Scooby Doo #1 (1970) centerfold question? 0

[Philreal]

So I see this copy with this centerfold:

and I see this copy without it:

 

so is this one missing the centerfold or are there two different variations? 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Philreal

[kav]

13 minutes ago, Philreal said:

So I see this copy with this centerfold:

and I see this copy without it:

 

so is this one missing the centerfold or are there two different varieties? 

count the pages

[Philreal]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

count the pages

Hi Kav,

unfortunately they are both for sale on ebay. I guess I could ask each to give me a page count but seeing as the centerfold in the 1st doesn't have a story line to it apparently even on the sides you cant see, could it just have been left out in some copies?

[kav]

1 minute ago, Philreal said:

Hi Kav,

unfortunately they are both for sale on ebay. I guess I could ask each to give me a page count but seeing as the centerfold in the 1st doesn't have a story line to it apparently even on the sides you cant see, could it just have been left out in some copies?

Almost certainly a missing centerfold.  Make that certainly.

[Badger]

For what it is worth, the Grand Comicbook database includes those reader's pages in their page count. Scooby Doo #1

[Philreal]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

For what it is worth, the Grand Comicbook database includes those reader's pages in their page count. Scooby Doo #1

Thanks Badger! 

So if missing I'm assuming CGC would catch that during grading process and be labeled as incomplete?

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Philreal said:

Thanks Badger! 

So if missing I'm assuming CGC would catch that during grading process and be labeled as incomplete?

I remember a wonder woman with missing centerfold in grading contest got a 0.5 grade.  

Edited March 6, 2019 by kav

[Badger]

I would hope so, yes. Looking at the census I do not see a variant entry for Scooby Doo #1 which seems to indicate that the one with the reader's pages is the only one there is.

[Philreal]

just saw this so I guess that answers that question:

 

[Badger]

Just now, Philreal said:

just saw this so I guess that answers that question:

 

Yeah, it got a qualified 5.5. Not sure I agree that an incomplete should be eligible for a qualified grade but there you have it.

[kav]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yeah, it got a qualified 5.5. Not sure I agree that an incomplete should be eligible for a qualified grade but there you have it.

If it affected story I bet it wouldnt.

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Yeah, it got a qualified 5.5. Not sure I agree that an incomplete should be eligible for a qualified grade but there you have it.

That's the best use for the Qualified grade. You could have 2 books that are technically 0.5, but what's there may be NM for the first copy while the other one looks like it had been sitting at the bottom of a birdcage for a decade.

[Buzzetta]

Just now, kav said:

Golly so that's wut qualified grades are for!  Thx professor!

Sigh... @kav PM me.  You of all people need to see something. 

[Badger]

18 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

That's the best use for the Qualified grade. You could have 2 books that are technically 0.5, but what's there may be NM for the first copy while the other one looks like it had been sitting at the bottom of a birdcage for a decade.

Not really, at least in my opinion, incomplete is incomplete. The qualified grade was created for e.g. a popped  staple on an otherwise NM book. Do you take the blue 6.0 or the green 9.4? Meh. When you start glossing over such major not so obvious damage you start down the proverbial slippery slope.

[Lazyboy]

11 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not really, at least in my opinion, incomplete is incomplete. The qualified grade was created for e.g. a popped  staple on an otherwise NM book. Do you take the blue 6.0 or the green 9.4? Meh. When you start glossing over such major not so obvious damage you start down the proverbial slippery slope.

 Where is the value in assigning a 0.5 grade to two books each missing the centerfold when one looks pristine while the other is torn, soiled, and creased?

It's much worse to qualify something like a popped staple.

[Badger]

10 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

 Where is the value in assigning a 0.5 grade to two books each missing the centerfold when one looks pristine while the other is torn, soiled, and creased?

It's much worse to qualify something like a popped staple.

One of the reasons why the Green label is not liked is that the range of defects it hides is literally from the almost inconsequential, like a name on the first page, to being incomplete. Torn, soiled, and creased is obvious but a green label that is hiding the fact a book is incomplete is far from obvious and it confuses newbies about how much they should pay. The point of CGC is to help remove the uncertainty about grades when buying. A Green label on an incomplete book just leads to confusion.