New Overstreet grading guide

[thirdgreenham]

Got a copy last week. (thumbs u

 

Are you starting a new grading company?

 

[Davenport]

The picture on Amazon shows the WD#1 as a CGC book.

 

Take a look at how Diamond cuts off the whole right-side. Linky

And Diamond owns Overstreet, don't they?

 

The whacky world of marketing-partnerships.

 

Take the tin foil off my man. If you click the link and then right click on the image and select "Open in new Tab" you get this http://www.diamondcomics.com/catalogimages/STK_IMAGES/STK640001-660000/STK653494.jpg which means that some shmuck at diamond forgot to resize the image for the website. That's all. No great conspiracy.

Then why does the publisher, Gemstone Publishing, show a different cover than Diamond and Amazon? Are there just two Variant covers in play. Is that all that's going on here?

 

[F For Fake]

I may be the only person who cares about this, but Gemstone needs a better art director. These books are so damn ugly and busy and just laid out poorly.

 

This.

[jaybuck43]

The picture on Amazon shows the WD#1 as a CGC book.

 

Take a look at how Diamond cuts off the whole right-side. Linky

And Diamond owns Overstreet, don't they?

 

The whacky world of marketing-partnerships.

 

Take the tin foil off my man. If you click the link and then right click on the image and select "Open in new Tab" you get this http://www.diamondcomics.com/catalogimages/STK_IMAGES/STK640001-660000/STK653494.jpg which means that some shmuck at diamond forgot to resize the image for the website. That's all. No great conspiracy.

Then why does the publisher, Gemstone Publishing, show a different cover than Diamond and Amazon? Are there just two Variant covers in play. Is that all that's going on here?

 

Midtown comics shows the Steve variant yet they only do submissions to CGC also note that the CGC is a 9.9 and the other is a 9,8. My guess? Solicited with older Cover image which was later updated and not everyone updated the cover image? Target shows the "old" cover as well http://www.target.com/p/overstreet-guide-to-grading-comics-2015-paperback/-/A-16561071 I highly doubt they care about CGC or Voldimort.

[Quicksilver Signs]

I still have my 1992 first edition grading guide with OWL card.

 

Pressing is covered in the RESTORATION section.

[Thermal]

Oh my, a picture of the competition showed up. Red Alert, Red Alert.

Yea, still have my 1992 with OWL Card as well. Dang, love them 1992 prices!!!!!

[MusterMark]

For those who have the prior edition and picked this new edition up, does this new one have photos that you can see clearly see the defects on a book? The prior edition is fairly useless because the scans were lame, particularly along the edges of books -- no depth at all.

 

I got mine last week.

Have only had a limited amount of time so far to go through some of it.

I had been hoping that they would have cleared up that problem by now, that some of the scans were poor enough that one could not clearly see all the defects they mentioned. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Unfortunately, that appears not to have been rectified, at least in some of the scans. So this problem still exists. Go figure. BUT, the good news is that many of the other scans do seem ok enough.

And some of the features are pretty cool, like showing the same comics in various grades, 1.0 to 10.

I do think of this grading guide as quite useful in some ways.

[Sqeggs]

Agree that it's useful and worth getting ... but also agree that some of the defects described are difficult to see on some of the scans.

[FineCollector]

Is there a fair spread across the grades? Last time I bought a grading guide, there were more pictures from 9.8-10.0 than there were 4.0's

[comicnut]

Do they still say that a Fair copy can be missing the back but only have 2/3 of the spine split?

I'd really like to see a picture of that book

 

[ttfitz]

This book debuted at the Va ComiCon, and I picked up a copy. I talked to the Overstreet folks about it, and the guy there said it was based on the 2nd edition, which everyone seemed to like better than the 3rd. I've never seen the 2nd, so I can't comment on that. It is a good deal bigger (10"x7") which makes for much better pictures.

 

And yes, on the interior there are examples of graded comics from more than 1 grading company.

[ttfitz]

Is there a fair spread across the grades? Last time I bought a grading guide, there were more pictures from 9.8-10.0 than there were 4.0's

 

Quick count - there are 6 pictures each for 10/9.9/9.8, and 6/8/4 for 4.5/4.0/3.5.

 

[KDUK]

Didn't realise another edition was out.

 

First time I've been able to pick one up in the UK without paying crazy money.

 

Looking forward to comparing with the other two editions I've got.

[Mark 1]

Has anyone seen what it says in this book about PGX?

 

Holy moly!

[jaybuck43]

I'm picking my copy up tomorrow with my weekly pulls. DON'T SPOIL IT!!!!

[Mark 1]

I'm shocked to be honest

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Has anyone seen what it says in this book about PGX?

 

Holy moly!

Do you mean in the section that contains profiles of companies that do professional grading? I took a quick glance at that. Seems that the guide isn't taking a stand on how trustworthy any of the companies are but rather is just giving a basic profile.

[Number 6]

I've never understood why the Overstreet Grading Guide has examples of 3rd party graded comics.

 

I think all of the grading companies have their own propritery grading standards, I don't recall any of them espousing Overstreet grading standards. So why does this book have pictures of slabbed books (which are admittedly graded by that particular company's standard) being held up as examples of Overstreet grading?

 

I mean, the old saw about the Price Guide is that it applies to raws, not 3rd party graded books. Wouldn't the same apply to the Grading Guide as well?

 

[ttfitz]

Has anyone seen what it says in this book about PGX?

 

Holy moly!

 

What in particular are you talking about? All I saw looking through quickly was a mention of them along with CGC as the older grading companies when talking about new companies starting, and then the profile, which is a Joe Friday "just the facts, mam" listing, which only had their "mission statement".

 

Was there something I missed?

 

[Mark 1]

I jut noticed its a mission statement instead of a review but still very misleading to the consumer by advertising this company as legit

 

 

That's my thumb by the way...looks kind of strange