an argument can only be considered valid if its premises and the statement following them are true. In this case, philosophical logic rules out that the statement "if it didn't have this flaw, then it would have gotten this grade " as being invalid. Therefore the whole argument is fallacious & invalid.