Cover Gloss!!

[PUNYHUMAN]

I know from being on these boards , it seems to me CGC grades on structure of the comic in question!! Do they take into account cover gloss , paper quality, I have a hard time dealing with books that have tanning paper ,listed as VF,for instance!!

what about eye appeal?? I've seen books posted that were 9.0 or better with dust & sun shadows , & i shake my head!! They are nice , don;t get wrong ,but how do some of these books grade out that high .with tanning ,dust shadows, etc.!? Any opinions here??? I say in the end like everyone else , Buy the book ,not the label!!!

[Silver Surfer]

Good question. From what I understand PQ doesn't effect the grade although I think it should at some level.

[aardvark88]

CGC seems to take into consideration cover gloss. Usually glossy comics have superior pg quality. But they also have to travel in their time machine to compare DC paperstock vs Marvel paperstock. Did SA DC comics have as much gloss as SA Marvels right off the printing press?

[wrcomics]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

[greggy]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

There are limits in which a book with a certain PQ can grade. Steve mentioned it at a previous SD dinner.

 

From observation, at the higher grades, the lowest PQ for the following grades are as follows:

 

1) 10 - OWW

2) 9.9 - OW

3) 9.8 - COW

4) 9.6 - COW

5) 9.4 - COW

 

I'm sure others can chime in with their observations.

[Forbush-Man]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

There are limits in which a book with a certain PQ can grade. Steve mentioned it at a previous SD dinner.

 

From observation, at the higher grades, the lowest PQ for the following grades are as follows:

 

1) 10 - OWW

2) 9.9 - OW

3) 9.8 - COW

4) 9.6 - COW

5) 9.4 - COW

 

I'm sure others can chime in with their observations.

 

Wow! You'd think a 10.0 would only be White Pages. Kind of defeats the purpose of a perfect grade otherwise!?!

[Illiterati-migration]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

There are limits in which a book with a certain PQ can grade. Steve mentioned it at a previous SD dinner.

 

From observation, at the higher grades, the lowest PQ for the following grades are as follows:

 

1) 10 - OWW

2) 9.9 - OW

3) 9.8 - COW

4) 9.6 - COW

5) 9.4 - COW

 

I'm sure others can chime in with their observations.

 

Wow! You'd think a 10.0 would only be White Pages. Kind of defeats the purpose of a perfect grade otherwise!?!

 

I've always said that if a book is "Mint", then it should be AS IT WAS the day it rolled off the presses. Anything less is diminishing the reputation of "Mint."

[goldust40]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

There are limits in which a book with a certain PQ can grade. Steve mentioned it at a previous SD dinner.

 

From observation, at the higher grades, the lowest PQ for the following grades are as follows:

 

1) 10 - OWW

2) 9.9 - OW

3) 9.8 - COW

4) 9.6 - COW

5) 9.4 - COW

 

I'm sure others can chime in with their observations.

 

Wow! You'd think a 10.0 would only be White Pages. Kind of defeats the purpose of a perfect grade otherwise!?!

 

I've always said that if a book is "Mint", then it should be AS IT WAS the day it rolled off the presses. Anything less is diminishing the reputation of "Mint."

 

Mint is a flavor. End of story.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

 

I think the CGC grade should represent structure only...and PQ & QP should be dealt with seperately. Since the page quality is noted on the label, I would prefer if it had zero impact on the given grade.

 

Since CGC no longer notes production defects(miscuts, etc..) on their label, they shouldn't make such deductions.

 

There was a HULK 181 a while back that CGC downgraded from a possible 9.8/9.9 to a 9.6 because of a brutal miswrap to the back cover.

 

The fugly miswrap was blatantly obvious, but the fact that the book was a structural 9.8/9.9 ...is obscured by the grade.

 

That book should have been " THE BIGGEST POS 9.8/9.9 " that any of us have ever seen...rather than just a POS 9.6.

[wrcomics]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

 

I think the CGC grade should represent structure only...and PQ & QP should be dealt with seperately. Since the page quality is noted on the label, I would prefer if it had zero impact on the given grade.

 

Since CGC no longer notes production defects(miscuts, etc..) on their label, they shouldn't make such deductions.

 

There was a HULK 181 a while back that CGC downgraded from a possible 9.8/9.9 to a 9.6 because of a brutal miswrap to the back cover.

 

The fugly miswrap was blatantly obvious, but the fact that the book was a structural 9.8/9.9 ...is obscured by the grade.

 

That book should have been " THE BIGGEST POS 9.8/9.9 " that any of us have ever seen...rather than just a POS 9.6.

 

Is this a recent change in CGC policy, or have they been doing this for a few years now? I honestly didn't know that they stopped noting production defects, but I was in error earlier with my statement since I should not have included page quality but I always thought that quality of production made the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.8

[Flaming_Telepath]

Back in 1969, Marvel shifted production for a time to a different plant. The books that came out of there were the glossiest puppies you will ever see. Anyone got a copy of Cap #106, or Iron Man #5, or Subby #3?

 

See what I mean?

[THE_BEYONDER]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

 

I think the CGC grade should represent structure only...and PQ & QP should be dealt with seperately. Since the page quality is noted on the label, I would prefer if it had zero impact on the given grade.

 

Since CGC no longer notes production defects(miscuts, etc..) on their label, they shouldn't make such deductions.

 

There was a HULK 181 a while back that CGC downgraded from a possible 9.8/9.9 to a 9.6 because of a brutal miswrap to the back cover.

 

The fugly miswrap was blatantly obvious, but the fact that the book was a structural 9.8/9.9 ...is obscured by the grade.

 

That book should have been " THE BIGGEST POS 9.8/9.9 " that any of us have ever seen...rather than just a POS 9.6.

 

Is this a recent change in CGC policy, or have they been doing this for a few years now? I honestly didn't know that they stopped noting production defects, but I was in error earlier with my statement since I should not have included page quality but I always thought that quality of production made the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.8

 

In the case of that Hulk 181...it did.

 

I think CGC only downgrades for production in the highest of grades(9.8+), and the more extreme cases.

 

I just think that if CGC is going to deduct .2 or more for a production defect...it should be noted on the label at least.

[wrcomics]

I always thought at the NM+, NM/MT, and MT levels PQ and QP come into play and that's what would differentiate each level from the other?

 

I think the CGC grade should represent structure only...and PQ & QP should be dealt with seperately. Since the page quality is noted on the label, I would prefer if it had zero impact on the given grade.

 

Since CGC no longer notes production defects(miscuts, etc..) on their label, they shouldn't make such deductions.

 

There was a HULK 181 a while back that CGC downgraded from a possible 9.8/9.9 to a 9.6 because of a brutal miswrap to the back cover.

 

The fugly miswrap was blatantly obvious, but the fact that the book was a structural 9.8/9.9 ...is obscured by the grade.

 

That book should have been " THE BIGGEST POS 9.8/9.9 " that any of us have ever seen...rather than just a POS 9.6.

 

Is this a recent change in CGC policy, or have they been doing this for a few years now? I honestly didn't know that they stopped noting production defects, but I was in error earlier with my statement since I should not have included page quality but I always thought that quality of production made the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.8

 

In the case of that Hulk 181...it did.

 

I think CGC only downgrades for production in the highest of grades(9.8+), and the more extreme cases.

 

I just think that if CGC is going to deduct .2 or more for a production defect...it should be noted on the label at least.

 

I would agree with that. Also I believe part of the initial question raised was if CGC took cover gloss into account, but wouldn't a copy with very little remaining gloss grade lower as a result? Most likely there would be other defects as well if it were exposed to elements that stripped the original reflectivity of the cover. Also another member defined "Mint" as coming fresh off the production line, but I would argue that definition since many copies in the earlier days of production came off the line with many sorts of imperfections that would keep them from grading a 10.0, but that's how they were produced. To me, a "MINT" condition book should have no enviromental damage, high page quality (off-white or better), and no or maybe only a slight fault in quality of production.

[THE_BEYONDER]

To me, a "MINT" condition book should have no enviromental damage, high page quality (off-white or better), and no or maybe only a slight fault in quality of production.

 

Ideally...a MINT book should be free of any production defects whatsoever, and have bone-white pages.

[wrcomics]

yes but doesn't CGC consider 9.9 as MINT or is that MINT-?

[Forbush-Man]

To me, a "MINT" condition book should have no enviromental damage, high page quality (off-white or better), and no or maybe only a slight fault in quality of production.

 

Ideally...a MINT book should be free of any production defects whatsoever, and have bone-white pages.

 

YEAH! THAT'S WHAT IM TALK'IN 'BOUT!!!!!!

[THE_BEYONDER]

yes but doesn't CGC consider 9.9 as MINT or is that MINT-?

 

CGC calls it "MINT"....but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

 

If by the term "MINT"....you mean a perfect book, I don't think the PQ & QP should be less than perfect.

 

 

Just because CGC uses these terms....it doesn't mean that their numerical grade defines them.

[Forbush-Man]

I mean, a 10.0 should be absolutely perfect, in every way! Does that make me a bad guy?

[wrcomics]

I don't see how a 10.0 on a 10 point scale could be anything less than perfect... or at least it shouldn't be

[THE_BEYONDER]

I don't see how a 10.0 on a 10 point scale could be anything less than perfect... or at least it shouldn't be

 

Define "perfect"....