Is Definition for good in a Golden age comic the same as for a silver or modern?

[Ares]

I have a copy of Whiz Comics 46 from 1943.

 

The seller described it as GD/VG but looking at it it its looks very nice for a Golden age book. Im thinking fine!

 

Are grading standards the same?

 

I'll post a picture of it later when I have a chance to get home and take a snapshot.

[kryptonitecomics]

For most collectors yes, but CGC tends to be a little more forgiving on the GA books.

[PovertyRow]

In theory the same grade definition should be apllied to all ages. There HAS been noted some relaxation of the GA grades by CGC, but again, in theory, all should be the same.

[FFB]

Further on the same topic, while the Overstreet grading guide does not specifically state that Golden Age books are to be graded under a more relaxed scale, there are specific references to bindery tear defects in the 9.6 NM+ and 9.4 NM grades that are allowable to greater extents than in silver and later. At page 154 of the OGG, the guide states in the 9.6 NM+ section that no bindery tears are allowed, although in golden age books, bindery tears of up to 1/8th inch have been noted. Then, in the 9.4 NM section, the guide says at page 164 that bindery tears of up to 1/16th inch are allowed, but in Golden Age books, bindery tears of up to 1/4 inch have been noted.

 

On the CGC issue, I just spoke to Steve Borock on the phone and asked him about the Golden Age vs. later comic grading disparity. In a nutshell, this is what he said:

 

-- Like the OGG says, bindery tears are "allowed" in NM Golden Age books to a larger extent than they are in silver age books, because they tended to come off the presses with bindery tears more often back then. Thus, an Edgar Church book that hit the newsstand with a 1/4 inch chunk out of the back cover is still a "mint state" book, because that's how it came off the production line. For a later book that did not tend to come off the production line with such large bindery tears, the book would be downgraded more if it had a similarly sized chunk out than the Golden Age book with the bindery tear would. This disparity comes from the industry standards themselves, as the industry has always given Golden Age books a break for these common bindery defects. (My comment: as the grading standards are actually "industry" standards, it makes sense that this type of disparity would be followed, even if there are arguments against it.)

 

-- One other difference has to do with the size of a crease on a Golden Age book versus the same size crease on a silver age or later book. The example Steve used was a Flash #1 and an Amazing Spider-Man #3. If they each have 1 inch creases, the Flash #1 will get downgraded slightly less because it is a bigger book than the ASM#3, so proportionally, the 1 inch crease on the Flash #1 would be a "smaller" defect than it would on the ASM#3.

 

Other than stuff like this, the Golden Age and later books are supposed to be graded according to the same grading standards.

 

While I had my captive audience, I asked him some questions about other age-grade variances, such as the "early Silver/late Silver" disparity. What Steve said is that, while it seems that way, the only real disparity is in how they grade the overflash bends that early Silver books had and "wire rack" bends on the overflash or non-color-breaking "string" bends on a spine (where a stack of comics was tied with string on the way to the newsstand). On the overhang issue, because early Silver Marvels had an overhang and later Marvels did not tend to have it as commonly, a bent overflash is downgraded less on an early Silver Marvel than it is on a later Silver Marvel.

 

Marvel chipping and Marvel pre-chipping is another area where older Marvel books are downgraded less than modern books. If a Silver Age book has Marvel chipping or pre-chipping, it is not downgraded as much as a Spawn #1 would be if it had similar chipping. The Spawn would get "hammered," (no pun intended by Steve, I'm sure, since he knows that Comic Keys doesn't deal in moderns and wouldn't bother with trimming the chips off a Spawn #1) while the Marvel would have less taken off the for chipping.

 

Steve also gave another example of a few late Silver books that get a break for a certain common printing defect: Iron Man #1, Nick Fury #1, and Iron Man/Submariner #1. Each of these books has a common defect involving a tiny piece out of the back cover. Because this is a common printing characteristic for these books, it is downgraded less than when the same defect exists in a different book.

 

That was pretty much all we talked about on this topic. Thanks to Steve B. for taking the time to answer my questions. P.S., he was quite disappointed that people who attended the Wizard World LA Con didn't post his comments about pressing etc. that he discussed at the dinner. Quit holding out on us, people! Post those jewels of info!

 

In theory the same grade definition should be apllied to all ages. There HAS been noted some relaxation of the GA grades by CGC, but again, in theory, all should be the same.

[kryptonitecomics]

Great posts and Kudos to Steve for going into that amount of detail with you. I never noticed that info in the OGG about Golden Age allowances.

[drbanner]

Great stuff, thanks! Golden Age books are quite different from silver/bronze/modern books structurally, so by necessity, the grading standards are different.

 

Someone needs to post the cliff notes for the Wizard-Con-Pressing discussion...

[PovertyRow]

Cool post FFB! Really good info there!

[Calamerica]

That was pretty much all we talked about on this topic. Thanks to Steve B. for taking the time to answer my questions. P.S., he was quite disappointed that people who attended the Wizard World LA Con didn't post his comments about pressing etc. that he discussed at the dinner. Quit holding out on us, people! Post those jewels of info!

 

I did not post too much about that WWLB Mar 20th because it would have resulted in 30 pages of drivel if pressing was discussed.

 

CAL

[sfilosa]

Excellent post.

 

The one thing that I would like to know is dust/sun shadows and tanning on back covers. GA or very early SA books don't seem to be downgraded at all for them. The Bethlehem collection comes to mind.

 

Would a late SA/BA book with the same shadows get the same grade?

[nearmint]

-- Like the OGG says, bindery tears are "allowed" in NM Golden Age books to a larger extent than they are in silver age books, because they tended to come off the presses with bindery tears more often back then. Thus, an Edgar Church book that hit the newsstand with a 1/4 inch chunk out of the back cover is still a "mint state" book, because that's how it came off the production line. For a later book that did not tend to come off the production line with such large bindery tears, the book would be downgraded more if it had a similarly sized chunk out than the Golden Age book with the bindery tear would. This disparity comes from the industry standards themselves, as the industry has always given Golden Age books a break for these common bindery defects. (My comment: as the grading standards are actually "industry" standards, it makes sense that this type of disparity would be followed, even if there are arguments against it.)

 

I'm confused by your(or Steve's) use of the word "chunk" in reference to a bindary tear. Chunk implies loss of paper, whereas I've always known a bindary tear to be just that, a tear. I can't imagine, and have never seen, a Golden Age book with a quarter inch chunk out of it that didn't get downgraded for it, pedigree or non-pedigree.

[jimm94]

I think a more accurate term for this production defect would be "bindery chip"?

[nearmint]

I think a more accurate term for this production defect would be "bindery chip"?

 

Again, that implies loss of paper. Bindary tear is the correct term, but I think we need to stay away from descriptors like "chunk" or "chip" to describe them. A bindary tear is just a tear, at top or bottom of spine.

[sfilosa]

Again, that implies loss of paper. Bindary tear is the correct term, but I think we need to stay away from descriptors like "chunk" or "chip" to describe them. A bindary tear is just a tear, at top or bottom of spine.

 

It can clearly be a CHIP.

 

Think of MARVEL CHIPPING, which implies that part of the paper is gone.

 

I don't believe that Steve Borock is saying that a BINDERY or MARVEL CHIP does NOT cause any downgrading. I think he is saying it wouldn't downgrade the book as much as a chip caused by wear.

[nearmint]

Again, that implies loss of paper. Bindary tear is the correct term, but I think we need to stay away from descriptors like "chunk" or "chip" to describe them. A bindary tear is just a tear, at top or bottom of spine.

 

It can clearly be a CHIP.

 

Think of MARVEL CHIPPING, which implies that part of the paper is gone.

 

I don't believe that Steve Borock is saying that a BINDERY or MARVEL CHIP does NOT cause any downgrading. I think he is saying it wouldn't downgrade the book as much as a chip caused by wear.

 

Take another look at the paragraph I was responding to in my first post. It's stated that a book with a bindery TEAR can still be classified as mint. I have no problem with that. What I think is incorrect is when that bindery tear is then described as a quarter inch chunk missing from the book. I highly doubt that's what Steve or the OGG defines as a bindery tear.

 

We have to draw a distinction between a bindery tear and a bindery chip(although, to be honest, I've never heard of a bindery chip, and don't see mention of it in my OGG). As I understand it, a bindery tear is not downgraded.

 

But a chip or chunk is a different story altogether. Maybe Steve, or Mark, or West could chime in here. Wouldn't a book with a spine chip or chunk(be it caused at the bindery or elsewhere) be graded lower than a bindery tear?

[FFB]

I think a more accurate term for this production defect would be "bindery chip"?

 

Again, that implies loss of paper. Bindary tear is the correct term, but I think we need to stay away from descriptors like "chunk" or "chip" to describe them. A bindary tear is just a tear, at top or bottom of spine.

 

We were discussing a quarter-inch chip out of the book. Not a tear. A chip. Hence my use of the word "chunk."

 

The point wasn't that the book wouldn't be downgraded for it. The point was that a GA book would not be downgraded for it to the same extent as a bronze or modern book with the same sized defect.

[nearmint]

I think a more accurate term for this production defect would be "bindery chip"?

 

Again, that implies loss of paper. Bindary tear is the correct term, but I think we need to stay away from descriptors like "chunk" or "chip" to describe them. A bindary tear is just a tear, at top or bottom of spine.

 

We were discussing a quarter-inch chip out of the book. Not a tear. A chip. Hence my use of the word "chunk."

 

The point wasn't that the book wouldn't be downgraded for it. The point was that a GA book would not be downgraded for it to the same extent as a bronze or modern book with the same sized defect.

 

I don't get how you can say we weren't discussing a tear. You use the term "bindery tear" five times in your opening paragraph. Then in your third paragraph, your example of a bindery tear is a book with a quarter inch chunk out of it. I'm only saying, a bindery tear does not involve loss of paper, so equating the term "bindery tear" with a book missing a quarter inch chunk is incorrect. They are two different defects.

 

I don't mean to harp on this, but one function of these boards is to educate newbies to the hobby. It would be a shame if someone read this, and was given the impression that a quarter inch chunck would be defined as a bindery tear, and might still be graded 9.4 or 9.6, because CGC and the OGG permit bindery tears in those grades. The reality is, with that chunk missing, the book would not grade that high.

[FFB]

I think a more accurate term for this production defect would be "bindery chip"?

 

Again, that implies loss of paper. Bindary tear is the correct term, but I think we need to stay away from descriptors like "chunk" or "chip" to describe them. A bindary tear is just a tear, at top or bottom of spine.

 

We were discussing a quarter-inch chip out of the book. Not a tear. A chip. Hence my use of the word "chunk."

 

The point wasn't that the book wouldn't be downgraded for it. The point was that a GA book would not be downgraded for it to the same extent as a bronze or modern book with the same sized defect.

 

I don't get how you can say we weren't discussing a tear. You use the term "bindery tear" five times in your opening paragraph. Then in your third paragraph, your example of a bindery tear is a book with a quarter inch chunk out of it. I'm only saying, a bindery tear does not involve loss of paper, so equating the term "bindery tear" with a book missing a quarter inch chunk is incorrect. They are two different defects.

 

I don't mean to harp on this, but one function of these boards is to educate newbies to the hobby. It would be a shame if someone read this, and was given the impression that a quarter inch chunck would be defined as a bindery tear, and might still be graded 9.4 or 9.6, because CGC and the OGG permit bindery tears in those grades. The reality is, with that chunk missing, the book would not grade that high.

 

When I say "we," I meant that Steve Borock and I were discussing bindery "chips." I don't mean "we, the members of the board." The "bindery tears" language is what the Overstreet Grading Guide says.

 

Believe it or not, I understand the difference between bindery tears and bindery chips. When I spoke to Steve about the differences in GA grading that are present in the Overstreet guide, I asked him about whether GA books are graded on a different scale. His answer was "No, but..." and then the rest of what he said, I wrote about. When I noted to him that the Overstreet grading guide makes a special exception for bindery tears on GA books, his example of this (not mine) was the golden age books with the bindery chips. He also used the example of certain silver age books that are known for having chips out of the back cover. His point was that those books are not downgraded as harshly as other books that are not known for having such chips.

 

It may be that a book with a 1/4 inch chip would not grade "that high." But I only passed along what Steve told me about how books like the Edgar Church pedigree get treated when they have the small bindery chips out of the cover.

[nearmint]

When I noted to him that the Overstreet grading guide makes a special exception for bindery tears on GA books, his example of this (not mine) was the golden age books with the bindery chips.

 

Which brings us full circle to my original question, that maybe Steve, Mark, or West can answer. Can a chip or chunk out of the spine be classified as a bindery tear and therefore not downgraded? Or, is a bindery tear and a bindery chip two different defects, one that's downgraded, and one that's not.

[Timely]

Books are downgraded for every defect. A GA book with a bindery tear cannot be a 10.0.

 

Bindery tears and chips on Golden Age are allowed and not downgraded heavily, if at all depending on the rest of the books condition. GA books are thicker and therefore bindery defects are far more common. Some seem to come off the printing press with these defects.

 

Silver Age and newer comics having bindery defects are not a common occurance, so those would be downgraded more than their GA counterparts.

 

West

[nearmint]

I stand corrected. Learn something new everyday. It never occurred to me that a bindery tear and bindery chip wouldn't be downgraded differently. The loss of paper in the chip seems like a much more serious and unsightly defect.

 

Thanks for the info, West.