Guess the Grade -- ASM #129

[Mr. Kabotz-migration]

Guess this CGC graded book. Only a few significant visible defects, all (except one) are shown in the photos:

--At each staple hole, there is a printing defect, like the staple machine created a larger hole than the staple (not sure how else to describe this defect)

-Lower right corner, mild crease

-Upper left corner blunted

--Bottom front cover, below "Kill Spider-Man," ever so slight Marvel chipping, no big flakes, just about 1/32 inch (not visible in photos; camera just wouldn't focus on this)

 

Top and right edges of front cover are razor-sharp (light reflection on photo -- not damage to book). No visible damage on back cover.

 

First correct guess wins (at my discretion) a free transcript of the ongoing Congressional 9/11 hearings, or a prize of equivalent value....

 

 

 

 

 

[deathlok]

9.0

[FFB]

8.5.

[supapimp]

8.0

[osborn_fr]

9.2

(was thinking 9.0 but i was not the first one to answer so...)

[Calamerica]

VF 7.5

 

CAL

[Murph]

Looks 8.0ish. Nicely scanned. Just shows it's next to impossible to grade a book on the scan. From straight on the book looks great, at angle you can see the defects.

 

Brian

[maggy]

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say a 9.4

[kryptonitecomics]

8.0

 

[BEAUMONTS]

7.0

[ArAich]

8.5 ...

[Mr. Kabotz-migration]

VF 7.5

 

CAL

Calamerica is the weiner! It received a 7.5. But I like how most of you were thinking...

 

This is my "CGC screwed me" book -- we all have at least one of those. Without those staple hole problems, this book is easily a 9.2, possibly a 9.4. Given those odd staple holes, which are a production defect and not handling damage, this looks like a 9.0 at worst, maybe a 8.5 at the VERY worst. I do not understand why it was downgraded so much for those staple holes. I have several CGC 9.0 books that are in MUCH worse condition than this. The color is absolutely brilliant.

 

Cal, at the discretion of the judging panel, you unfortunately win no prize -- which has exactly the same value as the 9/11 hearings (aw, c'mon kids, you saw that one coming a mile away ...).

[Calamerica]

Cal, at the discretion of the judging panel, you unfortunately win no prize -- which has exactly the same value as the 9/11 hearings (aw, c'mon kids, you saw that one coming a mile away

 

Wow! I won a no-prize! I will take it! I have caught some heat in my past for grading to "strict, tight" but that is the way it is...wishful thinking goes out the door even for MY comics.

 

Maybe I can win another no-prize!!!

CAL

[joe_collector]

Given those odd staple holes, which are a production defect and not handling damage

 

Why in the world would you feel these are "production defects"? I've seen examples of what you cite, and that book definitely does not qualify.

 

A production defect like that would not have all that wear around the staple, including a ton of white fluff around the staple holes. Honestly, that book looks like a "presser" where the cover is flat, but staples still show extreme reading wear. Kinda like a face lift vs. the lady's still-wrinkly neck.

 

I was going to guess in the 7.0-8.0 range, and I'm quite surprised at some of the 9.2-9.4 grades offered up.

[comicmankev]

Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to side with JC on this one When going through the scand all I could see was a 7.5!

 

These are not production errors at all, no way could they be, it is from where someone actually (wait for it) read the book

 

 

On a good side for you, CGC have seen so many of this book, especially in recent times, that they grade VERY strictly on it.

[sfilosa]

STOP IT!

 

You guys are killing me here.

 

If you want to know what caused the book to be a 7.5, THERE IS ONLY ONE SURE WAY.

 

CALL CGC!!!!!!

 

I seriously doubt that the defects seen in the scan are what totally caused this book to get a 7.5. If you believe the wear around the staples is the main culprit for a 7.5, I seriously disagree.

 

 

Here's the main flaw with guessing the grade from a scan:

 

1) You see a book that has a defect or two and harshly call it a 8.0.

2) CGC also calls it an 8.0

3) Now every book that looks similar to that book is considered an 8.0.

 

Problem:

1) Now we play guess the grade, and call a similar book an 8.0, yet somehow CGC gives the book a 9.2, and EVERYONE SCREAMS the book is OVERGRADED!!!!! And of course that leads to the arguement that CGC is terrible inconsistent!

 

When in reality, the original CGC 8.0 book had several defects that could not be seen clearly in the scan!

[FFB]

I agree with your thoughts in this book, which got a 7.0, not a 7.5, right? There has to be more that I'm missing. Tiny bits of staple wear, an abraded ULC, and a bent overflash corner doesn't seem like enough.

 

But as far as grading from scans goes -- it's difficult, but not impossible. After all, the OGG's "examples" are just scans of books, right? And that's what we're using for comparison's sake whenever we grade any book.

 

And that Amazing Spider-Man #122 that CGC recently gave a 9.6 to IS overgraded IMO. You can't have a soft corner on a 9.6, especially when the rest of the book isn't perfect.

 

STOP IT!

 

You guys are killing me here.

 

If you want to know what caused the book to be a 7.5, THERE IS ONLY ONE SURE WAY.

 

CALL CGC!!!!!!

 

I seriously doubt that the defects seen in the scan are what totally caused this book to get a 7.5. If you believe the wear around the staples is the main culprit for a 7.5, I seriously disagree.

 

 

Here's the main flaw with guessing the grade from a scan:

 

1) You see a book that has a defect or two and harshly call it a 8.0.

2) CGC also calls it an 8.0

3) Now every book that looks similar to that book is considered an 8.0.

 

Problem:

1) Now we play guess the grade, and call a similar book an 8.0, yet somehow CGC gives the book a 9.2, and EVERYONE SCREAMS the book is OVERGRADED!!!!! And of course that leads to the arguement that CGC is terrible inconsistent!

 

When in reality, the original CGC 8.0 book had several defects that could not be seen clearly in the scan!

[joe_collector]

If you believe the wear around the staples is the main culprit for a 7.5, I seriously disagree.

 

If you determine they represent "reading wear" - which brings with it other damage and a loss of structure - then I disagree.

[davidking623]

8.5

 

Davidking623

[sfilosa]

But as far as grading from scans goes -- it's difficult, but not impossible. After all, the OGG's "examples" are just scans of books, right? And that's what we're using for comparison's sake whenever we grade any book.

 

I believe (as I would guess CGC would also say), grading from a scan is impossible. That is not to say you can't be correct in your guess (but even a broken clock is correct twice a day).