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

[nearmint]

I hope I didn't kill this thread by going off on a tangent. The subject is definitely worth more discussion.

 

I've always been troubled with the idea that Golden Age books might be evaluated differently than Silver or Bronze, but the points Steve made in his conversation with FFB go a long way towards explaining that there's less of a disparity than commonly thought. I was especially interested in his point that a chunk out of a Golden Age cover would not be downgraded as much as the same size chunk out of a Silver Age cover, because the Golden Age chunk removes a smaller percentage of the larger Golden Age cover. That never would have occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense.

[FFB]

I hope I didn't kill this thread by going off on a tangent. The subject is definitely worth more discussion.

 

I've always been troubled with the idea that Golden Age books might be evaluated differently than Silver or Bronze, but the points Steve made in his conversation with FFB go a long way towards explaining that there's less of a disparity than commonly thought. I was especially interested in his point that a chunk out of a Golden Age cover would not be downgraded as much as the same size chunk out of a Silver Age cover, because the Golden Age chunk removes a smaller percentage of the larger Golden Age cover. That never would have occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense.

 

This thread was dead for months until you revived it, so no biggie.

 

Anyway, on your point, I have seen the same thing happen with magazines. I have a Savage Tales #1 mag with a 1/4 inch color breaking spine corner crease that graded out to a 9.2. On a comic book, it would be the equivalent of about a 3/16th inch crease, so it was graded accordingly.

[PovertyRow]

I hope I didn't kill this thread by going off on a tangent.

 

Actually you piqued one of my pet peeves! And I than you for it, nearmint! You betcha

 

What REALLY gets me is the relaxing of grade criteria for GA books. The thing is, and I have been accused of being "zen-like" for saying this" - a book is what it is!

 

In my opinion a Good should be a Good regardless of the age. Why? Because the GRADE of a book should be consistent. Age should have nothing to do with it. Thing is, if a book that is a Good is now graded as a VG- or even a VG - well, how has that GRADE impacted the BOOK? Only by price in a grading guide.

 

I feel the relaxation of grades for older books is a disservice. What do we do in 20 or 30 years? Start reducing what are now BA and Modern books because of their age?

 

The thing is, and I THINK this probbaly goes for most of the GA collectors, of which I am one...we don't examine a book by the Overstreet Grading Guide and then look it up in the Overstreet Price Guide and decide if the price is fair. I THINK we look at the book, use our knowledge and experience, and buy based on what we know. And I know that a GA book that even CGC calls a Fine but is, if a more modern age criteria brings it down to a VG - is probably still worth the Fine price. So what's the big deal?

 

If Overstreet Grading Guide actually applied the grades evenly across the board, what do we think actually would happen to realized prices? Personally, I think they would go up a bit to reflect the true condition of the book.

 

How many times have we seen, even with your "normal" GA, a slight Overguide price being realized? Why is this? In my opinion, because the GA collectors know what is out there, understand that such and such a book looking like such and such is worth so much money.

 

I say - grade evenly across the board. Let the prices seek their own level. And I bet they will not fluctuate a bit!

[sfilosa]

I say - grade evenly across the board. Let the prices seek their own level. And I bet they will not fluctuate a bit!

 

 

TOO LATE!!!!

[drbanner]

I hope I didn't kill this thread by going off on a tangent.

 

Actually you piqued one of my pet peeves! And I than you for it, nearmint! You betcha

 

What REALLY gets me is the relaxing of grade criteria for GA books. The thing is, and I have been accused of being "zen-like" for saying this" - a book is what it is!

 

In my opinion a Good should be a Good regardless of the age. Why? Because the GRADE of a book should be consistent. Age should have nothing to do with it. Thing is, if a book that is a Good is now graded as a VG- or even a VG - well, how has that GRADE impacted the BOOK? Only by price in a grading guide.

 

I feel the relaxation of grades for older books is a disservice. What do we do in 20 or 30 years? Start reducing what are now BA and Modern books because of their age?

 

The thing is, and I THINK this probbaly goes for most of the GA collectors, of which I am one...we don't examine a book by the Overstreet Grading Guide and then look it up in the Overstreet Price Guide and decide if the price is fair. I THINK we look at the book, use our knowledge and experience, and buy based on what we know. And I know that a GA book that even CGC calls a Fine but is, if a more modern age criteria brings it down to a VG - is probably still worth the Fine price. So what's the big deal?

 

If Overstreet Grading Guide actually applied the grades evenly across the board, what do we think actually would happen to realized prices? Personally, I think they would go up a bit to reflect the true condition of the book.

 

How many times have we seen, even with your "normal" GA, a slight Overguide price being realized? Why is this? In my opinion, because the GA collectors know what is out there, understand that such and such a book looking like such and such is worth so much money.

 

I say - grade evenly across the board. Let the prices seek their own level. And I bet they will not fluctuate a bit!

 

Pov - to follow up on a long-standing observation I've had that nearmint mentions above, do you think a 1" corner crease should affect the grade on a GA book the same as on a modern, or should it be less since a smaller percentage of the cover is affected?

[rjpb]

Not all Golden Age books are larger. I have GA books that are the same size as moderns.

[PovertyRow]

Pov - to follow up on a long-standing observation I've had that nearmint mentions above, do you think a 1" corner crease should affect the grade on a GA book the same as on a modern, or should it be less since a smaller percentage of the cover is affected?

 

Yeah, I actually DO. The sizes of GA books vary considerably. I have some that fit nicely, untrimmed, in BA holders. Some, of course, don't. So if you want to apply that logic then GA books would have to be broken out by size as well.

 

I couls ask (and not being sarcastic at all here ) would you consider a one inch crease on a smaller GA book to be the same as on a larger GA book? But if you say "yes" then we got a real can of worms being opened!

 

::edit - OUCH - I said one inch TRIM originally, which don;t make a lot of sense. I meant one inch CREASE::

[drbanner]

Yeah, I'm in the "percentage of total" camp that the relative magnitude of a defect should affect the grade similarily, not the absolute magnitude of the defect.

[nearmint]

Yeah, I'm in the "percentage of total" camp that the relative magnitude of a defect should affect the grade similarily, not the absolute magnitude of the defect.

 

Me too. But here's another can of worms, should that 1" crease be downgraded less if it's on the back cover?

[Deucedriver]

Amen povertyrow!

 

A "pet peeve" of mine also - the grading should be consistent no matter how old. I don't need a "false" grade assigned to a really nice Golden Age comic. If it is a VF 8.0 in "modern" terms - it is a great, rare book, and a pleasure to hold. I don't need someone to say it's a 9.4 to make me feel better about it. I've always thought this is a questionable practice. It's hard enough to be objective in comic book grading, and this makes it even more difficult. It adds more subjectivity to the whole grading process when IMHO it isn't needed.

[PovertyRow]

Yeah, I'm in the "percentage of total" camp that the relative magnitude of a defect should affect the grade similarily, not the absolute magnitude of the defect.

 

First I am not being a wise guy - followiong are some honest questions because this concept DOES befuddle me:

 

Should a smaller GA book grade than a larger GA book? Or to put it another way, does the age (meaning number of years old) of the book take second place to the size? How about the same GA title/issue where one has been cut shorter? Also, when dealing with creases, if you are taking into account "percentage of total" do we measure the width of the crease and also the width of color loss vs non-color loss?

 

Again - serious questions because this really IS a can of worms!

[Forbush-Man]

I hope I didn't kill this thread by going off on a tangent.

 

Actually you piqued one of my pet peeves! And I than you for it, nearmint! You betcha

 

What REALLY gets me is the relaxing of grade criteria for GA books. The thing is, and I have been accused of being "zen-like" for saying this" - a book is what it is!

 

In my opinion a Good should be a Good regardless of the age. Why? Because the GRADE of a book should be consistent. Age should have nothing to do with it. Thing is, if a book that is a Good is now graded as a VG- or even a VG - well, how has that GRADE impacted the BOOK? Only by price in a grading guide.

 

I feel the relaxation of grades for older books is a disservice. What do we do in 20 or 30 years? Start reducing what are now BA and Modern books because of their age?

 

The thing is, and I THINK this probbaly goes for most of the GA collectors, of which I am one...we don't examine a book by the Overstreet Grading Guide and then look it up in the Overstreet Price Guide and decide if the price is fair. I THINK we look at the book, use our knowledge and experience, and buy based on what we know. And I know that a GA book that even CGC calls a Fine but is, if a more modern age criteria brings it down to a VG - is probably still worth the Fine price. So what's the big deal?

 

If Overstreet Grading Guide actually applied the grades evenly across the board, what do we think actually would happen to realized prices? Personally, I think they would go up a bit to reflect the true condition of the book.

 

How many times have we seen, even with your "normal" GA, a slight Overguide price being realized? Why is this? In my opinion, because the GA collectors know what is out there, understand that such and such a book looking like such and such is worth so much money.

 

I say - grade evenly across the board. Let the prices seek their own level. And I bet they will not fluctuate a bit!

 

Yeah,...what he said!

[Forbush-Man]

I would like to add that "GOOD" (which is your original question) is a GOOD regardless of age. I understand the bindery thingy on higher grades, but a GOOD IS A GOOD-PERIOD! Just MHO.

[drbanner]

Yeah, I'm in the "percentage of total" camp that the relative magnitude of a defect should affect the grade similarily, not the absolute magnitude of the defect.

 

First I am not being a wise guy - followiong are some honest questions because this concept DOES befuddle me:

 

Should a smaller GA book grade than a larger GA book? Or to put it another way, does the age (meaning number of years old) of the book take second place to the size? How about the same GA title/issue where one has been cut shorter? Also, when dealing with creases, if you are taking into account "percentage of total" do we measure the width of the crease and also the width of color loss vs non-color loss?

 

Again - serious questions because this really IS a can of worms!

 

Age is irrelevant, but size matters!!

 

GA books are also constructed much differently that SA/Modern so there are other differences, and I wish I had saved my previous explanation of my position as the search function does not appear to currently be working.

 

Should a quarter-size chunk out of a 64-page book affect the grade the same as a quarter-size chunk out of a 32-page Silver Age book? I don't think so...

[PovertyRow]

Should a quarter-size chunk out of a 64-page book affect the grade the same as a quarter-size chunk out of a 32-page Silver Age book? I don't think so...

 

I get it! You are saying the quarter size chunk out of the 64 pager should detract MORE from the book than a 32 pager, since twice as many pages are impacted!

[drbanner]

Should a quarter-size chunk out of a 64-page book affect the grade the same as a quarter-size chunk out of a 32-page Silver Age book? I don't think so...

 

I get it! You are saying the quarter size chunk out of the 64 pager should detract MORE from the book than a 32 pager, since twice as many pages are impacted!

 

Oopssy...a quarter-size chunk out of one page, but you already knew that's what I meant!!

[PovertyRow]

Oopssy...a quarter-size chunk out of one page, but you already knew that's what I meant!!

 

Actually, for some reason I thuought the entire book, since you were specifyng a page count.

 

Basically I think that IF there is going to be a difference between a quarter-size chunk out of one page of a SA vs a GA, then there should be a Grade called GA-G, GA-VG, GA-F etc. I would have no problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is applying the same grade term and then making not sharply delineated distinctions bewteen how to perceive certain defects based on the Age.

[drbanner]

Actually, for some reason I thuought the entire book, since you were specifyng a page count.

 

The point is that a quarter size chunk out of a SA book would equate to 1% of the interior (or some fixed percentage) missing, whereas on a GA book that has twice as many pages it's only 0.5% of the interior that is missing (assuming the page size is the same to simplify the example).

[PovertyRow]

Actually, for some reason I thuought the entire book, since you were specifyng a page count.

 

The point is that a quarter size chunk out of a SA book would equate to 1% of the interior (or some fixed percentage) missing, whereas on a GA book that has twice as many pages it's only 0.5% of the interior that is missing (assuming the page size is the same to simplify the example).

 

Well, I just don't get it. The defect itself is the same. it should count the same. As I had said earlier, should we start measuring the size and width of creases, for example, and equating them to the size of the book (length and width and page count) of the book? What also troubles me is you stick with GA books but there are 100Page Giants long after the GA. Should those have even more lenience than a 64 page GA?

[drbanner]

Actually, for some reason I thuought the entire book, since you were specifyng a page count.

 

The point is that a quarter size chunk out of a SA book would equate to 1% of the interior (or some fixed percentage) missing, whereas on a GA book that has twice as many pages it's only 0.5% of the interior that is missing (assuming the page size is the same to simplify the example).

 

Well, I just don't get it. The defect itself is the same. it should count the same. As I had said earlier, should we start measuring the size and width of creases, for example, and equating them to the size of the book (length and width and page count) of the book? What also troubles me is you stick with GA books but there are 100Page Giants long after the GA. Should those have even more lenience than a 64 page GA?

 

I said age doesn't matter, so yes, in theory a quarter-size chunk missing on a 100 pager should count less. However, the fact that the majority of GA books are bigger and contain more pages than post-GA books makes the comparison of "GA vs. newer" comparable to "larger vs. smaller books".

 

If the position that similar defects should count the same regardless of the size of the book, I query you this - should a SA book missing 32 pages and the cover be graded the same as a GA book missing 32 pages and the cover?