The Kevin Davenport Memorial Grading Contest Screaming Room

[Aces]

8.0?? Guess CGC is lighter on tanning than i thought

 

9.4

[Norrin_Radd]

[Hobgoblin]

 

Well, all I can say is a few of us said 9.0 and 9.2. So obviously some of us thought it was below a 9.4.

[toro]

Okay!!! I had to come in here because that MTU Ann #1 in round 4 was truely [embarrasing lack of self control] and it received a 6.0, so in round 8 what appears but another book as crappy as the one in round 4. What is truely amazing is OF nailed it and again congrats to him. Yet Zipper and Donut both gave it a 5.0. I thought it was a 5.0 too, just like I thought the round 4 one was a 5.0. So I bump this thing up to a 6.0 and it comes out a 7.0!!!!!! What the hell are those graders looking at! Why have I never gotten a break from those people in Sarasota!!! I was thinking that the sun must have fried their brains, but Red labels were New Jersey days, probably some kind of toxic waste splashed in their eyes and made them as blind as Matt Murdock!

 

 

And then,,,,friggin Warlord nails it and knocks me into the Mega-Losers bracket and I can't get a bye either,

[Mr. Zipper]

Yet Zipper and Donut both gave it a 5.0. I thought it was a 5.0 too, just like I thought the round 4 one was a 5.0. So I bump this thing up to a 6.0 and it comes out a 7.0!!!!!! What the hell are those graders looking at! Why have I never gotten a break from those people in Sarasota!!! I was thinking that the sun must have fried their brains, but Red labels were New Jersey days, probably some kind of toxic waste splashed in their eyes and made them as blind as Matt Murdock!

 

This book IS an odious 7.0. A heavy corner crease, spine stresses, soiled back cover and multiple edge tears and dents along the back open edge.

 

I thought it was moderately worse than the prior 6.0 MTU, so I gave it a 5.0. In my estimation, the highest possible grade it could have gotten was 5.5, and I debated internally over 5.0 and 5.5 for some time.

 

Is there anyone here that would be happy with that "7.0" if they bought it sight unseen? I doubt it.

[nik]

Thank Jeebus they are not my books to be vented on

[toro]

Yet Zipper and Donut both gave it a 5.0. I thought it was a 5.0 too, just like I thought the round 4 one was a 5.0. So I bump this thing up to a 6.0 and it comes out a 7.0!!!!!! What the hell are those graders looking at! Why have I never gotten a break from those people in Sarasota!!! I was thinking that the sun must have fried their brains, but Red labels were New Jersey days, probably some kind of toxic waste splashed in their eyes and made them as blind as Matt Murdock!

 

This book IS an odious 7.0. A heavy corner crease, spine stresses, soiled back cover and multiple edge tears and dents along the back open edge.

 

I thought it was moderately worse than the prior 6.0 MTU, so I gave it a 5.0. In my estimation, the highest possible grade it could have gotten was 5.5, and I debated internally over 5.0 and 5.5 for some time.

 

Is there anyone here that would be happy with that "7.0" if they bought it sight unseen? I doubt it.

 

I have gold and silver age books that put that piece of dog sh** to shame and they are only 7.0 or lower!!!! I hope those graders still aren't working for CGC, they must have been the ones who started 3pg cause they can't grade for sh%^!

[Mr. Zipper]

I hope those graders still aren't working for CGC, they must have been the ones who started 3pg cause they can't grade for sh%^!

 

In a PM, I asked Comic Supply if the denting and small tears along the back left edge was slab damage or not. CS didn't know.

 

In retrospect, I suspect it was slab damage. It has the hallmarks of a overhanging edge that slammed up against a side rail, and I just can't believe a 7.0 could have that kind of edge damage.

[Nefaria]

Frank, Lee I wouldn't have submitted it.

[FlyingDonut]

I hope those graders still aren't working for CGC, they must have been the ones who started 3pg cause they can't grade for sh%^!

 

In a PM, I asked Comic Supply if the denting and small tears along the back left edge was slab damage or not. CS didn't know.

 

In retrospect, I suspect it was slab damage. It has the hallmarks of a overhanging edge that slammed up against a side rail, and I just can't believe a 7.0 could have that kind of edge damage.

 

It shouldn't have all that [embarrasing lack of self control] on the back cover, nor the creases at top, nor the ick on the sides. My initial guess was 4.5!

[casey1870]

I hope those graders still aren't working for CGC, they must have been the ones who started 3pg cause they can't grade for sh%^!

 

In a PM, I asked Comic Supply if the denting and small tears along the back left edge was slab damage or not. CS didn't know.

 

In retrospect, I suspect it was slab damage. It has the hallmarks of a overhanging edge that slammed up against a side rail, and I just can't believe a 7.0 could have that kind of edge damage.

 

 

I asked the same question also & came to the same conclusion.Mica spoke of bumps red label books recieved.I looked at Round 4's & honestly thought this one was a hair better...so I went with 6.5, by no means is this a 7.0 !

[davidking623]

By definition, a 9.8 does have some flaws, that's why it's not a 10.0.

 

I have a number of modern 9.8s, and yes, some copies have very tiny stresses or bends. You can see tiny flaws upon IN-HAND inspection.

 

BUT, these flaws are so small, that it's virtually impossible to make them appear on a scan. Or, they should be tiny non-colorbreaking bends that also don't show up on scans. My thinking is that a SCAN of a 9.8, should look PERFECT.

 

Any flaw allowable in a 9.8. should be so tiny that it won't show up in any normal sized scan.

 

So, when I CAN see color loss at TWO corners and colorbreaking spine stress, my thinking is the book is automatically precluded from being a 9.8... ESPECIALLY when it's a modern!

 

I agree 100%, with the one amendment that any scan-visible flaw would need to be an almost imperceptible production defect that is allowable in grade.

 

What if it's a really great scanner that can pick up just about anything? (I know that they really don't exist, but just curious)

 

And I wonder if you people really are person_without_enough_empathying about the grade, or if you are all just upset that I got it right? Now I don't want to hear anything about me person_without_enough_empathying about the Round 11 grade, cause you guys sure are person_without_enough_empathying about this one.

 

Believe me, no one gives a [#@$%!!!] whether you got it right or not.

 

Good.

 

Not Good, Flipping Great!

 

Davidking623

[davidking623]

Yet Zipper and Donut both gave it a 5.0. I thought it was a 5.0 too, just like I thought the round 4 one was a 5.0. So I bump this thing up to a 6.0 and it comes out a 7.0!!!!!! What the hell are those graders looking at! Why have I never gotten a break from those people in Sarasota!!! I was thinking that the sun must have fried their brains, but Red labels were New Jersey days, probably some kind of toxic waste splashed in their eyes and made them as blind as Matt Murdock!

 

This book IS an odious 7.0. A heavy corner crease, spine stresses, soiled back cover and multiple edge tears and dents along the back open edge.

 

I thought it was moderately worse than the prior 6.0 MTU, so I gave it a 5.0. In my estimation, the highest possible grade it could have gotten was 5.5, and I debated internally over 5.0 and 5.5 for some time.

 

Is there anyone here that would be happy with that "7.0" if they bought it sight unseen? I doubt it.

 

I personally would be happier if that book was'nt in a piece of plastic (The 6.0 MTU 1)so I could read it instead! Dont really understand grading it much either and as for CGC grade of the book they can kiss my @## 5.5 at best and if I was wasted a 9.4 for the story alone as I would have no idea how to grade at that moment! There I feel better on that miserably overgraded 5.0 book! I have been wanting to express that opinion for sometime and now I did it in the right place! Thanks FFB !!!!!

 

Davidking623

[Warlord]

And then,,,,friggin Warlord nails it and knocks me into the Mega-Losers bracket and I can't get a bye either,

 

 

[casey1870]

SCREAM!!! Round 9 was not an 8.0 SCREAM!!! There I feel better...

[Nefaria]

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! 8.0

 

I knew that comic could go as high as an 8.0 yet I still submitted a 6.5 damn Corona & Lime

Who cares I don't feel anything right now.

[Mr. Zipper]

SCREAM!!! Round 9 was not an 8.0 SCREAM!!! There I feel better...

 

The LLC was a bindery chip, and CGC doesn't hammer books for bindery chips... if deduct at all. I've seen much worse corners on squarebound books get higher grades.

[casey1870]

SCREAM!!! Round 9 was not an 8.0 SCREAM!!! There I feel better...

 

The LLC was a bindery chip, and CGC doesn't hammer books for bindery chips... if deduct at all. I've seen much worse corners on squarebound books get higher grades.

 

Thanks zipper for the info.And am not familiar with squarebounds,I still have alot to learn,how can you tell a bindery chip from an impact corner...cause I presumed somebody had impacted the corner......from the bend in the back. I guess you learn something new everyday.

[Mr. Zipper]

Thanks zipper for the info.And am not familiar with squarebounds,I still have alot to learn,how can you tell a bindery chip from an impact corner...cause I presumed somebody had impacted the corner......from the bend in the back. I guess you learn something new everyday.

 

There is a slight impact on the bottom spine, but I don't think it was the cause of the chip.

 

Bindery chips are small tears at the top or bottom on the spine caused in the production process. Sometimes you will see a small semi-circular tear in the paper and sometimes the paper will tear right off as it did in this example. Bindery chips are most often seen on thick golden age books and are very common on squarebounds.

 

Another flaw often seen on the squarebounds is slight fraying at the top and bottom of the spine where the cover paper is sort of peeled away allowing you to see bound edge of the internal pages. Unless it's really severe, CGC goes pretty easy on this as well as it's probably caused because the spine is not properly glued during assembly.

[Nefaria]

Would that explain why I got a 9.2 on this book. I always thought it was a gift due to the piece missing on the LLFC