Archived

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

Time to test your grading skills!

71 posts in this topic

"and a faded section in the upper left area (like from a recently removed price tag)"

 

That's probably what did it - I think CGC will take a book down a few notches if the cover has shown some evidence of fading. I've noticed with some Silver books I've had graded, that if there is if the cover has full gloss and vibrant colours, the book will get a higher grade even if it has some minute flaws. Conversely, I've had a few books that were structurally 9.6 come back 9.2 or 9.4 because they weren't 'vibrant' or didn't have that 'fresh' look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth- The back cover scan does not do justice to the book. I posted other back cover scans of books I listed on ebay & immediately removed them; for some reason the scans made the backs of all of them look darker/dirtier than they really were...? I'm stumped. There is no restoration. "Use an eraser lightly next time?" You mean I can remove those scuff marks?!!

 

Yes, Irealize that now after FF laid that fact out well. Scanners do focus on color and exaggerrate the "dirtyness" on the back covers. As for the eraser, it has worked on my copies where comic books rub up together and get a little excited in this mod setting summer heat. Next thing you know, out comes the art eraser, cleaning up the the remnants of comic "spooge" all over the white back cover...eeech!

 

Resto comment made because I initially thought your colors were as deep and pretty as a CK pedigree book. FF pointed out that you just have a good scanner that makes it all possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that none of the 3 graders will ever give that copy any grade above an 8.5 if you resubmit it. Corner creases are so common that it's an almost automatic downgrade; all the graders likely have it very clear exactly what the maximum length for a corner crease is for each assignable grade.

 

As for what kind of magnification CGC uses, they sometimes use a stereoscope. I dunno if they do it for every book, though. Check it out:

stereoscope.jpg

To put defects you find with magnification into perspective, I think it's at least a two-phase process. You find the flaw with the magnifying tool, but you only judge its impact on overall grade with the naked eye. Magnification just helps to make defects you might otherwise miss easier to spot, and it can help with restoration detection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know if you've revealed yet, but I'd say no higher than a 7.5. The scuffs on the back cover, the little ding, etc. etc. Little adds up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FD,

 

I revealed in an earlier post that the grade given was an 8.0.

 

As to the validity of the grade, I can only compare this to the other books I've gotten back and I have a couple of 7.5's that look better & some 9.0's that look worse. I know CGC isn't perfect, but the difference between some of these is disheartening to say the least. frown.gif

 

And no one wants to estimate the difference in value from 8.0 to 9.0?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth,

 

Re-read all the comments given to this book; NO ONE even hinted at fading of the cover. Check the scan again; I still can't find any evidence of a faded spot anywhere! And if a scanner makes any book look fresh (and you're assuming mine isn't), then how would it make a "fresh" book look...like wet paint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Rick,

 

I didn't guess as to grade on this one as I'm horrible at estimating CGC's guidelines. As to value - I don't think there would be that big of a difference between 9.0 to 8.0. You certainly would get more for the 9.0, but I think it won't be a huge difference as it seems that everyone's cut off for most high grade stuff is 9.4+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

In general I agree. The difference normally would not be that great; but this is a 1)key 2)Silver 3)1965 DC in what I believe to be high grade. All those factors together are supposed to add up to better value$$$. I've been keeping my eye out for JLA's 1-50 in CGC 9.0 or better on ebay...

 

nothing so far.

 

So with a book like this, yeah, I think the financial gap betwwen 8.0 & 9.0 is big enough to make at least a little stink about it. mad.gif

 

Also bear in mind there are less than 10% submitted (7) that are graded 9.4 or higher. That would make a 9.0 that much more desirable.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JLA - miscommunication time out...

 

The copy with the faded cover I'm referring to is this one currently on ebay :

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2137760432

 

It is faded in the scan in comparison to your nice deep rich color copy. This scan may also help answer your question to the value difference between the 8.0 and 9.0...reading James' (FF) comments it seems that scanners at times focus on the black and bring out the dirt on the book to make it seem dirtier than when viewed in person. Also James mentions that scanners at times hide some flaws like creases...just ask all those australian sellers selling the CGC AF 15 hiding the pedigree note on it wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're up for it, I'd like to see the 9.0s you have that you think are worse than the 8.0 that is the topic of this thread. I'm always interested in the types of flaws CGC allows in the higher grades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supa,

 

That goes back to my referrence regarding grading bias towards less-submitted, unfamiliar issues (mostly DC). A grader sees a book that he's not "used to seeing" so he examines it more carefully than a common submission. I'm not saying it's done intentionally; more like human nature.

 

Sooo I got the Pimp-meister on my side. Yeah, babie!!!

Anyone else want to argue for or against this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOC,

 

I stated the notes given to me over the phone by CGC in an earlier post; there was no mention of interior flaws. And if there were, wouldn't they be stated on the label?

 

I tried calling again today to confirm, but the line was busy. I'll try again tomorrow because now I gotta go to work (where there are no computers). I'll probably put in OT again so think of me fondly today while you all are shootin' the shee-yite!

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF,

 

I knew someone would propose this (I figured either you, Darth or Brian). I will post a couple other ones for comparison...tomorrow? I had such fun with getting the first scan up; looking forward to going through that again! Ya filthy bastich wink.gif

 

Come to think of it, I'm surprised you guys don't make it a regular feature to post a scan of a book with a questionable grade; then inspect, disect, put the book through the wringer collectively. If CGC actually cares about our comments on their grades (hello Old GUY, CI), this could make for a good checks 'n balances method...?

 

But then again FF, according to you grading a scan can never be that accurate. frown.gif

Unfortunately, I agree.

Still it would be fun and, perhaps, illuminating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but grading a scan PLUS a list of defects provided by the poster is a GREAT exercise. Of course the poster could miss something...everybody keep a sharp eye!!

 

I'd like to see this, somebody regularly posting a slab scan with a list of defects. I'll post one tonight or another night early this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: If you're up for it, I'd like to see the 9.0s you have that you think are worse than the 8.0 that is the topic of this thread. I'm always interested in the types of flaws CGC allows in the higher grades.

 

Here ya go:

 

http://users.lvcm.com/rkent02/jla21.jpg grade 9.2

 

Sorry for the delay. Better late than never. Compare & Contrast. laugh.gif

I tried to find a book that was close (ie: LR corner crease, LL bump).

Now how does this book rate higher than the GL #40?

Plus, I still don't see the GL40 being an 8.0 to begin with? Am I really as bad as scottish... wink.gif

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any defects on that one inconsistent with 9.2. That LRC crease looks tiny, measuring around 1/16" to 1/32". I've seen them as long as 1/8" on a CGC 9.2. The crease on that 8.0 looked to be about 1/4"; correct me if you think it's shorter than that.

 

Seems like a small difference, but even Overstreet describes in his price guide description of the VF grade that a "1/4 crease is acceptable, if the color is not broken." That's a harsh description from Overstreet about how a 1/4" crease can't break color to be a VF...especially when he has several non-color-breaking creases about that length on the ONE 98s and 99s in his 1990 Grading Guide!

 

In my experience with CGC's grading, the length of a crease automatically decreases a comic to a certain grade, depending upon the length of the crease. I have never seen them give a comic with a 1/4" crease any more than the 8.5 grade, but I I have seen at least three 9.2s with 1/8" creases. This all depends on the depth/severity of the crease; I have seen a few 9.0s with 1/4" creases which only very faintly broke color. I can only assume that they gave your Green Lantern an 8.0 instead of an 8.5 because of the additional crunch in the LLC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites