• 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.

Is giving a book like this a .5, a bit to harsh?

Started by Bat-Man,

40 posts in this topic

Wayne-Tec

Wayne-Tec

Posted
Posted
I've seen a few books like this in recent time. Given a .5 due to a detached Cover and 1st wrap.

 

Here's an example:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Batman-16-D-C-4-5-1943-CGC-Restored-Grade-5-/360306727196?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53e3f4591

 

Is it too harsh?

 

 

Low-grade affordable restored key GA Batman slabbed comic book...

 

I like it. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruce1971

Bruce1971

Posted
Posted
I've seen a few books like this in recent time. Given a .5 due to a detached Cover and 1st wrap.

 

Here's an example:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Batman-16-D-C-4-5-1943-CGC-Restored-Grade-5-/360306727196?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53e3f4591

 

Is it too harsh?

 

 

Wasn't that Superman #1 a .5, the one that was just sold and talked about on the boards? This one is a lot nicer than that. I would have expected a 1.0 since it seems to be all there.

 

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerKid

PokerKid

Posted
Posted

Seems too harsh, but with the lower grades I think it is a lot more likely people are truly buying the book and not the label. I have seen 2.0s I would be glad to have in my collection and others that I think look hideous. This one presents very nice for the grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Point Five

Point Five

Posted
Posted

Unless half the back cover's missing, the grade is too harsh. (shrug) Especially since a completely taped spine can grade out between 1.0-1.8. From the scan and label notes we have to go on, this one should squeak by as a 1.0.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat-Man

Bat-Man

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I believe it is missing the back cover completely (thumbs u

 

Could be, I asked him to post a BC.

 

 

But I have seen before a book (a high $ book) that had it's back cover, and front cover. But was still given a .5 due to the covers being detached and the first wrap being detached.

 

Is that a CGC rule, if the covers and the 1st wrap are detached its an automatic .5 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.tor

G.A.tor

Posted
Posted

if this is the same book I recall, there is no back cover... that said, this could be an entirely different book, but any "complete copy", detached or not, should not be less than 1.0 or so... to get a "poor" has to be missing "a lot" (like the tec 33 or missing back cover tec 31, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat-Man

Bat-Man

Posted
  • Author
Posted
if this is the same book I recall, there is no back cover... that said, this could be an entirely different book, but any "complete copy", detached or not, should not be less than 1.0 or so... to get a "poor" has to be missing "a lot" (like the tec 33 or missing back cover tec 31, etc)

 

 

I completely agree with this fact. Nothing complete, except a really really rough complete (Superman 1), should be less than a 1.0

 

But I do have one book in my collection, a high dollar book, that is complete and is of nice quality throughout but was given a .5 simply because the front and back cover are detached and the 1st wrap is detached.

 

Should I resub it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat-Man

Bat-Man

Posted
  • Author
Posted
if this is the same book I recall, there is no back cover... that said, this could be an entirely different book, but any "complete copy", detached or not, should not be less than 1.0 or so... to get a "poor" has to be missing "a lot" (like the tec 33 or missing back cover tec 31, etc)

 

 

I completely agree with this fact. Nothing complete, except a really really rough complete (Superman 1), should be less than a 1.0

 

But I do have one book in my collection, a high dollar book, that is complete and is of nice quality throughout but was given a .5 simply because the front and back cover are detached and the 1st wrap is detached.

 

Should I resub it?

 

Rick,

 

Here is a .5 that I own that I am puzzled by.

 

CGC .5 Notes: Cover detached and split, 1st wrap re-attached with glue.

 

Picture19.png

 

Picture18.png

 

Picture20.png

 

It has been de-slabbed, (before I bought it.) The interior is nice and fully complete with no missing pieces at all, and it is in nice solid condition. The covers are also in nice condition, besides the spine area.

 

On resto is the glue that was used (small dots) to connect the first wrap back to the interior.

 

So I cant understand why CGC would give it a .5 due to only the Covers and 1st wrap being detached. (shrug)

 

Book is now in a Fortress. I personally feel it's a Fair/Good (1.0-1.5) book

 

IMG_2245.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.tor

G.A.tor

Posted
Posted

 

Is that a CGC rule, if the covers and the 1st wrap are detached its an automatic .5 ?

 

Nope, I have a 2.5 in that condition.

has to be something else going on then, for it to get a .5 (shrug)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
if this is the same book I recall, there is no back cover... that said, this could be an entirely different book, but any "complete copy", detached or not, should not be less than 1.0 or so... to get a "poor" has to be missing "a lot" (like the tec 33 or missing back cover tec 31, etc)

 

 

I completely agree with this fact. Nothing complete, except a really really rough complete (Superman 1), should be less than a 1.0

 

But I do have one book in my collection, a high dollar book, that is complete and is of nice quality throughout but was given a .5 simply because the front and back cover are detached and the 1st wrap is detached.

 

Should I resub it?

 

Rick,

 

Here is a .5 that I own that I am puzzled by.

 

CGC .5 Notes: Cover detached and split, 1st wrap re-attached with glue.

 

Picture19.png

 

Picture18.png

 

Picture20.png

 

It has been de-slabbed, (before I bought it.) The interior is nice and fully complete with no missing pieces at all, and it is in nice solid condition. The covers are also in nice condition, besides the spine area.

 

On resto is the glue that was used (small dots) to connect the first wrap back to the interior.

 

So I cant understand why CGC would give it a .5 due to only the Covers and 1st wrap being detached. (shrug)

 

Book is now in a Fortress. I personally feel it's a Fair/Good (1.0-1.5) book

 

IMG_2245.jpg

 

Apparently, an "apparent" poor means it was a genuine poor until somebody put glue on the spine, which apparently nobody would've known about by looking at the glue or reading about the glue on the label, so the color of the label lets you know the grade was improved from poor to poor.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing