• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This is just STUPID

Started by comicinvestor-migration,

13 posts in this topic

scottish

scottish

Posted
Posted

Miscuts always confuse me. If a miscut is leaving overage (or more cover rather than less) while not a truly good thing is it that bad? I mean when a miscut hacks off a part of the cover that you know should be there then I agree there's a problem. In this example it seems that the back cover just has more book to love so-to-speak. wink.gif

 

Or are they viewed as a miscut is a miscut no matter how it looks?

 

I'm curious here, not trying to be contentious... wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ubiquiti

ubiquiti

Posted
Posted

I've seen waaay worse than that...

It is certainly bad when you have 1/8 inch of white at the bottom of the cover, but I've seen some slabbed silvers that look like the cover was almost printed diagonally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottish

scottish

Posted
Posted

This is why my sig line is so apt. My eyes are that of a 90 year old. frown.gif I would have to have a perfect issue to compare to this one in order to see the miscut. Pathetic I know, but I my grading skills are legendary so what can I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicinvestor-migration

comicinvestor-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here's an easy way to do it. Take a ruler and measure the top of the comic, then measure the bottom of the book. Compare the two numbers and round up due to the scan size.

 

My figures: 3.8" top, 4.2" bottom. Standard Silver Age is 7.5", so...

 

The actual, real-life difference between the top and bottom dimensions, would be app. 0.8", or quite noticeable in comic-terms.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blowout

blowout

Posted
Posted

that is a pretty bad miscut, i have seen worse but not on a cgc 9.6.

this is a real clear example of why cgc taking their grading notes off the label was A VERY BAD IDEA.

if this auction had a smaller scan of just the front cover (or no cover at all) you would definately not pick it up. in these instances you are relying on the quality of cgc's grading, and if i was the buyer of this i would feel badly let down by cgc. there is just no way these sorts of printing defects should be allowed in a cgc 9.6. and if they are, they should be noted on the label.

lets face most of the trade in cgc books goes on over the net, and the point of the grading service (or so i thought) was to give the buyer confidence in what he was getting. that is clearly not the case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gorgo

Gorgo

Posted
Posted

Looks like the leaning tower of pizza, I have seen worse. That X-Men #9 CGC 9.4 was by far the worst example I've yet to see. I understand a paper cutter gets dull blades and sometimes the positioning is off and the result is a slanted cut, but there should be a qualifier or maximum grae these books receive. I would assume that this would be a VF/NM at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

I've seen this specific issue miscut a BUNCH of times before which received the 9.0, 9.2, and 9.4 grades. There just seem to be certain months where most of the Marvels that ran off the presses were miscut.

 

The month that FF 25/Daredevil 1 came out was another month full of angled miscuts like this one; I rarely see copies of those two issues where the right side doesn't have an angled cut. Does anybody know if FF #67 came out the same month as this X-Men 40? FF 67 usually has the same kind of angle cut this one does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing