Logan510 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Disagree. If it is the nicest copy with the smallest impact of the printing defect, especially if it is the only copy thus far where the paper is not broken, it should get a 9.8. I'm not expressing an opinion on this copy, but are you saying that, if it's the nicest copy, it's a 9.8? That's the impression you're giving, but I'm sure that's not what you're intending. That is exactly what I am saying. I am assuming that the defect is considered a printing defect. It can't be completely ignored as some printing defects are, because it is atrocious. In the event that there are copies where the printing defect does not actually damage the paper (as most of the examples are tears) they are the 9.8s. It is consistent with the way they treat other printing defects. I don't like seeing those mutated abortion miswraps, or King Kong nutsack creases in 9.8 slabs, but everyone says "Oh its a printing defect." Why should this be different? It shouldn't be treated any different IMHO as I believe they're fairly consistent when it comes to printing defects ( please correct me if i'm wrong). In the old days before the 10 point scale...this probably would've been a vf/nm. It's been a long time, but IIRC we didn't treat printing defects any different than other kinds of defects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worldsbestcomics Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Joey described the details of the books flaws to me when he first got it and he nailed it, "It's an ugly 9.8." He discussed the book with the CGC graders and they described it to him exactly the same way they described a similar book to me many years ago. "9.8 doesn't mean no flaws. In this case the only flaw is a couple of the bindery tears common to this issue. The tears in this copy are the least we've seen and the rest of the book is structurally mint. So, it is 9.8." I have a personal bias against spine stress and these bindery tears look so much like spine stress that I can fully understand why someone would look at this book and not think it is 9.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transplant Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I don't think it's not a 9.8. I can see very clearly the large numbers in the top left corner. They say 9.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Disagree. If it is the nicest copy with the smallest impact of the printing defect, especially if it is the only copy thus far where the paper is not broken, it should get a 9.8. I'm not expressing an opinion on this copy, but are you saying that, if it's the nicest copy, it's a 9.8? That's the impression you're giving, but I'm sure that's not what you're intending. That is exactly what I am saying. I am assuming that the defect is considered a printing defect. It can't be completely ignored as some printing defects are, because it is atrocious. In the event that there are copies where the printing defect does not actually damage the paper (as most of the examples are tears) they are the 9.8s. It is consistent with the way they treat other printing defects. I don't like seeing those mutated abortion miswraps, or King Kong nutsack creases in 9.8 slabs, but everyone says "Oh its a printing defect." Why should this be different? It shouldn't be treated any differently than any other issue. What happens when someone actually does find a copy of this book that is 9.8 and doesn't have the tears? Does CGC give it a 9.8.5 or just a 9.8* (with an asterisk?) I can assure you, having worked in the industry for 25 years, that the entire run could have this defect, then they ran an additional 1000 copies without it to pass off as "Samples." I all but bet there are copies without the tears, and it's possible when one is found a lot more of them are laying right next to it. Being a book of almost no value means they're sitting in a box somewhere out of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I don't think it's not a 9.8. I can see very clearly the large numbers in the top left corner. They say 9.8. Ditto. It's obviously a 9.8. But it's the same as all the 9.6's aside from the number on the slab. Why's this one special enough to be a 9.8 and all the other copies aren't? If this one's a 9.8 then they should all get a 9.8 if you resub them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanfingh Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I don't think it's not a 9.8. I can see very clearly the large numbers in the top left corner. They say 9.8. Ditto. It's obviously a 9.8. But it's the same as all the 9.6's aside from the number on the slab. Why's this one special enough to be a 9.8 and all the other copies aren't? If this one's a 9.8 then they should all get a 9.8 if you resub them. That's just illogical, Steve. Obviously, this was not "the same." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I don't think it's not a 9.8. I can see very clearly the large numbers in the top left corner. They say 9.8. Ditto. It's obviously a 9.8. But it's the same as all the 9.6's aside from the number on the slab. Why's this one special enough to be a 9.8 and all the other copies aren't? If this one's a 9.8 then they should all get a 9.8 if you resub them. That's just illogical, Steve. Obviously, this was not "the same." Looks the same to me. What's different? It's on a "different" copy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanfingh Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 As stated, my assumption is that they do not go all the way through the paper, or something that makes it a truly minimal example of the production defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transplant Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 If they are truly production related, how are they any different from a long printers crease? Or a cover printed without red ink? Or any other printing defect? IMO, either CGC ignores it or it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 So show me another example of a different 9.8 book with two giant color breaking cracks on the spine and I'll go away and shush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 If they are truly production related, how are they any different from a long printers crease? Or a cover printed without red ink? Or any other printing defect? IMO, either CGC ignores it or it doesn't. 1) Printer's creases don't break color. 2) IMO, a book with a printer's crease also shouldn't get 9.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanfingh Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 So show me another example of a different 9.8 book with two giant color breaking cracks on the spine and I'll go away and shush. I am a slave to logic, and logic compels a similar outcome for a defect that is categorized in a similar fashion. Nutsack crease, Diagonal miswrap, Wolvie 35 cranker crunches. Don't hate the player, dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiceX Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 So show me another example of a different 9.8 book with two giant color breaking cracks on the spine and I'll go away and shush. I am a slave to logic, and logic compels a similar outcome for a defect that is categorized in a similar fashion. Nutsack crease, Diagonal miswrap, Wolvie 35 cranker crunches. Don't hate the player, dog. I'm not. I'm just making for discussion that will never amount to a hill of beans as far as anything is concerned. I can assure you that I've received several books that got 9.8 and I was like and sold them like they were a two bit hooker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshane Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Just saw the scans. That's got to be the ugliest 9.8 in CGC history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttock Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Well, as bad as CGC's grading has been recently, does this really count? Again, CGC is a steaming turd lately. Congrats to Joey, but this ain't a 9.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmat Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 If they are truly production related, how are they any different from a long printers crease? Or a cover printed without red ink? Or any other printing defect? IMO, either CGC ignores it or it doesn't. 1) Printer's creases don't break color. 2) IMO, a book with a printer's crease also shouldn't get 9.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Balls Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I can assure you, having worked in the industry for 25 years, that the entire run could have this defect, then they ran an additional 1000 copies without it to pass off as "Samples." I all but bet there are copies without the tears, and it's possible when one is found a lot more of them are laying right next to it. Being a book of almost no value means they're sitting in a box somewhere out of mind. I can back up Dice on this particular statement. There could definitely be a pile of these laying around undamaged: samples, make-readies, overruns - sitting in a warehouse in an uncirculated case. Could just have easily been thrown out, too. I don't think that the nicest damaged copy CGC has found should be a 9.8. I find fault with that type of thinking. If a book can't get to a 9.8 because of a bindery/production problem, so be it. 9.8 completists will just have to deal or die angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshane Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I don't think that the nicest damaged copy CGC has found should be a 9.8. I find fault with that type of thinking. If a book can't get to a 9.8 because of a bindery/production problem, so be it. 9.8 completists will just have to deal or die angry. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephisto Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Disagree. If it is the nicest copy with the smallest impact of the printing defect, especially if it is the only copy thus far where the paper is not broken, it should get a 9.8. I'm not expressing an opinion on this copy, but are you saying that, if it's the nicest copy, it's a 9.8? That's the impression you're giving, but I'm sure that's not what you're intending. That is exactly what I am saying. I am assuming that the defect is considered a printing defect. It can't be completely ignored as some printing defects are, because it is atrocious. In the event that there are copies where the printing defect does not actually damage the paper (as most of the examples are tears) they are the 9.8s. It is consistent with the way they treat other printing defects. I don't like seeing those mutated abortion miswraps, or King Kong nutsack creases in 9.8 slabs, but everyone says "Oh its a printing defect." Why should this be different? Greggy nutsack creases are the worst. I wish I would have known not to count them as real creases. And boy did I down grade my GSX 1 due to the front bottom cover bindery tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeypost Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 As stated, my assumption is that they do not go all the way through the paper, or something that makes it a truly minimal example of the production defect. You are correct Sean. They do not go all the way through. The rest of the book sans the bindery defect is perfect. The scan Steve took of it does enhance the creases, they are not that bad if you hold the book in your hand. Will a perfect, pristine crease free copy of this book ever exist? Possibly, but I have looked through long boxes of this book. Gone through and picked out dozens of nice copies and this was the cleanest copy I have seen to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
