What must I do to get your grade... on this True Life Secrets #23? 0

[obiedagod]

7.0-7.5

[Point Five]

4 hours ago, BuscemasAvengers said:

So how much evidence is needed to determine those marks are, in fact, printer defects? (not that I'm asking boardies to start posting covers on a rampant scale) ... but I thought it would be interesting to see compare covers ... how would CGC respond to, say, 30 covers of similar defects?

That's an interesting train of thought. How do CGC graders keep track of production defects like these across hundreds of thousands of books? That can't be easy.

 

[davet75]

Agree with the 7.0-7.5 camp.

structurally looks VF, but the foxing and scuffing (if not considered production) brings it down to a 7.0.  If that scuff is production then 7.5.

 

4 hours ago, Point Five said:

That's an interesting train of thought. How do CGC graders keep track of production defects like these across hundreds of thousands of books? That can't be easy.

 

database of scans is my guess

[The Lions Den]

13 hours ago, davet75 said:

Agree with the 7.0-7.5 camp.

structurally looks VF, but the foxing and scuffing (if not considered production) brings it down to a 7.0.  If that scuff is production then 7.5.

 

database of scans is my guess

 

Truth be told, most books with similar and/or common production flaws aren't usually noted in a CGC database or kept track of in an Excel file. The exceptions would be books that are counterfeit or which have unusual page counts, or which have something else which sets them apart from the crowd by a large margin. Books like the one shown above (which I would classify as very mild with regard to the production defects) will simply be graded, encapsulated and shipped like hundreds of others. What many folks may not understand is that experienced CGC graders usually have outstanding memories.    

I will say I like both of these copies. And I was being conservative when I gave the first copy a 7.5. This is the kind of book I could see getting an 8.0 without any trouble at all...

[The Lions Den]

18 hours ago, Point Five said:

That's an interesting train of thought. How do CGC graders keep track of production defects like these across hundreds of thousands of books? That can't be easy.

 

They'll immediately recognize these flaws for what they are and not give it a second thought...

[FoggyNelson]

A solid 6.5‼️‼️🤔🤔😳

[AJD]

On 5/1/2019 at 8:30 AM, JollyComics said:

Two books with similar manufacturing defects is very helpful and resourceful so it is at least 7.0 but both copies.

This is a well-known printer's error. (There's a thread of these over in the grading/resto forum). Here's a third copy with the same glitches.

[rjpb]

Structurally it looks in the 7.5 range or so, but it looks a little dirty (though that might be the scan), with possible staining between the girl and the necklace, making it harder to grade. 

I've never seen a copy that didn't have the scuff in the "TRUE" part of the diagonal banner, though it can vary in size. I would consider that a printing defect.