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

[drbanner]

Ok, the search seems to be working and I found my previous post on this topic from November of '02...enjoy!

 

I agree that there may be slight differences in the grading standards, but it has more to do with the physical construction of the book than the age of the book.

 

For example, on an otherwise NM book, what do you think the grade falls to with a 1/4" corner crease for an early GA (big!) book, a SA book, a Modern, and what about a Treasury? Is the affect on the grade related to the absolute magnitude of the crease, or the relative magnitude? I think it's the relative magnitude.

 

In addition to size differences, there are also differences in the quality of the paper and ink layers, the printing/production method (squarebounds, page count, # of staples), how the materials degrade, and numerous other factors which make the set of defects (and their affect on grade) for each genre/age unique.

 

Some argue that grading standards should not change based on age, but the reality is that the set of defects which must be considered when assigning a grade is different from book to book (mostly due to the age, but not by definition), so by necessity, the grading criteria is different.

 

CGC continues to use the NM standard for golden age books used before CGC existed, used in fact, by people like Mark and Steve, who were grading NM books of all ages before anyone ever heard of CGC, and who by now who have probably seen more NM and above golden age books than anyone (except maybe Chuck)!! Makes me wonder if anyone has looked at a comparison of the Mile High collection as graded by CGC and as graded in the original catalog?

[PovertyRow]

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?

 

:Totally re-edited for brevity and more direct addressing of the topic::

 

It is your position that RELATIVE damage is key. You say ...a 1/4" corner crease for an early GA (big!) book, a SA book, a Modern...? Is the affect on the grade related to the absolute magnitude of the crease, or the relative magnitude? I think it's the relative magnitude.

 

Taking this under consideration, your question about the 32 missing pages (see top of this post) is invalid. 32 pages is an absolute. You would have to look to percentage of pages missing to find the releative damage. So a 64 page book with 32 pages missing would be the same as a 32 page book with 16 pages missing, because percentag wise they are both missing half their pages.

[drbanner]

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?

 

I will ignore the ::unkind expletive deleted:: comparison and say: depends on how many pages are in the GA and the SA. But if it is your intent that the 32 page SA no longer exists, then I would have to say there is nothing to grade so the question is moot (and kind of silly).

 

 

So see, it really does come down to the relative severity of the defect when compared to the book on the whole, and not on the absolute magnitude of the defect. Obviously a GA book with a cover and 33 (of 64) pages is in better condition than a SA book with a cover and 1 (of 32) page, even though they're both missing 31 pages.

 

Sure it's a silly example, but as the size of the missing piece grows from a small chunk to a panel, to a page, to a wrap, to 4 wraps, to 6 wraps, etc.,. my point comes into focus!!

[drbanner]

So a 64 page book with 32 pages missing would be the same as a 32 page book with 16 pages missing, because percentag wise they are both missing half their pages.

 

Exactly! Agree, or disagree?

 

This is an example using missing pieces, but I think the same principle should apply to all defects, including creases, tears, stains, etc.,.

[PovertyRow]

So a 64 page book with 32 pages missing would be the same as a 32 page book with 16 pages missing, because percentag wise they are both missing half their pages.

 

Exactly! Agree, or disagree?

 

This is an example using missing pieces, but I think the same principle should apply to all defects, including creases, tears, stains, etc.,.

 

I don't have an issue with a book missing half its pages to be given the same grade hit, regardless of original page count.

 

What I DO see as a can of worms (and remember I HAVE been saying this is really a can of worms) is how deep do you go? How much do you measure?

 

Actually, I kind of LIKE the idea of relative defects, the more I think about it. For example, you could say x number of spine creases not exceeding x% of the books surface area. But this would mean each book would have to be measured, as well as the length and width of each crease, then the relative percentage found. Again, not being sarcastic here. I actually LIKE this but can you imagine trying to IMPLEMENT it?

[drbanner]

Actually, I kind of LIKE the idea of relative defects, the more I think about it. For example, you could say x number of spine creases not exceeding x% of the books surface area. But this would mean each book would have to be measured, as well as the length and width of each crease, then the relative percentage found. Again, not being sarcastic here. I actually LIKE this but can you imagine trying to IMPLEMENT it?

 

I don't think you're being sarcastic at all, but I do believe CGC implements this concept, which is part of the reason many people think they grade GA more leniently.

 

Certainly there are some things CGC doesn't downgrade for on GA as much as they do on newer books (as FFB describes in the summary of his conversation with Steve), but some of it has to do with the construction of the book (dimensions, page count, cover and ink quality, etc.,.) moreso than the age of the book (GA vs. SA vs. BA vs. MA).

 

The truth lies somewhere in between...

[FFB]

Actually, I kind of LIKE the idea of relative defects, the more I think about it. For example, you could say x number of spine creases not exceeding x% of the books surface area. But this would mean each book would have to be measured, as well as the length and width of each crease, then the relative percentage found. Again, not being sarcastic here. I actually LIKE this but can you imagine trying to IMPLEMENT it?

 

I don't think you're being sarcastic at all, but I do believe CGC implements this concept, which is part of the reason many people think they grade GA more leniently.

 

Certainly there are some things CGC doesn't downgrade for on GA as much as they do on newer books (as FFB describes in the summary of his conversation with Steve), but some of it has to do with the construction of the book (dimensions, page count, cover and ink quality, etc.,.) moreso than the age of the book (GA vs. SA vs. BA vs. MA).

 

The truth lies somewhere in between...

 

Good discussion, guys.

 

On the size issue, I think that where the size issue becomes a little harder to argue against is when you are grading magazines and treasury size books. A 1/4 inch crease on a magazine looks like a very small defect. On a treasury-sized book, a quarter inch corner crease looks even smaller. On a modern comic though, it looks huge. Some of you may remember those small paperback books in which Marvel reprinted a lot of their early silver age stories. They are about 6 inches high by 3 3/4 inches wide. A quarter inch corner crease on one of those would look huge and would impact a very large percentage of the cover. In each case, I think that it would be unfair to give the paperback book the same downgrade as a treasury-sized comic would get for the same size defect.

 

No one is saying that a Flash Comics #1 with a quarter-inch color-breaking crease should get a 9.4. The point is that whatever deduction the defect would get should be weighted proportionally to the size of the book, and thus it would get less of a reduction than would result from the same defect on a smaller book because the bigger book looks "less damaged" at arm's length than does the smaller book with the same sized defect.

[FFB]

Actually, I kind of LIKE the idea of relative defects, the more I think about it. For example, you could say x number of spine creases not exceeding x% of the books surface area. But this would mean each book would have to be measured, as well as the length and width of each crease, then the relative percentage found. Again, not being sarcastic here. I actually LIKE this but can you imagine trying to IMPLEMENT it?

 

I don't think you're being sarcastic at all, but I do believe CGC implements this concept, which is part of the reason many people think they grade GA more leniently.

 

Certainly there are some things CGC doesn't downgrade for on GA as much as they do on newer books (as FFB describes in the summary of his conversation with Steve), but some of it has to do with the construction of the book (dimensions, page count, cover and ink quality, etc.,.) moreso than the age of the book (GA vs. SA vs. BA vs. MA).

 

The truth lies somewhere in between...

 

One additional comment on the last thing you said -- perhaps the difference in grading between golden age books and moderns results in part from the fact that the same person who makes the final "grading call" on a modern is not the same person who makes the final grading call on a golden age book?