Please grade my Secret Origins #1 (1961)

[Ze-man]

No.. no staining to mention.

 

here is the best cover shot I have.

 

 

I mean this stain....

 

Nice copy by the way.

 

 

Hey All4, I called and got the grader notes.

 

And no mention of any kind of staining was in the notes.

 

Aside from normal edge wear.. the other two notes that were listed was indeed heavy spine wrinkling, and minor front cover soiling.

 

So I assume my book has more wrinkling then other copies of this book? And was downgraded accordingly.

 

Ze-

 

(wish I woulda cleaned off that front cover a bit.. mighta got a 8.0 )

[nik]

Its from an original owner collection and was bought from the rack with the wrinkles. I think its a binding defect?

The wrinkles are a bindery defect which CGC does not really downgrade much for if at all. I had a squarebound Harvey file copy giant from 1962 grade a 9.6 with similiar wrinkles.

 

I just dont see how its possible for a book with an abundance of wrinkles grading as high as a VF-, let alone a 9.6

[greggy]

Its from an original owner collection and was bought from the rack with the wrinkles. I think its a binding defect?

The wrinkles are a bindery defect which CGC does not really downgrade much for if at all. I had a squarebound Harvey file copy giant from 1962 grade a 9.6 with similiar wrinkles.

 

I just dont see how its possible for a book with an abundance of wrinkles grading as high as a VF-, let alone a 9.6

Given the soft grades that you've gotten... Personally, I don't care, as the book has been sold already and I didn't get any complaints about it!

[nik]

I see, we are back to my books suck and yours dont thing again.

[greggy]

I see, we are back to my books suck and yours dont thing again.

Nope...I'm just saying that just because you don't think that a book can't get a certain grade doesn't mean that CGC won't give it. I never thought that it was that high of a grade but I wasn't the one at CGC grading it. I recall people being astonished that your first book in the contest got a 9.4 where I didn't see any problems with it. Plus, the damn things means that I'm not that serious...fool.

 

Plus, who cares if my book got a 9.6 or not because the other flaws on that book were minimal. The posted one has other issues!

[nik]

I hear you, but I was just replying to your statement that you had a book with similar defects receive a 9.6.

 

and I know what that means, I dont get offended .

 

Looking at the book posted here with all those wrinkles, I just cant see this grading any better than a 7.0

[Ze-man]

Its from an original owner collection and was bought from the rack with the wrinkles. I think its a binding defect?

The wrinkles are a bindery defect which CGC does not really downgrade much for if at all. I had a squarebound Harvey file copy giant from 1962 grade a 9.6 with similiar wrinkles.

 

 

I think the point was more.. CGC does downgrade for it.. as spine wrinkling was the main flaw listed on my copies grader notes, along with mild cover soiling, and minor edge wear.

So your 9.6 musta not had as severe wrinkling, and was not downgraded nearly as severely as my copy was.(plus yours was nicer all around too).

 

It seems CGC does downgrade a book for this printing defect, depending on the severity of the wrinkling..

 

Ze-

[divad]

Its from an original owner collection and was bought from the rack with the wrinkles. I think its a binding defect?

The wrinkles are a bindery defect which CGC does not really downgrade much for if at all. I had a squarebound Harvey file copy giant from 1962 grade a 9.6 with similiar wrinkles.

 

 

I think the point was more.. CGC does downgrade for it.. as spine wrinkling was the main flaw listed on my copies grader notes, along with mild cover soiling, and minor edge wear.

So your 9.6 musta not had as severe wrinkling, and was not downgraded nearly as severely as my copy was.(plus yours was nicer all around too).

 

It seems CGC does downgrade a book for this printing defect, depending on the severity of the wrinkling..

 

Ze-

 

"similar" is a term of art here

[greggy]

I hear you, but I was just replying to your statement that you had a book with similar defects receive a 9.6.

 

and I know what that means, I dont get offended .

 

Looking at the book posted here with all those wrinkles, I just cant see this grading any better than a 7.0

Well...regardless if they were as severe as this one or not, it was very significant. It seems to be a problem with the 1960s squarebounds, as the problems did not appear to exist in the 1970s squarebounds which I am very familiar with. I'm not saying that this book will grade a 9.6 because obviously, there are other flaws associated with the book. My book was an unread Harvey file copy with very minimal flaws otherwise. Did I think it was a 9.6. NO...but CGC did and that's all that matters if they grade these flaws consistently.

 

Also, to address Zeman's mention of grader's notes, sometimes the grader's notes are totally useless or non-existent on some books. I checked recently on a 9.6 book and they didn't have any notes. Also, the notes that are kept are sometimes applicable to many grades.

[Ze-man]

Well, when I called. I was told that all 3 graders gave it a 7.5

And all 3 graders listed spine wrinkling as the major flaw of the book.

So where that falls into how it was graded , is indeed just a guess on our parts.

 

But it does seem to have played a part .. at least on my book anyhow.

 

Ze-

[all4comics]

No.. no staining to mention.

 

here is the best cover shot I have.

 

 

I mean this stain....

 

Nice copy by the way.

 

 

Hey All4, I called and got the grader notes.

 

And no mention of any kind of staining was in the notes.

 

Aside from normal edge wear.. the other two notes that were listed was indeed heavy spine wrinkling, and minor front cover soiling.

 

So I assume my book has more wrinkling then other copies of this book? And was downgraded accordingly.

 

Ze-

 

(wish I woulda cleaned off that front cover a bit.. mighta got a 8.0 )

 

Sorry Ze, its just what I saw in the scan

[LokiTBC-migration]

Why is it that no one is mentioning the date "6-15" being written in green ink in the DC logo, upper left corner on the original posters scan? That should knock the grade down severely, no?

[divad]

Why is it that no one is mentioning the date "6-15" being written in green ink in the DC logo, upper left corner on the original posters scan? That should knock the grade down severely, no?

 

Not at all No impact whatsoever.

[Ze-man]

Now Now Divad, no need to pound the new guy...

 

A simple "CGC does not downgrade for hand written dates or stamps.

But would possibly if it was extremely large, or damaged the book."

 

 

 

And Loki.. Welcome to the boards.. dont let us blowhards keep ya from asking any question ya feel that needs asking.

 

Ze-

[divad]

Now Now Divad, no need to pound the new guy...

 

A simple "CGC does not downgrade for hand written dates or stamps.

But would possibly if it was extremely large, or damaged the book."

 

 

 

And Loki.. Welcome to the boards.. dont let us blowhards keep ya from asking any question ya feel that needs asking.

 

Ze-

 

 

Ze