The 2010 Nik Memorial Grading Contest *Round 6*

[Old Fashion PB and J]

This is no longer a grading contest. It's a see-who-can-throw-the-dart-the-straightest-while-blindfolded contest.

 

 

Ker-Rect. (thumbs u

 

This is in no way a shot at those who have organised this contest...they have done a brilliant job for a very noble cause and have attempted to put some real fun into the boards. Major kudos to all of them!

 

However, after seeing this POS in a 7.0 holder, it's obvious that it isn't a contest, as a 'contest' involves a modicum of skill. This is simply a lottery.

 

The only advice I can give is to treat this as you would buying on eBay, but in reverse. Think about what the book is likely to be in reality, but then add a full alpha grade when you take your wild guess.

 

Actually, if this was an eBay seller calling this book a 7.0, we'd probably have a 98 page thread in General.

 

Yeah, but everyone here knows you grade tighter than CGC, which is why your sales threads are so popular (thumbs u

Truth again!

[VintageComics]

Either that or scans really amplify defects

 

Uh, that's not possible.

 

[Jeffro.]

Theory: When people fist discover CGC they are shocked at the tight standards compared to what they are used to from cheap ebay dealers. Maybe they even submit a few books they thought were VF/NM and get a rude awakening. This makes them harshly re-evaluate their standards. This harshness becomes a habit, and even as they become accustomed to this higher standard they continue to berate themselves for being soft, and try to be harsher still (having been once bitten). This ultimately makes them stricter than CGC, whereupon they start criticising CGC for being soft..

 

 

Crosby aside, this might be one of the best things you've written.

[Jeffro.]

Overstreet Standards for Fine/Very Fine

include-

minor creases allowed

slight staple tears

minor foxing

cream/tan pages

 

Description-An above average copy that shows minor wear but is still relatively flat and clean with outstanding eye appeal. A comic in this grade appears to have been read a few times and handled with care.

 

Thank you for posting that. I guess the issue I have is that the comic in question does not have "outstanding eye appeal." It also does not appear to have been "handled with care"

[skypinkblu]

CGC don't sweat the spine creases as much as most guys on the PGM forum do. I know this because of the tatty Conan #1 8.0 I once had.

 

Food for thought, especially in this contest.

 

However, there are more than just spine creases going on there. Those tears around the lower staple are what threw me off. That and the filthy back cover. I still think this is a CGC gaff.

 

While, I was way under, I will say one thing about back covers, dirt and scans. The dirt is very amplified on here. I've scanned stuff, looked at it in person and then on the screen after it's been posted and I've wondered if people are asking if I'm nuts for not mentioning how filthy the book is, when in fact, it's MUCH nicer in person. Then when the person gets it, I get a note saying, it's nicer in person, .

 

Scanners seem to amplify dirt on white back covers.

 

 

Just something to remember.

[Comicopolis]

Either that or scans really amplify defects

 

Uh, that's not possible.

 

 

Uh, yes it is.

[DiceX]

Overstreet Standards for Fine/Very Fine

include-

minor creases allowed

slight staple tears

minor foxing

cream/tan pages

 

Description-An above average copy that shows minor wear but is still relatively flat and clean with outstanding eye appeal. A comic in this grade appears to have been read a few times and handled with care.

 

 

Fine and Fine/Very Fine are the toughest books to grade. One mans 6.0 can easily be another mans 7.0.

It took me about ten seconds to come up with the 6.0-7.0 range on this book and another minute or so to decide to go with the high range.

I find these grades easier than deciding if a book is a 9.6 or a 9.8 because in my experiance as a dealer, grades stopped at 9.4. Either a book was NM or it wasn't.

 

I completely disagree. To me, this is "Fine/Very Fine."

 

 

 

[joeypost]

Either that or scans really amplify defects

 

Uh, that's not possible.

 

 

Uh, yes it is.

 

This book looks considerably better in hand.

[joeypost]

Overstreet Standards for Fine/Very Fine

include-

minor creases allowed

slight staple tears

minor foxing

cream/tan pages

 

Description-An above average copy that shows minor wear but is still relatively flat and clean with outstanding eye appeal. A comic in this grade appears to have been read a few times and handled with care.

 

 

Fine and Fine/Very Fine are the toughest books to grade. One mans 6.0 can easily be another mans 7.0.

It took me about ten seconds to come up with the 6.0-7.0 range on this book and another minute or so to decide to go with the high range.

I find these grades easier than deciding if a book is a 9.6 or a 9.8 because in my experiance as a dealer, grades stopped at 9.4. Either a book was NM or it wasn't.

 

I completely disagree. To me, this is "Fine/Very Fine."

 

 

 

True, but it is also an example of the PQ going from White to Light Tan to Off-White.

[mrlatko]

Either that or scans really amplify defects

 

Uh, that's not possible.

 

 

Uh, yes it is.

 

This book looks considerably better in hand.

 

Kinda what I figured. Only logical explanation.

[Boozad]

Overstreet Standards for Fine/Very Fine

include-

minor creases allowed

slight staple tears

minor foxing

cream/tan pages

 

Description-An above average copy that shows minor wear but is still relatively flat and clean with outstanding eye appeal. A comic in this grade appears to have been read a few times and handled with care.

 

Thank you for posting that. I guess the issue I have is that the comic in question does not have "outstanding eye appeal." It also does not appear to have been "handled with care"

 

No it doesn't. It looks like it's been stored on my computer chair for three years. And if it's been read a 'few times', it was by a gorilla.

[He11blazer]

Overstreet Standards for Fine/Very Fine

include-

minor creases allowed

slight staple tears

minor foxing

cream/tan pages

 

Description-An above average copy that shows minor wear but is still relatively flat and clean with outstanding eye appeal. A comic in this grade appears to have been read a few times and handled with care.

 

Thank you for posting that. I guess the issue I have is that the comic in question does not have "outstanding eye appeal." It also does not appear to have been "handled with care"

 

No it doesn't. It looks like it's been stored on my computer chair for three years. And if it's been read a 'few times', it was by a gorilla.

 

One thing I'll say about CGC grading is that 'eye appeal' doesn't seem to matter. If a book meets their technical standards for a grade, it gets the grade regardless of how well or badly it presents.

[bryan91]

CGC don't sweat the spine creases as much as most guys on the PGM forum do. I know this because of the tatty Conan #1 8.0 I once had.

 

Food for thought, especially in this contest.

 

However, there are more than just spine creases going on there. Those tears around the lower staple are what threw me off. That and the filthy back cover. I still think this is a CGC gaff.

 

While, I was way under, I will say one thing about back covers, dirt and scans. The dirt is very amplified on here. I've scanned stuff, looked at it in person and then on the screen after it's been posted and I've wondered if people are asking if I'm nuts for not mentioning how filthy the book is, when in fact, it's MUCH nicer in person. Then when the person gets it, I get a note saying, it's nicer in person, .

 

Scanners seem to amplify dirt on white back covers.

 

 

Just something to remember.

 

I agree Sharon. I have scanned quite a few books that have looked so dirty or even have a red hue on the back of a white cover and you don't even see it in person.

[Jeffro.]

CGC don't sweat the spine creases as much as most guys on the PGM forum do. I know this because of the tatty Conan #1 8.0 I once had.

 

Food for thought, especially in this contest.

 

However, there are more than just spine creases going on there. Those tears around the lower staple are what threw me off. That and the filthy back cover. I still think this is a CGC gaff.

 

While, I was way under, I will say one thing about back covers, dirt and scans. The dirt is very amplified on here. I've scanned stuff, looked at it in person and then on the screen after it's been posted and I've wondered if people are asking if I'm nuts for not mentioning how filthy the book is, when in fact, it's MUCH nicer in person. Then when the person gets it, I get a note saying, it's nicer in person, .

 

Scanners seem to amplify dirt on white back covers.

 

 

Just something to remember.

 

I agree Sharon. I have scanned quite a few books that have looked so dirty or even have a red hue on the back of a white cover and you don't even see it in person.

 

So would that not warrant a note to the effect of "Back cover is not as dirty as the scan makes it appear" ?

[VintageComics]

Either that or scans really amplify defects

 

Uh, that's not possible.

 

 

Uh, yes it is.

 

Uh, I was being sarcastic.

 

In the first two rounds I was debating that these books must look better in hand than they do in the scans to get the grades that they were getting and F_T disagreed with me. Almost vehemently, might I add.

 

The disparity between how the books look in hand and in a scan is the only explanation based on the grades we've been seeing. Either that or Mark Haspel has developed temporary cataracts.

[John R]

 

I completely disagree. To me, this is "Fine/Very Fine."

 

 

 

But would you still grade this a "Fine/Very Fine"?

 

[bryan91]

CGC don't sweat the spine creases as much as most guys on the PGM forum do. I know this because of the tatty Conan #1 8.0 I once had.

 

Food for thought, especially in this contest.

 

However, there are more than just spine creases going on there. Those tears around the lower staple are what threw me off. That and the filthy back cover. I still think this is a CGC gaff.

 

While, I was way under, I will say one thing about back covers, dirt and scans. The dirt is very amplified on here. I've scanned stuff, looked at it in person and then on the screen after it's been posted and I've wondered if people are asking if I'm nuts for not mentioning how filthy the book is, when in fact, it's MUCH nicer in person. Then when the person gets it, I get a note saying, it's nicer in person, .

 

Scanners seem to amplify dirt on white back covers.

 

 

Just something to remember.

 

I agree Sharon. I have scanned quite a few books that have looked so dirty or even have a red hue on the back of a white cover and you don't even see it in person.

 

So would that not warrant a note to the effect of "Back cover is not as dirty as the scan makes it appear" ?

 

When I saw the scan for this book, I just took my prior experiences in to account and graded it accordingly knowing that on a scan if the back looks really dirty it probably isn't that bad in hand.

 

That doesn't help anyone else now, but I would just keep that in mind in the future.

[bryan91]

 

I completely disagree. To me, this is "Fine/Very Fine."

 

 

 

But would you still grade this a "Fine/Very Fine"?

 

 

Is that the same person? If so

[Old Fashion PB and J]

weird science

[VintageComics]

 

I completely disagree. To me, this is "Fine/Very Fine."

 

 

 

But would you still grade this a "Fine/Very Fine"?

 

 

If there was a F/VF for 50+, sure.