A little confused on the qualified thing...

[seanfingh]

I'm contractually obligated to once again point out that the Green label is stupid.

 

What's stupid to me is that you can request a blue label. Seems to me, there shouldn't be a choice. It's either graded blue or green.

 

If you can request a blue label, what's stopping anyone from requesting a green label? They may prefer that their book that would be a 4.0 but for defect X would actually get the much higher number on the green label. Has anyone ever brought this up? (And no, since someone will probably jump all over this, I did not do a search before asking this.)

 

It doesn't work that way - CGC decides what defects allow for a qualified label, not you. So whilst you can request a blue label (and subsequent grade drop) instead of the green label, you're not able to do the opposite.

 

Yeah it would be sweet to say. "Ignore all the damage on this POS, pretend it is not there and give me a qualified 9.8."

 

Yeah, but that gets back to the arguments that people raised about CGC giving out GLODS in the first place. The grade should be the grade inclusive of all defects, not a fantasy land grade a book would get IF. Qualified labels have always seemed arbitrary to me, and seem to cause more problems than they solve.

 

That has not been my experience, but I have not been seeking out GLODS. The only one I ever got by subbing myself was a GLOD because of a married cover that I did not even look for, let alone detect. I have seen (and own) several that are GLOD because of unwitnessed signatures, and I have seen several that were on pristine books that had blown staples. That is the extent of my experience with them, and it is easy to tell and to understand the defects and the reasoning for the GLOD.

 

Now I will wait for Sal to internet falcon groin punch me . . .

[VintageComics]

I also think that the GLOD is a brilliant idea but it does give an incomplete picture.

 

I've got my anti-Sal-groin-punch-jock strap on.

 

 

[Cimm]

I just bought a GLOD, with replaced staples... Bring it, Sal!

[TheLiamSturgess]

I'm contractually obligated to once again point out that the Green label is stupid.

 

What's stupid to me is that you can request a blue label. Seems to me, there shouldn't be a choice. It's either graded blue or green.

 

If you can request a blue label, what's stopping anyone from requesting a green label? They may prefer that their book that would be a 4.0 but for defect X would actually get the much higher number on the green label. Has anyone ever brought this up? (And no, since someone will probably jump all over this, I did not do a search before asking this.)

 

It doesn't work that way - CGC decides what defects allow for a qualified label, not you. So whilst you can request a blue label (and subsequent grade drop) instead of the green label, you're not able to do the opposite.

 

Yeah it would be sweet to say. "Ignore all the damage on this POS, pretend it is not there and give me a qualified 9.8."

 

I actually saw somebody do this a little while back - a guy was listing a bunch of raw SA books on ebay that had all suffered heavy water damage, and were warped, faded & nasty. The condition was listed as "NM (qualified)" :doh:

 

Best. Fail. EVER!

[PovertyRow]

 

And therein lies why I am not personally fond of HG books with "one major flaw" landing in a Qualified label. A book with a 4" tear should be graded as a book with a 4" tear. Period.

 

Hello Kenny! This will be a gradual set of responses over a several daze. (whopp dee do!!)

 

So the first thing I shall ask: How would you grade a book with a 4" tear? (we will assume on the cover?)

[Cimm]

 

And therein lies why I am not personally fond of HG books with "one major flaw" landing in a Qualified label. A book with a 4" tear should be graded as a book with a 4" tear. Period.

 

Hello Kenny! This will be a gradual set of responses over a several daze. (whopp dee do!!)

 

So the first thing I shall ask: How would you grade a book with a 4" tear? (we will assume on the cover?)

 

If it is otherwise 9.2+... the tear would bring it down to a 5.0, IMO

[mysterio]

I'm contractually obligated to once again point out that the Green label is stupid.

 

What's stupid to me is that you can request a blue label. Seems to me, there shouldn't be a choice. It's either graded blue or green.

 

If you can request a blue label, what's stopping anyone from requesting a green label? They may prefer that their book that would be a 4.0 but for defect X would actually get the much higher number on the green label. Has anyone ever brought this up? (And no, since someone will probably jump all over this, I did not do a search before asking this.)

 

It doesn't work that way - CGC decides what defects allow for a qualified label, not you. So whilst you can request a blue label (and subsequent grade drop) instead of the green label, you're not able to do the opposite.

 

Yeah it would be sweet to say. "Ignore all the damage on this POS, pretend it is not there and give me a qualified 9.8."

 

Yeah, but that gets back to the arguments that people raised about CGC giving out GLODS in the first place. The grade should be the grade inclusive of all defects, not a fantasy land grade a book would get IF. Qualified labels have always seemed arbitrary to me, and seem to cause more problems than they solve.

 

That has not been my experience, but I have not been seeking out GLODS. The only one I ever got by subbing myself was a GLOD because of a married cover that I did not even look for, let alone detect. I have seen (and own) several that are GLOD because of unwitnessed signatures, and I have seen several that were on pristine books that had blown staples. That is the extent of my experience with them, and it is easy to tell and to understand the defects and the reasoning for the GLOD.

 

I can see the use of a GLOD for a hidden defect, like a clipped coupon (why replaced staples wouldn't warrant a normal PLOD isn't clear to me, because that sounds like restoration), but for a defect that is apparent when looking at the cover (like the aforementioned 5" tear) I don't see the value of a GLOD providing a fantasy land grade. On a married cover, cleaned staples, missing MVS, etc, the book looks like an 8.0 or whatever except for that hidden or non-apparent defect. But when the defect is apparent the value of a GLOD grade escapes me.

[TheLiamSturgess]

I agree with the replaced staples warranting a PLOD. I also agree about the large tear affecting the grade (and not getting a green label).

 

I personally think GLOD's should be reserved for unwitnessed sigs (primarily) and popped staples. Any other defect should be just that: a defect.

[mysterio]

I agree with the replaced staples warranting a PLOD. I also agree about the large tear affecting the grade (and not getting a green label).

 

I personally think GLOD's should be reserved for unwitnessed sigs (primarily) and popped staples. Any other defect should be just that: a defect.

 

I am also fine with unwitnessed signatures in GLODs, but why are popped staples a special defect warranting special status? This has never been clear to me. They are visible defects even in a slab, and ought to be downgraded accordingly in a blue label. A popped staple is a partially detached cover. The partially detached cover may be pretty, but no different than a pretty cover with a 5" tear.

[wee_s2e-migration]

I personally think GLOD's should be reserved for unwitnessed sigs (primarily)...

 

Where would you draw the line? Would it only be for known artists/writer? Should the Larson books get a GLOD? (I know Lamont didn't write his name on them) The Marvel # 1 Pay Copy? Would you change CGC's policy of giving unwitnessed interior sigs a Blue label?

[mysterio]

I personally think GLOD's should be reserved for unwitnessed sigs (primarily)...

 

Where would you draw the line? Would it only be for known artists/writer? Should the Larson books get a GLOD? (I know Lamont didn't write his name on them) The Marvel # 1 Pay Copy? Would you change CGC's policy of giving unwitnessed interior sigs a Blue label?

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think that any of the examples you raised are problematic as historical exceptions. The Larson writing is the way you identify the pedigree (the Church notations are in the same category) and are isolated to those specific books. I doubt that anyone would argue that a Larson signature or Church numbers are a detraction. The Marvel #1 pay copy or the Action #1 court copy that just auctioned present a similar case, unique historical examples (that also have solid provenance for legitimacy). Unwitnessed creator signatures are neither unique or historical in nature, and writing of this nature would be considered a defect so a GLOD is appropriate. As for the interior signatures, CGC typically notes interior defects on a blue label, so an unwitnessed interior signature (which CGC technically considers a defect) noted on a blue label is consistent with their policy.

[Shark]

Without hunting through pages and pages of posts, I have a question. I may have asked this before but don't remember the answer right now. I have a nice copy of Avengers #48 that was manufactured with only one (the bottom) staple. The top staple is missing and there are no holes in the book indicating that one was ever there. Would this get the green qualified label with a note for a manufacturing error?

[Bomber-Bob]

Without hunting through pages and pages of posts, I have a question. I may have asked this before but don't remember the answer right now. I have a nice copy of Avengers #48 that was manufactured with only one (the bottom) staple. The top staple is missing and there are no holes in the book indicating that one was ever there. Would this get the green qualified label with a note for a manufacturing error?

 

No, it would get a Blue Label.

[wee_s2e-migration]

I personally think GLOD's should be reserved for unwitnessed sigs (primarily)...

 

Where would you draw the line? Would it only be for known artists/writer? Should the Larson books get a GLOD? (I know Lamont didn't write his name on them) The Marvel # 1 Pay Copy? Would you change CGC's policy of giving unwitnessed interior sigs a Blue label?

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think that any of the examples you raised are problematic as historical exceptions. The Larson writing is the way you identify the pedigree (the Church notations are in the same category) and are isolated to those specific books. I doubt that anyone would argue that a Larson signature or Church numbers are a detraction. The Marvel #1 pay copy or the Action #1 court copy that just auctioned present a similar case, unique historical examples (that also have solid provenance for legitimacy).

 

So you'd draw the line at historical exceptions? That's reasonable to have some exceptions. Would you consider a name written by 8 year old Sally Smith an "unwitnessed signature"?

 

Unwitnessed creator signatures are neither unique or historical in nature, and writing of this nature would be considered a defect so a GLOD is appropriate. As for the interior signatures, CGC typically notes interior defects on a blue label,

 

They do? They started putting grading notes back on the slabs?

 

so an unwitnessed interior signature (which CGC technically considers a defect) noted on a blue label is consistent with their policy.

 

I didn't think they consdered it a defect so much as they are saying "we don't know who signed this so we are not authenticating the sig". I thought that's why books with Sally Smith's name on the cover got a Blue label, and books with sigs by famous artists/writers received GLODs. Do you think they downgrade more for a sig by some no-name collector than a sig on the cover that says "Jack Kirby"? Same amount of downgrade?

[wee_s2e-migration]

Without hunting through pages and pages of posts, I have a question. I may have asked this before but don't remember the answer right now. I have a nice copy of Avengers #48 that was manufactured with only one (the bottom) staple. The top staple is missing and there are no holes in the book indicating that one was ever there. Would this get the green qualified label with a note for a manufacturing error?

 

No, it would get a Blue Label.

 

Right, CGC doesn't downgrade for manufacturing errors (i.e., they don't care about eye appeal). That's why you see 9.6s with horrible miswraps.

[TheLiamSturgess]

Without hunting through pages and pages of posts, I have a question. I may have asked this before but don't remember the answer right now. I have a nice copy of Avengers #48 that was manufactured with only one (the bottom) staple. The top staple is missing and there are no holes in the book indicating that one was ever there. Would this get the green qualified label with a note for a manufacturing error?

 

No, it would get a Blue Label.

 

Right, CGC doesn't downgrade for manufacturing errors (i.e., they don't care about eye appeal). That's why you see 9.6s with horrible miswraps.

 

True, but wouldn't it be a different case for these? Seems like a legitimate defect to me.

[Bosco685]

All I know is I am perfectly okay with qualified labels when it comes to previously signed books.

 

1 of only 3 to receive a 9.8 grade, and otherwise I would still be hunting for a copy or paying $500 like someone did here the previous month for a universal label copy.

 

I'll go the qualified route and save myself a large bag of cash in the end.

[Hibou]

Here is something I thought about but I'm not sure of the procedure...

 

Say, for instance, you submit a very nice copy of X-men 14 (like in the 7.0 range) but there is a panel cut out from one of the pages.

 

What if CGC notified the owner of the book before the final grade was given and gave them a choice of a Universal Blue at actual grade or the Qualified Green at the perceived grade?

 

Is this just naive in thinking... would everyone obviously take the higher grade?

 

[mysterio]

So you'd draw the line at historical exceptions? That's reasonable to have some exceptions. Would you consider a name written by 8 year old Sally Smith an "unwitnessed signature"?

 

Unwitnessed creator signatures are neither unique or historical in nature, and writing of this nature would be considered a defect so a GLOD is appropriate. As for the interior signatures, CGC typically notes interior defects on a blue label,

 

They do? They started putting grading notes back on the slabs?

 

Something written by 8 year old Sally Smith is a defect. Signatures on the pay copy of Marvel Comics #1 could technically be termed defects, but I don't think that anyone here would have a problem recognizing them as historical exceptions that are quite different than Sally Smith laying claim to her comic by writing her name on it. Does this leave gray area? Of course it does, but there is a difference between creator signatures and scrawlings of a random kid.

 

Noting an interior unwitnessed signature on the blue label is not a "grading note" but acknowledgement of an interior issue that may affect grade and is worth knowing. As for noting things on the blue labels, there are a ton of examples of this. How many times have you seen a note like "3 pieces of tape inside cover"?You don't have to look hard at all to find notes like "Stan Lee '76 written on first page in marker" for example. (I borrowed this photo from the AF #15 club page.) Check my example of the DD #1 below for more blue label notes.

 

 

 

[mysterio]

so an unwitnessed interior signature (which CGC technically considers a defect) noted on a blue label is consistent with their policy.

 

I didn't think they consdered it a defect so much as they are saying "we don't know who signed this so we are not authenticating the sig". I thought that's why books with Sally Smith's name on the cover got a Blue label, and books with sigs by famous artists/writers received GLODs. Do you think they downgrade more for a sig by some no-name collector than a sig on the cover that says "Jack Kirby"? Same amount of downgrade?

 

Writing on the cover is writing on the cover, so technically they would downgrade writing that said "Jack Kirby" as much as they would downgrade Sally Smith. The point of the GLOD is to treat that unwitnessed creator signature differently than a random bit of writing like Sally Smith would produce. IIRC, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, they typically put something like "name written on cover" or "name written on first page" if they either don't know who signed it or don't think it is a legitimate creator signature but CGC will put "Stan Lee written on cover" or "Jack Kirby written on first page" if they think the signature is legitimate but still can't authenticate it. Take this eBay auction for example, with a pretty bad Stan Lee signature on it (Notes: Date stamp on cover. Name written on cover in pen). If this is a boardie's book please advise...

 

Daredevil #1 in a blue holder with "Stan Lee" signature on front cover

 

This is a better looking copy than the 6.5 it got, but that writing on the cover probably killed it.