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

[rjrjr]

You're looking at a scan that is 2 or 3 times the size of a regular book and looking at magnified images. Minus the very slight darkening of the outer edge of the cover on the JIM #112, you'd have a difficult time finding a nicer copy on the newsstand even if you went through all copies and tried to choose the nicest one.

 

Lots of cool information about grading. Thanks for that.

 

Just being the nicest copy shouldn't qualify a book for a 9.8 grade. But I do understand what you are saying.

 

You're probably correct in this case about the book being a technical 9.8 and I'm probably just being picky (if it were my money, I'm more interested in the eye appeal of the book, not the grade.) For my money, I'd be willing to settle for a lesser grade copy which hides its flaws better than this book does. The fugly Marvel chipping on this copy and that upper left hand corner damage is just too obvious to the eye, being a technical 9.8 is irrelevant to me.

 

Anyway, it has been a interesting discussion. I still haven't heard one way or another if people feel CGC grades SA and older differently than BA and newer books.

[JuliusSeizure]

A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking).

 

I disagree...what makes you say that? My past study of examples from the Overstreet Grading Guides hasn't suggested that's the case.

 

What is really confusing is that I don't know if he's an "us" or a "them" by this statement.

 

Well, after all, we're all just ordinary men.

[shrunkenhead]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

[trmoore54]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

[VintageComics]

I still haven't heard one way or another if people feel CGC grades SA and older differently than BA and newer books.

 

If you read the Overstreet grading guidelines, they allow some defects to be larger on GA books than SA books and ditto for SA vs. BA.

 

For example, OSPG allows larger creases and bindery tears on GA books than SA books and ditto for SA to BA.

 

I think that CGC may allow this sort of thing in their grading as well.

[paperheart]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

[LordRahl]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

 

 

The GA books I would want in my collection numbers fewer than 10 and that is based strictly on cover art.

[october]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

 

Maybe the superhero stuff, but a lot of the best genre material comes from the Golden Age. ECs and Carl Barks' Duck work are some of the best the medium has to offer. Far more entertaining than most SA Marvels....which aren't all they are cracked up to be if you don't happen to be wearing those rose colored nostalgia glasses that so many around here sport.

[VintageComics]

I had said that there are 9.8 examples out there that looked worse than this one [the TTA #36]

 

I was an active slab collector between 2000 and 2004 and, as such, my grading perspective is stuck in that 2000-2004 timeframe. Back then, CGC had far less tolerance for even these accumulated defects you speak of. I am confident that, back in that period, the TTA #36 would have had precisely a 0% chance of attaining a 9.8 and, while a 9.6 might have been possible, it would have been a gift grade. The fact that you can point to worse looking examples in grade nowadays just speaks to the fact that CGC's grading has become ridiculously lax and sloppy since I stopped collecting. In fact, I'll occasionally still look for certain slabbed books online and I regularly see 9.8s that would have been 9.6s at best back in the first half of the 2000s, and 9.6s with so much wear they might even have been 9.2s.

 

9.8s are not perfect, but, in the first half of the 2000s, you could be pretty sure that they wouldn't be far off. Most of you who have bought and sold continuously since then have probably lost a lot of that perspective as you adapted to the changes in CGC's strictness (or lack thereof) over time. Me, I'm stuck in 2004 and so many of these alleged 9.6s and 9.8s just look grossly overgraded to me.

 

Again, to be fair, I think it's a myth that the early CGC books were tighter right across the board. In fact, CGC has always had a slight swing this way or that. I've seen a lot of books from 2000-2004 that have been severely over graded as well.

 

There have been several distinct "tight" periods that I remember, and one of the tightest I'd ever experienced was late 2009...around October/November. I got absolutely slaughtered on a very large submission (about 80 books) and it nearly put me out of business just as I was getting started as a full time dealer. It's significant in my memory because if you buy at a certain grade and expect to sell at that same grade, only to have them grade below that is a significant loss and one that you end up remembering.

 

[seanfingh]

I had said that there are 9.8 examples out there that looked worse than this one [the TTA #36]

 

I was an active slab collector between 2000 and 2004 and, as such, my grading perspective is stuck in that 2000-2004 timeframe. Back then, CGC had far less tolerance for even these accumulated defects you speak of. I am confident that, back in that period, the TTA #36 would have had precisely a 0% chance of attaining a 9.8 and, while a 9.6 might have been possible, it would have been a gift grade. The fact that you can point to worse looking examples in grade nowadays just speaks to the fact that CGC's grading has become ridiculously lax and sloppy since I stopped collecting. In fact, I'll occasionally still look for certain slabbed books online and I regularly see 9.8s that would have been 9.6s at best back in the first half of the 2000s, and 9.6s with so much wear they might even have been 9.2s.

 

9.8s are not perfect, but, in the first half of the 2000s, you could be pretty sure that they wouldn't be far off. Most of you who have bought and sold continuously since then have probably lost a lot of that perspective as you adapted to the changes in CGC's strictness (or lack thereof) over time. Me, I'm stuck in 2004 and so many of these alleged 9.6s and 9.8s just look grossly overgraded to me.

 

Again, to be fair, I think it's a myth that the early CGC books were tighter right across the board. In fact, CGC has always had a slight swing this way or that. I've seen a lot of books from 2000-2004 that have been severely over graded as well.

 

There have been several distinct "tight" periods that I remember, and one of the tightest I'd ever experienced was late 2009...around October/November. I got absolutely slaughtered on a very large submission (about 80 books) and it nearly put me out of business just as I was getting started as a full time dealer. It's significant in my memory because if you buy at a certain grade and expect to sell at that same grade, only to have them grade below that is a significant loss and one that you end up remembering.

 

One of the loose periods is when you got that Witching Hour #1 in 9.8

[Rip]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

 

Maybe the superhero stuff, but a lot of the best genre material comes from the Golden Age. ECs and Carl Barks' Duck work are some of the best the medium has to offer. Far more entertaining than most SA Marvels....which aren't all they are cracked up to be if you don't happen to be wearing those rose colored nostalgia glasses that so many around here sport.

 

I would take the art and story of good Golden Age over ANY early silver age.

 

LB Cole, Matt Baker, Alex Schomburg, Frazetta, Cap/Timely splash pages, EC Horror.

 

Try reading early FF, Hulk, Avengers, Thor, X-Men etc. Looks and reads horrible.

Early silver age doesn't hold a candle and often looks stupid in comparison. The only early silver age title that holds any water is Spidey.

 

GA is better, until maybe Neal Adams hits in later silver.

 

Most who do not like Golden Age have never seen it.

 

...and if you bring in Pulp's then it gets only more lop sided.

[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).

I guess this is where I have to prove that I, too, rock the boat. I won't.

Nor did I expect you to.

 

And I do not think that your opinion is any more objective than a dealer's just because you are a collector. You have your own set of biases.

I have biases, yes, but I'm not afraid to state opinions that may detrimentally affect the value of my books or of comics in general.

[DrWatson]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

 

 

The GA books I would want in my collection numbers fewer than 10 and that is based strictly on cover art.

All-American Comics #61. That's it. That's the only one I would one day care to own.

[tth2]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

One can also be a SA collector with massive holes in one's collection!

[VintageComics]

One of the loose periods is when you got that Witching Hour #1 in 9.8

 

I thought that it was a reasonable 9.8 but yeah, 9.6 would have suited me fine.

 

The Weird War #1 in 9.8 was more of a surprise. I had it locked at 9.6 so it was a pleasant surprise to get the first 9.8 on it.

 

[LordRahl]

You know, I'm starting to think, when it comes to HG SA, that the pressing debate is less about the ethics of pressing and more about the realization that these books are not uncommon. Nosebleed HG was the separator, for a long time. "These are the rare books, right here," blah blah. But if you can press out a defect then the price multiples become questionable all over again.

 

So can we just admit collecting GA is better?

 

absolutely, if you're over 65 years of age and don't care about story quality, amateurish art and having holes in your collection that you can drive a truck through.

One can also be a SA collector with massive holes in one's collection!

 

Only if you collect uber high grade DC drek

[delekkerste]

Again, to be fair, I think it's a myth that the early CGC books were tighter right across the board. In fact, CGC has always had a slight swing this way or that. I've seen a lot of books from 2000-2004 that have been severely over graded as well.

 

Roy, CGC did swing from being a little bit looser or tighter during that timeframe, but it was nothing like the sloppiness that has ensued in recent years. I'm pretty sure that most of my collection (which is almost entirely old Red and old Blue Labels - hardly any of the "big number" variety) could be straight re-subbed (without pressing) and average close to a full notch upgrade (not that most of my remaining books would be worth doing so from a time/cost perspective).

 

Back then, virtually all 9.8s looked like 9.8s. Nowadays, it's like Forrest Gump and his box of chocolates - you have to look closely because you never know what you're going to get.

[VintageComics]

And just to be fair and allow some perspective, I started back with CGC in 2003/2004 so the only pre 2004 books that I saw were books that I purchased in the past 8 years or so...I was not around for the first 3 years of CGC so my perspective will be different than yours.

 

Also, it does seem to be worth repeating that overgraded books make the headlines much more often than undergraded books.

 

An "overgraded" book will stand out like a sore thumb and attract attention and get called out every time but it's very rare to see someone say "holy cow - look at this book, it looks like a 9.8 in a 9.4 holder!" Those books generally get silently gobbled up into collections because they look nicer than the assigned grade or by people looking to increase the grade through resubmission. There is no motivation to publicly advertise those "undergraded" books as it's in their best interested to not talk about them.

 

Just my to add.

 

 

[Rip]

Currently I do believe the sloppyness has gotten worse. While they always swing both ways (remember that early crazy overgraded moldy Action 1 2.5) I think the consistancy does seem to change from time to time.

Page quality is also a complete shoot more than ever. It's like when they get a submission group they tag everything with the same page quality. I had books that I thought were C/OW and bone white get tagged with the same OW/W. They clearly need to stop and re-evaluate what they are doing sometimes.

 

[burntboy]

That cat clip has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen...