Fantastic Four #2 CGG 4.0 Would be 9.0 without spine trauma?

[Foolkiller]

I'm really not sure what the big deal is here. The grade given is a 4.0 -- there are plenty of books out there that look beautiful and the dealer will say, oh, this is an awesome (fine, vg whatever) and the only reason it's a lower grade is because of some glaring defect. It happens all the time. If there was a huge back cover crease, it wouldn't be ok to say, well, the book looks like a 9.4 from the front cover, too bad theres a fugly huge crease across the back.

 

It isn't as if anyone misgraded the book. I think we're getting hung up on the "qualified" part. If they want to call the book qualified, so be it. The grade is actually a 4.0 -- I wouldn't even pay attention to the qualified part.

[Silver Surfer]

I'm not biased and yes I can read the label but I just don't see the logic in qualifying this book. Its like saying well, this book is a 9.0 except for the folding crease, water stain, chip, tear, etc. Where do you draw the line? What are you getting so about?

 

THE BOOK IS NOT Q U A L I F I E D. It is a 4.0 VG.It is stated on the lable as such!!! do you get it now?

 

Sounds and looks like they gave it a qualifying statement in the label which is pretty pointless if you ask me. Read my previous quote above your response as you fail to address that point and instead want to split hairs. Also, I just made a comment about the fact that the seller priced it like a 6.0 when its really a 4.0 (maybe because of what the label said? ).

[Silver Surfer]

I'm really not sure what the big deal is here. The grade given is a 4.0 -- there are plenty of books out there that look beautiful and the dealer will say, oh, this is an awesome (fine, vg whatever) and the only reason it's a lower grade is because of some glaring defect. It happens all the time. If there was a huge back cover crease, it wouldn't be ok to say, well, the book looks like a 9.4 from the front cover, too bad theres a fugly huge crease across the back.

 

It isn't as if anyone misgraded the book. I think we're getting hung up on the "qualified" part. If they want to call the book qualified, so be it. The grade is actually a 4.0 -- I wouldn't even pay attention to the qualified part.

 

What he said.

[uclapeterg]

Good point.

[Aces]

Your 4.0 is better.

[fantastic_four]

Where do you draw the line?

 

At books which have a single defect which significantly or uniquely impacts grade. That's where reasonable dealers, collectors, and certification companies have been drawing the line for a decade or more.

[noshill-migration]

Where do you draw the line?

 

At books which have a single defect which significantly or uniquely impacts grade. That's where reasonable dealers, collectors, and certification companies have been drawing the line for a decade or more.

 

[uclapeterg]

Your 4.0 is better.

 

I'm still looking for a higher graded 2. If you find me one, I'll sell you mine for CHEAP.

[Mister_Comics]

The QUALIFIED stuff is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned.

 

How far can these grading companies take it? When will we be seeing "This book qualifies as a 10.0 if it just didn't have this (fill in the blank) defect." No! The book should be graded as what it is and quit with the qualified stuff. Ya can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

[PovertyRow]

Someone who is not biased to slam PGA would see the lable as it is. It is graded a 4.0. not a qualified 9.0. they just state that the rest of the book is a 9.0 ,other than the spine damage that brought it to the lable grade of 4.0.

 

I agree. The book is graded a 4.0. The label says it would be a 9.0 if not for the spine trauma. More information is better than less, and all this label does is indicate the weight that they gave the one huge defect on the cover. What is the big crime here? If the seller wants more money than people will pay then the book won't sell. Big whoop.

 

You know, I agree here and think this is how qualified should be handled. It is GOOD to see two grades, and surprising but refreshing to see the lower grade actually be used as the primary one.

[fantastic_four]

You know, I agree here and think this is how qualified should be handled. It is GOOD to see two grades, and surprising but refreshing to see the lower grade actually be used as the primary one.

 

I too agree...PGA's handling of the Qualified grade is better than CGC's. I always wonder how Qualified CGC books would really grade if the defect were factored in.

[Aces]

Your 4.0 is better.

 

I'm still looking for a higher graded 2. If you find me one, I'll sell you mine for CHEAP.

 

I have a mission!

[Silver Surfer]

Did that 9.2 that Bob was selling for $10,000-$12,000 ever sell? Don't see too many of those around.

[uclapeterg]

Did that 9.2 that Bob was selling for $10,000-$12,000 ever sell? Don't see too many of those around.

 

Why don't you ask Blazingbob?

 

I have a feeing it did.

[Silver Surfer]

I should check GPA (does report to GPA?) because I believe it could have been had on EBay for $10,000 but there were no takers (can't remember if there was a reserve?), BIN for $12,000.

[Aces]

Did that 9.2 that Bob was selling for $10,000-$12,000 ever sell? Don't see too many of those around.

 

Why don't you ask Blazingbob?

 

I have a feeing it did.

 

I don't see a FF 2 in his notible sales.

[FFB]

The QUALIFIED stuff is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned.

 

How far can these grading companies take it? When will we be seeing "This book qualifies as a 10.0 if it just didn't have this (fill in the blank) defect." No! The book should be graded as what it is and quit with the qualified stuff. Ya can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

 

But neither company is doing that, are they? The qualified grade that CGC uses is used only for very special cases. It isn't like they bend over backward to assign qualified grades on books with a significant major defect.

 

And as for the book in question, the CGG/PGA grade isn't even a qualified grade. It's the "real" grade of 4.0 with a note on the label that the one big defect dropped it from a 9.0. I find the comment helpful because it tells me a LOT more about the book than just a "4.0" would with no additional notes. Again, more information is better than less information. We're all smart enough to figure out that a book with massive spine trauma like that isn't going to sell for a premium, so what's the controversy?

[FFB]

You know, I agree here and think this is how qualified should be handled. It is GOOD to see two grades, and surprising but refreshing to see the lower grade actually be used as the primary one.

 

I too agree...PGA's handling of the Qualified grade is better than CGC's. I always wonder how Qualified CGC books would really grade if the defect were factored in.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[burntboy]

You know, I agree here and think this is how qualified should be handled. It is GOOD to see two grades, and surprising but refreshing to see the lower grade actually be used as the primary one.

 

I too agree...PGA's handling of the Qualified grade is better than CGC's. I always wonder how Qualified CGC books would really grade if the defect were factored in.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

i'll jump on this bandwagon and concur that the statement on the lable only helps to clarify why such an otherwise nice book, wound up being graded at VG 4.0.

 

just don't see the harm of having a bit more info on which to base a buying decision.

 

i have an interesting parallel with my copy of FF#2 which was posted last year. it's a pretty lovely book, except for the small chunk that got torn off when the old candy store guy pulled it from the metal tooth clamp that held it suspended above the candy counter. CGC graded it a 6.5. i, for one, would have been interested in the grade except for this single major defect.

 

here it is again in it's CGC holder (the missing chunk is in the ULC);

 

[Silver Surfer]

Burnt,

 

You would have easily had yourself a 9.0. Why does it always happen with the expensive books? Ouch.