THE AMAZING FANTASY #15 CLUB 39 39

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Are you saying that even though 2 books have the exact same type and amount of defects, with the only difference being that one book also has Marvel chipping, CGC would still give both of them the exact same grades?  Even though it is a clearly visual eye detracting defect, CGC would turn on their blinders and grade the book as if the chipping on the pages were not there.  That makes absolutely no sense at all from a grading point of view.

CGC used to treat some defects differently depending on the issue / publisher / how tough that book was.

Whether they still do or not I don't know.

[lou_fine]

7 hours ago, comicquant said:

8 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Man, I still can't fully understand CGC's grading at times. 

If the above AF 15 was graded as a CGC 3.0 G/VG copy, then can anybody explain how the following 2 books that's currently in CC's auction were also able to obtain equivalent CGC 3.0 grades:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=684452

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=676931

Not sure if it has something to do with the ages as the AF15 is a SA books while the other 2 in the CC auction are not?   

The two Tecs have to have an issue not visible on FC/BC.  Visually both of those books appear to be 5.0 at a minimum.  On the #29 I can see a subscription fold or scratch running verically down the center but even so that wouldn't account for the grade.  The #38 looks more like a 6.0.  The only way to know for sure is to buy the grader's notes.

No point in buying the Grader's Notes since they will both most likely go way past my budget.  The 'Tec 29 has already with still 15 days left to go in the auction. 

You must have taken a closer look at the 'Tec 29 then me since I didn't even noticed the scratch at first.    As for the 'Tec 38, it would appear to be a copy that is fresh to the market as both the Heritage archives and the CC emails don't seem to indicate a previous copy with the "2" in the top left hand corner.  I guess the book must have hit the newsstand in February or the second month of the year which would line up with the April cover date on the front.    Must get around to checking the Detective's 1 and 29 when I have time. 

Since we are talking about Marvel chipping, what's your opinion on the following 2 books which graded out in almost similar grade at CGC 3.5, with one of them definitely showing a few signs of chipping or pieces missing:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=697754

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/batman-1-dc-1940-cgc-vg-35-off-white-pages/a/7158-91008.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

My own personal suspicion is leaning towards an extremely tight grading time period since all 4 of these books appear much nicer than their final assigned grades, with all of them graded in the summer months of 2016 (except for 'Tec 1 graded in December of 2016).  The HA scans indicate a spine split down to the top staple on the Bat 1, but they all sure do look awful nice relative to their grades.   

[comicquant]

10 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

No point in buying the Grader's Notes since they will both most likely go way past my budget.  The 'Tec 29 has already with still 15 days left to go in the auction. 

You must have taken a closer look at the 'Tec 29 then me since I didn't even noticed the scratch at first.    As for the 'Tec 38, it would appear to be a copy that is fresh to the market as both the Heritage archives and the CC emails don't seem to indicate a previous copy with the "2" in the top left hand corner.  I guess the book must have hit the newsstand in February or the second month of the year which would line up with the April cover date on the front.    Must get around to checking the Detective's 1 and 29 when I have time. 

Since we are talking about Marvel chipping, what's your opinion on the following 2 books which graded out in almost similar grade at CGC 3.5, with one of them definitely showing a few signs of chipping or pieces missing:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=697754

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/batman-1-dc-1940-cgc-vg-35-off-white-pages/a/7158-91008.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

My own personal suspicion is leaning towards an extremely tight grading time period since all 4 of these books appear much nicer than their final assigned grades, with all of them graded in the summer months of 2016 (except for 'Tec 1 graded in December of 2016).  The HA scans indicate a spine split down to the top staple on the Bat 1, but they all sure do look awful nice relative to their grades.   

Two more cases of books that present extremely well but have some issues.  The Tec #1's cover is nearly in two due to a several spine splits.  I think its joined at the bottom 1/3 of the book and in spots on the top.  I can't tell for certain but it looks like the bottom staple is detached.  The bottom of the BC looks like it has a thumbnail-sized piece that is hanging on by about 1/4 inch of paper and their appears to be a substantial staple tear.  There is right edge wear on the FC that looks almost identical to MC but with larger pieces.  The tell-tale with chipping from normal wear is there may be surrounding areas that are in perfect shape, which is the case in a couple of areas with the Tec #1.  Typically edge wear sort of fades in intensity as it gets further from the source.  Even with those defects its an incredible book.  Imagine being a teenager who has spent most of their childhood living a bleak existence and walking up to this on the newsstand.  No action but you couldn't help but notice the color.  I'm not sure how many different images of this book I've seen but not all can put you in the shoes of someone 80 years ago like this copy.

As for the Batman #1 I see a definitive split above the top staple as well as one below the bottom staple.  I also see some rust in the cross section scan.  I have no idea how CGC treats rust.  Seems to me like rust should carry a serious penalty but its one of those detractors which is difficult to quantify.  Outside of a small stain on Batman's left shoulder, some outer edge tanning and wear there isn't much going on so there is probably more going on with the spine than we can see.  Again, the color on this book is also amazing.

My theory on the current tightening is it started about halfway through August of 2016.  To me, its noticeable enough its almost as if someone flipped a switch.  October and November seem to be the months hit the hardest.  I think the reason for this was the issue with the new holder they released in April.  Due to the massive influx of reholders they probably hired some adjunct graders from May through July to help dissolve the backlog.  Some of the loosest grading I've ever seen out of CGC came from books graded during those three months.  Its almost as if they asked Voldy for a few of their graders.  In addition to loose grading there were numerous processing errors during this time.  There was an ASM #31 graded in June I purchased the grader's notes for and after not receiving them I inquired, to which they responded with "We can't find the notes for this book".  After three months of utter chaos someone at CGC knew it was time to tighten things up and instilled the current standard.  It was the right thing to do because serious collectors with serious books don't want to settle for an easy grade like those coming out of Voldy.  As for the few books that come from that time period which seem strictly graded (This Batman #1), my guess is CGC always has their best and brightest grading high dollar books with a lot of exposure...  The same people doing all of the grading now.  But I'm just another collector on the outside looking in so I could be way off...  

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, comicquant said:

My theory on the current tightening is it started about halfway through August of 2016.  To me, its noticeable enough its almost as if someone flipped a switch.  October and November seem to be the months hit the hardest.  I think the reason for this was the issue with the new holder they released in April.  Due to the massive influx of reholders they probably hired some adjunct graders from May through July to help dissolve the backlog.  Some of the loosest grading I've ever seen out of CGC came from books graded during those three months.

Wow, now that was a top notch detailed analysis, especially on the Detective 1.     Saves me a lot of time and all that for free. 

In addition to the backlog issues you had mentioned in your post, I believe the GA books were also affected by the big influx of books from the Marc Lasry Collection during this summer time period.  An unbelievable amount of GA books from Action 2 all the way up, Larson Batman 1 all the way up, Detective's from the mid 30's all the way up, etc.  With this amount of top quality GA books to grade, maybe they had to assign some of the MA graders to this task who then immediately proceeded to use the much tighter MA grading standards to these older vintage books. 

Looks like the Batman 1 went through in June of 2016, the Detective 38 in July of 2016, and the Detective 29 in August of 2016.  No apparent visible loose grading on that 'Tec 38 even though it was done in July.  Maybe they were taking some practice shots at tightening     their grading on that particular book.  

[chrisco37]

15 hours ago, VintageComics said:

16 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Are you saying that even though 2 books have the exact same type and amount of defects, with the only difference being that one book also has Marvel chipping, CGC would still give both of them the exact same grades?  Even though it is a clearly visual eye detracting defect, CGC would turn on their blinders and grade the book as if the chipping on the pages were not there.  That makes absolutely no sense at all from a grading point of view.

CGC used to treat some defects differently depending on the issue / publisher / how tough that book was.

Whether they still do or not I don't know.

Marvel Chipping (in the lower grades, at least) was treated more as a production defect than book damage.   Doubt it was ignored entirely, but it wasn't penalized as much as (IMO) it should have been.

Over the years, the market has seemed to favor non MC chipped books (as it probably should). 

[SC22]

4 hours ago, chrisco37 said:

Marvel Chipping (in the lower grades, at least) was treated more as a production defect than book damage.   Doubt it was ignored entirely, but it wasn't penalized as much as (IMO) it should have been.

Over the years, the market has seemed to favor non MC chipped books (as it probably should). 

Does that apply to a book like my CGC 6.5 AF15 (very minor chip) even if people here seem to believe it should have graded a 7.0 to a 7.5?

[chrisco37]

2 hours ago, SupergirlDC19591 said:

6 hours ago, chrisco37 said:

Marvel Chipping (in the lower grades, at least) was treated more as a production defect than book damage.   Doubt it was ignored entirely, but it wasn't penalized as much as (IMO) it should have been.

Over the years, the market has seemed to favor non MC chipped books (as it probably should). 

Does that apply to a book like my CGC 6.5 AF15 (very minor chip) even if people here seem to believe it should have graded a 7.0 to a 7.5?

No idea.   I think your book is a real strong copy.  I'd have no problem with it in a 7.0 slab.  Maybe just got graded at a real strict time?   Almost worth getting the notes on and, depending what they say, take a shot at a resub.  

Also, while your book has a "Marvel chip", it's not really what I picture when I think of MC.  I think of chipping all the way down the right side.  

[peewee22]

42 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

No idea.   I think your book is a real strong copy.  I'd have no problem with it in a 7.0 slab.  Maybe just got graded at a real strict time?   Almost worth getting the notes on and, depending what they say, take a shot at a resub.  

Also, while your book has a "Marvel chip", it's not really what I picture when I think of MC.  I think of chipping all the way down the right side.  

The degree of chipping impacts the value. I've seen cracks not yet to the stage of chips with a favorable grade. Makes sense to grade according to the stage of the flaw.

[SC22]

1 hour ago, chrisco37 said:

No idea.   I think your book is a real strong copy.  I'd have no problem with it in a 7.0 slab.  Maybe just got graded at a real strict time?   Almost worth getting the notes on and, depending what they say, take a shot at a resub.  

Also, while your book has a "Marvel chip", it's not really what I picture when I think of MC.  I think of chipping all the way down the right side.  

When time comes to sell it I will have it reevaluated by CGC.

[Bomber-Bob]

On 3/7/2017 at 5:28 PM, lou_fine said:

Even though I am not a SA collector, I have heard of Marvel chipping. 

Are you saying that even though 2 books have the exact same type and amount of defects, with the only difference being that one book also has Marvel chipping, CGC would still give both of them the exact same grades?  Even though it is a clearly visual eye detracting defect, CGC would turn on their blinders and grade the book as if the chipping on the pages were not there.  That makes absolutely no sense at all from a grading point of view. 

The only way that this would make sense is if Marvel chipping and a production related issue that was prevalent on all copies of the book that came off the printing press.  Clearly this is not the case as seen with copies such as the pedigree and some of the other non-pedigree HG copies of AF 15. 

I remember a similar issue being discussed on the Cerebus 1 thread in the BA Forum.  As we all know, Certebus 1 is notorious for having varying degrees of spine ticks on virtually all copies of the run that appears to be either a production binding or distribution related issue.  Even though virtually the entire print run of 2,000 copies show evidence of spine ticks to one degree or other, CGC still downgrades for these spine ticks.  I guess the rationale would be what one board member alluded to, since Dave Sim was able to scoured the entire print run to hand pick and pull out a handful of copies without the spine ticks to retain for his own collection. 

Hence, since Dave Sim's File Copies provided proof that there were indeed copies of Cerebus 1 exhibiting no spine ticks, then any copies which had spine ticks on them should then be downgraded accordingly.  Likewise then, since the Curator and other similar pedigree or even other non-pedigree HG copies of AF 15's exhibits no Marvel chipping, then should not any copies of AF 15 which have Marvel chipping on them also be downgraded accordingly. 

 

Hey, I agree with you. IMO, CGC should downgrade for all flaws no matter if they are bindery or not. In fact, they often have to guess as to whether a flaw is bindery. This can sometimes lead to manipulation by the submitter. I vaguely remember a big stink years ago on the Boards when it was discovered someone took a book with a dangling corner piece still attached, removed it, and got a 9.6 or something ridiculous. I think he used a nail clipper. He fooled CGC into thinking it was a Marvel chip.  A Marvel chips is a piece missing, period. It should be downgraded.

[GAMBIT]

2 hours ago, SupergirlDC19591 said:

When time comes to sell it I will have it reevaluated by CGC.

in 2037 - 2042? 

Edited March 9, 2017 by GAMBIT

[SC22]

47 minutes ago, GAMBIT said:

in 2037 - 2042? 

Yes that is the right time frame (I am not retiring for a long time so this will help with that when it comes time to do so.....for me and for my brother). For now I don't mind working it keeps me busy and gets me out of my home. The only other reason I would sell any of my books would be to upgrade it (except for my CGC 9.2 X-Men 1 that will stay in that grade I can't see myself spending so much money to get a 9.4).

Edited March 9, 2017 by SupergirlDC19591
Text

[Spiderturtle]

2 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

 A Marvel chips is a piece missing, period. It should be downgraded.

+1

[Dark Knight]

Since the grade of a book is not downgraded for having marvel chipping, the price certainly reflects it.

[Spiderturtle]

http://m.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Fantasy-15-Cgc-5-5-1St-Spider-man-Perfect-Centering-Unrestored-Gem-Fine-/331621633286?hash=item4d36308d06%3Ag%3Arj8AAOSwjVVVwibO&_trkparms=pageci%3Aa8d83e58-053c-11e7-b61c-74dbd180c4a3%7Cparentrq%3Ab622221115a0a6a8f5657063fffcab5b%7Ciid%3A1

 

 

a record for a no mc 5.5

[VintageComics]

4 minutes ago, Spiderturtle said:

http://m.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Fantasy-15-Cgc-5-5-1St-Spider-man-Perfect-Centering-Unrestored-Gem-Fine-/331621633286?hash=item4d36308d06%3Ag%3Arj8AAOSwjVVVwibO&_trkparms=pageci%3Aa8d83e58-053c-11e7-b61c-74dbd180c4a3%7Cparentrq%3Ab622221115a0a6a8f5657063fffcab5b%7Ciid%3A1

 

 

a record for a no mc 5.5

I highly doubt that is a real sale.

Do you really think a CGC 5.5 (with COW pages) just sold for 50% over market and over what 6.0 copies sell for?

[SC22]

26 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I highly doubt that is a real sale.

Do you really think a CGC 5.5 (with COW pages) just sold for 50% over market and over what 6.0 copies sell for?

If it is real that would be one heck of a sale.

[Spiderturtle]

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

I highly doubt that is a real sale.

Do you really think a CGC 5.5 (with COW pages) just sold for 50% over market and over what 6.0 copies sell for?

Yeah you're right, unlikely to be real

[Iceman399]

It's on gpa for 41750

[Jaydogrules]

3 hours ago, Spiderturtle said:

http://m.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Fantasy-15-Cgc-5-5-1St-Spider-man-Perfect-Centering-Unrestored-Gem-Fine-/331621633286?hash=item4d36308d06%3Ag%3Arj8AAOSwjVVVwibO&_trkparms=pageci%3Aa8d83e58-053c-11e7-b61c-74dbd180c4a3%7Cparentrq%3Ab622221115a0a6a8f5657063fffcab5b%7Ciid%3A1

 

 

a record for a no mc 5.5

Wow great result.  Assuming the sale went through  (is there any reason to believe it didn't?), it's easy to see why that book would sell for a premium. Presents very well for the grade.  

-J.