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

[Ze-man]

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.

 

Well, we will just have to disagree, I compare it to 9.4's I own. And either mine were under graded. Or the Heritage F.F. #20 was overgraded.

To me the 2 books are totally different beasts.

Was the #20 graded on a softer curve since it is an early SA F.F. book?

Or just a Heritage book..

 

Here is a good example.. I know this photo is crahppy, and is not as big as the Heritage scan.. but it is big enough.

 

Yes my book has a white cover.. and the #20 is dark. But my book does not have any top edge CBC's , no blunted ULC, minimal spine wear, NO deep staple creases...etc...

To me these 2 books should not have the same grade, period

And if I saw the #20 RAW, and was asked to make a quick grade guess based on first impressions.. I can say for sure.. 9.4 would NOT have passed my lips.

 

That # 20 looks nothing what I personally consider a 9.4 to be.

 

My #73 looks the part of what a 9.4 is.. a darn near perfect book.. with a few TINY little flaws that keep it from grading higher. But nothing jumps out at you as a MAJOR detraction when you view the book, unlike that #20.

 

I am not saying the #20 is not a dam nice book, I viewed both photos same size on my monitor.. and I stand by my silly opinions.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

[tth2]

nice book, I think that is a very sharp looking 9.4. Did you ever get the grader's notes?

[batman_fan]

I counldn't agree more, 9.0 max. Lots of small stress lines on the spine (can't be from SSS), bottom staple has either small tears or heavy stress lines, top right corner is a mess, but the bottom cover bend makes it all worth while. I have said it before and I will say it again, Heritage is great for there large scans. I have seen several 8.0 to 9.4 Batmans that I have been really interested in until I saw them with the high resolution scan, ended up passing. Now if Heritage's buyer fees weren't so high...

[rube11]

Now that 73 is alot more like it. I have 9.4's that all compare to that. I have 9.0's that actually look better then the FF20.

 

If a book is going to end up going for 4-5 times guide because it is a "9.4" it better well be a much nicer looking book then that.

 

Rube

[heartened]

My vote.... 9.0 at best. Large scan or small scan, defects are defects. Enough of them, and you can't have a 9.4. Long before CGC, this would never have been considered NM. And, with "tighter standards" today, it should be even more obvious that this isn't a 9.4.

 

Best,

[tth2]

Long before CGC, this would never have been considered NM.

 

You're right, it would have been considered a NM/M++!

[Flaming_Telepath]

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).

 

Well, let's look at it a third way...

 

This is a CGC NM...it says so on the label.

 

But a CGC NM is not actually a NM in the 'real world', based around standards laid down by Overstreet and recognised for decades. There are flaws with this book that would not pass the Overstreet definition of NM, and in truth, there are flaws that are too severe to pass anyone's definition of NM.

 

But is it a CGC NM? Yes. It says so.

 

But is it actually a NM? No.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think that's indicative of the generalisation that has now become perceived wisdom, that nobody knew how to grade before CGC.

 

I actually don't agree. I think that the same number of dealers who couldn't grade then can't grade now, some of the names have simply changed.

 

I also believe that there were a number of dealers who could grade then, and who can still grade now.

 

The introduction of a resto check has certainly improved matters, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what constitutes a NM copy and in my eyes, and in the eyes of Overstreet, this one doesn't.

[tth2]

I think that's indicative of the generalisation that has now become perceived wisdom, that nobody knew how to grade before CGC.

 

I actually don't agree. I think that the same number of dealers who couldn't grade then can't grade now, some of the names have simply changed.

 

I also believe that there were a number of dealers who could grade then, and who can still grade now.

 

I don't disagree, but it was harder to hold a dealer (or any person selling a book) accountable before because there was no generally accepted benchmark to use as comparison. Yes, there were lots of words describing "NM" in the OS or pricing guide, or you could have presented the seller with a true NM copy from a good grader, but there were lots of ways for him to rebut all your arguments.

 

Don't you think it's much easier today to say "this POS isn't a NM, if I send it to CGC it's going to come back as a 7.5 based on the books I've submitted so far, so there's no way I'm paying a NM price, give me my money back!". I'm not saying that CGC's grading is the end all or be all, but it is a relatively stable benchmark.

[sterlingcomics]

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

 

Shaken Comic Syndrome Strikes Again.

 

Has anyone bothered to call CGC on this? If so, anything said? I'm getting more concerned about this to the point I think I need to call Sarasota.

 

Sterling

[Rip]

I'm thinking CGC might want to consider a resign of the holder.........

[Flaming_Telepath]

I actually don't think it's a relatively stable benchmark. I think their grading is just as fluid and inconsistant as the next man's and the fact that this '9.4' has been identified as over-graded by the majority of boarders who have posted to the thread supports this.

 

For myself, and for many other 'old timers', CGC wil never replace the naked eye. I'll eyeball a book until it's withered under my glare before buying it and I'll walk away from anything overgraded, unless the price reflects that it's overgraded (fat chance, I know!).

 

What CGC has done is made the job easier for buyers who themselves can't grade. It's taken the pain out of it for them, and has vastly reduced the chances of them getting ripped of with 'Gem Mint' books that are anything but.

 

This is a good thing, but judging by the amount of bidding on 'Minty Fresh 9.9' raw books on eBay, there's still a distance to go!

[jbud73]

Is is a CGC NM? Yes, it says so = defn. of a circular arguement.

[Ze-man]

I'm thinking CGC might want to consider a resign of the holder.........

 

Did you mean to say.. resign their holder?.. as in put it out to pasture.

 

Or re-design their holder? ..as in come up with a new innerwell?

 

Or both?

 

Ze-

[The Less Blob]

i must save that link to show people when they buy a raw VF/NM from me and complain

[uclapeterg]

With that scan, I can see how it got a 9.4.

 

I don't like the fact that Heritages blows up their scans a lot bigger than they used to. It makes it harder to evaluate a book.

[Aces]

With that scan, I can see how it got a 9.4.

 

I don't like the fact that Heritages blows up their scans a lot bigger than they used to. It makes it harder to evaluate a book.

 

So you are saying Heritages blows big time?

 

Seriously, I can see that book getting a 9.4.

I'd be more happy as the seller though.

[Currin Comics]

9.4-no way. The back cover has stains that are not foxing. Only minor foxing is allowed down to 7.0, at 6.0 a book is allowed stains other than foxing. Plus that top left corner is not blunted, it's abraded. There is more than "slight" spine stress in my eyes. This book is a solid 8.0 maybe on a good day(mood) is it an 8.5. Time to find a level grading feild, and quit hiding behind "subjectivity" and let's hope not favoritism.

[sfilosa]

Let's make this clear.

 

Overstreet Grading standards really don't matter on a CGC book!!!!

 

All that matter is the grade CGC gave it, so learn to grade the way they do.

 

Is the book probably closer to a 9.2 then 9.4, yes, but it is surely not close to being an 8.0. I have lots of SA 8.0's and they don't look anything like that.

[Currin Comics]

I call like I see'em-books in the 8.0-8.5 range.