Sweetness and Sadness from Sarasota

[namisgr]

You make a valid point TTH, about indents, and certainly books that are perfectly flat are more desirable than those with very small indents, all other features being equal.

 

However, from my perspective there are a number of other flaws (from reading, storage, and production) that impact the desirability and attractiveness of a book to a far greater extent than very small and shallow indents. For example, while I realize CGC is not of a mind to consider cover color preservation when grading a book, to my eyes it has an enormous impact on overall appeal. Loss of original cover colors and whiteness (from yellowing), sun shadows, marked transfer stain, edge tanning, and dirt are major factors that make an old book look old, rather than in topnotch condition that might be expected of books receiving NM- and better grades. Similarly, miswrapped covers and misplaced staples are, to my eye, a far greater detriment to the appeal of a book than a barely perceptible indent that can only be seen from very close inspection of an angled book in bright light.

 

For me, color preservation is a crucial quality of an appealing high grade book that receives far too little attention in the slabbing/grading process. Anyone who has purchased slabs via mail order has probably shared my experience of occasionally being very disappointed after receiving a structurally-sound high grade book with detectable tanning of the back cover and partial loss of whiteness and other original coloring from the front cover (aspects of book preservation that are often difficult to assess from scanned images).

[sfilosa]

You are grading Eye Appeal, not structural defects.

 

I absolutely agree that eye appeal is more important to me than very insignificant non-color breaking creases, but that IS NOT how CGC grades. Which is why you have to buy the book, not the label.

 

YET, pedigree books seem to get a little break, therefore there probably is a little upgrade for having full colors and gloss (like most pedigree collections exhibit).

[r100comics]

Hi Bob

 

Sorry to hear about your mixed fortunes on this batch of books. As many people have stated, I also found it pretty rewarding to grade each book before I send them off, then contact CGC for the grader's notes on anything with more than a 1/4 grade deviation.

 

They are remarkably consistent in their grading bias (i.e. in weighing grade deductions of one flaw against another), and I found myself being able to accurately predict the majority of my grades within a couple of submissions.

 

For better or for worse, I now subconsciously grade any raw book I see with 100% "CGC GOGGLES".

[namisgr]

You are grading Eye Appeal, not structural defects.

 

I only partially agree with you, Steve. It is certainly the case that CGC grading pays little or no attention to cover color preservation, staple placement, and cover wrapping. However, the latter two are indeed structural defects. Granted, they are production defects, rather than handling flaws, but so are production creases of the kind that killed the grade on my beloved ASM 100. It is also the case that with mail order selling, the numerical grade (and, hence, the very small and shallow cover indents) have far more impact on sale prices than negatives in color preservation, staple placement, or cover wrapping. In my opinion, the currrent market (and CGC's role in it) overvalues edge structure and flatness at the expense of color preservation.

 

I also agree with you on the importance of buying the book, and not the label, but my point here (which I will reiterate) is that mail order buying does not allow for thorough evaluation of cover color preservation, and CGC grading is of little to no help in this regard. Scans can be useful, but also can be deceiving when it comes to colors. The Eides books are a prime case in point. In their E-bay scans, the Eides books appear significantly yellowed and lacking in richness of color. In person, the 4 JIM/Thor books I purchased recently have, in fact, superior cover colors and whiteness preservation. It can be concluded that Eides performs less image processing (during the scanning and photoshop manipulation) than many other sellers.

 

My preferred way to buy books still is to hold them in my hands at shows, whether slabbed or raw. There are also a few mail order dealers with whom I've dealt that place considerable value in color preservation, wrapping and staple placement, and factor them into their grading.

[namisgr]

Does the qualified label remove any numerical downgrade?? (ie., no drop from a 9.2 to an 8.5 because of the loose page ,or can you get slammed twice??)

 

i'll never completely understand "Qualified" labels.........

 

I'll second your confusion, BB. Back in the early days of CGC, when certain interior defects would be noted on the labels, it was not uncommon to see blue labeled books with one or more torn pages. The tears were noted as being up to an inch. Even 3 or 4 torn pages still merited a blue label. Consequently, I am puzzled and dismayed why a one-staple detachment of an interior page of my FF13 merited a qualified label. Since I believe the book deserved a 9.0 grade excluding the page defect, it could certainly have been granted a blue labeled 8.5. Or an 8.0. Oh, well...

[Mephisto]

I sen my 1st batch in recently. I haven't got the books yet but the grades were available today.

 

Detective Comics 71 Universal 8.5. It was sold to me as a 9.0 and figured it would come back an 8.5 or a 9.0, so no problem there as I was also glad it got Off-white pages.

 

Creatures on the Loose 32 Universal 9.2. I submitted it because I want all of Kraven's appearances 9.0 or higher and there is only 1 graded copy on the census due to it being a cheap book and a date of 11/74 so it can't go Modern. It came back the grade I bought it as but it got CREAM to off-white pages. Since Kraven's appearances are Silver age and up I really like getting Off-White pages or better on those books.

 

Amazing Spider-Man 41 Universal 9.2. I was pleasantly surprised with this one. I bought it as a VF/NM. After seeing this thread I was hoping it wouldn't come back as a surprise PLOD. It got Off-white to White pages, so I guess if any of the books were going to get cream pages it was best for the Creatures on the Loose. Although I plan on keeping the Creatures on the Loose and selling the ASM 41.

[sfilosa]

Granted, they are production defects, rather than handling flaws, but so are production creases of the kind that killed the grade on my beloved ASM 100.

 

I seriously doubt that the production crease is what brought your ASM #100 down. I've had a Gaines File copy (that I submitted myself) with a printers crease half way across the book in the title area and the book graded a 9.6.

 

You should definitely call for the graders notes.

 

Regarding CGC and EYE APPEAL, I'm one hundred percent in agreement that:

 

1) I would much rather see the book in person to judge color and cover gloss

2) I would much perfer that CGC downgrade more for fading of coloring, yellowing, dust shadows, etc. than downgrading harshly for non-color breaking creases.

 

But that is the way they grade and I have learned that.

 

A perfect example was the Tales to Astonish #44 (first Wasp) from the Curator pedigree in 9.4 (it was on eBay a few months ago). That is a book I really would have paid a lot for, but it had a weird color discoloration at the top right corner. Maybe that was a printing error, but it jumped out at me, and there was no way I could justify paying 9.4 money for a book with that defect.

 

You got some nice books back and good luck on your next submit.

[tth2]

However, from my perspective there are a number of other flaws (from reading, storage, and production) that impact the desirability and attractiveness of a book to a far greater extent than very small and shallow indents.

 

Sure, I don't disagree with this at all. Downgrading for non-color breaking creases and indents is only relevant for NM level books. By the time you get into VF, there are enough stress lines, color-breaking creases, etc. that defects that can only be seen in the light are the least of your worries.

 

For example, while I realize CGC is not of a mind to consider cover color preservation when grading a book, to my eyes it has an enormous impact on overall appeal. Loss of original cover colors and whiteness (from yellowing), sun shadows, marked transfer stain, edge tanning, and dirt are major factors that make an old book look old, rather than in topnotch condition that might be expected of books receiving NM- and better grades. Similarly, miswrapped covers and misplaced staples are, to my eye, a far greater detriment to the appeal of a book than a barely perceptible indent that can only be seen from very close inspection of an angled book in bright light.

 

For me, color preservation is a crucial quality of an appealing high grade book that receives far too little attention in the slabbing/grading process. Anyone who has purchased slabs via mail order has probably shared my experience of occasionally being very disappointed after receiving a structurally-sound high grade book with detectable tanning of the back cover and partial loss of whiteness and other original coloring from the front cover (aspects of book preservation that are often difficult to assess from scanned images).

 

I agree with much of this, and I do believe that CGC does knock grades down somewhat for sun shadows, tanning and dirt (otherwise why would wonder breading help to improve a book's grade?). I personally am a gloss freak and think that CGC undervalues exceptional gloss. On the other hand, the slab itself tends to understate gloss and color, as some books with exceptional gloss and color that I've submitted don't look nearly as great in the slab. I have to admit I historically have not been too picky about production defects such as non-centered covers or staple misplacement, but these Boards have actually caused me to tighten up significantly in this area.

 

Clearly the reason why CGC emphasizes structural defects over the kind of eye appeal defects you list is that structural defects are objective and therefore easy to quantify, whereas centering and loss of color/gloss is more subjective. What has really surprised me is CGC's inconsistency with page color, which you'd think would be the easiest thing to get right. You hold the pages against the color guide, and see which category they match. But based on some resubmits that have been reported on these boards, there have been some pretty significant swings in page color upwards.

[lou_fine]

You make a valid point TTH, about indents, and certainly books that are perfectly flat are more desirable than those with very small indents, all other features being equal.

 

However, from my perspective there are a number of other flaws (from reading, storage, and production) that impact the desirability and attractiveness of a book to a far greater extent than very small and shallow indents. For example, while I realize CGC is not of a mind to consider cover color preservation when grading a book, to my eyes it has an enormous impact on overall appeal. Loss of original cover colors and whiteness (from yellowing), sun shadows, marked transfer stain, edge tanning, and dirt are major factors that make an old book look old, rather than in topnotch condition that might be expected of books receiving NM- and better grades. Similarly, miswrapped covers and misplaced staples are, to my eye, a far greater detriment to the appeal of a book than a barely perceptible indent that can only be seen from very close inspection of an angled book in bright light.

 

Sometimes I just wonder how much input CGC actually got from the dealers and collectors before they established their grading standards. I just find it totally absurb that CGC would downplay obvious flaws such as QP and PQ when grading a book. No wonder why we end up with some pretty ugly looking 9.4's and 9.6's. On the other hand, they really seem to knock a book for non-colour breaking creases which you have to squint your eyes and hold up to a light in order to see the flaw. To me, something is not right in this grading standard of CGC's.

 

Better to buy the book than the label in a lot of cases.

[THE_BEYONDER]

You make a valid point TTH, about indents, and certainly books that are perfectly flat are more desirable than those with very small indents, all other features being equal.

 

However, from my perspective there are a number of other flaws (from reading, storage, and production) that impact the desirability and attractiveness of a book to a far greater extent than very small and shallow indents. For example, while I realize CGC is not of a mind to consider cover color preservation when grading a book, to my eyes it has an enormous impact on overall appeal. Loss of original cover colors and whiteness (from yellowing), sun shadows, marked transfer stain, edge tanning, and dirt are major factors that make an old book look old, rather than in topnotch condition that might be expected of books receiving NM- and better grades. Similarly, miswrapped covers and misplaced staples are, to my eye, a far greater detriment to the appeal of a book than a barely perceptible indent that can only be seen from very close inspection of an angled book in bright light.

 

Sometimes I just wonder how much input CGC actually got from the dealers and collectors before they established their grading standards. I just find it totally absurb that CGC would downplay obvious flaws such as QP and PQ when grading a book. No wonder why we end up with some pretty ugly looking 9.4's and 9.6's. On the other hand, they really seem to knock a book for non-colour breaking creases which you have to squint your eyes and hold up to a light in order to see the flaw. To me, something is not right in this grading standard of CGC's.

 

Better to buy the book than the label in a lot of cases.

 

Sorry to interupt....but I asked Steve the following question a couple days ago:

 

If pressing isn't restoration.... why does CGC downgrade a book for non color-breaking creases?

 

If the removal of these creases is not restoration....why are they considered defects in the first place?

 

Were I a conspiracy theorist ...I would say that CGC slams these books so that pressing comics is financially worthwhile to those with the means .

[tth2]

Sometimes I just wonder how much input CGC actually got from the dealers and collectors before they established their grading standards. I just find it totally absurb that CGC would downplay obvious flaws such as QP and PQ when grading a book. No wonder why we end up with some pretty ugly looking 9.4's and 9.6's. On the other hand, they really seem to knock a book for non-colour breaking creases which you have to squint your eyes and hold up to a light in order to see the flaw. To me, something is not right in this grading standard of CGC's.

 

Better to buy the book than the label in a lot of cases.

 

Lou, based on many so-called NM books that I bought in pre-CGC days, including from many well-established dealers, my impression is that dealers did not deduct a lot of points, if any, for non-color breaking creases or indents. So to the extent that CGC downgrades for these defects, which I think they do, this doesn't appear to have been driven by dealer input.

 

As for QP and PQ flaws, I think we're forgetting the reason for a grading service. As you know, structural defects are hard to assess unless you're holding the book in your hand, particularly for ultra-high grade books. As mentioned in an earlier post, I put very little stock in grading based on scans. Plus, there is a subjective assessment that is required to give an overall grade to a book, based on the different combination of types and degrees of structural defects that may exist on a book. Even with lower grade books, because of the many different grades, you have to have the book in your hands to be able to do a proper assessment. So a grading service helps to take the guess work out of this process and enforces some level of standardization in grading of structural defects.

 

Most QP defects, on the other hand, are by their nature visible from a good scan or photo. There's nothing subjective about its existence, only in its appeal/lack of appeal for a potential buyer. So is there any need for a grading service, or even the seller, to tell me, via a reduced grade, that the cover is miswrapped? Or to deduct more points because the miswrap is 1/4" as opposed to 1/8"? No, I can judge for myself, and can decide whether to buy a miswrapped book that is a structural 9.6 or pass because the miswrap bugs me too much. If someone doesn't care about the eye appeal and buys just based on the structural grade (out of ignorance of QP concerns or because they genuinely don't care), that's their choice.

 

However, over time, as the CGC market continues to mature, I think the market will start to differentiate between books that have the same CGC grade but different QP, in no small part due to the evangelizing of many Board members. Perhaps we will get to the point where we won't scratch our heads over different reported prices for two books with an identical CGC grade, but will instead assume that the differential was because of different QP or PQ.

[sfilosa]

However, over time, as the CGC market continues to mature, I think the market will start to differentiate between books that have the same CGC grade but different QP, in no small part due to the evangelizing of many Board members.

 

Already happening.

 

Yet, because very few actual books of the same issue and grade are sold in a short period of time, even two identical books could have widely varying prices.

[uclapeterg]

[BradleyX2]

I sen my 1st batch in recently.

 

...

 

Creatures on the Loose 32 Universal 9.2. I submitted it because I want all of Kraven's appearances 9.0 or higher and there is only 1 graded copy on the census due to it being a cheap book and a date of 11/74 so it can't go Modern. It came back the grade I bought it as but it got CREAM to off-white pages. Since Kraven's appearances are Silver age and up I really like getting Off-White pages or better on those books.

 

 

I sent this same book in as Economy about a month ago. As far as the actual structure goes, I'm thinking it could end up being a 9.4, *maybe* a 9.6 (now that I've said this, watch it come back 7.5 ). The main problem I found with it was like yours: page quality. I'm sure it's gonna come back "Cream pages".

 

On the other hand, I've got a copy downstairs with bone white pages, but only around VF- condition.

 

And yeah, it sucked that if it was one issue later, it could've been sent in "Modern".

 

 

 

[lou_fine]

Most QP defects, on the other hand, are by their nature visible from a good scan or photo. There's nothing subjective about its existence, only in its appeal/lack of appeal for a potential buyer. So is there any need for a grading service, or even the seller, to tell me, via a reduced grade, that the cover is miswrapped? Or to deduct more points because the miswrap is 1/4" as opposed to 1/8"? No, I can judge for myself, and can decide whether to buy a miswrapped book that is a structural 9.6 or pass because the miswrap bugs me too much. If someone doesn't care about the eye appeal and buys just based on the structural grade (out of ignorance of QP concerns or because they genuinely don't care), that's their choice.

 

I believe that the purpose of a grading service is to provide an unbiased grade on a book by taking into consideration all defects including visible ones and structural ones that are harder to detect. Just because we can view the QP defects ourselves from a scan does not mean that it should be excluded from the grading criteria.

 

If we follow the above criteria, should CGC then be excluding defects such as pieces missing from a cover, corner bumps,etc. since these types of defects are easily seen by the naked eye and does not need a grading service to inform us as to these flaws.

[tth2]

Most QP defects, on the other hand, are by their nature visible from a good scan or photo. There's nothing subjective about its existence, only in its appeal/lack of appeal for a potential buyer. So is there any need for a grading service, or even the seller, to tell me, via a reduced grade, that the cover is miswrapped? Or to deduct more points because the miswrap is 1/4" as opposed to 1/8"? No, I can judge for myself, and can decide whether to buy a miswrapped book that is a structural 9.6 or pass because the miswrap bugs me too much. If someone doesn't care about the eye appeal and buys just based on the structural grade (out of ignorance of QP concerns or because they genuinely don't care), that's their choice.

 

I believe that the purpose of a grading service is to provide an unbiased grade on a book by taking into consideration all defects including visible ones and structural ones that are harder to detect. Just because we can view the QP defects ourselves from a scan does not mean that it should be excluded from the grading criteria.

 

If we follow the above criteria, should CGC then be excluding defects such as pieces missing from a cover, corner bumps,etc. since these types of defects are easily seen by the naked eye and does not need a grading service to inform us as to these flaws.

 

Lou, of course you can always take my position to a logical extreme. My point is that some structural defects are visible to the anked eye and others are not, so they all go into the mix of producing a grade for structural defects. The thing we're always concerned about is a book which from a distance looks NM, but turns out to be much less, right? In my opinion, this is not necessary for QP, because it's inherently detectable by the naked eye and there is much less risk that there is a QP defect which is not easily visible.

 

Anyways, what system do you propose to measure QP? .2 of a deduction for each 1/8" of miswrap? .2 of a deduction for each 2 degrees that a cover is not perpendicular? .2 of a deduction for each 1/8" that a staple is from the "ideal" location? You strike me as one of the guys who views CGC's grading with the appropriate level of skepticism/realism, so why would you want to put even more grading power in their hands? I don't need Steve Borock or Timely to tell me that a book is miswrapped.

[sfilosa]

Just like CGC grades structural defects (i.e the number from 1.0-10.0) and page quality seperately (i.e. brittle to white), they could grade Quality of Production seperately.

 

Even a three tier system would work. Excellent, Good and Poor.

 

Or as I suggested at one time, just a STAR to signify near perfect QP. Then a 9.4 with a STAR and a 9.4 without a STAR would represent that the first book might be a touch better.

 

I DO NOT, want CGC to incorporate QP or PQ into the numerical grade.

[fantastic_four]

Just like CGC grades structural defects (i.e the number from 1.0-10.0) and page quality seperately (i.e. brittle to white), they could grade Quality of Production seperately.

 

Even a three tier system would work. Excellent, Good and Poor.

 

Or as I suggested at one time, just a STAR to signify near perfect QP. Then a 9.4 with a STAR and a 9.4 without a STAR would represent that the first book might be a touch better.

 

I DO NOT, want CGC to incorporate QP or PQ into the numerical grade.

 

CGC already includes QP and PQ into the numerical grade...they just don't downgrade much for it below the 9.8 level unless it's very bad (i.e. brittle or has horrible production defects).

[r100comics]

Why would you want to drive up the cost of high Q.P. books by having it spelt out on the label ? Those in the know, know. The day will come when there will be a significant price differential for the High Q.P./High Grade specimens.

 

Why give speculators a heads up before you need to ?

[sfilosa]

CGC already includes QP and PQ into the numerical grade...they just don't downgrade much for it below the 9.8 level unless it's very bad (i.e. brittle or has horrible production defects).

 

While that may be true, it is in fact pretty irrelevant for 99.999999% of comic books. It like saying that CGC downgrades for a date stamp. To me, unless something would cause a 9.4 to go to a 9.2 or lower, than it REALLY DOESN'T effect the grade.

 

Said a different way, if two books were exactly identical and both were graded CGC 9.4's, would the inclusion of a mis-cut or off-white pages (instead of white) downgrade the book. If not, then I don't consider it a downgradable defect.