When did pressing a comic before every sub become the norm?

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Is there a bigger scan of the spine? The spine ticks aren't nearly as noticeable on the back.

[comicwiz]

I digitally zoomed the first back cover scan I posted to 250% - as blurry and crappy as the photo is, and wearing a buyers hat I could still see enough going on that I'd want to take a closer look. That's the motivation as a hypothetical buyer, so the question is what the grader(s) was thinking to overlook the defects?

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Just wanted to congratulate all the contributing posters on keeping this thread both civil and informative. Not always the case with pressing threads, as many of us oldtimers know.

[Chespirito]

 

 

Is there a better pic than this...?,.....

[Sqeggs]

I digitally zoomed the first back cover scan I posted to 250% - as blurry and crappy as the photo is, and wearing a buyers hat I could still see enough going on that I'd want to take a closer look. That's the motivation as a hypothetical buyer, so the question is what the grader(s) was thinking to overlook the defects?

 

Well, they have now said that they are on the lookout for it, though, right? So some books made it through, but the process of mass-producing these kind of books seems to have stopped. Didn't Matt Nelson devote one of his CGC columns to this?

 

Edited to fix typo.

[VintageComics]

Sorry this disappearing trick doesn't wash with me. I'd sooner stick with the license to over grading theory.

 

My man, if the grade just jumped from 8.5-9.0, I could see the "overgrading theory" but the fact that this was a pattern of manipulation that consistently got higher grades over an extended period of time and over more than just one book tells me that it was a perception problem with CGC.

 

It wasn't that the book was higher grade, it just looked higher grade because (as 500 Club so eloquently put it) "the damage was diffused over different viewing angles".

 

Grading is about perception.

 

Now I realize the irony in my statement and how it can be applied to pressing but that is a different thing entirely to me because a pressed out bend is invisible while a moved crease isn't.

 

There were no better pics of the Avengers #1 that anyone could come up with so we really are discussing this without any concrete evidence.

[namisgr]

Well, they have now said that they are on the lookout for it, though, right? So some books made it through, but the process of mass-producing these kind of books seems to have stopped.

 

There's plenty of 'faced' books on the market. They show up on E-Bay and all of the major auction sites, and I think there's many more of them than most people appreciate.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fantastic-Four-8-MARVEL-1962-NEAR-MINT-CGC-9-0-VF-NM-1st-App-Puppet-Master-/231029657778?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item35ca70d0b2

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Journey-Into-Mystery-84-MARVEL-1962-NEAR-MINT-CGC-9-0-VF-NM-2nd-App-of-Thor-/231025235542?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item35ca2d5656

[VintageComics]

The problem is that books can also appear that way from production so labeling them all as "bad" is unfortunate.

 

I just wish CGC had just graded them as spine rolls from the get go, then we wouldn't have had this predicament in the first place.

 

 

[namisgr]

The problem is that books can also appear that way from production so labeling them all as "bad" is unfortunate.

 

 

 

Compare how far the front and back covers extend relative to the pages. If the back cover extends much farther than the front cover, the book's cover was probably pulled back. If the part now rolled onto the back has wear, it's even more likely a face job.

 

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

[originalisbest]

It wasn't that the book was higher grade, it just looked higher grade because (as 500 Club so eloquently put it) "the damage was diffused over different viewing angles".

 

Grading is about perception.

 

Now I realize the irony in my statement and how it can be applied to pressing but that is a different thing entirely to me because a pressed out bend is invisible while a moved crease isn't.

 

-----

 

I agree with the above from Roy, in distinguishing the facejobbed book problem from a pressed out bend. In both cases, the book is still the book is still the book. With a pressed out bend, the book looks better and should/is/maybe a higher grade.

 

With a facejobbed book, cb creases near or at the spine didn't truly disappear, they simply got moved, from front to back mostly it seems, and as close to the apex of the spine as possible, probably. But though this was pressing with intent to deceive/get the book into a grade it didn't merit, anyone looking at both front, back and spine of the book won't be fooled. The creases/wear are what they are, and are still present regardless of where they got moved to.

 

This is a sucky thing, but still, no matter the grading service or collectible in question, there are "mistakes" in all sorts of holders. The grading services are just one part of an evaluation, unfortunately the collector has to be able to confidently decide for themselves, if the book merits the label it was given.

 

You can say "plenty" of facejobbed books are on the market, but perception is reality. I don't know if two examples of such means the market's "saturated" with them. If you were looking for a book and ran across 3 facejobbed examples in a row, you might think they're all over the place (for that particular book.) But I haven't seen the aisles littered with them - but nor have I been looking.

 

Confirmation bias can easily come into play here, if you're looking for a problem and feel it must be overwhelming the gates, you can probably find evidence to support that.

[VintageComics]

The problem is that books can also appear that way from production so labeling them all as "bad" is unfortunate.

 

 

 

Compare how far the front and back covers extend relative to the pages. If the back cover extends much farther than the front cover, the book's cover was probably pulled back. If the part now rolled onto the back has wear, it's even more likely a face job.

 

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

 

(thumbs u

 

I agree that with a closer look (or better scans) you can tell if it was moved or not.

 

Production was definitely the wrong word to use. What I meant to say was unintentionally wrapped that way - likely occurring when a spine roll is stored that way (or pressed naturally for lack of a better way of saying it.

 

 

[Green]

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

 

absolutely untrue. Book was made this way.

 

 

 

[BarryAllen]

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

 

absolutely untrue. Book was made this way.

 

 

 

I imagine some comics may have had this production error, but it certainly isn't the norm.

Can you post the back cover and some close ups of both the spine and the open edge?

[jimbo_707]

Well, they have now said that they are on the lookout for it, though, right? So some books made it through, but the process of mass-producing these kind of books seems to have stopped.

 

There's plenty of 'faced' books on the market. They show up on E-Bay and all of the major auction sites, and I think there's many more of them than most people appreciate.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fantastic-Four-8-MARVEL-1962-NEAR-MINT-CGC-9-0-VF-NM-1st-App-Puppet-Master-/231029657778?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item35ca70d0b2

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Journey-Into-Mystery-84-MARVEL-1962-NEAR-MINT-CGC-9-0-VF-NM-2nd-App-of-Thor-/231025235542?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item35ca2d5656

I'll keep an eye out for these. I'd say this one is a "maybe."

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsubmariner%2Bcomics%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D23%26y%3D14%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F975666&id=975666

[originalisbest]

Looking at the book, I'd venture your maybe is dead wrong. The problem with seeing a "facejob" everywhere you look is you'll inevitably be unfairly denigrating others' books for sale, perhaps hurting sales prices overall, if the bleating is loud enough.

 

Now, if I were the cynical type, I could venture that badmouthing books is a most excellent way to discourage bidding and keep the $ "reasonable."

 

I'm glad I'm not often cynical.

[originalisbest]

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

 

absolutely untrue. Book was made this way.

 

 

 

You're both right.

 

The facejobbed book has the interior pages that seem to fan out, but the key to its reverse spine roll, is how vastly un-aligned the front and back cover edges are.

 

Green's book is an as-produced piece, but the difference is found not in the interior page protrusion (looks like a facejobbed "look" at a glance, but is perfectly natural) but in the front and back cover edges and their relative closeness to one another (well within production norms.)

 

The combination of vast cover shifting, along with spine wear movement from front to back, are the important tells of a facejobbed book.

[jimbo_707]

Looking at the book, I'd venture your maybe is dead wrong. The problem with seeing a "facejob" everywhere you look is you'll inevitably be unfairly denigrating others' books for sale, perhaps hurting sales prices overall, if the bleating is loud enough.

 

Now, if I were the cynical type, I could venture that badmouthing books is a most excellent way to discourage bidding and keep the $ "reasonable."

 

I'm glad I'm not often cynical.

Fair enough, so I'll refrain from posting other "maybes." With so many face-jobbed books out there, though, I'll be hesitant to take a chance on any book with a fanned-pages look to the front of the book if I don't have a back cover scan to look at. (Some may simply exhibit a production flaw with the cutting; others may have been realigned to compensate for a slight mis-wrap without any attempt to hide spine ticks.)

[comicwiz]

Sorry this disappearing trick doesn't wash with me. I'd sooner stick with the license to over grading theory.

 

My man, if the grade just jumped from 8.5-9.0, I could see the "overgrading theory" but the fact that this was a pattern of manipulation that consistently got higher grades over an extended period of time and over more than just one book tells me that it was a perception problem with CGC.

 

It wasn't that the book was higher grade, it just looked higher grade because (as 500 Club so eloquently put it) "the damage was diffused over different viewing angles".

 

Grading is about perception.

 

Now I realize the irony in my statement and how it can be applied to pressing but that is a different thing entirely to me because a pressed out bend is invisible while a moved crease isn't.

 

There were no better pics of the Avengers #1 that anyone could come up with so we really are discussing this without any concrete evidence.

 

If we're talking about the Avengers 1 I linked to earlier, it went from an over graded 8.5 (which should have been more like a 7.5) to a 9.2.

 

The biggest problem, and the part I absolutely loathe about this issue as presented by the spine shifted books, is this "bad" pressing garbage.

 

I've said this before and I will say it again - the only reason why CGC deems it bad is because the situation makes them look bad.

 

The vertical crease representing the old spine, and which existed prior to the shifting, doesn't magically disappear it will always remain there. The reverse spine roll. And the migrated defects. They're all visible and accompany one another on the evidence trail.

 

Again, it's easy to assume they aren't there because the seller conveniently photographed the slab rather than scanned it. But they are there, and there is no way any reasonable argument excusing CGC for overlooking it will work to boost people's confidence in their ability to detect "bad" pressing, especially when the opposite happened with these books grading higher.

[comicwiz]

The problem is that books can also appear that way from production so labeling them all as "bad" is unfortunate.

 

 

 

Compare how far the front and back covers extend relative to the pages. If the back cover extends much farther than the front cover, the book's cover was probably pulled back. If the part now rolled onto the back has wear, it's even more likely a face job.

 

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

 

Did the reverse spine roll effect pretty much red flag all books exhibiting this defect?

 

The answer is a resounding YES!

 

I would go one further and say that books which are photographed are more likely trying to hide the defects on the rear cover which would reveal it's a spine shifted Frankenbook.

 

Ask for scans to avoid buying this over graded junk.

[namisgr]

Production didn't produce front and back covers so differently aligned with the interior pages.

 

absolutely untrue. Book was made this way.

 

 

 

Can't see the back cover, so (i) does it extend all the way to the edge of the interior pages? (ii) if it does, is it from a spine roll from post-production storage?

 

From the little bit of the back cover one can see at the top, it appears to barely reach beyond the front cover, and fall far short of aligning with the interior pages.