Color Strike vs. Registry?

[comicwiz]

Picking this apart a bit, but following on the thought that "anomalies" might somehow be treated differently or demonstrate a value disparity when compared to a non-anomalous example, I believe this is primarily due to CGC's treatment of "printing errors" with a qualified grade.

 

Prior to this green label assignment, many books exhibiting printing defects (missing a colour, blurring from poor registration, etc.) were quite collectible. I rarely agreed with them being marketed as "variants", although in the case of the Don Schenker Zap 0 (yellow variant) that is one of very few examples where I would let it slide.

 

The reason I mention this all is that before CGC stopped giving these examples a blue label, these books would consistently sell at over guide prices. Now with the green label designation, not so much.

 

The Fantastic Four #110 printing error is a classic example of that - does CGC not give it a blue label anymore?

Is FF110 the one were two of the color plates were switched at the beginning of the run?

 

Yep.

 

Regular version:

 

 

Switched plate version:

 

 

That's missing the Cyan, so if using the Mr Natural 1 (missing Magenta) example as a basis, it would be a manufacturing error and receive a green label.

 

It has the Cyan plate, it's just switched around with the Magenta plate.

 

The uniforms, which should be mostly Cyan are mostly Magenta in the error copy. Their faces, which should be flesh (printed with the Magenta and Yellow plates) appear greenish (printed with the Cyan and Yellow plates).

 

I figured this much from the "plate switching" reference, and I don't meant to sound argumentative, but ultimately the result is no different than a copy exhibiting a print error. Whether the error was a result of a plate change, changes (lower or no) colour due to inconsistent pressure during the print run, or some other manufacturing issue preventing one or more colours to appear on paper, the end result is an error or irregular example.

[ChicksCosmiComics]

I was at my LCS yesterday he was digging up back stock he found like 5 New Mutants 87 each one was a different shade from almost tomato red to shades of orange

[Dr. Balls]

Picking this apart a bit, but following on the thought that "anomalies" might somehow be treated differently or demonstrate a value disparity when compared to a non-anomalous example, I believe this is primarily due to CGC's treatment of "printing errors" with a qualified grade.

 

Prior to this green label assignment, many books exhibiting printing defects (missing a colour, blurring from poor registration, etc.) were quite collectible. I rarely agreed with them being marketed as "variants", although in the case of the Don Schenker Zap 0 (yellow variant) that is one of very few examples where I would let it slide.

 

The reason I mention this all is that before CGC stopped giving these examples a blue label, these books would consistently sell at over guide prices. Now with the green label designation, not so much.

 

The Fantastic Four #110 printing error is a classic example of that - does CGC not give it a blue label anymore?

Is FF110 the one were two of the color plates were switched at the beginning of the run?

 

Yep.

 

Regular version:

 

 

Switched plate version:

 

 

That's missing the Cyan, so if using the Mr Natural 1 (missing Magenta) example as a basis, it would be a manufacturing error and receive a green label.

 

It has the Cyan plate, it's just switched around with the Magenta plate.

 

The uniforms, which should be mostly Cyan are mostly Magenta in the error copy. Their faces, which should be flesh (printed with the Magenta and Yellow plates) appear greenish (printed with the Cyan and Yellow plates).

 

I figured this much from the "plate switching" reference, and I don't meant to sound argumentative, but ultimately the result is no different than a copy exhibiting a print error. Whether the error was a result of a plate change, changes (lower or no) colour due to inconsistent pressure during the print run, or some other manufacturing issue preventing one or more colours to appear on paper, the end result is an error or irregular example.

 

Yes, I would agree with that. At the end of the day, it's an error with the printing - whether mechanical or worker oversight. But, the interesting part I like about FF #110 is that it got produced all-the-way through printing to bindery and out the door - without anyone noticing. On a small printing error, I can see that happening - but the color switched around is kind of a big error for a company who - no doubt - has printed Fantastic Four stuff before.

 

I don't know the full story behind this, but I have pieced together that the erroneous cover actually made it out to distribution, and then was recalled, and the correct #110 re-printed. Which opens up another can of worms: when a distributed error copy is recalled and the correct one reprinted - is that a second printing?

 

To me, second printings are made when first printings are sold out - recalls shouldn't count against an edition's print designation, because the first #110s didn't sell out.

 

Anyone else have info on #110?

[vaillant]

You gotta love this "accurate registration"…

 

[Dr. Balls]

Yeah, that is pretty fugly.

[vaillant]

Yeah, that is pretty fugly.

 

From the British edition…

I was literally shocked when I saw those registration errors which in some cases are about several millimeters (and most pages are like that one).

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I stopped bothering to figure out, much less keep track of their policy in this area when I started seeing books like this getting a green label. I know for a fact that many of these types of "printing errors" were at one time getting a blue label. Then many years back, I remembered they changed the policy, but grandfathered books with old labels so if they would be resubmitted for any reasons, they would keep their blue label.

 

 

Manufacturer's defects get a GLOD?

 

I thought most GLODs could be graded as Universal if you simply chose to take the blue label grade commensurate with the defect, ie staple pops, hole punches, etc.

[comicwiz]

I stopped bothering to figure out, much less keep track of their policy in this area when I started seeing books like this getting a green label. I know for a fact that many of these types of "printing errors" were at one time getting a blue label. Then many years back, I remembered they changed the policy, but grandfathered books with old labels so if they would be resubmitted for any reasons, they would keep their blue label.

 

 

Manufacturer's defects get a GLOD?

 

I thought most GLODs could be graded as Universal if you simply chose to take the blue label grade commensurate with the defect, ie staple pops, hole punches, etc.

 

Yes, this would apply for things like unwitnessed signatures, however IMHO if at the height of this strangeness they would demonstrate such ridiculousness as to downgrade for a missing colour, then they should be consistent across the board, and that mainly would mean quitting the preferential treatment they show on GA and SS.

 

For GA, not only downgrade, but hammer for glue (or purple label it with no deductions if the owner doesn't agree with the deduction) as well as downgrading witnessed sigs on SS books. Allowing the GA glue and other foreign substances, normally falling under the category of restoration, has brewed enough controversy over the years on the boards, but there is absolutely no way some of the signatures I've seen, with scrawl on over half of the front cover, should be getting the grades they do simply because they paid a SS fee to CGC.

[Lazyboy]

I stopped bothering to figure out, much less keep track of their policy in this area when I started seeing books like this getting a green label. I know for a fact that many of these types of "printing errors" were at one time getting a blue label. Then many years back, I remembered they changed the policy, but grandfathered books with old labels so if they would be resubmitted for any reasons, they would keep their blue label.

 

 

Manufacturer's defects get a GLOD?

 

I thought most GLODs could be graded as Universal if you simply chose to take the blue label grade commensurate with the defect, ie staple pops, hole punches, etc.

 

Yes, this would apply for things like unwitnessed signatures, however IMHO if at the height of this strangeness they would demonstrate such ridiculousness as to downgrade for a missing colour, then they should be consistent across the board, and that mainly would mean quitting the preferential treatment they show on GA and SS.

 

For GA, not only downgrade, but hammer for glue (or purple label it with no deductions if the owner doesn't agree with the deduction) as well as downgrading witnessed sigs on SS books. Allowing the GA glue and other foreign substances, normally falling under the category of restoration, has brewed enough controversy over the years on the boards, but there is absolutely no way some of the signatures I've seen, with scrawl on over half of the front cover, should be getting the grades they do simply because they paid a SS fee to CGC.

 

I have no use for SS myself, but you are completely wrong.

 

The SS label means two things. The first is that the signature/sketch is verified as being authentic by CGC because their representatives witnessed it. The second is that the book has received a qualified grade that does not account for the added markings.

[comicwiz]

I stopped bothering to figure out, much less keep track of their policy in this area when I started seeing books like this getting a green label. I know for a fact that many of these types of "printing errors" were at one time getting a blue label. Then many years back, I remembered they changed the policy, but grandfathered books with old labels so if they would be resubmitted for any reasons, they would keep their blue label.

 

 

Manufacturer's defects get a GLOD?

 

I thought most GLODs could be graded as Universal if you simply chose to take the blue label grade commensurate with the defect, ie staple pops, hole punches, etc.

 

Yes, this would apply for things like unwitnessed signatures, however IMHO if at the height of this strangeness they would demonstrate such ridiculousness as to downgrade for a missing colour, then they should be consistent across the board, and that mainly would mean quitting the preferential treatment they show on GA and SS.

 

For GA, not only downgrade, but hammer for glue (or purple label it with no deductions if the owner doesn't agree with the deduction) as well as downgrading witnessed sigs on SS books. Allowing the GA glue and other foreign substances, normally falling under the category of restoration, has brewed enough controversy over the years on the boards, but there is absolutely no way some of the signatures I've seen, with scrawl on over half of the front cover, should be getting the grades they do simply because they paid a SS fee to CGC.

 

I have no use for SS myself, but you are completely wrong.

 

The SS label means two things. The first is that the signature/sketch is verified as being authentic by CGC because their representatives witnessed it. The second is that the book has received a qualified grade that does not account for the added markings.

 

The blanket statement you are making doesn't account for the fact that I've personally seen and known books which were cracked out from a slab and remained the same grade after SS. I won't even get into the grade bump some experienced after pressing.

[seanfingh]

I stopped bothering to figure out, much less keep track of their policy in this area when I started seeing books like this getting a green label. I know for a fact that many of these types of "printing errors" were at one time getting a blue label. Then many years back, I remembered they changed the policy, but grandfathered books with old labels so if they would be resubmitted for any reasons, they would keep their blue label.

 

 

Manufacturer's defects get a GLOD?

 

I thought most GLODs could be graded as Universal if you simply chose to take the blue label grade commensurate with the defect, ie staple pops, hole punches, etc.

 

Yes, this would apply for things like unwitnessed signatures, however IMHO if at the height of this strangeness they would demonstrate such ridiculousness as to downgrade for a missing colour, then they should be consistent across the board, and that mainly would mean quitting the preferential treatment they show on GA and SS.

 

For GA, not only downgrade, but hammer for glue (or purple label it with no deductions if the owner doesn't agree with the deduction) as well as downgrading witnessed sigs on SS books. Allowing the GA glue and other foreign substances, normally falling under the category of restoration, has brewed enough controversy over the years on the boards, but there is absolutely no way some of the signatures I've seen, with scrawl on over half of the front cover, should be getting the grades they do simply because they paid a SS fee to CGC.

 

I have no use for SS myself, but you are completely wrong.

 

The SS label means two things. The first is that the signature/sketch is verified as being authentic by CGC because their representatives witnessed it. The second is that the book has received a qualified grade that does not account for the added markings.

 

The blanket statement you are making doesn't account for the fact that I've personally seen and known books which were cracked out from a slab and remained the same grade after SS. I won't even get into the grade bump some experienced after pressing.

 

I don't know what your point is, but both of lazy boy's points are exactly accurate as it relates to Sig Series.

[DamageInc-migration]

Allowing the GA glue and other foreign substances, normally falling under the category of restoration, has brewed enough controversy over the years on the boards, but there is absolutely no way some of the signatures I've seen, with scrawl on over half of the front cover, should be getting the grades they do...

 

I agree, there's is no way the Marvel Comics #1 Pay Copy should be a 9.0 in a Blue label, I don't care what its historical importance is.

[comicwiz]

I stopped bothering to figure out, much less keep track of their policy in this area when I started seeing books like this getting a green label. I know for a fact that many of these types of "printing errors" were at one time getting a blue label. Then many years back, I remembered they changed the policy, but grandfathered books with old labels so if they would be resubmitted for any reasons, they would keep their blue label.

 

 

Manufacturer's defects get a GLOD?

 

I thought most GLODs could be graded as Universal if you simply chose to take the blue label grade commensurate with the defect, ie staple pops, hole punches, etc.

 

Yes, this would apply for things like unwitnessed signatures, however IMHO if at the height of this strangeness they would demonstrate such ridiculousness as to downgrade for a missing colour, then they should be consistent across the board, and that mainly would mean quitting the preferential treatment they show on GA and SS.

 

For GA, not only downgrade, but hammer for glue (or purple label it with no deductions if the owner doesn't agree with the deduction) as well as downgrading witnessed sigs on SS books. Allowing the GA glue and other foreign substances, normally falling under the category of restoration, has brewed enough controversy over the years on the boards, but there is absolutely no way some of the signatures I've seen, with scrawl on over half of the front cover, should be getting the grades they do simply because they paid a SS fee to CGC.

 

I have no use for SS myself, but you are completely wrong.

 

The SS label means two things. The first is that the signature/sketch is verified as being authentic by CGC because their representatives witnessed it. The second is that the book has received a qualified grade that does not account for the added markings.

 

The blanket statement you are making doesn't account for the fact that I've personally seen and known books which were cracked out from a slab and remained the same grade after SS. I won't even get into the grade bump some experienced after pressing.

 

I don't know what your point is, but both of lazy boy's points are exactly accurate as it relates to Sig Series.

 

It seems every time this subject is brought up, people cannot interpret simple words. Taking two identical books, one witnessed and one not, if both books are sent into CGC, only the book that wasn't witnessed will be stuck in a green label or in a blue label with deductions. It's one thing to embrace paying the yellow label toll, but to overlook how it debases the value of practically every signed book pre-SS is not something that sits well with me. That's always been my point.

[seanfingh]

Color Strike vs. Registry has now become an education on the yellow label toll and the devaluation of DF certificate books. This is like a two for one!

[COI]

Color Strike vs. Registry has now become an education on the yellow label toll and the devaluation of DF certificate books. This is like a two for one!

 

I knew I caught a faint whiff of butthurt as I was passing by.

[Dr. Balls]

Color Strike vs. Registry has now become an education on the yellow label toll and the devaluation of DF certificate books. This is like a two for one!

 

Well, I guess the thread had pretty much run it's course up to that point. Unless someone has some salacious information on FF #110 they would like to share?

[comicwiz]

In the context of the green label side discussion brought up earlier, and the comment about me being wrong, the issue of CGC assigning green labels for printing/manufacturing defects appears inconsistent at best.

 

The discussion swerved into signatures because quite frankly they are to me a far more serious defect than a printer malfunctioning, and yet you see green label books assigned a green label for missing a colour

 

On the flipside, I see plenty of books which would experience a grade drop of as much as 5 points (i.e. 9.6 really being an 8.5) and the only reason why it's a 9.6 is because its in a yellow label slab.

 

When I see some with such terrible sig placement, rubbing, the hack-penmanship, doodles, etc, and size of the sig covering literally nearly half the front cover, I just can't agree that the grade assignment is anything more than fee-based gift grading.

 

Anyhow, carry on with the colour strike vs registry-thingy (thumbs u

 

Btw: in reference to the butthurt comment , that book I linked earlier is not mine, nor do I have any relation or affiliation to the seller.

[seanfingh]

 

Sorry about your long boxes of DF books that have gotten porked by the yellow label. Also, since it is a qualified grade, all witnessed signatures are ignored, regardless of aesthetics. They will downgrade for a smudged sig sometimes.

[comicwiz]

 

I honestly don't own a single DF book.

[Dr. Balls]

DF? And I really would like to know how to pork a DF - we're having a dinner party this weekend, and I'd love to serve something unique.