How can this be a 9.4?

[Rocketeer]

And has someone gotten a definitive statement from CGC that they do, in fact, even deduct heavily for it?

 

Umm,...Yes,..I believe I already stated that,...I questioned this myself and was told By Steve Borock himself that it does alter the graded of the book ....

[Zanarkand]

My take on foxing is that it's viewed as a storage issue, not a handling one. In other words, should an unread ("D Copy") or once-read (Larson) book be severly penalized because it once sat in a humid environment?

 

No, they should be penalized because of the big freakin' "D" and "Larson" written on the cover.

[PedigreeMan]

JC:

But today we should almost have two grading tiers (like CGC does unofficially), the pre- and post-1960's book getting their own scale.

 

I could live with that ....

 

 

ROCKETEER:

Umm,...Yes,..I believe I already stated that,...I questioned this myself and was told By Steve Borock himself that it does alter the graded of the book ....

 

I must have missed that post elsewhere. Your earlier post in this thread sounded like speculation. Apologies.

 

 

ZANARKAND:

No, they should be penalized because of the big freakin' "D" and "Larson" written on the cover.

 

 

(Ironically enough, most "D Copies" don't have a "big freakin' 'D'" on their covers ... or any "D" whatsoever! However, what would bug the heck out of most GA haters about this pedigree is the code penciled on the first page of almost every issue. Talk about obtrusive!)

 

Alan

[blowout]

Again, some long-dead mold across the cover of an otherwise flawless book cannot be compared to full-on warping or disintegration caused by brittle pages or heavy water damage.

 

True enough, but in my view foxing is unsightly enough to take a book out of the NM range.

[PedigreeMan]

Again, some long-dead mold across the cover of an otherwise flawless book cannot be compared to full-on warping or disintegration caused by brittle pages or heavy water damage.

 

True enough, but in my view foxing is unsightly enough to take a book out of the NM range.

 

In your opinion, how much should they be downgraded? Especially if the book is otherwise unread, has nice pages, full-on cover gloss, and no other obvious wear? VF/NM? VF? Lower?

 

In performing a quick perusal of completed Heritage auctions, I have found only two Larson NMs, one (Amazing Man #21) which doesn't appear to have any foxing at all and another (Stars and Stripes #2) that appears to be quite overgraded . There are a number of VFs to NM-s that have varying degrees of foxing, but nothing really obtrusive.

 

(Now that Larson Sub Mariner #1 with the rusted staples bugs me ... but it sure does look like it has some nice cover gloss!)

 

Again, more questions than answers here ....

 

Alan

[blowout]

I would say the book should be knocked down to the VF range. A VF+ if otherwise perfect, depending of course, on the degree of foxing.

[mr_highgrade]

[blowout]

Thats a nice looking book, but the placement of the date stamp is a bit distracting.

[mr_highgrade]

Yep, hence

[PedigreeMan]

I would say the book should be knocked down to the VF range. A VF+ if otherwise perfect, depending of course, on the degree of foxing.

 

If you get some time, do a search through Heritage's past auctions for the keyword "Larson." Just about every example you find will have some level of foxing on it. I'd be curious what you (or anyone else, for that matter) think of the grades CGC gave them.

 

Alan