TOMB OF DRACULA #10 CGC MT 9.9!!!!!!!!!!!!

[THE_BEYONDER]

Damn Haters. Why don't you just leave that poor little CGC 9.9 alone.

 

 

Here....you can hate on this DD 158 for a awhile.

When your done with that....I can post a scan of my HULK 181...and you can hate on that miswrap as well.

 

What do you mean, "hater"? This is a gorgeous book. I just don't think Overstreet allows a 9.9 to have a miswrap like that.

 

Sorry....I've misplaced my sarcasm smiley.

[fantastic_four]

Here you go, crooked miswrap and 9.9. This bothers me much more than the straight "miswrap" 9.9 TOD #10.

 

This one's easier to complain about than the TOD 10. Looks to be about 1/32" at the bottom and somewhere between 3/32" and 1/8" at the top.

[Currin Comics]

Actually, No, Dice ask for pics at least twice a week, but I think the two I posted earlier in my forum life should suffice, afterall, you were the first to welcome me back with the question....."got anymore pics of the wife?" Classic beauty is never forgotten-is that really your wife/fiancee with the monkey?

[THE_BEYONDER]

Actually, No, Dice ask for pics at least twice a week, but I think the two I posted earlier in my forum life should suffice, afterall, you were the first to welcome me back with the question....."got anymore pics of the wife?" Classic beauty is never forgotten-is that really your wife/fiancee with the monkey?

 

You don't recognize her? Think Fast Times at Ridgemont High ....

[fantastic_four]

What we need to find are CGC 9.8s with the biggest miswraps. I'd be curious to find the exact QP cut-off .

 

If you find it, please post it!!! I saved that Invaders 10 to disk as the worst miswrap I had ever seen at the 9.8 or above level, although I've probably seen one or two others since this with about the same amount of miswrap.

 

I've been saving scans for years of these copies which are great examples of the sorts of defects CGC allows in various grades...if anybody else has been doing this at all, please let me know so we can swap scans. It's been a really useful way to think about the controversial edge of grading.

[FFB]

Actually, No, Dice ask for pics at least twice a week, but I think the two I posted earlier in my forum life should suffice, afterall, you were the first to welcome me back with the question....."got anymore pics of the wife?" Classic beauty is never forgotten-is that really your wife/fiancee with the monkey?

 

My "got anymore pics of the wife" comment in your comeback thread was a tongue-in-cheek comment based on your eagerness in the past to post pictures of her in her bathing suit.

 

To answer your question, no.

[tth2]

Here you go, crooked miswrap and 9.9. This bothers me much more than the straight "miswrap" 9.9 TOD #10.

 

This one's easier to complain about than the TOD 10. Looks to be about 1/32" at the bottom and somewhere between 3/32" and 1/8" at the top.

 

Yes, but to quote Steve Borock earlier in this thread, when we were still talking about comics:

Please show me on pages 138 and 139 of the OSGG where it says that a straight thin white line is not allowed.

 

It does say "well centered" and that book IS well centered

 

The line here is not straight, although I guess it is white. I'm not posting this to poke holes in Steve's arguments, because I don't think QP should be factored at all into the grade. I don't need a third party grader to tell me whether there's a miswrap, crooked cover or poorly placed staples. I'm simply posting this as an example of a 9.9 that DOES have an unattractive miswrap, unlike the relatively unobtrusive miswrap on the TOD 10.

[blowout]

Damn Haters. Why don't you just leave that poor little CGC 9.9 alone.

 

 

Here....you can hate on this DD 158 for a awhile.

When your done with that....I can post a scan of my HULK 181...and you can hate on that miswrap as well.

 

What do you mean, "hater"? This is a gorgeous book. I just don't think Overstreet allows a 9.9 to have a miswrap like that.

 

It's amazing how pissed some people seem to get when people have a civil discussion about grading issues.

No one is slamming this book, but we ARE discussing whether certain production defects should be allowable in the uber high grades. These grades, after all, were only created to generate extra sales $$$ for the 'best of the best' copies of certain comic books.

In my view there is no place in the 'best of the best' catagory for books that display ANY defects, whether they be handling, structural, production or otherwise.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Damn Haters. Why don't you just leave that poor little CGC 9.9 alone.

 

 

Here....you can hate on this DD 158 for a awhile.

When your done with that....I can post a scan of my HULK 181...and you can hate on that miswrap as well.

 

What do you mean, "hater"? This is a gorgeous book. I just don't think Overstreet allows a 9.9 to have a miswrap like that.

 

It's amazing how pissed some people seem to get when people have a civil discussion about grading issues.

No one is slamming this book, but we ARE discussing whether certain production defects should be allowable in the uber high grades. These grades, after all, were only created to generate extra sales $$$ for the 'best of the best' copies of certain comic books.

In my view there is no place in the 'best of the best' catagory for books that display ANY defects, whether they be handling, structural, production or otherwise.

 

The main problem is that CGC's numerical grade is a structural one, that is until you get into 9.8+.

 

If QP is incorporated into CGC's grade(without notation), how are we supposed to know what condition the book is in?

[fantastic_four]

I don't think QP should be factored at all into the grade. I don't need a third party grader to tell me whether there's a miswrap, crooked cover or poorly placed staples.

 

I take it that you think Overstreet severely undergraded this book at PR3, then?

 

[blowout]

The main problem is that CGC's numerical grade is a structural one, that is until you get into 9.8+.

 

If QP is incorporated into CGC's grade(without notation), how are we supposed to know what condition the book is in?

 

There should be no doubt about the condition of a book above 9.8. There should be NO FLAWS AT ALL.

[tth2]

I don't think QP should be factored at all into the grade. I don't need a third party grader to tell me whether there's a miswrap, crooked cover or poorly placed staples.

 

I take it that you think Overstreet severely undergraded this book at PR3, then?

 

 

Hard as it may be, I maintain my position. Grade it for handling defects/wear, and let buyers who are not blind look at that trapezoidal POS and determine a price for themselves.

[THE_BEYONDER]

The main problem is that CGC's numerical grade is a structural one, that is until you get into 9.8+.

 

If QP is incorporated into CGC's grade(without notation), how are we supposed to know what condition the book is in?

 

There should be no doubt about the condition of a book above 9.8. There should be NO FLAWS AT ALL.

 

Define "flaw". If production defects are factored in......how would you know the structural grade?

 

If a comic has ZERO wear(flawless structure), I feel CGC should give it a 10.0

 

If CGC is going to factor in production defects, then I feel label notations are mandatory .

[fantastic_four]

There should be no doubt about the condition of a book above 9.8. There should be NO FLAWS AT ALL.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, except that a 9.9 should have at least one flaw. I don't understand not defining QP defects as defects...a defect is a defect is a defect, regardless of whether the printer, dealer, original owner, or whoever put it there. If it detracts from the aesthetics of the book, you downgrade for it.

[blowout]

 

Define "flaw". If production defects are factored in......how would you know the structural grade?

 

If a comic has ZERO wear(flawless structure), I feel CGC should give it a 10.0

 

If CGC is going to factor in production defects, then I feel label notations are mandatory .

 

I agree totally. As CGCs grading standards are applied now, a book that has flawless structure should recieve a 10.0. I just don't agree with their current standards and feel that the way that grading has evolved recently, production defects HAVE to become part of the grading process.

[FFB]

The line here is not straight, although I guess it is white. I'm not posting this to poke holes in Steve's arguments, because I don't think QP should be factored at all into the grade. I don't need a third party grader to tell me whether there's a miswrap, crooked cover or poorly placed staples. I'm simply posting this as an example of a 9.9 that DOES have an unattractive miswrap, unlike the relatively unobtrusive miswrap on the TOD 10.

 

But you do need a third party grader to tell you what a 9.6 looks like? Remind me never to buy a raw book from you, Tim.

 

I do agree with you that QP should not factor into the structural grade though. I would give QP a separate score entirely. While I recognize that comparing any two defect types (creases vs. tears vs. color loss vs. tanning) is, to some degree, like comparing apples to oranges, comparing production "defects" such as misaligned covers with other wear-related defects seems like comparing apples to banjoes.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

Define "flaw". If production defects are factored in......how would you know the structural grade?

 

If a comic has ZERO wear(flawless structure), I feel CGC should give it a 10.0

 

If CGC is going to factor in production defects, then I feel label notations are mandatory .

 

I agree totally. As CGCs grading standards are applied now, a book that has flawless structure should recieve a 10.0. I just don't agree with their current standards and feel that the way that grading has evolved recently, production defects HAVE to become part of the grading process.

 

Maybe...but do they HAVE to be factored into CGC's structural grade?

[fantastic_four]

As CGCs grading standards are applied now, a book that has flawless structure should recieve a 10.0. I just don't agree with their current standards and feel that the way that grading has evolved recently, production defects HAVE to become part of the grading process.

 

Did you read Borock say in this thread that the TOD 10 is an absolutely perfect book with a miswrap? Or the references to his prior statement about the Hulk 181 CGC 9.6 that would have been higher without a miswrap?

 

I'm not sure how you're arriving at your conclusion that CGC standards don't already make production defects part of the grading process... Perhaps you mean that you don't feel they play ENOUGH of a role?

[THE_BEYONDER]

As CGCs grading standards are applied now, a book that has flawless structure should recieve a 10.0. I just don't agree with their current standards and feel that the way that grading has evolved recently, production defects HAVE to become part of the grading process.

 

Did you read Borock say in this thread that the TOD 10 is an absolutely perfect book with a miswrap? Or the references to his prior statement about the Hulk 181 CGC 9.6 that would have been higher without a miswrap?

 

I'm not sure how you're arriving at your conclusion that CGC standards don't already make production defects part of the grading process... Perhaps you mean that you don't feel they play ENOUGH of a role?

 

From my understanding...the QP of that TOD 10 wasn't factored into the grade, and the HULK 181 was cut-off at 9.6....not technically downgraded by .2/.3

[fantastic_four]

I do agree with you that QP should not factor into the structural grade though. I would give QP a separate score entirely.

 

So would I, but yet, I would still maintain the single overall grade. I've told the guy who runs NewKadia.com that he should've tried to keep his scale consistent with Overstreet's, but his method of assigning grades to several individual categories and then combining those together into a single, overall grade is the superior approach. I don't necessarily agree with the specific categories or scale he came up with, but the fact that he's using them along with one overall grade is just EXCELLENT.