What's a GA Bump ?

[hockey&comicsguy]

Wow. Grades of 7 and 7.5.

 

I'm not making fun of anybody's guess. I'm just shocked at the disparity between now and a few years ago when I first asked for grades from the board. The average grade guess from a few years back was 3.5-4.0. Not one person graded it over 4.0. And as I said, there were some reputable, solid GA people weighing in.

 

Having it in hand, I thought it was a 4.5.

 

 

Based on other 6's that I owned, and probably skewed a bit based on the grades I received from the boards.

 

To this day, based on other 6's that have since passed through my hands, I still think this is overgraded and probably the sole reason I think there may sometimes be a "bump".

[qualitycomix]

As Roy said, you have to see the spine before making an assessment. 6.0 seems very reasonable for that book considering the eye appeal. But I haven't seen the spine either.

[hockey&comicsguy]

I have asked CGC recently about the "GA Bump" and I was told there is no such thing, however they do take into consideration certain bindery defects that are common amongst many, such as bindery chips.

Perhaps there is also a SA Bump, if you consider CGC stance in Marvel Chipping

 

 

 

You can clearly see the two tears along the top, left hand side. Not to mention the honking piece out of the bottom. All bindery. Can you get this grade on a book like this from 1967?

 

Still, it was a purdy book and I miss it.

[Mark 1]

Hockey, It should have been a 4.5. Way over graded IMO.

 

The GA bump also happens on SA books too..

[Mayor006]

I have asked CGC recently about the "GA Bump" and I was told there is no such thing, however they do take into consideration certain bindery defects that are common amongst many, such as bindery chips.

Perhaps there is also a SA Bump, if you consider CGC stance in Marvel Chipping

 

Sorry, I'm still learning...what is CGC's stance in Marvel chipping?

[fantastic_four]

Sorry, I'm still learning...what is CGC's stance in Marvel chipping?

 

That it's a production defect and therefore shouldn't be deducted for as much as post-production tearing or missing pieces would be.

[hockey&comicsguy]

As Roy said, you have to see the spine before making an assessment. 6.0 seems very reasonable for that book considering the eye appeal. But I haven't seen the spine either.

 

 

Agree. I thought the book had great eye appeal even when folks thought it was a 4.0-4.5 ish book.

 

 

In all fairness to the spine on this book, I have not owned another CGC book that had a spine with damage like this one so maybe my thoughts about 4.5 were completely unfounded. Which in turn would make any notions I have about a GA bump completely unfounded.

 

Suffice it to say, I was shocked when I got the grade.

[This is water]

Wow a 6. I was thinking like a 5.0-5.5. But that has much better eye appeal than a 3.5-4.0. Talk about a GA bump

[rjpb]

There are "gift grades" from all eras, and when you combine that with CGC's leniency on production defects ( which are far more common with GA books) and certain post-production flaws like foxing, dust shadows and store stamps ( also more common with GA books), it likely appears that there is a larger incidence of soft grades with GA books - and anything with Marvel chipping from the SA as well.

 

It also might be that with more recent books that as you get to copper and modern, most copies of a book that a grader sees are going to be fairly high grade and in comparison mid-grade copies look that much worse, and they get pounded harder.

 

While the GA "bump" is far from constant, and some GA books can get graded harshly, I'm still not convinced that GA books might be more likely to get a lenient grade than ones from later eras.