Maybe Im not understanding how this is done...

[divad]

Graders Notes:

 

1) 1 1/2 crease upper spine, does not break color.

2) Spine stress and light soiling

3) Tiny wear and foxing on edges.

 

The rest should be clear on the scan.

 

What's your point?

 

I made my points earlier? Did you read? In Overstreets latest grading guide an 8.0 a Cover Crease is allowed if if is an "unnoticeable 1/4" bend with no color break allowed". Compare that with this one's 9.0 1 1/2 inch non-breaking crease. Then add the "tiny wear and foxing on edges" - I do not consider that amount of foxing "tiny" by the way - it is VERY noticeable and extends a good length of the book - and add that to the "spine stress" and "tiny wear on edges" - and we have a 9.0?

 

I agree with POV here. It isn't even "minor" foxing - it's "moderate" at best. I can see a half a point leeway, perhaps even a full point on the GA curve (the corners are quite nice) but the fact is: foxing is not allowable to that degree in even an 8.0.

 

This isn't sour grapes, just IMHO.

[uclapeterg]

I really struggled with the grade too. But I almost intentionally ignored the grader's notes to come to my 9.0. I read the grader notes for book 5 and I concluded that the book was a much lower graded book than it was (How does a 9.0 have "fingerprint dents"? I thought that fingerprints were not allowed on books fine and higher).

[PovertyRow]

This isn't sour grapes, just IMHO.

 

It really isn't sour grapes. I used what I know of GA (my main collecrting area for many years) and combined it with the 1 1/2" crease, the look of the foxing and the grader notes - 9.0 just never entered my mind. I was teeter-tottering on an 8.5 but pushing for an 8.0 due to the CGC GA lenmience. But 9.0 honestly gives me hope for the books I wil submit. And I swear if those books, which have no foxing, no spine stress, no creases beyond 1/8" or less, get less than a 9.0?

 

Well, you will see a whole different Pov right here!

[ImageMask]

Eye appeal is . Foxing hardly distracts and the book is solid in all other aspects. Are you contrasting this book with the round 6 book?

 

Did you read the Grader Notes on that 9.0 EC?

 

You quoted and questioned me on the above did you not? My original reply was to Aces and the ebay link, a grade i agree with, and has nothing to do with the EC. Thus the "are you contrasting this book" comment. Were talking apple and oranges here. Do you follow cause I graded the EC at 8.0 as my captian will attest.

[divad]

SF,

 

Congrats BTW, on kicking buttooski in the grading contest but I have the following comments on your points:

 

1) As I have mentioned before, NATURAL AGING of a book DOES NOT seem to have much effect on the grade. Foxing is aging, as is light dust shadows, dirt, yellowing, etc. Once these AGING EFFECTS have an AFFECT on the interior of a book (i.e. tanning on interior cover), then there seems to be an effect on the grade.

 

I disagree (like POV) in your putting foxing in the category of natural aging. It appears to be organic in origin, I'm guessing that it's some iron-based bacterium, which is able proliferate in dry stacking of newsprint. It often exhibits a very organic growth pattern, and "grows" in the absence of excess water.

 

It does not, to me, appear to be a fungus (my degree is in mycology). However, I have not explored it in the lab, as my lab days are long ago over.

 

4) Remember the ACCUMULATED defect rule. It always seems that the word "CORNER CREASE" takes a book out of the 9.0 or higher range. NOT TRUE. One or two small defects (regardless if they are corner creases) does not automatically take a book below 9.0. The severity of a defect also has an effect on the grade.

 

I agree here, as I have seen many 9.0's and even 9.2's with 1 or 2 1/4" corner creases which break color. Accumulation is the key, but only when you are talking about "small" defects. Clearly, a 1" color breaking crease is not allowable in anything above an 8.0 (and many would argue less.)

 

Regarding this book being a 9.0, I think many contestants had help.

 

What are you implying here? That our contest is not on the up and up? That people knew of this book beforehand? LMK

[PovertyRow]

You quoted and questioned me on the above did you not?

 

Did you see the graphic I was responding to?

 

Let me post it again. You responded to "Povertyrow" and your only reply was "And your point is?"

 

Now if you saw me reply to you like that and just say "What's your point is?" how would YOU reply?

 

[ImageMask]

You quoted and questioned me on the above did you not?

 

Did you see the graphic I was responding to?

 

Let me post it again. You responded to "Povertyrow" and your only reply was "And your point is?"

 

Now if you saw me reply to you like that and just say "What's your point is?" how would YOU reply?

 

 

I think we have a MAJOR misunderstanding here. The graphic you responed to was my reply to Aces about the ebay link and not the EC grade was it not? Then I ask "what's your point" about the graders notes on the EC cause it has nothing to do with what you quoted me on and I don't follow.

[PovertyRow]

We DO have a MAJOR misunderstanding here. But DO keep in mind I feel misunderstandings are made to be clarified!

 

I've reviewed the posts, I have made a screen print of your asking me "So what is your point?". I had previously explained that point.

 

Do you drink as much as I do in the evening? If so we may BOTH be talking about an Amazing Spiderman 332!

 

Oherwise, I think I was responding properly based on past posts - but I have been known to be not only wrong but VERY wrong - so please! If you can see where I was responding to your Aces reply or was not reposnding to the screen print of your reply to me, let me know.

 

I will publicly admit my wrong. Gawd knows I have publicly admitted wrongs many times before now!

 

I thank you!

[ImageMask]

We DO have a MAJOR misunderstanding here. But DO keep in mind I feel misunderstandings are made to be clarified!

 

I've reviewed the posts, I have made a screen print of your asking me "So what is your point?". I had previously explained that point.

 

Do you drink as much as I do in the evening? If so we may BOTH be talking about an Amazing Spiderman 332!

 

Oherwise, I think I was responding properly based on past posts - but I have been known to be not only wrong but VERY wrong - so please! If you can see where I was responding to your Aces reply or was not reposnding to the screen print of your reply to me, let me know.

 

I will publicly admit my wrong. Gawd knows I have publicly admitted wrongs many times before now!

 

I thank you!

 

O.K. Let's clarify this as you have reviewed the posts. I replied to Aces about the link he posted and you quoted me on this with the question "did you read the grades notes on the EC" is this correct?

[Aces]

We DO have a MAJOR misunderstanding here. But DO keep in mind I feel misunderstandings are made to be clarified!

 

I've reviewed the posts, I have made a screen print of your asking me "So what is your point?". I had previously explained that point.

 

Do you drink as much as I do in the evening? If so we may BOTH be talking about an Amazing Spiderman 332!

 

Oherwise, I think I was responding properly based on past posts - but I have been known to be not only wrong but VERY wrong - so please! If you can see where I was responding to your Aces reply or was not reposnding to the screen print of your reply to me, let me know.

 

I will publicly admit my wrong. Gawd knows I have publicly admitted wrongs many times before now!

 

I'm thank you!

 

I sorry I confused you POV...

 

I was just pointing out a 9.4 that had similar foxing levels as Book 6.

From that I conclude foxing on pre-1965 books has to be pretty bad before it affects the grade more than one notch below 9.4.

[PovertyRow]

O.K. Let's clarify this as you have reviewed the posts. I replied to Aces about the link he posted and you quoted me on this with the question "did you read the grades notes on the EC" is this correct?

 

Yes, I did ask if you read the grader notes.

 

You copy/pasted them and asked "What's you point?"

 

I explained my point.

 

So let's do this - let's start from this point:

 

MY point is that a book with at least MODERATE foxing (and it is at least moderate unlike CGC says - covers a good length of the outer edges), a 1 1/2 inch non breaking crease - just those by themself should not glean a 9.0. Add in the rest of the grader notes and we STILL have a 9.0?

 

My point is not semantics with you - but any semantic followers please tell me where I have erred.

 

My point is that in this case CGC was dazzles, had their oil changed and got a tune-up the night befoe grading this book.

 

Because I tell you, if I got a book like this graded 9.0 I would be major league ticked off.

[Aces]

If I went back and edited my post would it confuse you two further?

[PovertyRow]

If I went back and edited my post would it confuse you two further?

No! Leave all as is! Please!

[ImageMask]

O.K. SO I saw no correlation between my reply to Aces,which you quoted me on, and your question on if I read the grader notes on the EC. Thus my "what's your point" comment. To stress my point on the misunderstanding I agree the book should not be a 9.0. As my grade to the team was 8.0. Did i shed some light here?

[ImageMask]

WTF...from one star to only four? Who's got another for me and Pov?

[s-man]

So then if you have a Modern book that has the EXACT same defects as a BA, SA, or GA book...the Modern book will not grade the same as the other aged books? Even though their conditon is EXACTLY the same and grading should be all about the CONDITION of the book?? That makes absolutely no sense!

 

Just because something has been around longer, doesnt mean that it should be treated different than something that is newer...as far as condtion goes. I can see why a thing that is older and in worse condtion than something newer can get a higher price...but why should it get a higher condition grade?? Condition is condition and IMHO it should be consistent no matter what Age is being considered!

[nik]

I say no way even after a fifth of gin,. which I never drink. Some folks either screwed up bigtime here or CGC has relaxed their criteria to the extent I will submit even more books for a flip.

 

Please do, I for one am most curious to see what grades you receive.

[uclapeterg]

WTF...from one star to only four? Who's got another for me and Pov?

 

Why are two members of my team fighting anyways?

[THE_BEYONDER]

1) 1 1/2 crease upper spine, does not break color.

 

 

I think CGC forgot to deduct for this.

[s-man]

1) 1 1/2 crease upper spine, does not break color.

 

 

I think CGC forgot to deduct for this.

 

Thats an understatement! They forgot to deduct for a lot of things!