Did Steve Borock just officially hint at the CGC stance on eye appeal?

[fantastic_four]

There's an interesting question in the "Ask CGC" section where someone asked if they downgrade for distributer's ink on the edges of comics. Here's Steve Borock's response:

 

Anything that is on a comic book which is not on other copies of the same comic book, is taken into account when a comic book is graded. That said, things like distributors ink ("painted top") or arrival date in pen on Bronze Age or older comic books would have no deduction in grade except in the highest of grades (9.8-10.0) unless extreme or obtrusive.

This is exactly how I've thought that CGC downgrades for a WIDE range of defects that many of us loosely categorize as "eye appeal." I have seen many, many examples which suggest that CGC does not downgrade below 9.8 for eye appeal-type defects such as the following:

 

• Unobtrusive date stamps or writing
• Cover miswrap
• Page whiteness levels above tan
• Gloss
• Minor cover ink fading
• Translucency. I'm not sure a book couldn't get a 10.0 with this, but I have no examples to back that idea up. I only suggest it because I've noticed that 90% of dealers and collectors I talk to never seem to even count translucency as a defect at all. My idea is that it's the absolute WORST defect in this entire list! It very often affects the ENTIRE cover, not just one isolated part of it like many other eye appeal factors.

[Darthdiesel]

IMO, sometimes transluceny is a scanner induced defect. I only notice the translucency of my books when I'm scanning them for sale on eBay. But in regular light, they look opaque?

[fantastic_four]

Could be. I haven't seen my scanner make a cover look translucent yet if it didn't look that way in person. Here's a book that is just as translucent in person as in the following scan:

Click here for a larger picture

[murph0]

Looks like I'll REALLY have to start watching what CGC books I buy now :\

 

Brian

[Darthdiesel]

Qualifying my previous statement, translucency can also be induced by the CGC slabbing process by compressing the cover up against the microchamber paper (see things clearer against white background?) tightly due to sealing in a well. See if you have any non slabbed translucent covers?

[fantastic_four]

BronzeBruce suggested this as well. He said he submitted a Hulk 181 where the letters in the "Hulk" title weren't translucent before submission, but when he got it back, he was perturbed to see that they did look translucent. Tranlucency being amplified by the microchamber paper would also explain why most people haven't noticed it until recently. I didn't get back into collecting until mid-2000 and I didn't notice translucency as a defect until late 2000. I hadn't thought about it before, but now I'm not sure I've seen many translucent comics outside of a slab. I'll look for that in unslabbed comics over the next few months.

 

Tranlucency is definitely a defect, because not all slabbed comics exhibit it. But if it's a defect that is only visible when the cover is shoved up against the microchamber paper and is barely noticable without that paper, then it's a MUCH more minor defect than I've been pitching it as in these forums. And for these types of books, it's a shame that the book actually looks worse in the slab than it does outside of it...

[Rickdogg]

Ewwwww, date stamps

[Darthdiesel]

BronzeBruce suggested this as well

 

Great minds think alike...as do violently psychotic ones...well leave it to the forumites to determine who falls in what category

[drbanner]

Just to clarify, the slabbing process itself does not make the cover more translucent, but rather it makes the existing translucency more apparent by providing a greater contrast between the graphics on the inner cover when laid against a white background, than when laid against a darker background (like the 1st page of the book). And yes, scanning does make translucency appear a little bit worse in the scan than in real life due to the "blasting" of the cover with a bright light, and the fact that when you get down to pixel size, the scanning software has to assign a grey scale to each pixel that may be darker than in real life.

 

I think I'll try to fiddle around with a couple unslabbed books to see how different I can make the translucency appear by tweaking the scanning parameters, adding a white sheet of paper, and adding a black sheet. (Geez, what kind of geek am I! )

[drbanner]

Actually, I just remembered that I scanned the Iron Fist 1 9.6 I currently have on ebay (shameless plug) before sending it in. Here are the before and after pics, same scanner, same resolution, the big difference being the CGC case, and microchamber paper. Big diff!

 

Before slabbing:

 

 

After slabbing:

 

[CosmicBob]

The first one is what I would expect white letters to look like. The second one is definately more translucent.

 

So if it is a encapsulation induced defect, then presumably when the book is removed and the micropore paper is taken out, it will go back to the original state of translucency. It's not really a defect to downgrade a book for, since it's temporary and due entirely to what container the book is in, and completely reversible.

[awe4one]

Thanks Banner,

 

This is go info to know and actually see it in practice.

 

Now what really happened to the comic between scans?

 

 

Jim

[COI]

The minor cover ink fading bugs me the most.

 

Seeing as how the books are locked in the slab, with only the cover to look at, sharp colors become very important.

[Mister_Comics]

I feel the microchamber paper creates the transluency. I don't think its a defect. I've noticed some of my books look like you can see the back side of the cover after they are graded. I think the paper creates this illusion.

[lighthouse]

Exactly...

 

The microchamber paper is substantially more reflective than newsprint paper... so the light that would normally shine through the front cover and be absorbed by the splash page is instead being reflected back through the front cover. You wind up with much the same effect as if you held the book up to the light, because there is that much more light shining back through the cover at the scanner's optics...

 

I never understood people freaking about translucent white covers on slabbed books. The only way it's a defect is if the paper integrity has been substantially compromised, and that would show up as part of the CGC grade...

 

Most of what you see on books like DD 1 is just the light bouncing off the microchamber paper. And some of the differences from one CGC book to the next could be as simple as the particular run of paper than CGC got in. I doubt every shipment has the exact same brightness, since their quality control is based on the gas absorption, not the brightness. You could turn down a comic based on "eye appeal" when in fact the "eye appeal" problem had nothing to do with the comic at all...

[duncan36]

Well the one thing I've deduced from the way CGC views these glaring 'non-flaws' (kind of like a no-prize?) is that CGC is either heavily biased towards dealers or is actually funded by dealers. Because lets be frank a date stamp or pencil on the cover does significantly effect the books appeal, to me its worse than mild spine stress or someother flaw..

Many old books have these flaws and dealers stand to lose or gain hundreds of thousands of dollars based on CGC's decision on this matter, so this is evidence that CGC is influenced by dealers.

 

Put two 9.6 books one with pencil on the cover and one without on the table and every single time the buyer will choose the non-penciled book, and if questioned most people would say that the pencil mark detracts from the book's visual appeal.

 

So in this regards CGC is out of line with collectors whose opinions show that pencilling is indeed a flaw and does lower the desireability of the book.

[sborock]

You should read the OVERSTREET grading guide to see how "out of line" CGC is.

[fantastic_four]

Translucency is not ONLY caused by an optical illusion of the microchamber paper. If it was, then all light-colored books would display it. They don't.

 

Translucency is also not only caused by scanners. I have seen several CGC books in person that were just as translucent in reality as they are in scans. I own several of these comics. In my experience up to this point, if you see a scan where there is light reflection off of the front of the case, then it is likely that the overlighting of the scanner could be exaggerating the translucency. If the scan does not display glare on the case and is generally darkish, then the translucency is highly likely to be just as bad in reality. Here are two examples:

 

• Weird Science 13 CGC 9.8 with darkish scan and severe translucency
• X-Men #1 CGC 9.6 where glare on case indicates that bright scanner light may be exaggerating the obvious severe translucency

Severe translucency--if it does indeed exist outside of a CGC slab, and I'm not sure right now that it does exist to the degree you see in the scanned comics above--is extremely ugly. It is a defect. It affects the entire cover and makes it difficult to distinguish the outside cover art from the inside cover art. Translucency does exist outside of the slab, but I'm now not sure that it is anywhere near as ugly as it is inside of a slab.

[fantastic_four]

It's not just CGC. Overstreet has always allowed unobtrusive date stamps and cover writing in the high grades. I believe the current Grading Guide indicates it's allowable all the way up to 9.9.

 

So don't just dump on CGC for that criteria; take it up with Overstreet.

[COI]

Holy S$%T!!

 

That X Men #1 is the most severe I've ever seen, and on such a nice book too.