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

[VintageComics]

Kudos to COI for summing it up so eloquently. So Beyonder, you'd be o.k. with say the #181 graded a 9.6 with a note for mis-wrap?

Also, what is the criteria for how much is allowed in each increment....could a perfectly centered cover draw a grade upward over, say a slightly structurally superior book with an off center cover? Mister B?

[THE_BEYONDER]

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 someone's book, on a consignment site which most of us can agree is run by one of the nicest guys in the hobby.

 

I agree. If someone can please PM me a scan of that HULK 181 that was dropped from a 9.8/9.9 to a 9.6 due to the miswrap...I'll start a seperate thread.

[fantastic_four]

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

 

I agree, although only if they disclose ALL downgradable defects and not just QP. Selective disclosure causes confusion, which is the reason they took the label comments off a few years ago.

 

I rather enjoy 3PG's take on this...they disclose defect severities and locations on all books at the 9.0 level and above on the back of their label. From a grading disclosure perspective, that is by far the largest innovation in certified grade reporting since CGC started in 2000, with CGC placing page whiteness on their label being the second most innovative change to grade reporting. Since CGC started reporting page whiteness, I see even some small con dealers and local comic shop owners describing page quality on their books and using the same terms CGC does. Prior to CGC disseminating that concept, it was primarily used by a tiny percentage of dealers and collectors, mostly national dealers of truly vintage comics.

 

It's too bad 3PG's business model isn't working out so far, because I definitely like some of his ideas and wish others would emulate or improve upon them...

[VintageComics]

send me you email address. I've still got my scans.

[noshill-migration]

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!

 

 

Nice ,dance around the questions FFB asked...

[THE_BEYONDER]

Kudos to COI for summing it up so eloquently. So Beyonder, you'd be o.k. with say the #181 graded a 9.6 with a note for mis-wrap?

Also, what is the criteria for how much is allowed in each increment....could a perfectly centered cover draw a grade upward over, say a slightly structurally superior book with an off center cover? Mister B?

 

Have you read any of my previous posts?

 

For the record:

 

I DON'T THINK CGC SHOULD FACTOR QP INTO THEIR STRUCTURAL GRADE AT ALL

 

It's the 9.6 cut-off without notation that troubles me.

[VintageComics]

still geting to know my way around. I agree with you for what it's worth.

[THE_BEYONDER]

still geting to know my way around. I agree with you for what it's worth.

 

[VintageComics]

[Ze-man]

If a TOD 10 9.9...is not as nice as a TOD 10 10.0 , due to a slight miswrap , does that mean a TOD 10 10.0 is a perfect example of a TOD 10, or can a TOD 10 10.0 with perfect QP be better then a TOD 10 10.0 that has tiny QP flaws?.

Is a TOD 10 10.0 as good a grade as a TOD 10 10.0 can achieve?.. or should we compare which TOD 10 10.0 we would rather own based on personal 10.0 QP preferences?

 

And is it not funny that the seller is asking 10, 000? Why not 9,900?

All of this talk about 10 makes me want to go watch the movie 10

Bo Derek is a 10..with perfect QP.

 

I am out.

 

Ze-

[sborock]

Shill-

Unlike you, people know who I am. I answer ALL questions asked of me when on the phone or in person, just ask Scott. Like I said, he and I will talk about about anything he wants. When people know who you are, you might, just might, have some credibility, but after reading all your posts, I doubt it

[FlamingCarrot]

Things like centering are scored separately from wear in other hobbies (take baseball cards, for instance). Why not in comic books?

 

I personally would love to see CGC break down grades ala Beckett does with the grading of baseball cards (9.0 for centering, 9.5 for corners, 9.5 for edges and 9.5 for surface = overall 9.5 grade). Then again, Hammer would have a better chance at becoming the PR man for CGC than that becoming a reality.

[VintageComics]

OUCH!

[noshill-migration]

Grease the squeaking wheel.....

[fantastic_four]

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

 

Page 128 coupled with page 139 gives guidance on this issue. Page 128 actually uses miswrap just like the one on this TOD #10 as an example of how to use the (unfortunately not-always-so-consistent) terms that Arnold and Bob tried to come up with in the table at the bottom of page 128.

 

Here's page 128 (apologies to Arnold Blumberg...I'll remove these scans if I'm infringing on your company's copyright too much. )

 

 

Read the second paragraph on the page, and look at the table at the bottom. Now, look at page 139 below for the descriptions for what's allowable in the OGG 21 defect categories for the 9.9 grade:

 

 

In the second paragraph on page 128, Arnold & Bob explicitly inform us that slight miswrap such as that on this TOD #10 is a type of defect which falls under their "bindery/printing" category (we need all the OTHER common defects similarly categorized in a much more comprehensive taxonomy!!! ). On page 139, it says "only subtle" bindery/printing defects are allowed. "Subtle" translates to defects 1/32" to 1/16" in length going by the table at the bottom of page 128. So going by the text in the OGG, miswraps up to 1/16" are allowed in the 9.9 grade.

 

How wide is that miswrap on the TOD #10? I'm not quite sure.

[FFB]

Thanks for scanning that, James. That is exactly what I was thinking of earlier when I said a miswrap of that magnitude isn't allowed. It sure looks larger than 1/16th of an inch miswrap on the TOD#10.

 

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

 

Page 128 coupled with page 139 gives guidance on this issue. Page 128 actually uses miswrap just like the one on this TOD #10 as an example of how to use the (unfortunately not-always-so-consistent) terms that Arnold and Bob tried to come up with in the table at the bottom of page 128.

 

Here's page 128 (apologies to Arnold Blumberg...I'll remove these scans if I'm infringing on your company's copyright too much. )

 

Read the second paragraph on the page, and look at the table at the bottom. Now, look at page 139 below for the descriptions for what's allowable in the OGG 21 defect categories for the 9.9 grade:

 

 

 

In the second paragraph on page 128, Arnold & Bob explicitly inform us that slight miswrap such as that on this TOD #10 is a type of defect which falls under their "bindery/printing" category (we need all the OTHER common defects similarly categorized in a much more comprehensive taxonomy!!! ). On page 139, it says "only subtle" bindery/printing defects are allowed. "Subtle" translates to defects 1/32" to 1/16" in length going by the table at the bottom of page 128. So going by the text in the OGG, miswraps up to 1/16" are allowed in the 9.9 grade.

 

How wide is that miswrap on the TOD #10? I'm not quite sure.

[fantastic_four]

It sure looks larger than 1/16th of an inch miswrap on the TOD#10.

 

I'm not so sure. I just looked for one of my own books with a similar-looking miswrap, and it did measure out to be 1/16". 1/8" is much wider than that, so I know it isn't that wide....3/32" is a possibility. It looks closer to 1/16" than 1/8".

[FFB]

It sure looks larger than 1/16th of an inch miswrap on the TOD#10.

 

I'm not so sure. I just looked for one of my own books with a similar-looking miswrap, and it did measure out to be 1/16". 1/8" is much wider than that, so I know it isn't that wide....3/32" is a possibility. It looks closer to 1/16" than 1/8".

 

I just measured it on the screen of my computer and it's 1/16th of an inch on the reduced-sized scan.

[THE_BEYONDER]

It sure looks larger than 1/16th of an inch miswrap on the TOD#10.

 

 

Obsess much?

 

 

finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FFB]

It sure looks larger than 1/16th of an inch miswrap on the TOD#10.

 

 

Obsess much?

 

 

finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle finkle

 

 

If he had held the ball laces out like he's supposed to, Ray would never have missed that kick. Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in Hell. Heh heh. Would you like a cookie, son?