Daredevil 169 Printing Flaw

[Bronty]

I'm interested in seeing if other people out there are noticing the same printing flaw as I am on this book.

 

I have a copy that appears 9.6 but the spine was folded too sharply causing a near spine split. I didn't notice it at first but it's there.

 

I recently looked over five high grade copies of this issue. All five had the same flaw. Most of them actually had partial spine splits! Note that the splits can occur anywhere along the spine, it isn't restricted to the top or bottom of the spine where spine splits typically occur on older books.

 

Dig out your copies and look carefully!

[fantastic_four]

My copy has this extreme fold, as well as the beginning of a spine split

[Bronty]

Thanks, FF!! I'm starting to think this occurred on every copy out there!

[melmoth]

My CGC 9.6 copy seems ok

 

But I do have two other copies where there are definite signs of it which are perfect in all other respects.

 

[greggy]

Just add some glue to it and it'll be fine! Really!

[Guest]

While we're on the topic of print run flaws, has anyone noticed the predominance of roller ink smudges on the cover of ASM 207? I see a ton of copies with this smudging.

 

I'll see if I can dig up my DD 169s and check, Bronty.

[Bronty]

Thanks, Doc, please do if you get a chance. I don't have a Spidey 207 or I would return the favor.

[supapimp]

doc,

 

here's a link to a CGC NM+ 9.6, hope it helps

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2138238039

 

pimstah

[Guest]

Bronty,

 

Had a look - I have 2 copies - and guess what? Both have the severe spine fold that you describe. The appearance is what you tend to see with current releases, where the cover fold is sharp enough to break color.

 

Pimpy - that copy looks pretty clean. I can't quite see if there's some smudge on the spine near the middle.

[Bronty]

Thanks, Doc. Here are the census numbers. It would appear to me that cgc isn't downgrading for this flaw (and that would be as expected since they don't downgrade or downgrade much for printing flaws).

 

I wonder if this printing flaw would be enough to negate a 9.8?

 

Perhaps this is a much scarcer 9.8 than we would have thought?

 

Mint 10.0 0

Mint 9.9 0

Near Mint/Mint 9.8 0

Near Mint + 9.6 5

Near Mint 9.4 4

Near Mint - 9.2 3

Very Fine/Near Mint 9.0 2

Very Fine + 8.5 0

Very Fine 8.0 1

 

[aardvark88]

Jedi Dan, just brush some clear-coat acrylic on the spine to strengthen it. Will solve all your pre-cgc problems. Slap Miller DD into a locktop mylar & sell at hall of Heritage as NM.

[NativeNewYorker]

What printing flaw do you see on ASM #207? I can't find the smudges you refer to in my pile.

 

 

If anyone is looking for any ASM, let me know.

 

Ted

[mr_highgrade]

Nice pile.

[Bronty]

Hah!! You weren't kidding! Wow.

[Guest]

You'll need more copies to get a representative sample!!

 

Seriously, I've seen a lot of copies with horizontal roller smudge across the cover. If you have that many books, and aren't seeing any such thing, it may not be a common defect. Then again, did you buy all your copies in one batch at the time of release (i.e. perhaps a clean batch)?

[NativeNewYorker]

How big is this smudge? I really don't see any such printing defect on these. It is possible that I got a batch without the printing defects. However, most of this issue in my possession grades VF to VF/NM. No ultra high grades on this #. How widespread do you thing this defect is? Have you noticed it recently or have you been trying to hunt down a copy for awhile?

 

The #207's came with thousands of other ASM's that I bought. 90-95% of the bronze /early modern stuff is unread and VF or better. Even some of the Silver Age issues got NM 9.4 grades from CGC.

 

Ted

[Bronty]

PS Doc I love your quote!!

[fantastic_four]

Just got a NM copy of Daredevil 169...no extra-sharp folding on this copy.

 

Don't know if this is a pattern or anything, but the one I just bought without the sharp fold is the public issue with the bar code, whereas the other copy I had that had the sharp fold was the direct edition with no bar code and the price/issue number in a diamond. Maybe all the sharply folded ones are direct-sales editions. Someone said here that's the distinction on the rough cutting defect present on newsstand barcode editions of Spidey 300.

[Bronty]

Hey, thanks for the info James! That's good to know.

 

PS got another NM copy for sale?

[Zonker]

For what it's worth at this late date I did check my DD 169-- no sharp fold, no spine split, and it is the newstand (UPC code) edition. So it looks like your theory may well be correct.

 

Cheers,

Z.