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

[FFB]

but how would we denote two separate grades? A QP grade and a structure grade?

 

Yes, just like they do with baseball cards.

 

I'd rather stick with the one number system. I can determine on my own the QP of the book, and whether or not I think the book is worth paying the price or not.

 

The split QP/structure grades system would not prevent you from doing the same. It WOULD give you a more clear view of the structural grade of the book if you're someone who doesn't care about QP issues, and would give you a clear view of the QP issues (which involve a lot more than just miswraps that are easily viewed from the cover) if you're someone who cares about those things.

[VintageComics]

If you don't mind me saying....It would eliminate the "grey area". It would make a 9.6,9.8 or 9.9 standard , and then the only difference would be the QP, which the buyer could decide. I think that is what this conversation is about. No?

[Foolkiller]

I just don't feel the need for two numbers. I think the defects are clearly visible from the book itself that affect many QP issues.

 

But you've hit the nail on the head, my apathy towards the issue is that I don't view it as a big deal, so the information wouldn't be as important to me as it would be to someone else.

[DawgPhan]

I think that was some of the people are saying is that removing the QP from the grade calculation would create an even playing field for all the books. A 9.6 would mean that it was a 9.6. Then you could decide between 2 even amounts of wear based on the QP. Right now there are 2 numbers, you just dont see one of them. Removing the QP from the grade would create only 1 number to worry about. If you dont mind a miswrap then you dont mind.

[Murph]

I would tend to agree. You can SEE the "QP" of an issue. If you don't like such "QP", then don't buy the issue. I do the exact same thing with date stamps and/or writing. If others don't mind it, that's great for them.

 

Brian

[blowout]

If people want to ridicule the price, I can certainly understand that. Or if they want to say that no one should pay that much for a book that has less than 10.0 QP, fair enough. But the overwhelming criticism of this book in this thread is unfounded in my opinion. If you think QP should be factored into CGC's grading, that's a valid argument and should be taken up with Steve & Co. My point is we've all seen clearly overgraded books, and this ain't one of them.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the book is overgraded in CGC terms. But 10K for a suposedly 'perfect' book with an obvious miswrap is just insane.

 

Label buying at it's worst.

[shrunkenhead]

That book is SMOKING.

 

Apparently so is the seller.

 

I'm not sure where I stand on this argument, but hey, that was funny.

[drbanner]

Almost 2-year old poll on this subject - Would you like to see Eye Appeal as an independent parameter in a 3rd-party grading scheme?

 

The concept of seeking out exemplary copies (well-centered, exceptional registration, and vibrant color) of pristine books (physical grade) is not new.

 

In the early days of the boards I advocated a 3-tier system that included an eye appeal grade, a page quality indicator, and a "physical" grade (wear and tear). In a perfect world, the "physical" grade would deduct for production defects like bindery tears and printers creases as well as date stamps and penned arrival dates. Given a choice between two 9.4 copies of a book with the exact same level of non-production related defects (like corner blunting and spine stress, etc.,.), I think we would all prefer a perfectly centered copy with great color over an off-center copy with printers creases and a date stamp. The market differentiates between the two, therefore I think the "3rd-party grader" should differentiate between the two and the easiest way to do it is a physical grade, and an eye appeal grade.

 

And here's what Steve has to say about the subject of eye appeal:

 

Anything that is on a comic book which is not on other copies of the same comic book, is taken into account when a comic book is graded. That said, things like distributors ink ("painted top") or arrival date in pen on Bronze Age or older comic books would have no deduction in grade except in the highest of grades (9.8-10.0) unless extreme or obtrusive.

[sfilosa]

Scott:

 

I really don't believe the QP comes into the grade at all, until the book is in the uber-high grades of 9.8-10.0.

 

Like Steve Borock said, a book could be missing a staple (manufacturing defect) and still be a 9.6. I know I had books that had long printers creases that still got 9.6's.

 

So QP is really an issue of EYE APPEAL, not a grade issue.

[FFB]

Scott:

 

I really don't believe the QP comes into the grade at all, until the book is in the uber-high grades of 9.8-10.0.

 

Like Steve Borock said, a book could be missing a staple (manufacturing defect) and still be a 9.6. I know I had books that had long printers creases that still got 9.6's.

 

So QP is really an issue of EYE APPEAL, not a grade issue.

Yes, I know that Steve, but we ARE talking about a 9.9 copy right now!

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think (just my O), that there should be some leeway in allowing the over all appearance of the book having influence on the grade. The OGG is a guide...it's art, not a science. There are grey areas that cannot be measured. Every one passed on the Hulk #181 9.6 white that was the laughing stock of the boards a year or two ago (anyone still got the link?), and i bought that book from Ewert and LOVED it. Never saw such a nice book...ink was thick and rich, amazing gloss, almost perfect structure. Just a mis-wrap to the back. I ended up selling the book to a hi end collector who also loves it. Emailed me several times to thank me. Let the buyer decide whether the book in the holder lines up with the label. I think the book was a steal.

 

I remember that book, and it's always bothered me that CGC factored QP into their apparent structural grade.

 

QP should not be factored into the grade UNLESS CGC makes a notation on the label, otherwise the structural grade becomes undefinable .

 

That HULK 181 should have been a POS 9.8/9.9, rather than a POS 9.6.

 

If I was the seller of that book...I would have been [#@$%!!!] outraged.

 

WITHOUT NOTATION, CGC SHOULD NEVER FACTOR QP INTO THEIR NUMERICAL GRADE

[sborock]

I think (just my O), that there should be some leeway in allowing the over all appearance of the book having influence on the grade. The OGG is a guide...it's art, not a science. There are grey areas that cannot be measured. Every one passed on the Hulk #181 9.6 white that was the laughing stock of the boards a year or two ago (anyone still got the link?), and i bought that book from Ewert and LOVED it. Never saw such a nice book...ink was thick and rich, amazing gloss, almost perfect structure. Just a mis-wrap to the back. I ended up selling the book to a hi end collector who also loves it. Emailed me several times to thank me. Let the buyer decide whether the book in the holder lines up with the label. I think the book was a steal.

 

I remember that book, and it's always bothered me that CGC factored QP into their apparent structural grade.

 

QP should not be factored into the grade UNLESS CGC makes a notation on the label, otherwise the structural grade becomes undefinable .

 

That HULK 181 should have been a POS 9.8/9.9, rather than a POS 9.6.

 

If I was the seller of that book...I would have been [#@$%!!!] outraged.

 

WITHOUT NOTATION, CGC SHOULD NEVER FACTOR QP INTO THEIR NUMERICAL GRADE

 

Sooooooooooo, how do you really feel?

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think (just my O), that there should be some leeway in allowing the over all appearance of the book having influence on the grade. The OGG is a guide...it's art, not a science. There are grey areas that cannot be measured. Every one passed on the Hulk #181 9.6 white that was the laughing stock of the boards a year or two ago (anyone still got the link?), and i bought that book from Ewert and LOVED it. Never saw such a nice book...ink was thick and rich, amazing gloss, almost perfect structure. Just a mis-wrap to the back. I ended up selling the book to a hi end collector who also loves it. Emailed me several times to thank me. Let the buyer decide whether the book in the holder lines up with the label. I think the book was a steal.

 

I remember that book, and it's always bothered me that CGC factored QP into their apparent structural grade.

 

QP should not be factored into the grade UNLESS CGC makes a notation on the label, otherwise the structural grade becomes undefinable .

 

That HULK 181 should have been a POS 9.8/9.9, rather than a POS 9.6.

 

If I was the seller of that book...I would have been [#@$%!!!] outraged.

 

WITHOUT NOTATION, CGC SHOULD NEVER FACTOR QP INTO THEIR NUMERICAL GRADE

 

Sooooooooooo, how do you really feel?

 

[Norrin_Radd]

If people want to ridicule the price, I can certainly understand that. Or if they want to say that no one should pay that much for a book that has less than 10.0 QP, fair enough. But the overwhelming criticism of this book in this thread is unfounded in my opinion. If you think QP should be factored into CGC's grading, that's a valid argument and should be taken up with Steve & Co. My point is we've all seen clearly overgraded books, and this ain't one of them.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the book is overgraded in CGC terms. But 10K for a supposedly 'perfect' book with an obvious miswrap is just insane.

 

Label buying at it's worst.

 

Surely you mean "straight, thin, white line".

[THE_BEYONDER]

If people want to ridicule the price, I can certainly understand that. Or if they want to say that no one should pay that much for a book that has less than 10.0 QP, fair enough. But the overwhelming criticism of this book in this thread is unfounded in my opinion. If you think QP should be factored into CGC's grading, that's a valid argument and should be taken up with Steve & Co. My point is we've all seen clearly overgraded books, and this ain't one of them.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the book is overgraded in CGC terms. But 10K for a supposedly 'perfect' book with an obvious miswrap is just insane.

 

Label buying at it's worst.

 

Surely you mean "straight, thin, white line".

 

The book has a "miswrap".

 

Were that "straight, thin, white line" not there...we would be seeing WAY MORE of the cover art on the right.

[COI]

If you don't like such "QP", then don't buy the issue.

 

Exactly. I really don't see the need to rip on other people's books in a public forum.

 

It's kind of a no-win with books like these. If a seller posts a high price, people automatically look for reasons why the book isn't worth it, and they'll usually start with its appearance. If there are no visible structural flaws, it's time to rip the QP. If the QP is perfect, it's then time to de-value the book by knocking its significance. "It's not a REAL key at all.......I'd rather have a CGC 9.2 FF #5 for that price, or a coverless Action #1".

 

If the seller lists a low price, it's swept up and the seller loses an opportunity to sell a key 9.9 for as much as possible. And even then, people are going to rip the QP.

 

If the book is purchased at a high price, it's time to lynch the stupid "investor" who paid the seller's extortionist price. After all, if anyone spends more than $50 in this hobby, they must be financially motivated.

 

However, none of the above applies if the buyer or seller are board members. In that case it's all about stroking the BSD in our midst.

 

 

The moral of the story is, if you submit a key book and it comes back as a 9.9, and you're NOT a board member, do as Rob_React instructs and BURN IT!

[sborock]

If you don't like such "QP", then don't buy the issue.

 

Exactly. I really don't see the need to rip on other people's books in a public forum.

 

It's kind of a no-win with books like these. If a seller posts a high price, people automatically look for reasons why the book isn't worth it, and they'll usually start with its appearance. If there are no visible structural flaws, it's time to rip the QP. If the QP is perfect, it's then time to de-value the book by knocking its significance. "It's not a REAL key at all.......I'd rather have a CGC 9.2 FF #5 for that price, or a coverless Action #1".

 

If the seller lists a low price, it's swept up and the seller loses an opportunity to sell a key 9.9 for as much as possible. And even then, people are going to rip the QP.

 

If the book is purchased at a high price, it's time to lynch the stupid "investor" who paid the seller's extortionist price. After all, if anyone spends more than $50 in this hobby, they must be financially motivated.

 

However, none of the above applies if the buyer or seller are board members. In that case it's all about stroking the BSD in our midst.

 

 

The moral of the story is, if you submit a key book and it comes back as a 9.9, and you're NOT a board member, do as Rob_React instructs and BURN IT!

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I was merely stating that CGC should not make QP deductions without label notations.

 

I have no problem with that TOD 10 grading a 9.9; how much the seller is asking; or how much a buyer pays for it.

 

I do have a problem with CGC knocking structural 9.8/9.9s down to 9.6s without a notation though....

[FFB]

If you don't like such "QP", then don't buy the issue.

 

Exactly. I really don't see the need to rip on other people's books in a public forum.

 

It's kind of a no-win with books like these. If a seller posts a high price, people automatically look for reasons why the book isn't worth it, and they'll usually start with its appearance. If there are no visible structural flaws, it's time to rip the QP. If the QP is perfect, it's then time to de-value the book by knocking its significance. "It's not a REAL key at all.......I'd rather have a CGC 9.2 FF #5 for that price, or a coverless Action #1".

 

If the seller lists a low price, it's swept up and the seller loses an opportunity to sell a key 9.9 for as much as possible. And even then, people are going to rip the QP.

 

If the book is purchased at a high price, it's time to lynch the stupid "investor" who paid the seller's extortionist price. After all, if anyone spends more than $50 in this hobby, they must be financially motivated.

 

However, none of the above applies if the buyer or seller are board members. In that case it's all about stroking the BSD in our midst.

 

 

The moral of the story is, if you submit a key book and it comes back as a 9.9, and you're NOT a board member, do as Rob_React instructs and BURN IT!

 

I never said it was a crapppy book, nor did I say anything about the price. My only comment is that my reading of the OGG suggests that a miswrap of this magnitude should not be allowed in 9.9. Miswrap or no, it is a stunning copy. I just take issue with the ruling on the grade in light of the Overstreet grading standards...

 

...and also with the fact that the book apparently used to be in a 9.8 holder before resubmission.

[COI]

I agree with those points, and I'm not saying I don't agree with the other issues raised in this thread. I'm just trying to point out that, while discussion of these issues is great, it should not be done at the expense of a book on a consignment site which most of us can agree is run by one of the nicest guys in the hobby.