Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[faster friends]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

[VintageComics]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

 

It has plenty of pressable defects from what I can see in the Heritage scans.

 

And as far as I can tell, even though it's a 119 invoice (because that appears to be the scarlet number now) the book had a similar wrap in the 5.5 holder...before it was pressed.

 

Not only that, if you look at the back cover scan on Heritage the book had a slight spine roll to the rear - the front cover pages were more visible than the back cover pages - again, before it was pressed.

 

Conclusion?

[Bomber-Bob]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

 

I tell ya, CGC used to grade tight, tight, tight. I think this is mostly a case of the graders themselves being different, with a new set of standards. Are any of the early graders still around ? Honestly, I can understand the 8.0 . It's the 5.5 I don't see, way too tight.

[thirdgreenham]

I really do love this hobby.

[comicdonna]

So do I.

[VintageComics]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

 

I tell ya, CGC used to grade tight, tight, tight. I think this is mostly a case of the graders themselves being different, with a new set of standards. Are any of the early graders still around ? Honestly, I can understand the 8.0 . It's the 5.5 I don't see, way too tight.

 

Bob, if it's a very wavy, but otherwise good looking book (and I'm talking ripples like the ocean) then it will typically get knocked down quite a bit and yet look good in a Mylar. That's been my experience.

 

 

[Microchip]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

 

I tell ya, CGC used to grade tight, tight, tight. I think this is mostly a case of the graders themselves being different, with a new set of standards. Are any of the early graders still around ? Honestly, I can understand the 8.0 . It's the 5.5 I don't see, way too tight.

 

Bob, if it's a very wavy, but otherwise good looking book (and I'm talking ripples like the ocean) then it will typically get knocked down quite a bit and yet look good in a Mylar. That's been my experience.

 

 

Even a gentle single wave in the cover would be slammed.

And NCBC would be the death knell for some very attractive looking books.

[VintageComics]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

 

I tell ya, CGC used to grade tight, tight, tight. I think this is mostly a case of the graders themselves being different, with a new set of standards. Are any of the early graders still around ? Honestly, I can understand the 8.0 . It's the 5.5 I don't see, way too tight.

 

Bob, if it's a very wavy, but otherwise good looking book (and I'm talking ripples like the ocean) then it will typically get knocked down quite a bit and yet look good in a Mylar. That's been my experience.

 

 

Even a gentle single wave in the cover would be slammed.

And NCBC would be the death knell for some very attractive looking books.

 

That's actually a misconception.

 

In my experience, CGC doesn't 'hammer' books for slight NCB wear. They downgrade (as they should), but not by a lot.

 

I've seen some pretty wavy books get VF range grades and even slight waviness is allowed in NM range (9.0/9.2). I've seen books in those grades with waviness.

 

It would have to be pretty curvy to fall into fine range which this book probably was.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

 

You are again implying that a consensus requires the participants have the same underlying opinions/biases/motivations in order for them to come together. As I mentioned before, this couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Additionally, the idea that grading standards should remain static is shortsighted. Community opinion regularly shifts over time. When new information is provided, those shifts can be drastic and rapid. In this case there is a clear community consensus, regardless of how the participants got there.

[Comicopolis]

Didn't look like it had any pressable defects.

 

Money was pressed in to it.

[Silver Surfer]

Conclusion? Looks like a weak 8.0 to me. Maybe rushing these through on site grading is the way to go?

[mschmidt]

Conclusion? Looks like a weak 8.0 to me. Maybe rushing these through on site grading is the way to go?

 

It was graded on 07/01, so it wasn't done on-site. I have no problems with CGC calling it an 8.0 :shrug:

[VintageComics]

Conclusion? Looks like a weak 8.0 to me. Maybe rushing these through on site grading is the way to go?

 

Wait, I thought you posted the "another 119 sub" and put it in the Schave thread because you thought it was a shrunken cover book.

 

Now you "love this hobby" because you think it's a weak 8.0?

 

 

You assumed it was a shrunken cover but it wasn't.

You assumed it was on site graded but it wasn't.

You think it's a weak 8.0, which is arguable - but then Bob thought it was a strong 5.5.

 

Conclusion?

 

This place is nuts.

 

 

[Silver Surfer]

Conclusion? Looks like a weak 8.0 to me. Maybe rushing these through on site grading is the way to go?

 

Wait, I thought you posted the "another 119 sub" and put it in the Schave thread because you thought it was a shrunken cover book.

 

Now you "love this hobby" because you think it's a weak 8.0?

 

 

You assumed it was a shrunken cover but it wasn't.

You assumed it was on site graded but it wasn't.

You think it's a weak 8.0, which is arguable - but then Bob thought it was a strong 5.5.

 

Conclusion?

 

This place is nuts.

 

 

Roy when did I ever assume it wasn't shrunken or state anything in that regard, WTF are you talking about? Conclusion, you are a tool.

[jimbo_707]

I posted that book in the CLink thread because that big of a grade bump disturbs me. Like most collectors, I'll pay a heck of a lot more for an 8.0 than I will for a 5.5.

 

Assuming the grade bump was due to pressing, it's likely another example of CGC putting too much emphasis on flatness and overlooking other defects in the process.

 

But whether the graders are being awe-struck by the flatness of newly pressed books, or whether they're deducting too much for pressable defects, the bottom line for me is that if a book can be a 5.5 one day and an 8.0 the next, the whole system doesn't mean as much as I've allowed it to mean in terms of the amount I've been willing to pay based on slabbed grades.

 

This example tells me I really shouldn't pay much more for any 8.0 than what I'd be willing to pay for a 5.5.

[gyro-1]

Conclusion? Looks like a weak 8.0 to me. Maybe rushing these through on site grading is the way to go?

 

Wait, I thought you posted the "another 119 sub" and put it in the Schave thread because you thought it was a shrunken cover book.

 

Now you "love this hobby" because you think it's a weak 8.0?

 

 

You assumed it was a shrunken cover but it wasn't.

You assumed it was on site graded but it wasn't.

You think it's a weak 8.0, which is arguable - but then Bob thought it was a strong 5.5.

 

Conclusion?

 

This place is nuts.

 

yes it is

[VintageComics]

Roy when did I ever assume it wasn't shrunken or state anything in that regard, WTF are you talking about? Conclusion, you are a tool.

 

Wait, you post a picture of a book in a thread dedicated to shrunken covers and spine shifted books, and this is neither, and you call me a tool?

 

Why did you post the book in this thread the first place? Because you could?

[Silver Surfer]

Of all people to accuse me of side tracking. Where's Fingh's Wizard of Oz quote again.

[VintageComics]

Of all people to accuse me of side tracking. Where's Fingh's Wizard of Oz quote again.

 

I'm not accusing you of side tracking.

 

I assumed you thought it was either an RSR or a shrunken cover book.

 

If that's not why you posted it then I'm asking you why you posted the book if it has nothing to do with the thread.

[fantastic_four]

Suggesting bias is interfering with people's better judgement to differentiate between good and bad is laughable.

 

Good and bad? Are these Constanza'd books building a meth empire?