This is a NM 9.4??

[Bonds25]

I don't think so!

http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auctions/viewlot.asp?s=804&l=7743&SID=2FA2DA28AE104CDCB37DE5FFF559F8F3

[blowout]

....thats pretty badly off-centre and mis-cut...............but cgc don't seem to downgrade for that do they..................

[Bonds25]

I was more surprised by the back cover. It looks awful, and along with the off-center and slightly miscut cover, I don't see how it graded higher than a 9.0.

 

Can you imagine a brand new comic looking like that and getting a NM grade?

[blowout]

.......yeah i see what you mean about the back, i only looked at the front........

 

...i guess this is further evidence of cgc's leniency towards gold age books............

[fantastic_four]

I don't think this is just leniency for Golden Age. I now own one Silver and one Bronze age CGC 9.4 comic with back-cover soiling that is only slightly less severe than this Detective Comics copy. I also own a 9.0 like this and just received a 9.2 with slight soiling today.

 

It seems that CGC considers back-cover soiling to be one of those defects allowable at least up to the 9.4 grade, possibly even in the 9.6 or 9.8 grades, although I have yet to see a 9.6 or 9.8 with soiling. I'm hypothesizing that because many other aspects of eye appeal such as cover miswrap, translucency, cover writing/date stamps, cream pages, and a whole bevy of other miscellaneous minor printing problems seem to be allowable by CGC in grades all the way up to 9.8. I've also seen 9.9s with offwhite pages or cover miswraps.

 

I project that some of CGC's grading standards decisions on the peripheral defects that Overstreet never talked about in print will change at some point over the next few decades. Now that Overstreet has seen how Borock/Haspel grade, it'll be interesting to see what defects he decides to elucidate upon for each grade in the upcoming Overstreet Grading Guide revision.

[comicinvestor-migration]

I don't think this is just leniency for Golden Age. I now own one Silver and one Bronze age CGC 9.4 comic with back-cover soiling that is only slightly less severe than this Detective Comics copy. I also own a 9.0 like this and just received a 9.2 with slight soiling today.

 

That Detective definitely has some heavy soiling, but are the Silver and Bronze issues you have the same? For my personal collection, I tend to separate soiling and ink rub quite strictly, such as a prime FF I have that just happened to have the misfortune of being stacked ontop of a FF 120.

 

I don't know how anyone else feels, but really noticeable dirt and soiling on the back cover are a real turn-off (suggest misuse or poor storage), while slight ink rubs (to me at least) are more acceptable since I feel they're just part of the comic's display and stacking life.

[comicinvestor-migration]

Just as an FYI, I asked this exact question regarding back cover soiling and ink rub to CGC, but so far no answer in the forum.

 

I'm definitely not holding my breath for an answer....

[CGCMINT]

Is there a reason why it's wasn't noted a mis-cut on the label?

[drbanner]

Is there a reason why it's wasn't noted a mis-cut on the label?

 

Yes, and the reason is that while the book is off-center, it is not really mis-cut! Mis-cut implies that the book is not square, or that it was cut short (or narrow). Now, this is an example of mis-cut.

 

I have no idea when/why/where CGC notes "off-center" or "mis-cut", but hopefully now everyone can see the difference and use the correct terminology when referring to these two distinctly separate types of defects. Good day!

[Guest]

this got me thinking... This sort of thing would make an interesting thread- a taxonomy of defects with example images. The "what is foxing" question, this mis-cut/ off-center confusion that you've decided to champion, etc. I think it'd be very educational.

[drbanner]

interesting thread- a taxonomy of defects with example images

 

Brilliant idea mud - good luck! The other one I've been thinking about and have some examples I could contribute is "How to detect restoration", because there are a few simple checks that not everyone knows about...

[fantastic_four]

A taxonomy of defects is exactly what the ideal Grading Guide will someday have. Guys like Gerber and Overstreet used to pessimisticly say that you couldn't create an all-inclusive taxonomy, but I firmly believe that to not be the case. It would just take more research time and discipline to put together than most people want to spend.

 

You can't put 100% of all possible defects into a neat taxonomy, but you can place 99% in there, and that's most of the battle. And you can provide guidelines to help factor the remaining 1% of uncommon defects into a final grade.

[fantastic_four]

CGC has noted mis-cuts like this before, though. I think they're just not noting ANY miscuts anymore since they stopped putting comments on the label; miscuts can be seen through the slab, so they probably don't note them.

[fantastic_four]

I recently received a Fantastic Four #78 CGC 9.4 with more soiling distributed across the ENTIRE back cover than I've ever seen on a slabbed comic. I'll scan the back in a day or two and post it.

 

Here's a CGC 9.0 with soiling along the entire back spine and bottom edge:

 

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ruddj/SpideyAnnual1.jpg

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ruddj/SpideyAnnual1Back.jpg

[cd4ever]

That is a dirty book! I would never grade that better than 8.5.

Maybe even 8.0.

 

[BachelorOfComix]

FWIW, that Detective 89 was originally graded by Mark Wilson as NM-, page quality OWL 7.5, "Slight angled cvr keeps this from NM+". The "raw" price = $1,000.00. Mark is (was?) one of the most conservative/accurate graders around. If he graded it a 9.2 and CGC a 9.4 it must be perfect in every other way.

 

Cheers,

 

Bachelor of Comics

[Guest]

CGC certainly seems to have double standards for silver/golden age books vs. modern books. If you submit a modern book that isn't perfect, you get a 9.2 or lower, when you can submit a golden age book with spine wear, etc and get a 9.4..or at least some people can. I was looking at Baby Huey #1 from the Heritage auction and it also got a 9.4 somehow, when it looks like there is a good bit of wear and creasing on the cover...go figure.

[PovertyRow]

CGC certainly seems to have double standards for silver/golden age books vs. modern books.

 

(Gawd I love these dummy links)

 

::Ahem::

 

Anyway, I agree. I am NOT a huge CGC standards fan. There definitely DOES seem to be a double standard. I could live wirth that freely IF they stated that the grading of GA is differnt. but I will stick wiuth what I said in another post some daze ago: That I tend to defy placing a CGC NM book against a newstand-fresh copy iof that same book. Simple ageing of the paper and inks and staples will reveal differences. I have maybe 12 books cgc graded. A few are gold and silver age 9.0 and up. The remainder are Bronze 9.6. I bought the Bronze wirth one purpose. To eventually sell for a profit and then use that profit to add to my pre-code collection. I bought the older books from insanity. I will place them up on auction s soon as I replace them with comparable books I can read.

[underthebigw]

CI,

 

I have to side with you on this one. I'm not at all bothered by the paint rub--to me that's just a sign of sitting next to another comic, and while definitely a flaw, it just doesn't bother me. Actual soiling, however, drives me insane. It's usually a sign of foxing, mold growth, or just plain soiling by another substance, such as food, drink, etc.--all of which have implications for the life of the book and paper quality.

 

What does really bother me is the stain from the rusty staple. What the hell? How can this get this grade?

 

Paul

[Guest]

Check out this CGC 9.4 Baby Huey #1 at Heritage and tell me if you think a modern book with this kind of spine and cover wear would grade a 9.4?

 

http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auctions/viewlot.asp?s=804&l=8273&zoom=1&SID=3AD5979750EC419EAECFA397751ADE96

 

I've benefitted from CGC's inconsistent grading sometimes as well, but I really do wish that they graded Silver and Golden Age books the same way they grade modern ones. I think it definitley hurts their credibility a bit. I'm thrilled that CGC exists and I'm not trying to dump on them, but the truth is the truth.