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

[Bat-Man]

 

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

 

Split covers I assume.

[cheetah]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the ridiculous case where CGC deducts more for the detached cover than they would for a detached cover that has been re-aatached with scotch tape? Anyone willing to tape their cover and first wrap back together and back onto the comic and resubmit?

[Bat-Man]

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Bat-Man]

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)

 

Interestingly enough this copy does have a BC.

 

I asked the seller to post a BC scan and it's there.

 

So besides my Tec 35 this Batman 16 is another example of a book being a .5 due to a detached cover and 1st wrap.

 

Very harsh grading.

[VintageComics]

Very harsh grading.

 

Alex, I think that when CGC grades a book a 0.5 there is more to the grade of a comic than how many pieces are missing are loose.

 

If the book feels like it's going to fall apart, then that will affect the grade. In the case of both of those 0.5 books, I'd be willing to be that the book feels floppy with no real support in the spine. Those chunks missing may not only affect the eye appeal, they'd affect the strength of the back bone of the book as well.

 

If the book feels like a rag in a case like this, it's likely not a harsh grade.

 

That's my

[Bat-Man]

Very harsh grading.

 

Alex, I think that when CGC grades a book a 0.5 there is more to the grade of a comic than how many pieces are missing are loose.

 

If the book feels like it's going to fall apart, then that will affect the grade. In the case of both of those 0.5 books, I'd be willing to be that the book feels floppy with no real support in the spine. Those chunks missing may not only affect the eye appeal, they'd affect the strength of the back bone of the book as well.

 

If the book feels like a rag in a case like this, it's likely not a harsh grade.

 

That's my

 

That's good insight. And that could very well be the case on the Bat 16. On the Tec 35 though it is not, the interior is nice and sturdy and the spine is strong. No floppiness at all. I've read through the book and it is sturdy and strong.

 

Chunks missing? Are you referring to the Bat 16 or the Tec 35?

 

The Tec 35 is missing on the cover some small pieces and the white areas at the front cover spine are from a tape pull. But those marks are only cover deep. They don't extend into the interior, the interior is complete and has no missing parts or pieces. There are no missing chunks of the book on the Tec 35.

[VintageComics]

Very harsh grading.

 

Alex, I think that when CGC grades a book a 0.5 there is more to the grade of a comic than how many pieces are missing are loose.

 

If the book feels like it's going to fall apart, then that will affect the grade. In the case of both of those 0.5 books, I'd be willing to be that the book feels floppy with no real support in the spine. Those chunks missing may not only affect the eye appeal, they'd affect the strength of the back bone of the book as well.

 

If the book feels like a rag in a case like this, it's likely not a harsh grade.

 

That's my

 

That's good insight. And that could very well be the case on the Bat 16. On the Tec 35 though it is not, the interior is nice and sturdy and the spine is strong. No floppiness at all. I've read through the book and it is sturdy and strong.

 

Chunks missing? Are you referring to the Bat 16 or the Tec 35?

 

The Tec 35 is missing on the cover some small pieces and the white areas at the front cover spine are from a tape pull. But those marks are only cover deep. They don't extend into the interior, the interior is complete and has no missing parts or pieces. There are no missing chunks of the book on the Tec 35.

 

Alex, instead of speculating why don't you call CGC and ask them why the books graded only a 0.5?

 

 

[Bat-Man]

Very harsh grading.

 

Alex, I think that when CGC grades a book a 0.5 there is more to the grade of a comic than how many pieces are missing are loose.

 

If the book feels like it's going to fall apart, then that will affect the grade. In the case of both of those 0.5 books, I'd be willing to be that the book feels floppy with no real support in the spine. Those chunks missing may not only affect the eye appeal, they'd affect the strength of the back bone of the book as well.

 

If the book feels like a rag in a case like this, it's likely not a harsh grade.

 

That's my

 

That's good insight. And that could very well be the case on the Bat 16. On the Tec 35 though it is not, the interior is nice and sturdy and the spine is strong. No floppiness at all. I've read through the book and it is sturdy and strong.

 

Chunks missing? Are you referring to the Bat 16 or the Tec 35?

 

The Tec 35 is missing on the cover some small pieces and the white areas at the front cover spine are from a tape pull. But those marks are only cover deep. They don't extend into the interior, the interior is complete and has no missing parts or pieces. There are no missing chunks of the book on the Tec 35.

 

Alex, instead of speculating why don't you call CGC and ask them why the books graded only a 0.5?

 

 

I already did, when I bought it a while back. (thumbs u

 

There notes where: Cover detached and split, first wrap detached and re-attached with glue. SA Apparent glue on first wrap. (All of which is also on the label)

 

That's really all I recall besides the norm, but I guess I could call them again and press further.

 

So that's why am asking the boards opinion. Isn't that a tad harsh to give it a .5

[VintageComics]

So that's why am asking the boards opinion. Isn't that a tad harsh to give it a .5

 

You can't grade a book through the holder. You have to hold it in your hand.

 

 

[Primetime]

Very harsh grading.

 

Alex, I think that when CGC grades a book a 0.5 there is more to the grade of a comic than how many pieces are missing are loose.

 

If the book feels like it's going to fall apart, then that will affect the grade. In the case of both of those 0.5 books, I'd be willing to be that the book feels floppy with no real support in the spine. Those chunks missing may not only affect the eye appeal, they'd affect the strength of the back bone of the book as well.

 

If the book feels like a rag in a case like this, it's likely not a harsh grade.

 

That's my

 

That's good insight. And that could very well be the case on the Bat 16. On the Tec 35 though it is not, the interior is nice and sturdy and the spine is strong. No floppiness at all. I've read through the book and it is sturdy and strong.

 

Chunks missing? Are you referring to the Bat 16 or the Tec 35?

 

The Tec 35 is missing on the cover some small pieces and the white areas at the front cover spine are from a tape pull. But those marks are only cover deep. They don't extend into the interior, the interior is complete and has no missing parts or pieces. There are no missing chunks of the book on the Tec 35.

 

Alex, instead of speculating why don't you call CGC and ask them why the books graded only a 0.5?

 

 

I already did, when I bought it a while back. (thumbs u

 

There notes where: Cover detached and split, first wrap detached and re-attached with glue. SA Apparent glue on first wrap. (All of which is also on the label)

 

That's really all I recall besides the norm, but I guess I could call them again and press further.

 

So that's why am asking the boards opinion. Isn't that a tad harsh to give it a .5

buy the book, not the label (thumbs u Your Tec 35 looks at least 1.0 to me Alex

[ashrael]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the ridiculous case where CGC deducts more for the detached cover than they would for a detached cover that has been re-aatached with scotch tape? Anyone willing to tape their cover and first wrap back together and back onto the comic and resubmit?

 

Yeah, sometimes logic isn't a strong point in grading

[Durden08]

 

Looks great in the fortress. Awesome book!

[Bat-Man]

So that's why am asking the boards opinion. Isn't that a tad harsh to give it a .5

 

You can't grade a book through the holder. You have to hold it in your hand.

 

 

But I've deslabbed it!

 

 

But seriously, I know what you mean. (thumbs u

[Point Five]

Very harsh grading.

 

Alex, I think that when CGC grades a book a 0.5 there is more to the grade of a comic than how many pieces are missing are loose.

 

If the book feels like it's going to fall apart, then that will affect the grade. In the case of both of those 0.5 books, I'd be willing to be that the book feels floppy with no real support in the spine. Those chunks missing may not only affect the eye appeal, they'd affect the strength of the back bone of the book as well.

 

If the book feels like a rag in a case like this, it's likely not a harsh grade.

 

That's my

 

That's good insight. And that could very well be the case on the Bat 16. On the Tec 35 though it is not, the interior is nice and sturdy and the spine is strong. No floppiness at all. I've read through the book and it is sturdy and strong.

 

Chunks missing? Are you referring to the Bat 16 or the Tec 35?

 

The Tec 35 is missing on the cover some small pieces and the white areas at the front cover spine are from a tape pull. But those marks are only cover deep. They don't extend into the interior, the interior is complete and has no missing parts or pieces. There are no missing chunks of the book on the Tec 35.

 

Alex, instead of speculating why don't you call CGC and ask them why the books graded only a 0.5?

 

 

I already did, when I bought it a while back. (thumbs u

 

There notes where: Cover detached and split, first wrap detached and re-attached with glue. SA Apparent glue on first wrap. (All of which is also on the label)

 

That's really all I recall besides the norm, but I guess I could call them again and press further.

 

So that's why am asking the boards opinion. Isn't that a tad harsh to give it a .5

From the photos & info you've given us, I'd consider this book a slam-dunk 1.0 at a minimum. And I happen to be something of an authority on .5s.

 

 

[Ze-man]

 

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

 

Split covers I assume.

 

Exactly right in regards to the Tec 35.

 

Typically a split cover always garners a .5 , with maybe a few sneaking up to 1.0 depending on the rest of the books overall condition.

 

Because a book with a split cover and first wrap is no longer really a comic book, it is pieces of a comic book.

 

That said, it is one terrific looking .5 , and a shame some much needed conservation would be viewed by many as the lowering the books value.

[rockman2008]

It's a real shame the Tec 35's previous owner didn't send the book in to have a pro perform some real conservation on it. The damage to the cover from the tape removal is inexcusable...and who knows what kind of glue was used to cause damage to the paper over time. I'd send it in to have proper conservation if you intend to keep it over the long haul.

 

As a reference point, I have a slabbed Tec 33 with a detached split cover that got a 1.0. The rest of the book is held together solidly. No glue or any work was done to it.

 

 

[bluechip]

Question is whether the grade is "harsh" or whether it's nearly pointless to have books like this graded.

 

This is an old, rare and important book.

 

I would say it would makes infiinitely more sense to assess this book than it does to assess a book fresh off the newsstand But, even if you feel it doesn't and they should simply be treated the same, it seems clear they're not.

 

A book fresh off the newsstand will get a much more thorough evaluation than this to differentiate it from other copies. The label of a brand new book will tell you if it has even the most tiny, infinitessimal differences between it and another one of its brethren that it shared a store shelf with only a few weeks ago.

 

Yet this book, which is vastly different and better than other copies of Tec 35 that I have seen has been given the worst possible grade. The same as if it were incomplete, the cover image completely obscured, the cover and pages brittle, etc. And, on top of that, it's labelled restored, as if it were improved from a lower grade, even though, as noted, that isn't possible.

 

 

 

[rockman2008]

 

Yet this book, which is vastly different and better than other copies of Tec 35 that I have seen has been given the worst possible grade. The same as if it were incomplete, the cover image completely obscured, the cover and pages brittle, etc. And, on top of that, it's labelled restored, as if it were improved from a lower grade, even though, as noted, that isn't possible.

 

 

My guess is CGC knocked it down for the ugly "amateur" resto-conservation.

[bluechip]

 

Yet this book, which is vastly different and better than other copies of Tec 35 that I have seen has been given the worst possible grade. The same as if it were incomplete, the cover image completely obscured, the cover and pages brittle, etc. And, on top of that, it's labelled restored, as if it were improved from a lower grade, even though, as noted, that isn't possible.

 

 

My guess is CGC knocked it down for the ugly "amateur" resto-conservation.

 

I don't know if that's why or not. If that were the case, it that wouldn't reflect the difference in this copy's appeal versus other copies, at least not as understood by the vast majority of people.

 

I could see doing that to a book if the "resto" meant the cover was so massively touched up that it might as well be an amateur piece of art. Then you're alerting the buyer that the cover image is mostly unoriginal, so it might as well be graded as if it was obscured. But that's not the case here.

 

 

 

 

 

[rockman2008]

I'm guessing the glue job (or the amount applied) might have knocked it down a shade. "Glue" seems to be the common theme between the Tec 35 and Bat 16. The tape removal resulting in the cover damage also didn't help.