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

[sacentaur]

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.

 

An impressive cluster of a key SA Marvel, and an interesting contest just for fun, but not a valid experiment.

 

A book in a slab can often look better than its technical grade until it is de-slabbed and its flaws reveal themselves.

 

A book with obvious defects visible through the slab isn't going to improve when de-slabbed.

[VintageComics]

A book with obvious defects visible through the slab isn't going to improve when de-slabbed.

 

I agree with you entirely although I think it's important to always remember that some scans can also exaggerate defects.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Not saying that is the case with the TTA but it is something I've encountered.

[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.

 

An impressive cluster of a key SA Marvel, and an interesting contest just for fun, but not a valid experiment.

 

A book in a slab can often look better than its technical grade until it is de-slabbed and its flaws reveal themselves.

 

A book with obvious defects visible through the slab isn't going to improve when de-slabbed.

 

True. It wasn't an experiment by any means, but it just showed how even well-seasoned collectors will not come up with the same grade. Interestingly though, when the grades were discussed as a group, general consensus was reached.

[Conan_Aficionado]

It's amazing that a comic can survive for decades only to be mutilated within a slab.

[xsmr2-migration]

It's amazing that a comic can survive for decades only to be mutilated within a slab.

 

I hardly think that a scanner putting a glare on the book is the same as "mutilating" it.

[Bomber-Bob]

Back to the specific TTA book http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7063&lotIdNo=67353#Photo, for the sake of arguement would someone provide at least two links to 9.8 books with one badly rounded corner like the TTA book in question? I am not saying they dont' exist, I simply don't recall ever seeing one.

Not to mention what looks like SCS along the top edge.

 

The TTA looks very loose in the slab. Already some probable SCS on the top edge and the right edge interior looks like it is being smashed.

[MasterChief]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

[Straw-Man]

the gallery of disclosure lives!!!!!!!!!

[batman_fan]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

wonder how many times it had to be submitted before finally getting 9.8

[Conan_Aficionado]

It's amazing that a comic can survive for decades only to be mutilated within a slab.

 

I hardly think that a scanner putting a glare on the book is the same as "mutilating" it.

 

Referring to how some books that look like they don't belong in a 9.8 could be the result of shaken bacon syndrome, or what ever it's called.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

 

 

And some arse will still pay 9.8 prices.

 

[scooter99]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

wonder how many times it had to be submitted before finally getting 9.8

 

It looked better as a 9.6.

[Mark 1]

The scans are vastly different. I prefer the 9.6 as well

[lou_fine]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

 

 

And some arse will still pay 9.8 prices.

 

What's even funnier is that somebody might actually pay 9.9 prices thinking they can maximize its potential all the way to a 10.0. doh!

[COI]

Given the the direction this thread has gone this will appear off-topic, but I got a HA promotional in the mail which I have precieved is primarily to tout the "Doug Schmell" auction and in it is a CGC "Tales To Astonish #36" graded as a 9.8 and given the condition, I am not sure how it got a "9.8", any thoughts, maybe I am way off base? I should mention I am far from a professional grader but I have heard it said, grading, is as much as an art as a science.

 

http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7063&lotIdNo=67353#Photo

 

Persistence?

[dr_manhattan]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you should check to see if you can find a 9.2 and 9.4 image of it as well (thumbs u

[Monkeyman]

I'm actually surprised that Heritage would take the risk of selling the collection of a guy known to have tried to cheat CGC. Isn't there any liability for them if a buyer cracks/resubs and the book comes back trimmed?

 

Now that's a great question!

 

Definitely not Heritage since they had absolutely nothing to do with the grading of the book!

 

CGC might do it for maintain their integrity and reputation similar to the situation with Jason's micro-trimmed books. Actually, anybody playing in this end of the pool should be well aware of the dangers anyways.

 

If you don't want pressed books in your collection, you shouldn't be playing in this end of the pool. Similarly, if you don't want the chance of having micro-trimmed books in your collection, you also shouldn't be playing in this end of the pool.

 

 

Saying what everyone else ia thinking - I like it. (thumbs u

[trmoore54]

Am I missing something? The book has 3 strong corners and a perfect spine.

 

It sure does - if you're only looking at the scan of the back cover.

 

 

Are there defects that I don't see?

 

:facepalm:

Roy is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

I'm a dealer and I'll rock the boat plenty.

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

End of.

 

 

By golly you're right!

 

It's not a 9.8.

 

It's a... err was a 9.6.

 

 

 

 

 

And some arse will still pay 9.8 prices.

 

9.8...Russian Roulette version...seriously Roy/all...the book is a 9.4/9.6...and we all KNOW it...my ASM 55 9.6 runs circles around this book and you've seen it...and it is a 9.6...not a 9.8...as this is not...

 

This is the kind of mess that really pizzes me off these days in this hobby...

[lou_fine]

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.

 

Roy;

 

I would normally agree with your point here as it makes perfectly logical sense and this is what I would also expect.

 

Yet, we have seen many examples from the past whereby books have jumped all the way from 8.5 up to 9.4 or even a few from a 6.5 up to a 9.0. When these books have been identified or put side by side, the answer that is usually given is that the upgrade was due to a simple press job. Now, unless a simple press job can get rid of more than NCB creases, then by reverse logic, CGC is decimating the grades of books for NCB creases if they can go from 9.4 down to 8.5 or even from a 9.0 all the way down to a 6.5.

 

Of course, there's also the possibility that the simple press job may not have been quite that simple and may possibly have included a few other little goodies such as a little micro-trim, a nice cleaning, or any other little restorative activity that may have been missed or is not considered as such by CGC.

 

 

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.

 

Well, if CGC truely ignores production defects, then I guess that means my copy of Cerebus #1 has a good shot at getting a 9.8. I assume they would discount the few obvious and clearly visible production creases that are so prevalent on all copies of Cerebus #1. In fact, the production defects are so prevalent on this book that even Overstreet states in his price guide that most copies are poorly printed.

 

If CGC's acceptance of production defects is actually true and in place for all books, then I can't understand why there isn't a large number of uber HG copies of Cerebus #1 out there.

 

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

 

Well, now that Masterchief has shown us that this actual copy used to be an 9.6, then let's consider this little scenario. Schmell is well known for working on and resubmitting a book multiple times until he finally gets the grade that he wants.

 

So let's say if this particular book took 5 shots before it finally came back as a 9.8, would this be good enough to call this book a true 9.8, if CGC themselves called it only a 9.6 on the first 4 tries and only called it a 9.8 on the 5th and final go round. I guess 4 times at 9.6 and only once at 9.8 is enough for you to call it a 9.8 book.

 

Maybe in order to confirm the grade, Schmell and Heritage should consider sending the book back to CGC for grading to see if it would really come back as a 9.8 on the next go-round. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

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.

 

Roy;

 

I would normally agree with your point here as it makes perfectly logical sense and this is what I would also expect.

 

Yet, we have seen many examples from the past whereby books have jumped all the way from 8.5 up to 9.4 or even a few from a 6.5 up to a 9.0. When these books have been identified or put side by side, the answer that is usually given is that the upgrade was due to a simple press job. Now, unless a simple press job can get rid of more than NCB creases, then by reverse logic, CGC is decimating the grades of books for NCB creases if they can go from 9.4 down to 8.5 or even from a 9.0 all the way down to a 6.5.

 

Of course, there's also the possibility that the simple press job may not have been quite that simple and may possibly have included a few other little goodies such as a little micro-trim, a nice cleaning, or any other little restorative activity that may have been missed or is not considered as such by CGC.

 

 

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.

 

Well, if CGC truely ignores production defects, then I guess that means my copy of Cerebus #1 has a good shot at getting a 9.8. I assume they would discount the few obvious and clearly visible production creases that are so prevalent on all copies of Cerebus #1. In fact, the production defects are so prevalent on this book that even Overstreet states in his price guide that most copies are poorly printed.

 

If CGC's acceptance of production defects is actually true and in place for all books, then I can't understand why there isn't a large number of uber HG copies of Cerebus #1 out there.

 

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

 

Well, now that Masterchief has shown us that this actual copy used to be an 9.6, then let's consider this little scenario. Schmell is well known for working on and resubmitting a book multiple times until he finally gets the grade that he wants.

 

So let's say if this particular book took 5 shots before it finally came back as a 9.8, would this be good enough to call this book a true 9.8, if CGC themselves called it only a 9.6 on the first 4 tries and only called it a 9.8 on the 5th and final go round. I guess 4 times at 9.6 and only once at 9.8 is enough for you to call it a 9.8 book.

 

Maybe in order to confirm the grade, Schmell and Heritage should consider sending the book back to CGC for grading to see if it would really come back as a 9.8 on the next go-round. (thumbs u

 

Books that go from 8.5 to 9.4 or 6.5 to 9.0 are not books that have a "NCB crease that decimates the grade". Those books either have lots of NCB creases, are wavy like an Australian beach during surf season or both. They would be decimated in grade by everyone that looks at them. The misconception being perpetuated is that "oh, look - it's a little bend keeping the book in 8.5 - let's press it and get a 9.6" is normal. No, it's not.

 

You can have small colour breaking defects in 9.4, 9.6 and even 9.8.

 

It's the size of the defect that determines the grade.

 

Here's a question for everyone that believes CGC hammers books for NCB creases:

 

Everyone always says "buy the book and not the label". Fair enough, put two books side by side that are completely identical except for one having the NCB crease. Which would you choose? Simple answer - the one without the NCB crease. Why? Because it's nicer, meaning it has less defects. So it's nicer but it shouldn't grade higher?

 

As far as your question about Cerebus #1, I have no clue. I've never owned a copy of that book and have seen relatively few of them (even though Dave Sim live here in town). I can tell you that I don't think CGC deducts from production creases in 9.8 at all unless they are extremely distracting or break colour...but that is just an educated guess on my part.

 

As far as resubbing books back to CGC, are you implying something unethical happened in regards to the grade on this book? Yes, thanks to Master Chef for showing everyone that the book was previously a 9.6. Maybe someone can start a website tracking books that have gone down in grade as a service to the community to help collectors find books that were undergraded as well.

 

You know as well as I do that some books can go up in grade, some books can go down in grade and some books will never change the grade. If you're looking to prove that humans are not perfect it's a little late in the game as ship has already sailed.