Ok, can someone tell me how this is a 9.4??

[FFB]

Ignoring the bottom back cover (as it's being bent down by the slab), that book looks like a borderline 9.4. If they had called it a 9.2 thou, I wouldn't be saying it's undergraded.

 

I have 9.6's that have very, very light color breaking creases in the top corner. They are lenient on the overhang.

 

9.4 books have some wear. None of the spine stress lines are even significant, more like a tiny fleck off the back.

 

Do I have 9.4's that look nicer then this, yes, and maybe a few would regrade as 9.6's. But, that isn't the worse case I've seen by a long shot (especially since it is an early SA book).

 

Staple tears are not allowed in 9.4, or even in 9.2 for that matter. This book has two of them.

[DNAgent]

 

 

ooh, nice foxing too.

[Ghoti]

[nik]

Maybe not a 9.4, but a very nice 9.2.

[burntboy]

Doesn't the bottom staple look like its ripped at the top and bottom of it?

 

 

Steve

 

after i saw the slab damage i noticed those two tears on the lower staple. Garth pointed out just about all the defects and i agree and would have graded this as a 9.2 (especially if the Nikos "charm" had anything to do with it). 9.4 seems a tad too high IMO.

 

BUT, the reality is that if you saw this book in real life, some of what we're looking at in these giant scans would be practically invisible.

 

i just hope to god they have been in such a good mood over the past few weeks..............

[whomerjay]

Just looking through the Heritage auctions for April and came across this. I am always interested in FF's with white pages in 9.4 but c'mon, how is this a 9.4? Look at the large pic.

 

What does everyone think?

 

Steve.

 

heritage'>http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auc...h=true]heritage auction

 

I think the slab damage to the bottom edge of the back cover would take it out of 9.4.

 

The two small staple tears at the bottom staple are troublesome as well. 9.2 would be my grade, even with the leniency given to overflash bends along the top edge.

 

Bottom staple was what struck me as most obvious, as well as top edge. And minor spine stress. I would have predicted 9.0 but would have worried it could ahve been lower as I thought the staple might be heavily weighted.

 

But the point about the scan magnifying the problems is a good one. Mightappear much better in person.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

i just hope to god they have been in such a good mood over the past few weeks..............

 

Apparently they have....I called today and got my grades (from subs on 11/17)...and I finally got my first 9.6! And all it took was five years of submissions and a couple of grand in fees.

[skybolt]

i just hope to god they have been in such a good mood over the past few weeks..............

 

Apparently they have....I called today and got my grades (from subs on 11/17)...and I finally got my first 9.6! And all it took was five years of submissions and a couple of grand in fees.

 

What was the book?

[Ze-man]

 

BUT, the reality is that if you saw this book in real life, some of what we're looking at in these giant scans would be practically invisible.

 

 

But isnt that exactly the point Harry?

 

CGC is paid to put the books under the microscope in an effort to detect ALL the flaws present that might be not easily seen with the naked eye.

 

And just because we cannot easily see them, does not mean they are not there. Or that they should not be a factor in determining the final grade.

 

After looking at the flaws this book exhibits (taking out the obvious possibility for the post SCS damage)This book still appears to me to be overgraded. The spine is a mess.. as is the top edge, and that enough seems to be enough to keep it even outa 9.2 range.

We all would love to get this grade if we were selling the book, but would be sorely dissapointed if we were the one buying the book.

 

IMHO

 

 

Ze-

[jokersrevenge]

maybe the real hidden agenda is to get us to resub all of our older cgc slabs when they were "grading harder"

[burntboy]

 

BUT, the reality is that if you saw this book in real life, some of what we're looking at in these giant scans would be practically invisible.

 

 

But isnt that exactly the point Harry?

 

CGC is paid to put the books under the microscope in an effort to detect ALL the flaws present that might be not easily seen with the naked eye.

 

And just because we cannot easily see them, does not mean they are not there. Or that they should not be a factor in determining the final grade.

 

 

Ze-

 

Kenny - i hear ya - i guess where i'm coming from is that if you can't see it with the naked eye, then perhaps it doesn't matter very much if it's there.

 

i've gone over some very nice books with a loupe and it kinda amazing what you'll see that simply didn't appear to be there before. it's possible that those two staple stresses are virtually undetectable and, as such, may not bring the book down as much as we'd think. My experience from the last contest was that almost everything that gets blown way up, appears better they i initially think - until the frickin' finals, that is..............

 

Jive - what book got a 9.6??

[verygoodplus]

Here's a reasonably-sized pic, close to life-size on my monitor:

 

[goldust40]

Here's a reasonably-sized pic, close to life-size on my monitor:

 

 

NIce work. It has to be said, when looking at the book at what would be arms' length, that it does seem sharper. However I still think it doesn't deserve a 9.4.

[sfilosa]

CGC is paid to put the books under the microscope in an effort to detect ALL the flaws present that might be not easily seen with the naked eye.

 

 

 

NO!!!!

 

They don't put it under a microscopic. They do however look at a book from various angles to determine non color breaking wear that does not show in a scan.

 

Also, please feel free to blow up TONS of HERITAGE SCANS and you will notice MANY 9.4's have a lot more defects then you would think.

 

Now the first reaction would be that CGC favors HERITAGE (that's the conspiracy story), but I really think it has to do with the SCANS being HUGE. Plus, unlike almost any scan that I would blow up to that size, it DOESN'T get Pixelated (i.e. it is EXTREMELY CLEAR).

 

All that said, it probably is at best a borderline 9.4.

[jbud73]

Even though I do not think the FF is a 9.4, Steve has mentioned that - again paraphrasing 'If CGC put books under a microscope, or used a high powered light to flesh out all the flaws then none of out books would be NM. I don't have my OS GG handy but I'll have a look at the SA 9.4 in there and compare. As well has anyone called for the graders notes - if not please do so (IE whoever originally posted). Maybe if everyone of us called for the graders notes on one book every day they would finally attach a copy to each and every book, or a small summary on the back of the label.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Jive - what book got a 9.6??

 

Thor 158, the origin issue. I sent in another copy that got a 9.4 as well.

[Tango 'n Cash]

Other than the slab damage I don't see anything that bad that would take it out of 9.4 consideration. Granted, the book is probably an 8.0 now.

[Ze-man]

CGC is paid to put the books under the microscope in an effort to detect ALL the flaws present that might be not easily seen with the naked eye.

 

 

 

NO!!!!

 

They don't put it under a microscopic. They do however look at a book from various angles to determine non color breaking wear that does not show in a scan.

 

 

Sorry..

Perhaps I should have worded it differently.

I did not mean to intend CGC actually put the books under a microscope to grade them. It was a phrase.

Bright lights, loupes, etc.. yes.

But my point was it is their job to identify ALL flaws.. no matter if they are easy to spot or not. And factor that into whatever guidelines they use to come up with their grades.

 

It just seems really hard sometimes to read the OS GG, and follow it verbatim when looking at how CGC might have graded a certain book.

Sometimes I am left scratching my head.

 

We are all human afterall.

 

Ze-

 

P.S. That REALLY is a nasty example of TRUE SCS.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Good call, Steve.

 

Top edge, bottom staple, general lack of sharpness at the spine...

 

I'd go VF/NM if this was in my hands, perhaps NM- on a lax day.

 

But then again, I don't think CGC's NM (9.4) is what I consider NM anyway. Just bought 3 slabbed Thors, all from the Northland collection. Two are 9.4s and one is a 9.6. Upon inspecting them, neither of the 9.4s are what I would consider NM (NM-, maybe) and the 9.6 might just have a shot at it.

 

I have to say, I was somewhat disappointed.

[sfilosa]

Top edge, bottom staple, general lack of sharpness at the spine...

 

I'd go VF/NM if this was in my hands, perhaps NM- on a lax day.

 

But then again, I don't think CGC's NM (9.4) is what I consider NM anyway. Just bought 3 slabbed Thors, all from the Northland collection. Two are 9.4s and one is a 9.6. Upon inspecting them, neither of the 9.4s are what I would consider NM (NM-, maybe) and the 9.6 might just have a shot at it.

 

I have to say, I was somewhat disappointed.

 

Well, as a witness for the prosecution, I think you just helped the defendant's (FF book) case.

 

Bascially, you just said you think CGC grading standards are a touch too lose.

 

The truth is that NM books are JUST THAT. NEAR Mint, as in they have flaws. What they shouldn't have is any severe flaws (I do not this book has that) or too many (that is a little bit more questionable).