high grade is not fun anymore

[Timely]

JiveTurkey, have you even looked at the Marvel 1? here's a link. http://www.jp-themint.com/detail_comics.cfm?comics_id=41

If you believe it's a VG I'll take every VG you own and pay you double guide for your troubles.

 

Speaking of ridiculous statements.

 

Getting back to reality for a moment, let's say I had a Key Golden Age comic that "looked" 9.0 from the outside but had a child's writing scrawled throughout the book. What would you be willing to pay, compared to a clean 9.0?

 

Should CGC give my comic a 9.0 grade as well, as the precedent has been set that writing on the inside doesn't affect the grade?

 

Hasn't anyone thought that maybe if the book had no writing CGC would have graded the damn thing a 9.2!?!

 

Okay, let's say I had a Key Golden Age comic that "looked" 9.2 from the outside but had a child's writing scrawled throughout the book. If CGC graded it a 9.0, what would you be willing to pay, compared to a clean CGC 9.0?

 

Should CGC give my "look 9.2 with writing" comic a CGC 9.0 grade as well, as the precedent has been set that writing on the inside doesn't affect the grade, outside of a possible 0.2 drop?

 

If you want to talk about childs writing going all through a book, let's talk about a real situation. The Recil Macon copies have loads of writing in the pages and on the covers (interiors too!). My Superman #8 had his name on it about 6 times throughout the book, along with some other writings. PCE graded the book NM back in the day. As long as the writing is not defacing I have no problems with it.

 

Timely

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

If you believe it's a VG I'll take every VG you own and pay you double guide for your troubles. Let's be rational and not make rediculous statements, it cheapens your arguement.

 

I never argued that it wasn't a 9.0 structurally, I was referring to the original article in Overstreet that called it a VG because of the writing. Apparently, that original opinion of the book didn't hold up if the book got a VF+ grade when it came to auction, and now is an accepted 9.0 by the grading gods. However, the point is the same..the book has been the benefactor of preferential treatment that few other copies would have gotten.

 

If you don't agree, feel free to crack one of your 9.2+ high grade gems, scribble on the cover and interiors, send it to Sarasota and let's see if it comes back only .2 lower.

[lou_fine]

Ive stated before that I used to argue that the census is totally unreliable as a guide to scarcity so far. I have many many high grade books accumulated over the years, and since there are a bunch of collectors like me around the country who do not get our books graded, I shuddered to think what will happen to the census when we do.

 

BUT! For those of you who nodded and said "thats me too" .. do yourself a favor. Go downstairs or to mommas house or to the bank vault and take another look at your treasures. You will see that, nice as they are, 98% of them JUST ARENT GONNA BLOW THE CENSUS UP!!! Ill bet you that the further back you go, and especially for keys, there just ARENT a lot of 9.4s out there!!! Im talking about Marvel Keys through 1963. And DCs too, which will IMO end up at most half of Marvels numbers. Sure there are lots of Bethlehems and WMs etc still to surface in a slab, and these will yield a lot of 9.2s and 9.0s, but 9.4s and 9.6s??? I dont think so.

 

As for later SIlver and especially Bronze...well, look out! The same is true IMO but those numbers will swell appreciably. But keep in mind, a 9.4 is a very very nice looking comic and doesnt allow an awful lot of wear and tear. Back in the day we never saw all that many copies in such nice shape. What makes some people think they will suddenly appear?? It used to be that wild prices brought them out. Well, prices couldnt be any wilder than the past 2 years...where are they?

 

Somebody please take me up on my "challenge" - - look at your prized early SA specimens honestly and tell us what grade they are IN TODAY'S EYES!!! Not the grade you bought them in....

 

Im not the biggest CGC fan, but I have grown to appreciate the rarity of super HG books more than ever through their super tight grading (even allowing for their mistakes and flaws, etc)

 

Aman;

 

I am starting to lean towards your point of view a bit. Although there may not be tons of HG books out there, I still strongly believe there are more than what you may think. Case in point, you yourself say that you have not yet had your books graded. I am sure that there are a lot of other collectors out there like you and me.

 

Like a lot of collectors, there is no reason to get your books graded unless you are planning to sell them. I'll leave this until the last possible second because once a book gets slabbed, it becomes less of a book and more of a commodity from my point of view because you can no longer feel, smell, or read the book. IMHO

 

BTW, took your advice and look at some of the books in my collection. I think they are just as nice or even nicer than the dozen which I had forwarded to Manning for auction as a personal test of the market. FYI, all of those books were 9.2 to 9.6 unrestored GA books. As a result, I feel pretty confident that I still have some 9.4's and 9.6's especially since CGC seems to have loosened up their grading on GA books based upon reviewing recent Heritage catalogues.

 

Now if I possibly have 9.4's and 9.6's from the late 30's and early 40's, I am sure other collectors should have some from the early 60's (even the keys). It's just that there's no reason for a lot of these collectors to have them graded at this point in time.

[FFB]

Thank you, Timely, this is exactly what I thought it was going to look like (I had never seen the book before). I agree that it was accurately graded structurally. The writing is noted on the grading notes, and clearly not much if anything was deducted for it. As this writing has its own historical importance (beyond creator autographs or an owner's name written on it, which the OVERSTREET GUIDE ITSELF says should not be considered a defect below 9.9 condition) , I have no problem with a grade of 9.0 accompanied by graders notes indicating the writing. I think the pay notations should be afforded similar treatment to an owner's name being written on the cover, as they are lightly penciled and do not detract greatly from the structural beauty of the book. It would do a disservice to that book to call it a VG. While I believe that one could argue that the book should get a green label, I think that it is just as reasonable to give it a blue label, with appropriate notations.

 

Exactly right. If it was graded as a VG+ 4.5, but someone still was willing to pay a premium BECAUSE it was historically important and unique, then there would be no problem. The book should be looked at more like original art because of its uniqueness...but by every accepted and long-held grading criteria, its still no better then a freakin' VG!

 

JiveTurkey, have you even looked at the Marvel 1? here's a link. http://www.jp-themint.com/detail_comics.cfm?comics_id=41

If you believe it's a VG I'll take every VG you own and pay you double guide for your troubles. Let's be rational and not make rediculous statements, it cheapens your arguement.

 

Structurally it's a 9.0, visually it may be a 8.5, 8.0, whatever. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

Timely

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think that CGC does a good job, but the people who work there are not infallible. They will miss stuff occasionally and every time I've seen them be presented with evidence that they missed something, they have gone out of their way to do right by the person who was harmed by the missed call. This is the kind of thing that engenders trust in the hobby, and will go a long way toward easing concerns over the occasional mistake.

 

CGC is making a mistake by failing to define cleaning and pressing as Restoration.

[FFB]

I agree with you -- but to be clear, they only consider "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly to be "nonrestoration." And yes, I still think this is the wrong tack to take.

 

I think that CGC does a good job, but the people who work there are not infallible. They will miss stuff occasionally and every time I've seen them be presented with evidence that they missed something, they have gone out of their way to do right by the person who was harmed by the missed call. This is the kind of thing that engenders trust in the hobby, and will go a long way toward easing concerns over the occasional mistake.

 

CGC is making a mistake by failing to define cleaning and pressing as Restoration.

[fantastic_four]

Hasn't anyone thought that maybe if the book had no writing CGC would have graded the damn thing a 9.2!?!

 

Borock claimed he did take off for the writing, which infers he thought it was at least a 9.2 without it.

[fantastic_four]

I agree with you -- but to be clear, they only consider "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly to be "nonrestoration." And yes, I still think this is the wrong tack to take.

 

Do you disagree with it in principle, or in practice? I haven't heard them explain why they don't consider it restoration, but I figure it's because you can't prove those techniques were intentionally done. In other words, with respect to restoration, they consider a book to be innocent until proven guilty via verifiable forensic evaluation techniques, but none exist for those procedures.

[lou_fine]

I agree with you -- but to be clear, they only consider "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly to be "nonrestoration." And yes, I still think this is the wrong tack to take.

 

Do you disagree with it in principle, or in practice? I haven't heard them explain why they don't consider it restoration, but I figure it's because you can't prove those techniques were intentionally done. In other words, with respect to restoration, they consider a book to be innocent until proven guilty via verifiable forensic evaluation techniques, but none exist for those procedures.

 

This is something else that worries me. Does this mean that once CGC acquires the technology to consistently detect "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly, they will then consider this to be resoration and apply the dreaded PLOD to these books. Only reason that I bring this up is that over the years, the definition of restoration seems to change according to the ability to detect it.

[Aman619]

...and why shouldnt it? If a book has had work it is better that it be detectable. Once there are no more secret techniques that only a few people know how to do, we can all work to try to agree on what IS and ISNT "PLOD bad restoration".

[lou_fine]

...and why shouldnt it? If a book has had work it is better that it be detectable. Once there are no more secret techniques that only a few people know how to do, we can all work to try to agree on what IS and ISNT "PLOD bad restoration".

 

I think we are both saying the same thing here. Buyers should be very careful because even though they may be buying blue label books now, they may in fact be coming back with PLOD's upon future resubmission.

[blowout]

Buyers should be very careful because even though they may be buying blue label books now, they may in fact be coming back with PLOD's upon future resubmission.

 

The question is though, how do they go about being careful when even the 'experts' can't detect the restoration?

[fantastic_four]

This is something else that worries me. Does this mean that once CGC acquires the technology to consistently detect "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly, they will then consider this to be resoration and apply the dreaded PLOD to these books.

 

I've been pondering this for a while, and I'm beginning to think it's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of intent, which is why I used the "innocent until proven guilty" metaphor to compare it to legal trials. When one person shoots another, how do you know whether it was self-defense or murder? You usually can't tell just by looking at the body of the person who got shot; you have to also examine the murder weapon, scene of the crime, relationship of the shooter to the victim, or other environmental variables.

 

When someone sends a comic to CGC, how do they know whether the pressing was from the comic being at the bottom of a comic stack versus specifically being placed into a book press? I don't know that there's a way to determine that just by looking at the comic alone. Intent seems exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to determine, and it's intent (greed) that has everyone's panties in a wad about restoration these days.

[Aman619]

I dont have a problem with home pressing either by stacks of books or with piles of encyclopedias. As you say, INTENT plays an important role. Im unsure whether a collector or dealer shoul dbe 'able ' to use a pressing machine at home for flattening books, though. But this does seem like spitting hairs. - -if yore gonna do it, do it right.

 

It seems to me that the biggest issue relating to presing books for better grades is the potential IMPERMANENCE of the improvement. If a spine roll is successgully pressed out and the book is slabbed, wil it eventually spring back to its roled shape, and then, obviously no longer earn th egrade on its slab. THIS is troublsome...but - - Im not sure if this is what really happens. Has anyone ever done any tests? We're mot talking about a metal with a shape memory that it wants to revert to. If anything, the shape it desires would be the original flat UNFOLDED comic itself as the papers were formed into flat sheets and then force folded. The spine should seek to open fully, reveresing the original "pressing/folding it got.

 

That was a tangent... sorry. Anyway, Who can really say FOR SURE thata pressed book will not always be the comics new final shape in a slab?

[garthgantu]

This is something else that worries me. Does this mean that once CGC acquires the technology to consistently detect "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly, they will then consider this to be resoration and apply the dreaded PLOD to these books.

 

I've been pondering this for a while, and I'm beginning to think it's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of intent, which is why I used the "innocent until proven guilty" metaphor to compare it to legal trials. When one person shoots another, how do you know whether it was self-defense or murder? You usually can't tell just by looking at the body of the person who got shot; you have to also examine the murder weapon, scene of the crime, relationship of the shooter to the victim, or other environmental variables.

 

When someone sends a comic to CGC, how do they know whether the pressing was from the comic being at the bottom of a comic stack versus specifically being placed into a book press? I don't know that there's a way to determine that just by looking at the comic alone. Intent seems exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to determine, and it's intent (greed) that has everyone's panties in a wad about restoration these days.

 

To me, this is a key issue... does CGC in fact KNOW that the books they're giving Blue labels were pressed and cleaned? They claim not to know, right? It just seems odd to me that the line of demarcation between Blue and PLOD also lies along the line of "detectable" versus "undetectable"... or is it the same as the line between "intentional" and "unintentional" ? These are the kinds of things CGC needs to make clear, I think, because if it's the "detectable vs. undetectable" line that's being used, this seems very likely to change over time...

[FFB]

Garth:

 

I believe that Steve B. has been on record a few times in these forums as saying that the determining factor between "restoration" and "acceptable pressing" is whether the book is disassembled. Disassembly is typically identified by the position of the staples relative to the original staple marks on the centerfold of the book. If the staples have been removed, the book is given the PLOD. If staple removal is not detected and there's no other evidence of disassembly, then CGC does not consider "pressing" to be restoration, even if they know that it has occurred.

 

This is something else that worries me. Does this mean that once CGC acquires the technology to consistently detect "dry" cleaning and pressing without disassembly, they will then consider this to be resoration and apply the dreaded PLOD to these books.

 

I've been pondering this for a while, and I'm beginning to think it's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of intent, which is why I used the "innocent until proven guilty" metaphor to compare it to legal trials. When one person shoots another, how do you know whether it was self-defense or murder? You usually can't tell just by looking at the body of the person who got shot; you have to also examine the murder weapon, scene of the crime, relationship of the shooter to the victim, or other environmental variables.

 

When someone sends a comic to CGC, how do they know whether the pressing was from the comic being at the bottom of a comic stack versus specifically being placed into a book press? I don't know that there's a way to determine that just by looking at the comic alone. Intent seems exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to determine, and it's intent (greed) that has everyone's panties in a wad about restoration these days.

 

To me, this is a key issue... does CGC in fact KNOW that the books they're giving Blue labels were pressed and cleaned? They claim not to know, right? It just seems odd to me that the line of demarcation between Blue and PLOD also lies along the line of "detectable" versus "undetectable"... or is it the same as the line between "intentional" and "unintentional" ? These are the kinds of things CGC needs to make clear, I think, because if it's the "detectable vs. undetectable" line that's being used, this seems very likely to change over time...

[Timely]

I think we are both saying the same thing here. Buyers should be very careful because even though they may be buying blue label books now, they may in fact be coming back with PLOD's upon future resubmission.

 

Future resubmission? If I have a book I know was 9.0 and is now in a new 9.4 holder after pressing why would I ever send it back to CGC for a regrade? Even if I did not know it was a 9.0 once why would crack a 9.4 and resubmit it? Your scenerio will never take place.

 

Timely