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

[VintageComics]

From an older thread called Celebrity Collectors :

 

I have sold books to Rosario Dawson(Jokers), DiCaprio, Sam Raimi(Am Spideys), and Rosie Perez(X-Men). I am sure there are others, as some other people have been at the table over the years.

 

Although not really the point of the article that is linked, I thought this caption was interesting and it ties into something we were talking about earlier in this thread.

 

Hammett, a collector of horror movie memorabilia, will host Kirk’s Crypt, a haunted house stocked with posters, film props, vintage comics and custom guitars.

[MisterX]

If I win any 9.8 Schmell books in this auction, should I store them between two pieces of Wonder Bread to reduce glare and/or glare build-up?

[lou_fine]

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?

 

 

Here's a question for everyone that believes CGC doesn't hammer 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 a small NCB crease which can only be seen by holding the book up at a certain angle to the light. The second book has no NCB creae at all, but has a distinct and clearly obvious off center cover combined with a fugly dust shadow running down the right edge of the book, both of which could be seen without even taking the book off the dealer's wall.

 

Which would you choose? In the old days prior to CGC, it was quite obvious which one most collectors would choose. Why? Because it's nicer, meaning it was much more presentable and pleasing to the eye. So it's nicer looking and much more presentable, but yet it's graded lower by CGC?

 

[lou_fine]

No matter the numerical grade, it's by far the nicest looking copy of this comic I've ever seen, and I'm astonished by the quality of preservation.

 

Let me fix that for you:

 

No matter the numerical grade, it's by far the nicest looking copy of this comic I've ever seen, and I'm astonished by the quality of the maximization of potential.

[VintageComics]

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?

 

 

Here's a question for everyone that believes CGC doesn't hammer 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 a small NCB crease which can only be seen by holding the book up at a certain angle to the light. The second book has no NCB creae at all, but has a distinct and clearly obvious off center cover combined with a fugly dust shadow running down the right edge of the book, both of which could be seen without even taking the book off the dealer's wall.

 

Which would you choose? In the old days prior to CGC, it was quite obvious which one most collectors would choose. Why? Because it's nicer, meaning it was much more presentable and pleasing to the eye. So it's nicer looking and much more presentable, but yet it's graded lower by CGC?

 

I've personally never cared about an off centre cover. It's only since joining this forum that I've even noticed it.

 

For the record, your post is just a deflection.

 

Fact is, CGC does not hammer or decimate grades or severely downgrade for NCB wear.

 

It's just a myth that is often used by those who dislike pressing to gain some traction in a discussion against pressing.

 

 

 

 

[batman_fan]

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?

 

 

Here's a question for everyone that believes CGC doesn't hammer 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 a small NCB crease which can only be seen by holding the book up at a certain angle to the light. The second book has no NCB creae at all, but has a distinct and clearly obvious off center cover combined with a fugly dust shadow running down the right edge of the book, both of which could be seen without even taking the book off the dealer's wall.

 

Which would you choose? In the old days prior to CGC, it was quite obvious which one most collectors would choose. Why? Because it's nicer, meaning it was much more presentable and pleasing to the eye. So it's nicer looking and much more presentable, but yet it's graded lower by CGC?

 

I've personally never cared about an off centre cover. It's only since joining this forum that I've even noticed it.

 

For the record, your post is just a deflection.

 

Fact is, CGC does not hammer or decimate grades or severely downgrade for NCB wear.

 

It's just a myth that is often used by those who dislike pressing to gain some traction in a discussion against pressing.

 

 

 

 

Roy, for the record, what is your definition of "hammer". are you saying it is less than one grade level, one grade level, two grade levels?

[Davenport]

 

Fact is, CGC does not hammer or decimate grades or severely downgrade for NCB wear.

 

It's just a myth that is often used by those who dislike pressing to gain some traction in a discussion against pressing.

 

Roy, for the record, what is your definition of "hammer". are you saying it is less than one grade level, one grade level, two grade levels?

If upgrades are given for reflattened paper then by default there's a downgrade for non-flat. Right? Can't have it both ways.

 

Relative thread: Best bump one has got from pressing??

[tth2]

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

That is one of the most ridiculous equations regularly made on these boards.

It just as ridiculous as the statement -

So-and-so [tth2] is a collector. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

Both statements are meaningless.

But I DO rock the boat (as you well know, since you and your buddies are always trying to tell me to sit down and shut up). You and the other dealers don't.

 

I totally understand why you guys don't, and can't say I blame you. If my living was also dependent on the comic book hobby being nothing but sunshine and roses, I wouldn't point out the negative aspects of the hobby either. I'm just trying to point out to folks on the boards that they shouldn't expect objective opinions from the guys on the boards who are professional dealers (or amateur dealers, for that matter).

[tth2]

Money laundering through comics. I'm coming around more to the idea every day.

 

I didn't even begin to entertain that scenario. I was thinking more about some rich Arab prince who thinks Jean Grey is hot.

 

 

I've said it as a joke a bunch of times. But if people keep spending millions of dollars on comic books, it gets less tinfoil-hatty. It reminds me of the way that Joe Pesci explains it in Lethal weapon II - You pay dirty cash to the auction houses for the books, then immediately relist them and get a nice clean check from a legit company.

I have doubts whether Heritage would accept payment via suitcases full of cash.

 

Really?

 

Really?

It's so difficult to deposit large amounts of cash in a bank account in the US these days because of all the focus on money laundering and tax avoidance. I'm sure the last thing Heritage would want to do is engage in a series of major cash deposits that would have the IRS and DEA closely monitoring them.

[tth2]

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.

Yeah, but you're a dealer who seems to be opposed to the concept of profit.

[LordRahl]

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?

 

 

Here's a question for everyone that believes CGC doesn't hammer 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 a small NCB crease which can only be seen by holding the book up at a certain angle to the light. The second book has no NCB creae at all, but has a distinct and clearly obvious off center cover combined with a fugly dust shadow running down the right edge of the book, both of which could be seen without even taking the book off the dealer's wall.

 

Which would you choose? In the old days prior to CGC, it was quite obvious which one most collectors would choose. Why? Because it's nicer, meaning it was much more presentable and pleasing to the eye. So it's nicer looking and much more presentable, but yet it's graded lower by CGC?

 

I've personally never cared about an off centre cover. It's only since joining this forum that I've even noticed it.

 

For the record, your post is just a deflection.

 

Fact is, CGC does not hammer or decimate grades or severely downgrade for NCB wear.

 

It's just a myth that is often used by those who dislike pressing to gain some traction in a discussion against pressing.

 

 

 

 

Roy, for the record, what is your definition of "hammer". are you saying it is less than one grade level, one grade level, two grade levels?

 

I think it would depend on the grade of the book. If an otherwise solid 8.0 book has an extra 1/2" NCB crease, it would stay an 8.0. If you are talking about uber high grade I think at 9.6 and below it's a .2 grade deduction (so an otherwise 9.6 book would be a 9.4 and a 9.4 would be a 9.2). At 9.8 I think it would bring it down to a 9.4. My opinion is based mostly on my personal submissions.

 

Roy is correct in that they don't hammer books for NCB wear unless it is a lot of NCB wear in which case it is treated the same as any accumulation of smaller defects would be treated. They do deduct for it, but how much they deduct is dependent on how much NCB wear we are talking about. But for those that seem to hold the opinion that an otherwise 9.6 book would get dropped to let's say a 9.0 or even an 8.5 because of 1 small NCB crease (ie. getting "hammered"), my experience has been that this is not the case.

[MasterChief]

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.

 

 

 

Roy: I empathize with your business perspective and your desire for spirited debate and I appreciate your ability to articulate same. You have made some reasonable points here within and I'm certain, if I were in your shoes, that I would feel and believe the same, on all accounts, but I do not and cannot.

 

Nor can I bring myself to accept the red herring prose you implicitly present regarding books going down in grade as somehow being equivalent to those rising in grade as a result of manipulation resubmission (a thread theme).

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

The percentage of books going down in grade is a fraction–no let me restate that–it is in fact decimal dust as compared to those that have increased in grade through undisclosed enhancement techniques.

 

Yes, one could create a website to catalogue the books that have fallen in grade or remained the same as a result of manipulation. And it would not take long to do so either as the number of books is relatively small in comparison to the thousands that have increased in grade. But it might be risky to do so, as a fair amount of the subject examples would reflect downgrading as an apparent result of botched manipulation and/or restoration removal gone awry.

 

 

[rjrjr]

Coupla decent comics featuring Hulk:

 

 

 

 

How is that JIM a 9.8? I see damage on the upper and bottom left corners.

 

They are both extremely nice copies, both of which I'd love to own. I heard that CGC is looser on grading older books than newer books. I would not have thought that was true (this is suppose to be the premiere comic grading company and I've always read age shouldn't matter when grading a book), but after seeing these books, I do wonder.

 

[LordRahl]

Coupla decent comics featuring Hulk:

 

 

 

 

How is that JIM a 9.8? I see damage on the upper and bottom left corners.

 

They are both extremely nice copies, both of which I'd love to own. I heard that CGC is looser on grading older books than newer books. I would not have thought that was true (this is suppose to be the premiere comic grading company and I've always read age shouldn't matter when grading a book), but after seeing these books, I do wonder.

 

Not sure what you are seeing that would put this book out of 9.8 There are some books in this auction that look over-graded but this is not one of them IMO. That JIM 112 looks every bit a 9.8 to me.

[Icculus308win]

All of us have our own versions of skeletons, varying in different degrees and have done or will do moronic inconsiderate things to get a sale.

 

Ahem. I have NEVER done NOR WILL I EVER do a moronic inconsiderate thing to get a sale!

HEAR HERE!

Hey Tom!

 

Ok, you never in high-school or college or even at lemonade stand back in the day, sold something - anything, for an employer or just a personal sale of baseball card, that you look back on as being moronically inconsiderate?

 

If not, you are a far better person than I!! I remember doing cold calls for a business one summer in college. The company was geared towards the elderly selling piece of mind to them and their loved ones, with mobility gadgets and solutions to make their dwellings "safer." The stuff we were "suggested" to say (told) or how to portray the company's vision and how it could benefit them......was so brutally moronic when I look back on it. But we were all mainly college kids and needed the cash so peoples' feelings weren't on our radar. The owner was a real peach. A functioning alcoholic who was one helleva slick tongued devil.

 

Anyways, don't mean to derail, just catching up on this thread. Thats all

[rjrjr]

Coupla decent comics featuring Hulk:

 

 

 

 

How is that JIM a 9.8? I see damage on the upper and bottom left corners.

 

They are both extremely nice copies, both of which I'd love to own. I heard that CGC is looser on grading older books than newer books. I would not have thought that was true (this is suppose to be the premiere comic grading company and I've always read age shouldn't matter when grading a book), but after seeing these books, I do wonder.

 

Not sure what you are seeing that would put this book out of 9.8 There are some books in this auction that look over-graded but this is not one of them IMO. That JIM 112 looks every bit a 9.8 to me.

 

Admittedly, the scan is not good enough to judge, but my eye was drawn to the lack of green above Thor's helmet in the upper left hand corner which I assumed was damage of some sort. If it is damage, is that permissible in a 9.8? And, both left hand corners look "rounded" to me. I'll admit, I'm a novice at this. The right hand side looks almost perfect however (except for the miscut.)

[LordRahl]

Coupla decent comics featuring Hulk:

 

 

 

 

How is that JIM a 9.8? I see damage on the upper and bottom left corners.

 

They are both extremely nice copies, both of which I'd love to own. I heard that CGC is looser on grading older books than newer books. I would not have thought that was true (this is suppose to be the premiere comic grading company and I've always read age shouldn't matter when grading a book), but after seeing these books, I do wonder.

 

Not sure what you are seeing that would put this book out of 9.8 There are some books in this auction that look over-graded but this is not one of them IMO. That JIM 112 looks every bit a 9.8 to me.

 

Admittedly, the scan is not good enough to judge, but my eye was drawn to the lack of green above Thor's helmet in the upper left hand corner which I assumed was damage of some sort. If it is damage, is that permissible in a 9.8? And, both left hand corners look "rounded" to me. I'll admit, I'm a novice at this. The right hand side looks almost perfect however (except for the miscut.)

 

The "missing color" above Thor's helmet is light reflection off a tiny bend in the paper of the overhang. And the spine side corners are about as square and sharp as it gets on a SA book. Check out the large scan on the heritage site, it's a beauty of a book.

[rjrjr]

Coupla decent comics featuring Hulk:

 

 

 

 

How is that JIM a 9.8? I see damage on the upper and bottom left corners.

 

They are both extremely nice copies, both of which I'd love to own. I heard that CGC is looser on grading older books than newer books. I would not have thought that was true (this is suppose to be the premiere comic grading company and I've always read age shouldn't matter when grading a book), but after seeing these books, I do wonder.

 

Not sure what you are seeing that would put this book out of 9.8 There are some books in this auction that look over-graded but this is not one of them IMO. That JIM 112 looks every bit a 9.8 to me.

 

Admittedly, the scan is not good enough to judge, but my eye was drawn to the lack of green above Thor's helmet in the upper left hand corner which I assumed was damage of some sort. If it is damage, is that permissible in a 9.8? And, both left hand corners look "rounded" to me. I'll admit, I'm a novice at this. The right hand side looks almost perfect however (except for the miscut.)

 

The "missing color" above Thor's helmet is light reflection off a tiny bend in the paper of the overhang. And the spine side corners are about as square and sharp as it gets on a SA book. Check out the large scan on the heritage site, it's a beauty of a book.

 

 

I just checked it out on the heritage site. It looks worse than the image here. That is damage on the top left hand corner and the bottom left hand corner. Looks like minor blunting on the top which you can see from the back. And the color IS missing above his wing. Hadn't notice how bad the "Marvel chipping" is down the right hand side of the book from the scan here.

 

Again, I understand for a SA book this is as good as it gets for a SA or older book. It is a terrific book by all accounts. But a 9.8 terrific? Which is why I wonder if CGC has a different grading standard for BA and up books versus SA and older. There is no way that is a 9.8 on a BA or newer book!

[sacentaur]

You know, the more I see these cooked books the less interested I become.

 

Not that I was at all interested in the first place.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Definite 9.8. Post the exact extent of the damage you see measured in fractions of a inch--hopefully that would help you put it into better perspective. 9.8 doesnt't imply perfection--10.0 does.