Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[fantastic_four]

I've always avoided pokethrough and miswraps whenever possible, although they're both a bit down my priority scale. Miswraps are farther up in priority for reasons I've repeated enough times in the thread to not repeat again.

[pickycollector]

Here are examples of what I mean. You can see overlaps on either top or bottom edges but the right edges show only extremely minor page pokethroughs which I consider normal here and very far from the magnitude of Cole Schave books displayed in this thread

 

[fantastic_four]

So you're fine with 1/32". I'm mostly fine with Barton's nosebleed Spideys with 1/16" but have always avoided it when possible, although I wouldn't pass on a tough book that was otherwise gorgeous due to it. 1/8" is still not as bad as the quite common 1/8" left edge miswrap, and I'd avoid it unless again it was a particularly tough book. Peter_In_Portugal's 9.8 Iron Man and Subby 1 with 1/8" of pokethrough shows that CGC barely downgraded for this prior to CCS shrinking covers.

 

This whole conversation is a rerun...we've all said exactly these things earlier in the thread. It's a sickness.

[mschmidt]

They're all in Sarasota, they're all owned by the same folks, I presume they're all in the same building but don't really know that for sure--they're the same, with the right amount of isolation.

Per an earlier post from West, the pressing, cleaning, manipulating, restoration detection, and grading operations are all under the same roof and per the legalese used by Mark Zaid earlier, they're owned by the "same entity." So yeah, it's a seamless operation conducted under one roof with a single owner.

 

I really don't know what you mean by exaggerating the issue, it's either a conflict of interest or it isn't, and in this case, it is. You are free to weight it as you deem fit, but it is what it is.

 

It's a potential conflict of interest. The risk of it being an actual one is pretty similar to the idea that any of the three graders on a book break procedure and allow themselves to be biased by the grades of the other ones. Or maybe the final grader looks at the other grades before he assigns his, which he isn't supposed to do until his own opinion is done. The process could break down almost anywhere, and for all we know, it does on a regular basis and always has.

 

And for all we know, there's no conflict of interest whatsoever :shrug:

 

I mean, that's the whole issue here, isn't it? If you trust CGC to do what they've repeatedly claim they do (and what Zaid has confirmed) - grade impartially with no regard for who owns a book or where the book came from - there's no conflict of interest inherent in having CGC's parent company also own CCS.

[drbanner]

It's a potential conflict of interest. The risk of it being an actual one is pretty similar to the idea that any of the three graders on a book break procedure and allow themselves to be biased by the grades of the other ones. Or maybe the final grader looks at the other grades before he assigns his, which he isn't supposed to do until his own opinion is done.

These aren't examples of conflict of interest, these are examples of biased grading.

 

An example of a conflict of interest is when you attempt to remove color touch from a book and then get to decide if you got it all, or at least most of it, or perhaps just enough to give yourself a Blue Label with the "Minor amount of color touch." label note since you didn't really get it all, but you got most of it, at least you think did anyway.

 

Ah what the heck, I think I did a great job, and just think of the repeat resto removal business I'm going to get from my great work, not to mention the increased final value fees I'm gonna make from this Blue Label Beauty!

[pickycollector]

 

Obviously I know a few dozen of you guys think that 1/8" pokethrough completely ruins a book and CGC doesn't downgrade enough, but I've seen no evidence from the history of grading that supports such a view. I'm highly interested in discussing that much further with anyone who has the interest.

 

Anyway, to make it short, this book below would show the worst I would accept as a right edge peakthrough and this can be explained only by the cover being off-centered from front to back.

 

More peakthrough than that, and especially on a book with a perfectly centered spine, would look suspicious to me

 

[fantastic_four]

An example of a conflict of interest is when you attempt to remove color touch from a book and then get to decide if you got it all, or at least most of it, or perhaps just enough to give yourself a Blue Label with the "Minor amount of color touch." label note since you didn't really get it all, but you got most of it, at least you think did anyway.

 

That whole sentence is so full of false implications as to what goes in the process that CGC describes they go through and that Zaid audited that there's no point in discussing it any further--we get it, you don't believe they do what they said they do. No point in rehashing mess we all already know any further.

[fantastic_four]

More peakthrough than that, and especially on a book with a perfectly centered spine, would look suspicious to me

 

Suspicious? As in the type of comic who might jimmy your back door open or sleep with your sister? Whatever do you mean, suspicious? Suspiciousness is an element of grading I'm unfamiliar with.

[pickycollector]

As in the type of comic who might jimmy your back door open or sleep with your sister?

[fantastic_four]

As in the type of comic who might jimmy your back door open or sleep with your sister?

 

And of course I'm poking you with a stick because you just did what I think almost all of the overreactors in the thread are doing--allowing the source of the defect to bias your evaluation of its impact on aesthetic appeal. Maybe you don't like pressing...maybe you don't like Matt up books...could be both. I don't like either myself. But none of that matters for grading, i.e. putting a number to condition.

 

But at least you didn't threaten to kill yourself over these "suspicious" books like Jimbo said earlier they make him feel like doing.

[Sqeggs]

The key to resolving this issue has always been for CGC to take page fanning into account when grading. I think it's unlikely they will do this because it would result in reduced submissions from dealers trying to get higher grades for already high-grade books, thereby hurting both the CCS and CGC ends of the business.

 

They're unlikely to do this because grading is about appearance. All of these suggestions to have CGC stop downgrading as a disincentive for pressers to stop creating pokethrough are approaching the entire idea about grading from the wrong direction.

 

Obviously I know a few dozen of you guys think that 1/8" pokethrough completely ruins a book and CGC doesn't downgrade enough, but I've seen no evidence from the history of grading that supports such a view. I'm highly interested in discussing that much further with anyone who has the interest.

 

I think you meant "start" rather than "stop." In any event, you have made this point many, many times in this thread. It still seems odd to me that a minute spine tick results in a lower grade, while something that detracts from the appearance of a book as much as the page fanning on the CS books doesn't.

 

I would guess that if you were to put before and after scans of the CS books before 100 collectors, 99 of them would give higher grades to the befores.

[drbanner]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

I don't mind where the centerfold and interior pages stick out beyond the cover at the top of the book and taper to being flush with the bottom of the book as this is how many/most SA Marvels have always looked. This is different though than books where the 1st page extends out beyond the cover edge, especially if it's visible the entire length of the cover like the JIMs and other Schave books uncovered in this thread. I've always avoided SA books like that and am much more sensitive to it now given this fiasco.

I agree with you on top edge overlaps, Mike, as this is how many/most SA Marvels have always looked. What I meant was inside pages that poke through the right edge, and yes, along the entire right edge to be more specific.

Gotcha, and since this fiasco I've avoided Costanza'd looking books altogether. (thumbs u

[pickycollector]

But none of that matters for CGC grading, i.e. putting a number to condition.

True and unfortunate which is why I buy the book never the label

 

 

But at least you didn't threaten to kill yourself over these "suspicious" books like Jimbo said earlier they make him feel like doing.

[fantastic_four]

But none of that matters for CGC grading, i.e. putting a number to condition.

True and unfortunate which is why I buy the book never the label

 

None of that matters for ANY grading. Your suggestion that grading should be biased by anything other than function or aesthetics is unfortunate, and your use of the phrase "buy the book never the label" is inappropriate for the way you're using it here. You're placing more weight on this defect specifically because of its source.

[pickycollector]

But none of that matters for CGC grading, i.e. putting a number to condition.

True and unfortunate which is why I buy the book never the label

 

None of that matters for ANY grading. Your suggestion that grading should be biased by anything other than function or aesthetics is unfortunate, and your use of the phrase "buy the book never the label" is inappropriate for the way you're using it here. You're placing more weight on this defect specifically because of its source.

You are wrong here but since that is what you said I guess you think that the Costanzas books look not worse than their previous conditions since they got a grade bump.

 

To each his own (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

I guess you think that the Costanzas books look not worse than their previous conditions since they got a grade bump.

 

To each his own (thumbs u

 

Come ON, dude--WTF? Cut that mess out. You know that's not true since three posts back I JUST said I avoid pokethrough and always have. And multiple times throughout the thread I maintained I've been railing on it in print in these forums for over a decade and wondering where the rest of you guys railing on it in this thread have been all that time--which I said again as a direct implication that most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

[Gotham Kid]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

+ 1 gazillion

[Gotham Kid]

Peter_In_Portugal's 9.8 Iron Man and Subby 1 with 1/8" of pokethrough shows that CGC barely downgraded for this prior to CCS shrinking covers.

 

Sold it on Pedigree.

Hunting down a new copy.

[fantastic_four]

Peter_In_Portugal's 9.8 Iron Man and Subby 1 with 1/8" of pokethrough shows that CGC barely downgraded for this prior to CCS shrinking covers.

 

Sold it on Pedigree.

Hunting down a new copy.

 

Just checked but couldn't find it--how'd you make out?

[Gotham Kid]

Peter_In_Portugal's 9.8 Iron Man and Subby 1 with 1/8" of pokethrough shows that CGC barely downgraded for this prior to CCS shrinking covers.

 

Sold it on Pedigree.

Hunting down a new copy.

 

Just checked but couldn't find it--how'd you make out?

 

Sold it at a loss. Don't care. OCD about my books.

 

Ever so grateful for the CGC Boards where you learn stuff all the time

 

Learned much over the last 3 years.