Doug Schmell cashing in his vaulted massive collecion. Poll: Is this the top?

[Flaming_Telepath]

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

But it is a CGC 9.8.

 

 

It is.

 

But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

[JohnFranklin]

I "ain't" no grader, but overall eye appeal, in my opinion your FF looks much better than the TTA and while the upper right corner is slightly rounded, maybe because of how the corner is contrasted on the TTA, it's rounding, to me appears a bit more pronounced.

[mrmyst]

I "ain't" no grader, but overall eye appeal, in my opinion your FF looks much better than the TTA and while the upper right corner is slightly rounded, maybe because of how the corner is contrasted on the TTA, it's rounding, to me appears a bit more pronounced.

 

+1 that FF 48 is spot-on 9.8. The other, eh, not so much.

[JohnFranklin]

Seems to me grading really is as much an art, as a science.

[batman_fan]

Here it is. I submitted this book with every expectation of getting a 9.8. Notice the glare on the overhang at the top of the book as well. The book was killer in hand. You just can't grade accurately from a scan, especially when it comes to colour breaking defects because scanners all represent them differently.

 

 

9.8?? with that miswrap I always knew Roy was on the "preferred" list with CGC .

[VintageComics]

I "ain't" no grader, but overall eye appeal, in my opinion your FF looks much better than the TTA and while the upper right corner is slightly rounded, maybe because of how the corner is contrasted on the TTA, it's rounding, to me appears a bit more pronounced.

 

+1 that FF 48 is spot-on 9.8. The other, eh, not so much.

 

I think the FF had a very light spine stress or two as well as some light flecking at the top right edge but they don't show up in the scan.

 

To really get a feel for comparing the books you need scans that are comparable. You can't look at huge scan and compare to another book in a smaller scan.

 

Here are both books with same size scans.

 

 

[VintageComics]

9.8?? with that miswrap

 

CGC has always allowed miswraps in 9.8.

 

[Mark 1]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

It makes for good nerd talk.

 

(thumbs u

[lou_fine]

Here it is. I submitted this book with every expectation of getting a 9.8. Notice the glare on the overhang at the top of the book as well. The book was killer in hand. You just can't grade accurately from a scan, especially when it comes to colour breaking defects because scanners all represent them differently.

 

 

Roy;

 

As others have already mentioned, your 9.8 copy of FF #48 is a lot better than Schmell's TTA #36 by a long shot. I guess not all 9.8's are created or graded equal.

 

You seem to keep focusing on the one rounded corner as if that's the only defect on the book. I was talking about the cumulative combination of all of the different defects which clearly took the book well out of the 9.8 range for me. You yourself acknowledge that you have issues with the top staple area. If the top edge is just photo glare, I am extremely surprised that Heritage didn't take a reshoot because that certainly looks like SCS damage as compared to FF #48 which does look like glare to me.

 

Like how many so-called production defects do they allow on a book before they take it out of the uber HG range? Sounds like it's okay to have a 9.8 graded book that's pocked full with production defects as long as it does not have one of those virtually invisible NCB creases which will decimate the grade of the book.

 

Bottom-line: Way too many different defects, production-wise or otherwise to call this book a 9.8 or even anywhere close to it.

[lou_fine]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

I actually find the prices that speculators or day traders are willing to pay for CGC labels above 9.4 to be totally irrational.

[Mark 1]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

It makes for good nerd talk.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

It sure does!

[mrmyst]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

I actually find the prices that speculators or day traders are willing to pay for CGC labels above 9.4 to be totally irrational.

 

When you collect pre-code horror like me, it's a moot point! More like; jeez, the corner crease is 2 inches long, not 1 inch, so I guess it's only a 5.5. But I sure do love gazing on those 9.8 SA books.

[VintageComics]

 

Roy;

 

As others have already mentioned, your 9.8 copy of FF #48 is a lot better than Schmell's TTA #36 by a long shot. I guess not all 9.8's are created or graded equal.

 

My copy looks better because the scanner the FF was scanned on deepened the colour (someone else made the scan for me, I didn't do it). What you don't see is the other wear on the book. All scanners scan books differently.

 

I remember the grading contest we had a few years ago, everyone was screaming bloody murder at the grades that CGC had given to many of the books in the contest...and when the people holding the grading contest who had the books in hand tried to explain that many of the defects in the scans did not exist in hand nobody listened and people continued to scream that the books were over graded.

 

That's why you can't grade a book accurately from a scan.

 

You seem to keep focusing on the one rounded corner as if that's the only defect on the book. I was talking about the cumulative combination of all of the different defects which clearly took the book well out of the 9.8 range for me. You yourself acknowledge that you have issues with the top staple area. If the top edge is just photo glare, I am extremely surprised that Heritage didn't take a reshoot because that certainly looks like SCS damage as compared to FF #48 which does look like glare to me.

 

I'm not focusing on the corner. I'm taking into account all the defects cumulatively. The book might be a weak 9.8 or a strong 9.6 but it's a coin toss sometimes. There is no way that book is a 9.4 on any planet.

 

So are you saying that the glare looks like colour loss? I don't understand. Hopefully nobody is saying that. Some people are making it sound like there's a dead rat in the slab or something similar and glaring when in fact it's just a bunch of tiny, microscopic defects.

 

I'd bet that if you had that book in hand you probably wouldn't even notice the overhang bending over. It's likely just over exaggerated by the light hitting it and reflecting off of it.

 

 

Like how many so-called production defects do they allow on a book before they take it out of the uber HG range? Sounds like it's okay to have a 9.8 graded book that's pocked full with production defects as long as it does not have one of those virtually invisible NCB creases which will decimate the grade of the book.

 

Bottom-line: Way too many different defects, production-wise or otherwise to call this book a 9.8 or even anywhere close to it.

 

It's just an urban Comics General myth that colour breaking creases decimate the grade that is being perpetuated. NCB creases do not decimate the grade. It might make a difference in grade between a 9.4 and a 9.6 or a 9.6 and a 9.8 on books with other defects but I have had 9.8 books with NCB defects.

 

As far as how many production related defects they allow, I have no idea. I just know from experience that they do have size limitations to production defects depending on what they are and grade accordingly.

 

There are just as many undergraded books out there as overgraded books. It's just that nobody focuses an entire conversation on the undergraded books.

 

Look, I'm not trying to change everyone's mind as to what a 9.8 should look like. I'm just saying that if I was submitting this book I'd be submitting it with the expectation that it has a shot at CGC 9.8.

 

Bottom line is that yes, this is a CGC 9.8 but it's not what everyone would call a 9.8

 

[VintageComics]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

I actually find the prices that speculators or day traders are willing to pay for CGC labels above 9.4 to be totally irrational.

 

Put it in perspective. We're a bunch of grown men that are arguing over colour flecks on comics on the internet on a Saturday night. I'm pretty sure that's irrational to 8 billion people.

[sacentaur]

Roy;

 

As others have already mentioned, your 9.8 copy of FF #48 is a lot better than Schmell's TTA #36 by a long shot.

 

Bottom-line: Way too many different defects, production-wise or otherwise to call this book a 9.8 or even anywhere close to it.

 

+1; it's really hard to overstate or question the obvious (as such is the "case" here).

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Have the serial numbers of the books been compared to the serial numbers of the Ewert's submissions?

[mrmyst]

I once participated in a little contest. There were 4 CGC graded copies of TOS 39, and the labels had been covered up for the little contest, so as not to disclose the actual CGC assigned grades. One was 9.0, one was 9.2, one was 9.4, and one was 9.6. Not one, not two, but four very, very seasoned comics pros were asked to assess the grades. All four came up with different grades. And that's through the slabs, without even an analysis of the interiors.

[mrmyst]

I'm not knocking those who like über grade books but I find the subjectivity and scutiny of grades above 9.4 to be amusing.

 

 

I actually find the prices that speculators or day traders are willing to pay for CGC labels above 9.4 to be totally irrational.

 

Put it in perspective. We're a bunch of grown men that are arguing over colour flecks on comics on the internet on a Saturday night. I'm pretty sure that's irrational to 8 billion people.

 

That is hilarious. So true.

[batman_fan]

Here it is. I submitted this book with every expectation of getting a 9.8. Notice the glare on the overhang at the top of the book as well. The book was killer in hand. You just can't grade accurately from a scan, especially when it comes to colour breaking defects because scanners all represent them differently.

 

 

Roy;

 

As others have already mentioned, your 9.8 copy of FF #48 is a lot better than Schmell's TTA #36 by a long shot. I guess not all 9.8's are created or graded equal.

 

You seem to keep focusing on the one rounded corner as if that's the only defect on the book. I was talking about the cumulative combination of all of the different defects which clearly took the book well out of the 9.8 range for me. You yourself acknowledge that you have issues with the top staple area. If the top edge is just photo glare, I am extremely surprised that Heritage didn't take a reshoot because that certainly looks like SCS damage as compared to FF #48 which does look like glare to me.

 

Like how many so-called production defects do they allow on a book before they take it out of the uber HG range? Sounds like it's okay to have a 9.8 graded book that's pocked full with production defects as long as it does not have one of those virtually invisible NCB creases which will decimate the grade of the book.

 

Bottom-line: Way too many different defects, production-wise or otherwise to call this book a 9.8 or even anywhere close to it.

 

I have to agree, absolutely no comparison. Dougies looks way worse than Roy's