• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Comic Link AF15 CGC 6.0

Started by Comcasthawk,

17 posts in this topic

Comcasthawk

Comcasthawk

Posted
Posted

Is this for real..?? http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Damazing%2Bfantasy%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fforsale%3Dy%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D28%26y%3D3%26where%5Fforsale%3Dy&id=1051281

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted

Both the book and the asking price are fugly. IMO, that book has very little, if any, eye appeal. It's obvious it was poorly pressed. The date stamp is smeared and that piece missing on the spine looks 'fresh'. A vintage missing piece would have aged. The big honking upper corner crease really stands out. IMO, overgraded as well. At best that book is a 5.5 . Other than probably being very flat, it has no Fine qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted
Wow... extremely soft 6.0 looks like it suffered paper loss on the spine from possible CT removal.

 

Phil, I think you are spot on about the reason for that large spot of paper loss. While it's a shame the book has CT, it's more of a shame to mutilate it. I don't know why CGC was so soft on this book. I hope they didn't consider the paper loss as a bindery chip ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted
Wow... extremely soft 6.0 looks like it suffered paper loss on the spine from possible CT removal.

 

Phil, I think you are spot on about the reason for that large spot of paper loss. While it's a shame the book has CT, it's more of a shame to mutilate it. I don't know why CGC was so soft on this book. I hope they didn't consider the paper loss as a bindery chip ?

 

It looks like a sharp copy aside from the crease and that paper loss on the spine. I can see a 6.0 from a technical standpoint, but those defects do hurt eye appeal.

 

I don't think anyone loves that exposed paper on the spine, but the seller didn't make the market. That book will sell quicker and higher in that blue label than it would with the CT. If resto wasn't so penalized sellers wouldn't get so rewarded for mutilating books like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
Wow... extremely soft 6.0 looks like it suffered paper loss on the spine from possible CT removal.

 

Phil, I think you are spot on about the reason for that large spot of paper loss. While it's a shame the book has CT, it's more of a shame to mutilate it. I don't know why CGC was so soft on this book. I hope they didn't consider the paper loss as a bindery chip ?

 

The paper loss on the spine together with the rather large colour breaking crease would seem to keep it from a 6.0 IMO. But I can see how it might grade that way on a good day, as other than those two eye sores, the book does look pretty solid overall.

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
Wow... extremely soft 6.0 looks like it suffered paper loss on the spine from possible CT removal.

 

Phil, I think you are spot on about the reason for that large spot of paper loss. While it's a shame the book has CT, it's more of a shame to mutilate it. I don't know why CGC was so soft on this book. I hope they didn't consider the paper loss as a bindery chip ?

 

It looks like a sharp copy aside from the crease and that paper loss on the spine. I can see a 6.0 from a technical standpoint, but those defects do hurt eye appeal.

 

I don't think anyone loves that exposed paper on the spine, but the seller didn't make the market. That book will sell quicker and higher in that blue label than it would with the CT. If resto wasn't so penalized sellers wouldn't get so rewarded for mutilating books like this.

 

lol +1, What mysterio said, 20 seconds before me.

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spiderphill

Spiderphill

Posted
Posted
Wow... extremely soft 6.0 looks like it suffered paper loss on the spine from possible CT removal.

 

Phil, I think you are spot on about the reason for that large spot of paper loss. While it's a shame the book has CT, it's more of a shame to mutilate it. I don't know why CGC was so soft on this book. I hope they didn't consider the paper loss as a bindery chip ?

Hey now!!! My AF15 is a CT removal, mutilate is a harsh word!!!!

 

I doubt they counted that as a bindery chip, its on the cover. Just seems like they didn't ding the paper loss so hard and I dont know why. Should be in a 5.0 holder with that large dog ear and extremely rounded corners(paper loss on the ULC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted

 

I don't think anyone loves that exposed paper on the spine, but the seller didn't make the market. That book will sell quicker and higher in that blue label than it would with the CT. If resto wasn't so penalized sellers wouldn't get so rewarded for mutilating books like this.

 

You are correct but in this case, with the generous grade, CGC rewarded him more than necessary. Realizing CGC does not know the history of the book, I think they can clearly see this is a freshly scraped book. With that in mind, for the good of the hobby, why not give the book the lowest grade allowable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted

 

I don't think anyone loves that exposed paper on the spine, but the seller didn't make the market. That book will sell quicker and higher in that blue label than it would with the CT. If resto wasn't so penalized sellers wouldn't get so rewarded for mutilating books like this.

 

You are correct but in this case, with the generous grade, CGC rewarded him more than necessary. Realizing CGC does not know the history of the book, I think they can clearly see this is a freshly scraped book. With that in mind, for the good of the hobby, why not give the book the lowest grade allowable.

 

It may be a little high, but I don't think it out of the realm for this book (based on the scan I saw on my phone). The CGC graders thought it was the appropriate technical grade for the combo of defects. Should they ding the book a half grade for bad intentions on the part of a seller? I don't like the intentional damage any more than you or anyone else, but they've got to grade the book in front of them. Whether that paper loss was done intentionally to remove CT or carelessly through a tape pull or some other calamity, the damage is the damage and needs to be downgraded appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing