• 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.

X-Men 1 CGC 9.6 listed on ComicLink

Started by Gotham Kid,

116 posts in this topic

rodan57

rodan57

Posted
Posted
That 9.6 is amazing! If the back cover looks as nice that's gotta be a 9.8, or... there must be a defect on the interior pages. Simply beautiful.

 

I'm amazed how transparent the cover is. The inside cover type really shows thru.

 

The micro chamber paper "reflects" the interior cover inks through the whites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost Town

Ghost Town

Posted
Posted
It's more pronounced in the PC copy. The whites look almost oily wet. Many copies the white is far more opaque.

It looks less translucent in hand. The contrast in that first scan is too crunchy so the blacks look heavier than they are.

 

This scan below is probably more representative. But you can obviously still see the inside front cover.

 

mpojKD.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. 10%

Mr. 10%

Posted
Posted
It's more pronounced in the PC copy. The whites look almost oily wet. Many copies the white is far more opaque.

It looks less translucent in hand. The contrast in that first scan is too crunchy so the blacks look heavier than they are.

 

This scan below is probably more representative. But you can obviously still see the inside front cover.

 

mpojKD.jpg

 

This book should be at the MOMA in NY.

Amazing, amazing pedigree book.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted

In the past, gorgeous comics like that with the teeniest of lower left corner fuzzing would be excluded from the 9.8 grade. Now, not only does the copy currently being sold sport a similar fuzzy lower left corner, but it's got an even more worn upper left corner and still receives a 9.6.

 

Barton's copy is an example of why some people still talk about 'old label goodness'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gadzukes

gadzukes

Posted
Posted
That 9.6 is amazing! If the back cover looks as nice that's gotta be a 9.8, or... there must be a defect on the interior pages. Simply beautiful.

 

I'm amazed how transparent the cover is. The inside cover type really shows thru.

 

The micro chamber paper "reflects" the interior cover inks through the whites.

 

If that's true then they should put the micro chamber paper under the splash page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
That 9.6 is amazing! If the back cover looks as nice that's gotta be a 9.8, or... there must be a defect on the interior pages. Simply beautiful.

 

I'm amazed how transparent the cover is. The inside cover type really shows thru.

 

The micro chamber paper "reflects" the interior cover inks through the whites.

 

If that's true then they should put the micro chamber paper under the splash page.

 

That would defeat one purpose of the microchamber paper, to minimize the transfer staining between the inner cover and splash page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
In the past, gorgeous comics like that with the teeniest of lower left corner fuzzing would be excluded from the 9.8 grade. Now, not only does the copy currently being sold sport a similar fuzzy lower left corner, but it's got an even more worn upper left corner and still receives a 9.6.

 

Barton's copy is an example of why some people still talk about 'old label goodness'.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thecopperagekids

thecopperagekids

Posted
Posted
In the past, gorgeous comics like that with the teeniest of lower left corner fuzzing would be excluded from the 9.8 grade. Now, not only does the copy currently being sold sport a similar fuzzy lower left corner, but it's got an even more worn upper left corner and still receives a 9.6.

 

Barton's copy is an example of why some people still talk about 'old label goodness'.

 

I disagree.

 

The currently offered 9.6 and the "old label goodness" 9.6 both look like comparable 9.6's to me.....judging by the front cover scans only, I should note.

 

The older 9.6 has a decent amount of color loss in the black ink areas of the "X-Men" logo.

 

The newer 9.6 does not have this problem.

 

The newer 9.6 has wear at the top of the spine.

 

The older 9.6 has no such wear at the top of he spine.

 

Both books have a minute tear at the base of their spines, the older 9.6's tear seems to be slightly more of an issue.

 

 

All in all, I think both copies are solid 9.6's.

 

I also think that the notion of "old label goodness" is a flat out myth.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gotham Kid

Gotham Kid

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I also think that the notion of "old label goodness" is a flat out myth.

 

There are a great many people who received grade (and PQ) bumps on straight re-subs, myself included. Granted that this is not for all old label books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gadzukes

gadzukes

Posted
Posted
That 9.6 is amazing! If the back cover looks as nice that's gotta be a 9.8, or... there must be a defect on the interior pages. Simply beautiful.

 

I'm amazed how transparent the cover is. The inside cover type really shows thru.

 

The micro chamber paper "reflects" the interior cover inks through the whites.

 

If that's true then they should put the micro chamber paper under the splash page.

 

That would defeat one purpose of the microchamber paper, to minimize the transfer staining between the inner cover and splash page.

 

Any Whiteish cover I submit I guess I will now have to request they put the microchamber paper under the splash page. I think the "reflectivity" detracts from these covers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
That 9.6 is amazing! If the back cover looks as nice that's gotta be a 9.8, or... there must be a defect on the interior pages. Simply beautiful.

 

I'm amazed how transparent the cover is. The inside cover type really shows thru.

 

The micro chamber paper "reflects" the interior cover inks through the whites.

 

If that's true then they should put the micro chamber paper under the splash page.

 

That would defeat one purpose of the microchamber paper, to minimize the transfer staining between the inner cover and splash page.

 

Any Whiteish cover I submit I guess I will now have to request they put the microchamber paper under the splash page. I think the "reflectivity" detracts from these covers.

I`m not sure they`ll do it, but as Barton mentioned earlier, it doesn`t look nearly as translucent in person as it does in a scan, which is a result of the scanner effectively shining a bright light at the cover.

 

The yellowish white covers is something you just generally can`t get away from with a lot of Marvel covers, due to the paper stock and the oils in the inks that were used.

 

DC used superior paper stock, which is why their white covers from the same period aren`t as yellow and aren`t translucent in scans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted

I also think that the notion of "old label goodness" is a flat out myth.

 

There are a great many people who received grade (and PQ) bumps on straight re-subs, myself included. Granted that this is not for all old label books.

 

I agree. It's not across the board but, generally, I see more books I'd consider "gift graded" nowadays than I did in the early days. I think they are definitely softer on corners in particular than they were in the old days. They also seem to allow for a few more color breaks than they used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing