Detached Covers Points Loss Question

[AJD]

I own several 3.0 and 3.5 books with detached covers. I have seen 4.0s with detached covers (with 8.0 eye appeal), but not higher than that.

 

I used to think 3.0 was the ceiling on books with detached covers, but I've seen 4.0s. I may be hallucinating, but I thought I recently saw a 6.0. But maybe that was a book was a single staple popped rather than an entirely detached cover.

 

I've seen a 6.0 with a detached centerfold, but never a detached cover. And a single popped staple can bring an otherwise nice book down to 6.0 - there are some examples in the green label thread in the restoration forum.

[fifties]

I had assumed at this point that CGC was the de facto grading standard everyone uses, even when considering raw books?

I was always under the impression that Overstreet was the standard. At least it's the one that I myself go by, as a raw book collector.

 

CGC has graded books with brittle pages as high as -I believe- 4.0, which Overstreet would grade out as Poor.

[SuperBird]

I've always wondered about detached covers in slabs... if it's not attached, wouldn't the book have a tendency to slide away from the cover, and not present as well as it should?

 

I've had books for perhaps a decade and this has not happened.

[SuperBird]

CGC vs. Overstreet, due to the preeminence of CGC in high value and grade-sensitive books, I think at some point they become the de facto grading standard—if they are not already.

 

For pricing information, GPA is already way more reliable and timely than Overstreet, and that is due to the existence of CGC books.

[jimbo_707]

I had assumed at this point that CGC was the de facto grading standard everyone uses, even when considering raw books?

I was always under the impression that Overstreet was the standard. At least it's the one that I myself go by, as a raw book collector.

 

CGC has graded books with brittle pages as high as -I believe- 4.0, which Overstreet would grade out as Poor.

I prefer Overstreet grading, but I think you and I might be the only ones still using it. CGC has become the new standard, for better or for worse.

[fifties]

I had assumed at this point that CGC was the de facto grading standard everyone uses, even when considering raw books?

I was always under the impression that Overstreet was the standard. At least it's the one that I myself go by, as a raw book collector.

 

CGC has graded books with brittle pages as high as -I believe- 4.0, which Overstreet would grade out as Poor.

I prefer Overstreet grading, but I think you and I might be the only ones still using it. CGC has become the new standard, for better or for worse.

Can't teach an old dog here new tricks, bwahahaha!

 

I perceive the current comic book market as being in two realms; raw and slabbed.

 

The usually vast price difference between them (for any given two same-numbered copies of a title in the same condition) more or less confirms this separation, as well as the fact that raw books can be opened and read, and slabbed are simply collected for their cover art or as an investment (or to complete a run), thus assuring their different paths.

 

Given that, why would CGC dogma be relevant for raw books? As one example, they can assign a grade as high as 4.0 for a book with brittle pages, and while that might be acceptable for a comic entombed in plastic, where the pages can not only not be seen, but would never be manipulated by thumbing through the book and possibly flaking/degrading further, the grade assignment would be totally out of context for a raw copy, available for handling.

 

BTW, what exactly is "GPA"?

 

 

[SuperBird]

"Given that, why would CGC dogma be relevant for raw books?"

 

Because inside the slab is a book with a perceived value- that value is not enhanced just by virtue of being slabbed, the value is (more) assured because a reliable 3rd party has given it an objective grade and restoration check. But you are still buying a comic book, not a slab. The theoretical value between slabbed and unslabbed copies of the same book in the same condition should be the same.

 

GPAnalysis is a company that tracks all the data of all CGC books sold through certain venues online, showing buyers and sellers the price history of basically mosts books across most grades. Less so for GA and other rare books, but you still have data to refer to for the most part.

[Sqeggs]

I own several 3.0 and 3.5 books with detached covers. I have seen 4.0s with detached covers (with 8.0 eye appeal), but not higher than that.

 

I used to think 3.0 was the ceiling on books with detached covers, but I've seen 4.0s. I may be hallucinating, but I thought I recently saw a 6.0. But maybe that was a book was a single staple popped rather than an entirely detached cover.

 

I've seen a 6.0 with a detached centerfold, but never a detached cover. And a single popped staple can bring an otherwise nice book down to 6.0 - there are some examples in the green label thread in the restoration forum.

 

You know, I think that was it: a book with a detached centerfold (not cover) graded 6.0.

[Robot Man]

I had assumed at this point that CGC was the de facto grading standard everyone uses, even when considering raw books?

I was always under the impression that Overstreet was the standard. At least it's the one that I myself go by, as a raw book collector.

 

CGC has graded books with brittle pages as high as -I believe- 4.0, which Overstreet would grade out as Poor.

I prefer Overstreet grading, but I think you and I might be the only ones still using it. CGC has become the new standard, for better or for worse.

 

+3

 

99% of my collection is raw and I like it that way.

[FineCollector]

Given that, why would CGC dogma be relevant for raw books? As one example, they can assign a grade as high as 4.0 for a book with brittle pages, and while that might be acceptable for a comic entombed in plastic, where the pages can not only not be seen, but would never be manipulated by thumbing through the book and possibly flaking/degrading further, the grade assignment would be totally out of context for a raw copy, available for handling.

 

Amen.

 

Missing pages is what I keep coming back to. Overstreet says a missing ad page is a Fair. Missing story page? Can't read it anymore, so Poor. Simple. CGC rewards number chasers by putting a qualified grade on books missing pages. Why? No one's going to read it, so it still serves its purpose as a picture frame, no matter how thin the comic is. Crack that book out and try to sell it as a Qualified book. Not going to work, is it?

[fifties]

Given that, why would CGC dogma be relevant for raw books? As one example, they can assign a grade as high as 4.0 for a book with brittle pages, and while that might be acceptable for a comic entombed in plastic, where the pages can not only not be seen, but would never be manipulated by thumbing through the book and possibly flaking/degrading further, the grade assignment would be totally out of context for a raw copy, available for handling.

 

Amen.

 

Missing pages is what I keep coming back to. Overstreet says a missing ad page is a Fair. Missing story page? Can't read it anymore, so Poor. Simple. CGC rewards number chasers by putting a qualified grade on books missing pages. Why? No one's going to read it, so it still serves its purpose as a picture frame, no matter how thin the comic is. Crack that book out and try to sell it as a Qualified book. Not going to work, is it?

Exactly, and another reason why CGC grading is really only relevant for slabbed books, while Overstreet is the standard for -at least- raw condition.