9.6 MADNESS!!!

[MarkWoodcock]

This just showed up on ComicLink. It's an old blue label.

 

I guess it was during a "loose grading period". If I saw this raw I'd feel lucky to get a 9.2 since three of the four corners have problems and there must be something else wrong you can't see in the scan.

 

 

 

[Sal]

Three of those corners look to me like the kind of flaws that are either accentuated or created by the scan. ULC for instance, could be the gloss of the cover reflecting the scan bulb, and not colour loss

[bigfiver69]

No way in hell that's a 9.6, glossy case or not.

 

 

[namisgr]

There are a lot of high grade old label books out there that have roughed up corners, and it's worth considering that many of them may have traveled the globe either from show to show or from repeatedly changing hands, and got roughed up in the process.

[mysterio]

I've seen many a 9.6 with dinged spine corners. I've also seen 9.6 books with quality spine stress. This is why I don't generally chase 9.6 books, as I don't really fancy paying 3-4x 9.2 prices for what I may still think is a 9.2 book in many cases.

[Bunky Brian]

I've seen many a 9.6 with dinged spine corners. I've also seen 9.6 books with quality spine stress. This is why I don't generally chase 9.6 books, as I don't really fancy paying 3-4x 9.2 prices for what I may still think is a 9.2 book in many cases.

 

(thumbs u

[mysterio]

As they always say, buy the book and not the holder and you should never be disappointed. Just about any time I have regretted a comic purchase it was because I forgot that simple fact and chased a number on a slab. Buy books you like, regardless of what the slab says, and you can't go wrong. You probably won't overpay either.

[VintageComics]

Three of those corners look to me like the kind of flaws that are either accentuated or created by the scan. ULC for instance, could be the gloss of the cover reflecting the scan bulb, and not colour loss

 

Beat me to it. Hard to grade a comic properly from a scan, especially in that upper grade range where the smallest defect affects the grade but doesn't translate well in a picture.

 

 

[MarkWoodcock]

Beat me to it. Hard to grade a comic properly from a scan, especially in that upper grade range where the smallest defect affects the grade but doesn't translate well in a picture.

 

 

A picture doesn't record something that isn't there - for instance, there's no face of Elvis in the scan. However, there are issues with three of the four corners that have nothing to do with glare or the scan. Neither creates corner wear where there is none.

[paperheart]

the lower left corner is the only one that is of concern to me. i could see 9.6 when it was graded if that happened post grading. it's a 9.6, it isn't a 10.0. i've seen way worse examples of books in 9.6 slabs.

[VintageComics]

Three of those corners look to me like the kind of flaws that are either accentuated or created by the scan. ULC for instance, could be the gloss of the cover reflecting the scan bulb, and not colour loss

 

Beat me to it. Hard to grade a comic properly from a scan, especially in that upper grade range where the smallest defect affects the grade but doesn't translate well in a picture.

 

 

Actually, scanners can and do magnify (or even create) flaws that you don't see or notice in real life.

 

Scans are also very different from photographs. Photographs tend to better represent comic flaws in my experience.

 

I'm not saying that CGC doesn't go loose once in a while, they do. It's just impossible to accurately grade a book without actually having it in hand.

 

 

[VintageComics]

the lower left corner is the only one that is of concern to me. i could see 9.6 when it was graded if that happened post grading. it's a 9.6, it isn't a 10.0. i've seen way worse examples of books in 9.6 slabs.

 

Ditto. It's not a perfect book or it wouldn't "only" be a 9.6.

[rodan57]

Beat me to it. Hard to grade a comic properly from a scan, especially in that upper grade range where the smallest defect affects the grade but doesn't translate well in a picture.

 

 

A picture doesn't record something that isn't there - for instance, there's no face of Elvis in the scan. However, there are issues with three of the four corners that have nothing to do with glare or the scan. Neither creates corner wear where there is none.

 

 

[oakman29]

[tth2]

Scans are also very different from photographs. Photographs tend to better represent comic flaws in my experience.

I think photos tend to mask flaws.

[paperheart]

Scans are also very different from photographs. Photographs tend to better represent comic flaws in my experience.

I think photos tend to mask flaws.

 

heritage scans are brutal. megan fox is a 7.0 in a heritage scan.

[tth2]

Scans are also very different from photographs. Photographs tend to better represent comic flaws in my experience.

I think photos tend to mask flaws.

 

heritage scans are brutal. megan fox is a 7.0 in a heritage scan.

Whereas bangzoom`s collection looks like all white 9.8s from his photos.

[adamstrange]

Three of those corners look to me like the kind of flaws that are either accentuated or created by the scan. ULC for instance, could be the gloss of the cover reflecting the scan bulb, and not colour loss

 

Beat me to it. Hard to grade a comic properly from a scan, especially in that upper grade range where the smallest defect affects the grade but doesn't translate well in a picture.

 

 

Actually, scanners can and do magnify (or even create) flaws that you don't see or notice in real life.

 

Scans are also very different from photographs. Photographs tend to better represent comic flaws in my experience.

 

I'm not saying that CGC doesn't go loose once in a while, they do. It's just impossible to accurately grade a book without actually having it in hand.

 

I'm in complete agreement with Roy, much as it pains me to admit it.

 

I always compare my books to the scans and even scans of raw books, which are more reflective of the comic that scanned slabs, don't make it easy to grade. Scans can look better or worse than the book itself.