Is this really a 9.8?

[sufunk]

Where's this "freakshow book" thread? Anyone have a link?

 

I tried searching for it and cant find anything.

 

btw,

The original book imo looks no different than MANY 9.8's i've seen and own (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

Still waiting to see a book that is a 9.6 because of miswrap. I appreciate the 9.9 miswrap book making my point, though. This reminds me of the "Why are you punching yourself" routine I used to engage in with my little brother.

 

I'm out of town, my old laptop was destroyed in Atlanta and my back up is at home. Otherwise I'd be posting my old Hulk #181 CGC 9.6 that was downgraded because of a miswrap.

 

Still, you can read about the book here where Borock comments on it:

 

That book was smoking! Just graded it in Chicago. If it was not mis-cut, it would have recieved a 9.8-9.9

 

Next, how does me posting my CGC 9.9 make your point? I never said a miswrap was not allowed in 9.9. I said that the severity of miswrap determines the grade of an otherwise perfect book.

 

If this miswrap was any larger the book would have been graded a 9.8. Or a 9.6.

 

It's pretty simple: CGC does have a set of grading standards for miswraps, they just differ from yours.

 

I don't know why you are debating that.

 

[VintageComics]

I have had 2 copies of UXM 138 that both had a NASTY printers crease (roughly half across the front and back cover) and both landed 9.8s. I think Bindery tears are the only printing defect that CGC does deduct for.

 

They will deduct for printer creases based on the severity.

 

I've talked to Mark Haspel about it.

 

(thumbs u

[VintageComics]

Maybe "ignore" was too strong a word. I thought bindery/manufacturing defects were not considered damage?

 

I did remember another old mention of eye appeal and bindery defects

 

 

Stu, CGC and Overstreet both have different grading standards for Golden Age vs. Silver Age (and ditto for Bronze Age) books.

 

No disagreement there.

 

I'm just debating the point that people believe CGC does not take printing defects into account when grading a book. That's BS. They definitely do. Their severity determines the cut off grade of the book. Their standards may conflict with what some people believe should or should not be, but that doesn't negate the fact that those standards exist.

[seanfingh]

 

Because I don't believe the premise. Borock said mis-cut not miswrapped. That could be two different things. I don't speak good enough Borock to know the difference. You are never going to convince me

that CGC consistently downgrades for miswraps. It belies the overwhelming evidence that they are ignored.

[VintageComics]

Because I don't believe the premise. Borock said mis-cut not miswrapped. That could be two different things. I don't speak good enough Borock to know the difference. You are never going to convince me

that CGC consistently downgrades for miswraps. It belies the overwhelming evidence that they are ignored.

 

I was waiting for you to point to Borock's use of the word miscut.

 

 

He used the word miscut because the book was wrapped front to back so badly that there was white showing on the right side. The $0.25 price looked like a $0.05 price on the Marvel banner. The book was otherwise cut perfectly square.

 

Technically, it is still a miswrap.

 

You don't have to believe me for me to be right. I've spoken to both Borock and Haspel about it, as well as Bradley, Litch and Shawn. CGC definitely does take into account a miswrap when grading a book. Just not to the same degree that you or I would.

 

(thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

They will deduct for printer creases based on the severity.

 

I've talked to Mark Haspel about it.

 

I don't doubt it, but back around 2003, I recall Greggy posting some scans of his DC 100-pagers that were CGC 9.8 with near-book-length printer creases. That makes me wonder exactly how much more severe a printer's crease can be for them to begin deducting for it.

 

The argument about whether they do or don't deduct for miswrap needs to shift focus--clearly they'd deduct if it was bad enough, but the question is how bad does it have to be before they deduct. Same question with most other QP issues, what is that line where deductions begin.

[joe_collector]

I don't doubt it, but back around 2003, I recall Greggy posting some scans of his DC 100-pagers that were CGC 9.8 with near-book-length printer creases. That makes me wonder exactly how much more severe a printer's crease can be for them to begin deducting for it.

 

Exactly, and I believe this also differs based on era, who is in charge, what someone had for lunch, etc.

 

Otherwise, if that WWBN 9.8 (someone please post it!) gets a 9.8 then NO BOOK ON EARTH can be downgraded below 9.8 due to a miswrap. I could probably fit my thumb in the white border.

[Topnotchman]

I have spoken to CGC about printer creases and if they are big and obvious, like right through the head of Punisher than they will downgrade. If they are out of the way, or on the back cover they often let it slide. It seems to be a book by book judgment call. However many people fail to closely look at printer creases to see if color is popping off and showing white. This is the more common reason the book is downgraded, not the printer crease, but the color break.

 

If a miswrap totally spoils the aesthetic look to a book, I could see a judgment call and the downgrade. Although many unaesthetic looking books seem to go through as 9.8's all the time so I wonder how bad a book would have to be to actually get the downgrade.

[VintageComics]

I don't doubt it, but back around 2003, I recall Greggy posting some scans of his DC 100-pagers that were CGC 9.8 with near-book-length printer creases. That makes me wonder exactly how much more severe a printer's crease can be for them to begin deducting for it.

 

Exactly, and I believe this also differs based on era, who is in charge, what someone had for lunch, etc.

 

Otherwise, if that WWBN 9.8 (someone please post it!) gets a 9.8 then NO BOOK ON EARTH can be downgraded below 9.8 due to a miswrap. I could probably fit my thumb in the white border.

 

I too agree that the standards change based on era as well as the format of the book.

 

I'd like to see that WWBN as well.

 

 

[Boozad]

I could probably fit my thumb in the white border.

 

Wouldn't that leave a brown stain?

[PBU-migration]

Haven't found the WWBN, but check out the X-Men # 132 in this thread: http://comicbookrealm.com/topic/8/9480&page=2

[VintageComics]

Haven't found the WWBN, but check out the X-Men # 132 in this thread: http://comicbookrealm.com/topic/8/9480&page=2

 

That's pretty white. I'd actually not expect that book to get a 9.8 but hey, what do I know?

[VintageComics]

...and just to finish off where we left off, I just talked to Mark Haspel on the phone.

 

He confirmed to me that CGC will in fact take a miswrap into account when grading a book and that the miswrap can indeed limit a book in the 9.6-9.8-9.9 range. The only thing he wouldn't comment on is the actual criteria or size of the miswrap. That is held confidential by CGC as they don't release their grading standards.

 

[Boozad]

the miswrap can indeed limit a book in the 9.6-9.8-9.9 range.

 

Not necessarily does.

[joeypost]

[seanfingh]

the miswrap can indeed limit a book in the 9.6-9.8-9.9 range.

 

Not necessarily does.

 

Exactly.

[VintageComics]

the miswrap can indeed limit a book in the 9.6-9.8-9.9 range.

 

Not necessarily does.

 

The miswrap does limit the grade if it is severe enough.

 

Regarding miswraps:

 

There is a criteria for 9.9

There is a different criteria for 9.8 that is different than that of the 9.9

There is a different criteria for 9.6 that is different than that of the 9.8

 

What that criteria is I don't know.

 

I can probably offer an educated guess and say that they don't sit there with rulers and micrometers measuring defects so there will be some subjectivity but yes, they do have rules for miswraps allowed in those 3 grades.

[VintageComics]

the miswrap can indeed limit a book in the 9.6-9.8-9.9 range.

 

Not necessarily does.

 

Exactly.

 

Wrong.

 

[seanfingh]

the miswrap can indeed limit a book in the 9.6-9.8-9.9 range.

 

Not necessarily does.

 

Exactly.

 

Wrong.

 

 

Look at that one that Joey just posted. The Emperor is nude as hell, dude.