• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Clink Sept Auction buys- have them home by the holidays!

Started by paperheart,

165 posts in this topic

drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
...Did anyone here buy the Green Lantern #76 9.0?......I just cant believe the grade on that book...look at the color breaks on that spine,...it's horrible,...I have 6.0's that look better than that,...

 

RAD937342011825_17216.jpg

 

This is actually a very nice looking copy - perfectly centered, white pages, the colors look incredible (from the scan anyway), edges and corners look sharp, no apparent creases, stains, or really any other defects. The greens on many copies of this book appear dull and faded, but not here. I bet if you held this book in your hands you would like what you saw...it's not a NM copy, but it's a whole lot nicer than the 9.2 copy of the OAAW 242 that sold last night with what looks to be a heavy 1/2" corner crease. Now this book is over-graded! :frustrated:

 

RADDA5C8201198_175619.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
Between those two I would rather have the OOAW. The crease is bad, but to me it isn't as egregious as the spine ticks. The rest of the black cover on the OOAW looks flawless.

 

It is definitely a nice copy that appears newsstand fresh, but has a big crease - it's not a 9.2 IMHO. Which book do you think is more over-graded? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Between those two I would rather have the OOAW. The crease is bad, but to me it isn't as egregious as the spine ticks. The rest of the black cover on the OOAW looks flawless.

 

It is definitely a nice copy that appears newsstand fresh, but has a big crease - it's not a 9.2 IMHO. Which book do you think is more over-graded? hm

 

I actually don't think the OOAW is overgraded by CGC standards.

 

The GL might be a touch soft, but again scans are often not good at properly representing those things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
warlocke

warlocke

Posted
Posted
Same here. I've seen worse. I'm still not ready to drop that much money on a GL #76, though. I think the demand for that book, as sweet as it is, will only go down from here.

 

One of the books from my want list would be a GL 76 9.6 or better. The 9.6 offered had a fugly mis-wrap. Apparently no one wants that copy as it keeps surfacing....

 

I'd still love to have this book, Peter. I just think the significance is overstated, at least relative to other "keys". I like your use of "fugly". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drummy

Drummy

Posted
Posted

Assuming no other damage, to me the OOAW is a 9.0 and the other book is an 8.5...not far off from what CGC determined.

 

It does, however, point to the great value of eye appeal. Regardless of a given grade, I like my defects hidden.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocketeer

Rocketeer

Posted
Posted
This is actually a very nice looking copy - perfectly centered, white pages, the colors look incredible (from the scan anyway), edges and corners look sharp, no apparent creases, stains, or really any other defects. The greens on many copies of this book appear dull and faded, but not here. I bet if you held this book in your hands you would like what you saw:frustrated:

 

[/img]

 

...I agree with the centering, but a bad center or mis-wrap would not affect the grade...I've seen plenty of 9.8's in my day badly wrapped or cut,...I still say way too many cbm for a 9.0 no matter what the color or center is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
I actually don't think the OOAW is overgraded by CGC standards.

 

The GL might be a touch soft, but again scans are often not good at properly representing those things.

I've never seen a crease that big on a 9.2. :frustrated:

 

:shy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
I actually don't think the OOAW is overgraded by CGC standards.

 

The GL might be a touch soft, but again scans are often not good at properly representing those things.

I've never seen a crease that big on a 9.2. :frustrated:

 

:shy:

 

If you are just talking about length, then I have. Another factor that might be taken into account is how deep or thick it is and how much colour it breaks, what the background colour is (ie how the crease affects eye appeal) stuff like that.

 

Bottom line is that it's the accumulated defects that account for the grade.

 

If there are no other defects on the book then in my experience, CGC allows one single defect to be larger in a given grade than they normally would allow it to be if there were other defects to take into account.

 

We even had a discussion about 9.4 copies with a corner crease a few years ago. It wasn't quite that big, but it was big enough that people took notice of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sufunk

sufunk

Posted
Posted
...Did anyone here buy the Green Lantern #76 9.0?......I just cant believe the grade on that book...look at the color breaks on that spine,...it's horrible,...I have 6.0's that look better than that,...

 

RAD937342011825_17216.jpg

 

No you don't. :screwy:

 

Book is a solid 8.5 or 9.0.

 

+1

 

Other than a couple books that have pristine covers but maybe a hidden defect or back cover issue, you do NOT have 6.0's that look better than that book. It may be over graded a tad but that does NOT look like 99.9% of the 6.0-7.0's that ive ever seen (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sufunk

sufunk

Posted
Posted

Sweet as always greggy (worship)

 

I'm laying low for 1 big book tonight but there is absolutely ZERO gpa data for it. I have no clue if my bid is weak as hell or insanely over the top (shrug)

 

I'll be out tonight so i had to put my bid in early but i'm 100% clueless about wether my bid is good enough or not. I guess we'll see in about 5 hours ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gotham Kid

Gotham Kid

Posted
Posted
Same here. I've seen worse. I'm still not ready to drop that much money on a GL #76, though. I think the demand for that book, as sweet as it is, will only go down from here.

 

One of the books from my want list would be a GL 76 9.6 or better. The 9.6 offered had a fugly mis-wrap. Apparently no one wants that copy as it keeps surfacing....

 

I'd still love to have this book, Peter. I just think the significance is overstated, at least relative to other "keys". I like your use of "fugly". :)

 

Usually don't apply that term to comics but to chicks that fell of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down... (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sufunk

sufunk

Posted
Posted
Technically Bronze.

 

But a sub at CGC it would qualify as a modern.

 

3/81 is still BA?

 

I never know where the hell people want to cut it off so I keep it simple.

1960-1970= SA

1970-1980= BA

1980-1990= CA

1991+= modern (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing