Journey 83 - 1st Thor - 5.0W signed!

[Bronty]

But, I really don't understand that whole area 100% or care to really. I'll leave it up to you guys.

[comicdonna]

Thanks for the congrats.

 

^ I don't think that would be fair or logical. How to deal with signatures of people who died before cgc ever opened their doors?

 

My understanding of the green label, similar to what roy is saying, is that its a label used when one single defect causes a really significant downgrade to a book.

 

Like, say, an AF15 that looks 9.4 but has a 3 ring binder hole punch throughout. Calling it a 2.0 isn't as accurate a descriptor as Q9.4.

 

In this case there isn't a big enough swing in the before and after grades to warrant the use of a green label.

 

I agree! (thumbs u

 

A very nice book.

[VintageComics]

After going back and forth with Paul Litch by email earlier today, I'm not sure I understand this any better.

 

I understand how qualified grades are assigned to books which are "missing" elements (i.e. pages, inserts, coupons, staples, and ink colour on the RGB spectrum, etc.).

 

And the stigma against Marvel Value stamps being clipped is certainly justified.

 

However the stigma carries over to other "qualified" assignments, and IMHO it seems to be inadequately equipped to be used for unwitnessed signatures.

 

I always thought the green label (and the stigma it carried) was a conveniently used grade assignment that forced collectors to choose the SS path.

 

If the signature is not witnessed by CGC it can not be considered authentic. If it's not an authentic signature it is considered writing on the cover. If the writing is on a high grade book, it's obtrusive and a large defect. If it's a large defect on an otherwise high grade book it goes into a green holder.

 

Much like the purple holder is a catch all for resto, conservation AND trimming the green holder is a catch-all for several things as well.

 

 

[comicdonna]

After going back and forth with Paul Litch by email earlier today, I'm not sure I understand this any better.

 

I understand how qualified grades are assigned to books which are "missing" elements (i.e. pages, inserts, coupons, staples, and ink colour on the RGB spectrum, etc.).

 

And the stigma against Marvel Value stamps being clipped is certainly justified.

 

However the stigma carries over to other "qualified" assignments, and IMHO it seems to be inadequately equipped to be used for unwitnessed signatures.

 

I always thought the green label (and the stigma it carried) was a conveniently used grade assignment that forced collectors to choose the SS path.

 

If the signature is not witnessed by CGC it can not be considered authentic. If it's not an authentic signature it is considered writing on the cover. If the writing is on a high grade book, it's obtrusive and a large defect. If it's a large defect on an otherwise high grade book it goes into a green holder.

 

Much like the purple holder is a catch all for resto, conservation AND trimming the green holder is a catch-all for several things as well.

 

How many Larsons are in green label holders?

[VintageComics]

How many Larsons are in green label holders?

 

I don't know, but you and I both know that CGC handles Pedigree sigs differently...partly because a Pedigree's lineage has to be well documented to be even considered to be a Pedigree so the signature will generally be considered authentic and partly because the signature is considered part of the provenance.

 

 

[comicwiz]

But, I really don't understand that whole area 100% or care to really. I'll leave it up to you guys.

 

Nobody does Dan - that is exactly why I said they conveniently used it as a way to "downgrade" the whole notion of unwitnessed signatures. More specifcially, if you get the idea to get your book signed, you better thing twice about sig series because you'll either get hit with the green label stigma or the sig will be treated as a defect in a blue label.

 

In every other instance where something has been removed from a book (your hole-punched AF 15) a qualified assignment makes sense. But when something has been written on the book, using a qualified stance is reaching, and if you're going to use the "additive" benchmark, then tape, every stamp, pen or pencil scribble, or glue needs to be in a green label as well.

 

My point is that this waffling on unwitnessed signatures (green without deduction, blue as a defect below 7.5) is wrong. No one is asking the blue label to act as an authentication for signatures - that's what their yellow label's are for. The whole "penalty" system on unwitnessed signatures is plain silly, and they should either give every unwitnessed signature a green lablel without deductions, or blue label treating it as a defect. No choice, no 7,.5 or high-grade conditionals - just a firm stance on either green or blue.

 

To your point, it seems ridiculous when there are three tiers of grade assignments handling the same issue differently;, two that don't treat a signature as a defect (yellow/green) and one that deducts for signatures (blue). It's a confusing shake and bake method that leaves people very little choice but to take what CGC's view is on the subject and like it.

[comicparadox]

I always thought the green label (and the stigma it carried) was a conveniently used grade assignment that forced collectors to choose the SS path.

 

That is a statement by a wise and cynical man. I agree with you on the green label for signatures vs. yellow label for "sig series".