Tedsaid Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said: By the way...I donated the $5 to CaptainCanuck for his GoFundMe Detective #359 notes. A little roundabout, but why not spread the love...? Okay, now THAT'S hilarious. Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said: By the way...I donated the $5 to CaptainCanuck for his GoFundMe Detective #359 notes. A little roundabout, but why not spread the love...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 The notorious B U Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) via Imgflip Meme Generator Edited August 1, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) I have a few questions for those who seem adamant that CGC caught something missed by CBCS. Before I get into this though, can someone please run a serial number lookup on the book - I can't seem to verify it through CGC's website and want to make sure it isn't only me that's having this issue. The cert number as I see it on the label is 2032899001 Edited August 1, 2019 by comicwiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedsaid Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, comicwiz said: I have a few questions for those who seem adamant that CGC caught something missed by CBCS. Before I get into this though, can someone please run a serial number lookup on the book - I can't seem to verify it through CGC's website and want to make sure it isn't only me that's having this issue. The cert number as I see it on the label is 2032899001 Well, I am getting the same message. That cert number no longer exists. Which is odd. Have they already submitted for re-regrading? I know CBCS, as a matter of practice, will send CGC labels back to CGC, to update the census. So it could have go to either place for a new grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: Well, I am getting the same message. That cert number no longer exists. Which is odd. Have they already submitted for re-regrading? I know CBCS, as a matter of practice, will send CGC labels back to CGC, to update the census. So it could have go to either place for a new grade. I think it might be down. No cert numbers are running through at the moment. I'd like to find out when this was graded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedsaid Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, comicwiz said: I think it might be down. No cert numbers are running through at the moment. I'd like to find out when this was graded. Ah, I see. Well, Buzzetta posted that it was graded in April of 2019. He checked previously, and posted it at the CBCS forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) In the meantime, some food for thought on the "CT" that has been noted by CGC. Beyond the issue I see with assigning an "apparent" grade (specifically CT) on something with a black mark or stain that size, and in that location, check out this blue label 9.4 with the black marker running at the lower right corner, which runs at least 6x the length of the one on the Tec 359 being discussed in this thread (I think it's more like 8x the length). Miraculously, and somehow, it still managed a 9.4, and no CT notation. Amazing what some consistency could do for discussions of this nature, and yet, here it is to further confuse us. Edited August 1, 2019 by comicwiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: Ah, I see. Well, Buzzetta posted that it was graded in April of 2019. He checked previously, and posted it at the CBCS forum. @Buzzetta do you remember the exact date? Otherwise, if someone can check when the resource is back up and can post a screenshot, please tag me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, comicwiz said: In the meantime, some food for thought on the "CT" that has been noted by CGC. Beyond the issue I see with assigning an "apparent" grade (specifically CT) on something with a black mark or stain that size, and in that location, check out this blue label 9.4 with the black marker running at the lower right corner, which runs at least 6x the length of the one on the Tec 359 being discussed in this thread (I think it's more like 8x the length). Miraculously, and somehow, it still managed a 9.4, and no CT notation. Amazing what some consistency could do for discussions of this nature, and yet, here it is to further confuse us. Wait... Why would black marker not intended as restoration be indicated as "color touch"...? Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said: Wait... Why would black marker not intended as restoration be indicated as "color touch"...? That's a great question! Judging by the other Tec 359 with a mark covering a white square, you'd think the intent wasn't to hide anything, or got there with the intention of restoring the comic. Yet CGC refers to it as CT on one book, but not the other. Edited August 1, 2019 by comicwiz Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, comicwiz said: That's a great question! Judging by the other Tec 359 with a mark cover a white square, you'd think the intent wasn't to hide anything, or got there with the intention of restoring the comic. Yet CGC refers to it as CT. What's to say that that (the black mark) is what CGC is notating as color touch? There could be color touch elsewhere. Tedsaid and kav 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedsaid Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, comicwiz said: In the meantime, some food for thought on the "CT" that has been noted by CGC. Beyond the issue I see with assigning an "apparent" grade (specifically CT) on something with a black mark or stain that size, and in that location, check out this blue label 9.4 with the black marker running at the lower right corner, which runs at least 6x the length of the one on the Tec 359 being discussed in this thread (I think it's more like 8x the length). Miraculously, and somehow, it still managed a 9.4, and no CT notation. Amazing what some consistency could do for discussions of this nature, and yet, here it is to further confuse us. Well, it looks like a distribution mark. As with arrival dates, those don't generally count against the grade, especially if they are unobtrusive like this one. At least, I'm guessing that's why. Perhaps ANY mark doesn't count a lot against a grade if it's unobtrusive. After all, sometimes they'll give a blue label to an unverified signature and just knock it down a grade and note the sig. A Stan Lee signature, for example, would be a lot bigger than this tiny mark. If the black mark is what they were counting as CT on the op, that is incorrect. CT is used to (try to) make the comic look better, not worse. If that's it, someone at CGC REALLY screwed up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said: What's to say that that (the black mark) is what CGC is notating as color touch? There could be color touch elsewhere. There could be, but I doubt it. I trust the person detecting resto at CBCS more, but I'll hopefully get into that when I find out when the purple label Tec 359 was graded. Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, comicwiz said: There could be, but I doubt it. I trust the person detecting resto at CBCS more, but I'll hopefully get into that when I find out when the purple label Tec 359 was graded. The guy that doesn't use a black light to assist in restoration detection...? To each their own - I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Tedsaid said: Well, it looks like a distribution mark. I said that in one of my first comments, because if you zoom in closely you can see it a little better. But someone mentioned "felt pen" so I resorted to calling it a "straying" mark - the point was to notate it as a mark, like you would a pen/pencil or grease pencil "on cover", not CT. Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, theCapraAegagrus said: The guy that doesn't use a black light to assist in restoration detection...? To each their own - I guess. I hate to break it to you, but these guys don't use any tools like microscopes or black light (which is ironic, since they used such imagery in their earliest ads), just their seasoned eyes. The person doing it at CBCS could detect it from across the room, that's how confident I am with his abilities. Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedsaid Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said: The guy that doesn't use a black light to assist in restoration detection...? To each their own - I guess. Has that been verified, that CBCS doesn't use black light? One guy mentioned that over at the CBCS board, but he doesn't work there. Sounds odd to me. (And to him.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: Has that been verified, that CBCS doesn't use black light? One guy mentioned that over at the CBCS board, but he doesn't work there. Sounds odd to me. (And to him.) FWIW you don't need a black light, nor would it work on "black" media (i.e. marker, pen, overspray, etc). Edited August 1, 2019 by comicwiz Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
