CGC 9.8s With Spine Stress?

[ItsJustRyan]

We all have opinions on grading. I've seen non-9.8's be graded 9.8 and vice-versa. These cases were my opinion of course. Grading is a human endeavor, is subjective, and never will be perfect.

 

Even a machine could never grade with 100% accuracy. When you submit or buy a book that has been graded, you are getting the opinion of a third party as to the overall condition of the book. That's it. A third party opinion. I think CGC does a pretty good job considering the alternative. Every consumer item is going to have disappointments to some degree (red ring of death on an XBOX as an example).

 

To the OP: will the seller allow a return/exchange if you are not satisfied?

[passion4comics]

Color fleck (around 1mm) on the spine or a stress line (near the staples)?

 

Overstreet volume 2 says flecks on a 9.8 are acceptable while a stress line is acceptable on a 9.2.

 

I have 9.8's with one to two flecks on the spine not near the staples. Without those, the book would have been a 9.9-10.

[DrWatson]

I would not even expect a non-color-breaking spine tic on a 9.6.

 

So you expect 9.6s to look like 9.9s?

Exactly. If you want perfect books, buy 9.9's or 10.0's.

Or buy raw books and submit them yourself. No surprises on what they look like then.

[DrWatson]

I would not even expect a non-color-breaking spine tic on a 9.6.

 

So you expect 9.6s to look like 9.9s?

9.9s and 10.0s are made up grades.

[B-Smooth]

I would not even expect a non-color-breaking spine tic on a 9.6.

 

So you expect 9.6s to look like 9.9s?

9.9s and 10.0s are made up grades.

[The-Collector]

If I see any spine stress break color, no matter how small, I don't expect it to get a 9.8.

 

Maybe the CGC has been tough on my books, but I don't think I own a single 9.8 with a color-breaking flaw...and I own hundreds.

+1

 

I expect, at most, a wee bit of corner fuzzing at the top and bottom of the spine.

 

I don't expect to see color breaking tics along the spine. In 9.6, perhaps 1-2 1/16 tics. Even 9.4s, I don't expect a spine marred by numerous stresses.

 

I don't even like the miswraps that seem to be acceptable on some 9.8s.

 

That is your standard. CGC is different, and they can't accommodate everyone's idea of a 9.8.

 

You will regularly see 9.4s with 5 small ticks. on a 9.6 not uncommon to see two or three.

[B-Smooth]

If I see any spine stress break color, no matter how small, I don't expect it to get a 9.8.

 

Maybe the CGC has been tough on my books, but I don't think I own a single 9.8 with a color-breaking flaw...and I own hundreds.

+1

 

I expect, at most, a wee bit of corner fuzzing at the top and bottom of the spine.

 

I don't expect to see color breaking tics along the spine. In 9.6, perhaps 1-2 1/16 tics. Even 9.4s, I don't expect a spine marred by numerous stresses.

 

I don't even like the miswraps that seem to be acceptable on some 9.8s.

 

That is your standard. CGC is different, and they can't accommodate everyone's idea of a 9.8.

 

You will regularly see 9.4s with 5 small ticks. on a 9.6 not uncommon to see two or three.

+1

[500Club]

If I see any spine stress break color, no matter how small, I don't expect it to get a 9.8.

 

Maybe the CGC has been tough on my books, but I don't think I own a single 9.8 with a color-breaking flaw...and I own hundreds.

+1

 

I expect, at most, a wee bit of corner fuzzing at the top and bottom of the spine.

 

I don't expect to see color breaking tics along the spine. In 9.6, perhaps 1-2 1/16 tics. Even 9.4s, I don't expect a spine marred by numerous stresses.

 

I don't even like the miswraps that seem to be acceptable on some 9.8s.

 

That is your standard. CGC is different, and they can't accommodate everyone's idea of a 9.8.

 

You will regularly see 9.4s with 5 small ticks. on a 9.6 not uncommon to see two or three.

I'm not really seeing three on many of my 9.6s, and I have 50 boxes of slabs.

 

Two is not overly unusual.

 

My standards have developed from years of seeing CGC books in various grades, and getting a feel for what is strong or weak for a given grade. I am not applying my standards to CGC; I am applying standards defined by CGC.

[The-Collector]

If I see any spine stress break color, no matter how small, I don't expect it to get a 9.8.

 

Maybe the CGC has been tough on my books, but I don't think I own a single 9.8 with a color-breaking flaw...and I own hundreds.

+1

 

I expect, at most, a wee bit of corner fuzzing at the top and bottom of the spine.

 

I don't expect to see color breaking tics along the spine. In 9.6, perhaps 1-2 1/16 tics. Even 9.4s, I don't expect a spine marred by numerous stresses.

 

I don't even like the miswraps that seem to be acceptable on some 9.8s.

 

That is your standard. CGC is different, and they can't accommodate everyone's idea of a 9.8.

 

You will regularly see 9.4s with 5 small ticks. on a 9.6 not uncommon to see two or three.

I'm not really seeing three on many of my 9.6s, and I have 50 boxes of slabs.

 

Two is not overly unusual.

 

My standards have developed from years of seeing CGC books in various grades, and getting a feel for what is strong or weak for a given grade. I am not applying my standards to CGC; I am applying standards defined by CGC.

 

Three still happens.

 

If you look at a book that has been graded 9.8 and say it is not a 9.8, then you are not applying cgc's standards, in fact what you are doing is questioning their standards, almost the opposite of applying them.

 

 

 

 

[rjpb]

I would not even expect a non-color-breaking spine tic on a 9.6.

 

So you expect 9.6s to look like 9.9s?

9.9s and 10.0s are made up grades.

 

Pretending for a moment that they are quantifiable grades, and not arbitrarily assigned to what would normally be another 9.8, after a comic has been deemed a 9.9 or 10 it will still be handled by the encapsulator, and even the grader will be handling the book after reviewing areas of it for the minute flaws that would drop the grade and moving on. Given that not all flaws are easily visible once a book is encapsulated, how can one be sure that it remained a 9.9 or 10 after inspection and prior to encapsulation?

[stroszek]

I would not even expect a non-color-breaking spine tic on a 9.6.

 

So you expect 9.6s to look like 9.9s?

9.9s and 10.0s are made up grades.

 

Pretending for a moment that they are quantifiable grades, and not arbitrarily assigned to what would normally be another 9.8, after a comic has been deemed a 9.9 or 10 it will still be handled by the encapsulator, and even the grader will be handling the book after reviewing areas of it for the minute flaws that would drop the grade and moving on. Given that not all flaws are easily visible once a book is encapsulated, how can one be sure that it remained a 9.9 or 10 after inspection and prior to encapsulation?

 

'Cause it says so right on the slab.

[musicmeta]

Mind posting large scans of a book to clarify what you see?

[THE_BEYONDER]

I would not even expect a non-color-breaking spine tic on a 9.6.

 

So you expect 9.6s to look like 9.9s?

9.9s and 10.0s are made up grades.

 

Pretending for a moment that they are quantifiable grades, and not arbitrarily assigned to what would normally be another 9.8, after a comic has been deemed a 9.9 or 10 it will still be handled by the encapsulator, and even the grader will be handling the book after reviewing areas of it for the minute flaws that would drop the grade and moving on. Given that not all flaws are easily visible once a book is encapsulated, how can one be sure that it remained a 9.9 or 10 after inspection and prior to encapsulation?

 

Add to that the inherent risk in shipping those bad boys &

[rodan57]

My standards have developed from years of seeing CGC books in various grades, and getting a feel for what is strong or weak for a given grade. I am not applying my standards to CGC; I am applying standards defined by CGC.

 

If you look at a book that has been graded 9.8 and say it is not a 9.8, then you are not applying cgc's standards, in fact what you are doing is questioning their standards, almost the opposite of applying them.

 

I think, in effect, he's questioning the grades. I wouldn't confuse the grade with the standards.

 

CGC standards tighten and loosen and it's unfortunate because collectors would prefer to have all their 9.8s to be the same or very similar at this rarified level.

[mysterio]

My standards have developed from years of seeing CGC books in various grades, and getting a feel for what is strong or weak for a given grade. I am not applying my standards to CGC; I am applying standards defined by CGC.

 

If you look at a book that has been graded 9.8 and say it is not a 9.8, then you are not applying cgc's standards, in fact what you are doing is questioning their standards, almost the opposite of applying them.

 

I think, in effect, he's questioning the grades.

 

I wouldn't confuse the grade with the standards.

 

I'd agree. It sounds like he is comparing this 9.8 to a representative sample of previously obtained 9.8s. How would that not be applying CGC's standards? I've had plenty of books in 9.8 holders that I was disappointed with and didn't deserve the label, IMHO. Likewise for many apparently flawless books in 9.6 holders. Its seemingly a coin flip at this level many times.

[The-Collector]

 

The grades are the result of the standards. How can you not conflate them.

 

And he specifically says he is questioning the book against standards.

[The-Collector]

My standards have developed from years of seeing CGC books in various grades, and getting a feel for what is strong or weak for a given grade. I am not applying my standards to CGC; I am applying standards defined by CGC.

 

If you look at a book that has been graded 9.8 and say it is not a 9.8, then you are not applying cgc's standards, in fact what you are doing is questioning their standards, almost the opposite of applying them.

 

I think, in effect, he's questioning the grades.

 

I wouldn't confuse the grade with the standards.

 

I'd agree. It sounds like he is comparing this 9.8 to a representative sample of previously obtained 9.8s. How would that not be applying CGC's standards? I've had plenty of books in 9.8 holders that I was disappointed with and didn't deserve the label, IMHO. Likewise for many apparently flawless books in 9.6 holders. Its seemingly a coin flip at this level many times.

 

But they are all subject to cgc standards. How do you single one book out as not meeting the standards when the standards are not published. And cgc obviously thinks it does meet the standard for a 9.8.

 

Rather than excluding the new book it should be incorporated into your pool of reference.

[Hado]

Any time these threads appear. It becomes time to release....The Beast!

 

 

[The-Collector]

To put it another way.

 

If you have made certain assumptions about the standards required to get a 9.8 based on a representative sample and a book comes along that meets the standards of a 9.8 so is certified it as such, but you disagree about the grade, then the assumptions you made about the standards based on the representative sample must be wrong.

 

P1: Based on past experience all 9.8s have these characteristics.

P2: Here is a book that is a 9.8 but does not have those characteristics

 

Since the book in P2 is a 9.8 P1 must be wrong.

[THE_BEYONDER]

A single spine break?