CGC 9.2 with holes? just skip the piss match

[Rickdogg]

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

 

The sad thing is, CGC is not always right. Philosophical logic even proved their grading practices to be invalid in this case The truth hurts sometimes. Man should I sell my books now? hahahaha

[PovertyRow]

since the statement is invalid

 

Actually this statement is not invalid. You KNOW what your average VG book looks like. To take a VF or NM book that has one single defect (and I am stressing here ONE single defect - if CGC goes beyond that I will protest till the llamas come home..."hai llamas!" - that brings it into the grade where chips, creases, writing, folds, staple stress etc are ALL allowed - and nothing is said to make this particular book stand out from the rest of the humble ones - then I say - well - well - dagnabbit - I don't know WHAT to say beyond Duck And Cover!

[comicinvestor-migration]

Actually the book in question has THREE very serious defects.

[Rickdogg]

LMFAO

[PovertyRow]

Actually the book in question has THREE very serious defects.

 

Well, it has Binder Holes...which implies multiple holes to find into a binder. If you want to use that argument you could say that a book with "Robert" written on the cover has six defects.

[Rickdogg]

I agree that the "normal" VG book is pretty beat up, but it acquired that grade through numerous flaws that are considered normal wear and tear. Holes or writing on the other hand are modifications IMO.

[Rickdogg]

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

 

Actually the statement is invalid...what are you talking about?

[comicinvestor-migration]

Seriously, just give it some thought.

 

Let's say a book had three equal corner creases on the top-left, top-right and bottom-right. Just because they are similar in appearance doesn't mean you'd grade them together as one defect.

 

I really don't see how three holes punched in a comic can be viewed as a single defect.

[PovertyRow]

Holes or writing on the other hand are modifications.

 

Actually anything beyond the arrival info is a modification (speaking as an AA collector). Creases, names on the cover, spine rolls, etc are reader modifications.

[comicinvestor-migration]

Well, it has Binder Holes...which implies multiple holes to find into a binder. If you want to use that argument you could say that a book with "Robert" written on the cover has six defects.

 

Well if Robert had taken scissors and cut R-O-B-E-R-T letters out of the entire comic, then I'd agree with you. Remember, we're talking about THREE totally different holes in THREE totally different locations (that run through the entire book), not semantics on how many times a a writer lifted the pen while transcribing his name.

[Rickdogg]

HEHEH, well since we threw them all into the same category any flaw should bring the grade down.

[PovertyRow]

I really don't see how three holes punched in a comic can be viewed as a single defect.

 

I think you meant that for me, CI? ANyway, as I say, if the name Robert is - and let me make it even plainer - printed on the cover, so tat because it is printed, eacxh leter is independent and does not touch another letter, would you say there are six defects - one for each independent letter?

 

And let me say - to CI and Rick and all the rest - this has been an amazing series of posts - no ragging - no crapola - just differing opinions being expressed. It makes me feel all cozy and ECish inside!

[Rickdogg]

Yup it is good so far.

[comicinvestor-migration]

Comparing three gaping holes in three different locations, to a printed name is not even close. One deletes three distinct parts of the original comic, while the other is a "tree falls in a forest" argument about whether Robert wrote or printed his name.

 

Unless Robert used an X-acto Blade to write his name, I don't see the comparison.

[PovertyRow]

Yup it is good so far.

 

Yup! It is! I fear though. Be afraid...be very afraid!

[PovertyRow]

Unless Robert used an X-acto Blade to write his name, I don't see the comparison.

 

The real bottom line is this...the book has been graded without the offending single defect - it has been given a different label color - it has had that single defect notated clearly on the label. Without that single defect the book could be a true NM. THAT is the reasoning behind Qualified and I will fight to the death in favor of iot - because it means that - without that single defect the bookj WOULD be VF or NM - and there ARE collectors out there that would have no problem at all with it.

 

To just glom it into all the worn, folded, written on, creased VGs? Well, I say here and now if CGC did THAT, there would be folks arguing from the other side.

 

If the defects are stated - if the label has changed - I really have no clue about why the disention. If we can have an "Apparant Grade" with restoration why not a "Qualified Grade" with a single telling defect? I truly believe that the collector will be sharp enough to come to a decision based on their observations.

[comicinvestor-migration]

Sure, we just disagree that THREE distinct holes affecting three separate areas of the comic should come under the umbrella of a single defect.

 

I don't usually mind the CGC Qualified grade, but in this case I think it's used improperly. I'd feel the same way if there were three coupons clipped.

[Rickdogg]

CI,

 

I'd have to disagree about 3 coupons clipped out since it is the inside and is hard to use it as an analogy. Then again I really don't believe in the green label since any flaw should bring the grade of a book down IMO.

[Joanna]

Ricky,

 

You left something important out of your philosophical argument. Add "Universal blue label" to both statements, and yes, the second one is invalid. But put Universal blue label on the first one, and Qualified Green Label on the second one, and you have two different categories of books. The varying CGC labels makes them not identical. The grade is the same, but the label isn't and that makes all the difference in the world.

 

Are you anti-qualified proponents (not a dig, just needed a way to address everyone) saying that you think a qualified label with this defect is equivalent to a blue label in value? That the mere "9.2" is enough to force you to purchase a comic with a defect you dislike? Then why all the fuss about purple labels? They, too, should be getting identical dollars to blue labels because they have a grade on them.

 

Obviously, this is specious. No one is foolish enough to think that a Universal label 9.2 and an extensive restoration purple label 9.2 and a qualified binder hole 9.2 are equal in value and appeal. The first is a pure 9.2, the second a reconstructed 9.2, the third is qualified by having a large defect 9.2. At least with the qualified label, you can get a better feel for the overall quality of the book, and you're told of the defect. The buyer is now duly informed.

 

-- Joanna

[PovertyRow]

I don't usually mind the CGC Qualified grade, but in this case I think it's used improperly. I'd feel the same way if there were three coupons clipped.

 

I think our differnce lies in our percpetion of the bindery holes. The fact they can umbrella them under a single concept - i.e. "bindery holes" implies they are a "single purpose" defect..like a six letter printed name. Especially considering that the concept of bound comics, where we sometimes find a number of high grade books all with the three-hole-punch placed in a single binder, to be not uncommon. In the days when this was done it was considered acceptable. Now it is not. But I will tell ya, after having viewed a number of those bound books I was consistently impressed with the richness of inks, the gloss, the lack of defects (beyond the punch) and the page quality. Some of the bound books I have seen represent the best of any particular issue I have seen.

 

So that is where I am coming from with the 3-hole punch being a single defect - I liken that to a bound book that has been removed from the binding.