• 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.

$84K for an FF 52?!?

Started by LordRahl,

538 posts in this topic

Hepcat

Hepcat

Posted
Posted
No and yes, but without going off on too far a tangent, I reject the implication that CGC does either of those. They just don't deduct as much for eye appeal issues as you and many others would prefer.

 

Do you then not think CGC should ascribe more weight to eye appeal?

 

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Do you then not think CGC should ascribe more weight to eye appeal?

 

You'd have to be more specific about which element of eye appeal you have in mind which gets into an even bigger tangent, but related to the original comment, the only way to find the way that CGC does grade books in the 9.x range as "meaningless" is to not deduct yourself for the preservation defects they do deduct for. Calling their 9.x range grading meaningless is hyperbole, presumably in protest of their grading being less meaningful than eye appeal perfectionists prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamstrange

adamstrange

Posted
Posted
It looks just as good as the 9.8s for all practical purposes, but for that very reason it could just as easily come back as a 9.4. There's no meaningful difference in appearance among most comics at these grades. The big difference is the number on the label.

 

That's not my experience--I can usually account for the defects on a 9.4 vs a 9.6 vs a 9.8. Not always, but usually.

 

Do you then buy into the grading philosophy of simply tallying up defects and deducting from 10.0? Do you not take eye appeal into consideration?

 

???

I believe I can tell the difference between 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8. I don't necessarily agree with the way that cgc assigns grades as they will sometimes tolerate defects I don't and vice versa. cgc is focused more on structural defects and that means that sometimes 9.4 and 9.6 are unappealing to me. I seldom find that the case with 9.8 -- I may not agree that a book should be a 9.8 but I almost always would love to own a book that cgc grades 9.8.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
No and yes, but without going off on too far a tangent, I reject the implication that CGC does either of those. They just don't deduct as much for eye appeal issues as you and many others would prefer.

 

Do you then not think CGC should ascribe more weight to eye appeal?

 

???

CGC should not ascribe any weight to eye appeal. I'm paying them to grade a comic based on their in-person and up-close inspection of defects that might not be apparent through a slab or in a scan or picture.

 

Eye appeal by definition is something that anyone can see from a good scan, even through a slab, and judge for themselves. I don't need CGC to judge whether the inks are lustrous, whether the book looks fresh or if it's squarely centered. I can do most of that from a good scan, and certainly all of that from an in-person inspection through a slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamstrange

adamstrange

Posted
Posted
Well you must agree then that a 9.4 is not a 9.4 is not a 9.4. They must all then be very different.

 

(shrug)

All 9.4s are not equal to my eyes. Buy the book, not the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
Well you must agree then that a 9.4 is not a 9.4 is not a 9.4. They must all then be very different.

 

(shrug)

Yes, one 9.4 book could be a 9.4 because of minor defects that are different from the minor defects that cause a different book to be a 9.4.

 

And one book could be at the end high end of the 9.4 range, while another could be at the low end. Or perhaps CGC completely got it wrong and it wasn't a 9.4 at all.

 

I have no idea what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamstrange

adamstrange

Posted
Posted
With today's new bolded number grade on the label, I think people now would buy the number rather than the book.

I think it's easier to argue that people will at least as much, if not more attention, to the book since it is easier to actually see it through the new case than it was with the old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
Yeah, that was quite the buy. It's a great looking copy. Ever thought about going for a resub? Is there a chance at an upgrade? Would be expensive to resub, but if it has a shot, might be worth it.

 

Maybe...I was just wondering that. I don't remember any defects not visible in the scan, but I need to look at it again. All I remember were one or two tiny spine nicks about 1/64" in length that are also visible in the scan--one is to the left of Torch's waist--which are also defects minor enough that I've also seen them on CGC 9.8 books.

 

Your last statement must be correct since I do seem to be able to see a couple of spine nicks to the left of the Black Panther box on the Curator copy below:

 

OtEpBP.jpg

 

I would also have to say that the staples are really nothing to write home about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

 

Yes, although another 9.4 sold in August 2015 for not much less at $8599.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I would also have to say that the staples are really nothing to write home about.

 

There's a tiny amount of tearing at the top staple entry point on the Curator copy, probably 1/64" worth times two. Bottom staple looks solid. I see no reason for that to be inconsistent with the 9.8 grade given how small it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
I would also have to say that the staples are really nothing to write home about.

 

There's a tiny amount of tearing at the top staple entry point on the Curator copy, probably 1/64" worth times two. Bottom staple looks solid. I see no reason for that to be inconsistent with the 9.8 grade given how small it is.

 

The curators that were auctioned off on Heritage a few years ago were graded on the loose side. It's possible that they had a 'pedigree bump' that some people talk about, which to me translates into 'this book is so awesomely fresh feeling that it deserves a bump'.

 

Maybe yes, maybe no.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I would also have to say that the staples are really nothing to write home about.

 

There's a tiny amount of tearing at the top staple entry point on the Curator copy, probably 1/64" worth times two. Bottom staple looks solid. I see no reason for that to be inconsistent with the 9.8 grade given how small it is.

 

The curators that were auctioned off on Heritage a few years ago were graded on the loose side. It's possible that they had a 'pedigree bump' that some people talk about, which to me translates into 'this book is so awesomely fresh feeling that it deserves a bump'.

 

Maybe yes, maybe no.

 

Here's a link to the full-size Heritage scan:

 

http://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B7%2F4%2F8%2F4%2F7484301%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D

 

I wasn't sure about those nicks lou_fine pointed out from the scan in the thread, but they're plainly visible in the Heritage scan. I dunno about those in a 9.8...the top one looks to be 1/8" and the bottom one 1/16". hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing