Cap #1 CGC 8.0 Manufacturing Error on CC (Feb auction) 1 1

[VintageComics]

On 2017-03-21 at 9:13 PM, Jaydogrules said:

From my standpoint, that book is incorrectly in a blue label holder.  At that high of an "apparent grade" it should have been in a green label, as that is a significant "defect" that should be built into the structural grade (as it was clearly built into the price).  

There is a precedent with many other books that have color production defects.

The missing color is noted, and a technical grade (blue label) is assigned.

On 2017-03-22 at 1:10 PM, G.A.tor said:

On 2017-03-22 at 11:59 AM, NP_Gresham said:

Nope

Nice try, Best of luck with the sale

The back cover is also absent of red. That tells me not faded but actually low/no red ink

It's obviously not a sun faded book. It might look like one, but it isn't.

[Jaydogrules]

13 hours ago, VintageComics said:

There is a precedent with many other books that have color production defects.

The missing color is noted, and a technical grade (blue label) is assigned.

It's obviously not a sun faded book. It might look like one, but it isn't.

A "printing defect" in a restored, 0.5 book is one thing.  

It's an entirely different animal when you're trying to shoe horn something with allegedly that high of an "apparent grade" into a blue label.  (Meaning, it really belongs in a green). The utterly laughable disparity in prices between it and what the real 8.0 sold for a year ago suggests that "the market" supports this analysis.  

And there are in fact some reds present on this cover.  The ones that are (particularly on the front cover) just look washed out.  Much like the blues on the back cover.  There's obviously some kind of atrocious "printing defect" on this cover, made only worse by a pretty bad sun fade to boot.  

-J.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[G.A.tor]

28 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

A "printing defect" in a restored, 0.5 book is one thing.  

It's an entirely different animal when you're trying to shoe horn something with allegedly that high of an "apparent grade" into a blue label.  (Meaning, it really belongs in a green). The utterly laughable disparity in prices between it and what the real 8.0 sold for a year ago suggests that "the market" supports this analysis.  

And there are in fact some reds present on this cover.  The ones that are (particularly on the front cover) just look washed out.  Much like the blues on the back cover.  There's obviously some kind of atrocious "printing defect" on this cover, made only worse by a pretty bad sun fade to boot.  

-J.

 Folks... West Stephan who actually touched the book , held the book and graded the book states there is no sun fading ...  so we have had a respected authority on grading the book chime in, why speculate or state otherwise?

 

 I only know the lack of red on the back cover is what made me believe the CGc notification ...that said I would personally never buy a copy that looks like this regardless of the reason

Edited March 24, 2017 by G.A.tor

[VintageComics]

40 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

14 hours ago, VintageComics said:

There is a precedent with many other books that have color production defects.

The missing color is noted, and a technical grade (blue label) is assigned.

It's obviously not a sun faded book. It might look like one, but it isn't.

A "printing defect" in a restored, 0.5 book is one thing.  

It's an entirely different animal when you're trying to shoe horn something with allegedly that high of an "apparent grade" into a blue label.  (Meaning, it really belongs in a green). The utterly laughable disparity in prices between it and what the real 8.0 sold for a year ago suggests that "the market" supports this analysis.  

And there are in fact some reds present on this cover.  The ones that are (particularly on the front cover) just look washed out.  Much like the blues on the back cover.  There's obviously some kind of atrocious "printing defect" on this cover, made only worse by a pretty bad sun fade to boot.  

 

17 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

Folks... West Stephan who actually touched the book , held the book and graded the book states there is no sun fading ...  so we have had a respected authority on grading the book chime in, why speculate or state otherwise?

Because Jaydogrules rules state that Jaydogrules is always right.

Even when he's never held the book in hand and multiple experts have.

[G.A.tor]

Just now, VintageComics said:

 

Because Jaydogrules rules state that Jaydogrules is always right.

Even when he's never held the book in hand and multiple experts have.

admittedly I've never held the book in my hand...never bought or sold it (and never will I suspect), so like the other individual that insists of fading, I have no dog in this fight...

but if anyone has any first hand evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it... it "looks" like a badly faded book, that much is not really in question by anyone, I don't believe...and it sold like a badly faded book would (so the grade designation was not relevant to the realized price)...but, at heart is the real reason it looks like it does...

 

[Jaydogrules]

4 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

admittedly I've never held the book in my hand...never bought or sold it (and never will I suspect), so like the other individual that insists of fading, I have no dog in this fight...

but if anyone has any first hand evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it... it "looks" like a badly faded book, that much is not really in question by anyone, I don't believe...and it sold like a badly faded book would (so the grade designation was not relevant to the realized price)...but, at heart is the real reason it looks like it does...

 

Very well balanced reasoning as always.

-J.

[VintageComics]

1 minute ago, G.A.tor said:

admittedly I've never held the book in my hand...never bought or sold it (and never will I suspect), so like the other individual that insists of fading, I have no dog in this fight...

but if anyone has any first hand evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it... it "looks" like a badly faded book, that much is not really in question by anyone, I don't believe...and it sold like a badly faded book would (so the grade designation was not relevant to the realized price)...but, at heart is the real reason it looks like it does...

 

I'd be open to evidence as well but at this point I'd trust someone who has a lifetime of handling and grading GA books and who has held the book in their hands over an internet opinion.

If it was a sun faded book it would have graded in the low to mid VG range as a universal so actually, so the market priced it as such.

The difference between this book and others with color plate defects is that the eye appeal is greatly affected with this copy.

On books like FF #110 where there is also a color printing error, the eye appeal isn't greatly affected and it has become a collectible to itself for completists and those that collect printing defects.

Unfortunately, they tend to focus on SA and later books.

If in fact this Cap #1 is a printint errror (which I believe it is) then it's an interesting historical anomaly.

[Jaydogrules]

11 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

 

Because Jaydogrules rules state that Jaydogrules is always right.

Even when he's never held the book in hand and multiple experts have.

And the typical borderline hyperventilating, personal attack from you (whenever someone dares to remotely disagree with one of your opinions).

-J.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[VintageComics]

1 minute ago, Jaydogrules said:

12 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Because Jaydogrules rules state that Jaydogrules is always right.

Even when he's never held the book in hand and multiple experts have.

And the typical borderline hyperventilating, personal attack from you (whenever someone dares to remotely disagree with one of your opinions). 

There's no hyperventilating. Just an eye roll because you always post an opinion as though it's fact. As in this case:

55 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

made only worse by a pretty bad sun fade to boot.

If stating the obvious (that you are generally contradicting thorough logic) and you take it as a personal attack, well then...

[Jaydogrules]

9 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

There's no hyperventilating. Just an eye roll because you always post an opinion as though it's fact. As in this case:

If stating the obvious (that you are generally contradicting thorough logic) and you take it as a personal attack, well then...

I made a statement for why I believed the book has both an ugly "printing defect" as well as a sun fade- by comparing the blues in two side by side scans.  

Did I ever say that it was a "fact"?  No, I did not.  The  at the end of my post should have been the dead give away that I was expressing an "opinion". 

However in your zeal to unleash one of your pro forma personal attacks you evidently took it the way you chose to take it. 

We are ALL just expressing opinions here.  Including, CGC, which could very well have incorrectly missed a sun fade as part of an additional "printing defect".  That is my thought on what happened, hence why I have now stated three times that I think the book is either in the wrong colour holder, way over graded, or both.  

Most likely both.  

-J.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[bluechip]

8 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

A "printing defect" in a restored, 0.5 book is one thing.  

It's an entirely different animal when you're trying to shoe horn something with allegedly that high of an "apparent grade" into a blue label.  (Meaning, it really belongs in a green). The utterly laughable disparity in prices between it and what the real 8.0 sold for a year ago suggests that "the market" supports this analysis.  

And there are in fact some reds present on this cover.  The ones that are (particularly on the front cover) just look washed out.  Much like the blues on the back cover.  There's obviously some kind of atrocious "printing defect" on this cover, made only worse by a pretty bad sun fade to boot.  

-J.

What you see is not red ink but the illusion of it from the combo of other color inks.   The back cover makes it clear that there the red ink plate did not touch this copy

I saw one of these Caps without red many years ago before slabbing and there was never the slightest question it was a printing error.  

That said, I find it strange that people obsess over sun fading here as if it's presumed and understood that CGC would have graded it a lot less for sun fading.   But there are many examples of books with severe sun fading if it was not noticed here and as if it would have netted a lower grade.   Past history of grading includes many books that have higher grades than other books with solid colors and better eye appeal because the sun faded books technically have better structure.    It's been made clear over time that they don't downgrade severely for incidental light fading or sun shadows

 

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by bluechip

[Dark Knight]

Also what are the chances that both the front and back covers would be sun faded?  I've never seen the back cover of a book being faded at all, usually the front for display purposes to customers.