Silver Age High Grade???

[adamstrange]

That`s one of the first WM books that I`ve seen with C-OW pages. However, I have to say the yellowing of the WM copy is pretty par for the course for most white cover SA Marvels. I doubt I would have even considered it to be yellowed. The 9.0 copy is so white I almost have to wonder if it`s a function of the scan. If it`s not, it`s one of the whitest copies I`ve ever seen.

 

Much of the press run for Avengers 4 was printed on rotten paper. As the decades/centuries go by, that issue will be among the first to crumble into dust.

[RickHigh]

I've always considered 8.5 to be the cut off point for HG silver (pre 1965), but looking at some of Burntboy's books, I'm thinking 8.0 might be right up there (as least for DC's anyway!) By the way, I would consider this book HG. So far, I'm the high bidder on it. Hoping that it will slip under the radar, and I can get it cheap!!! What do you think? OAAW #81

[tth2]

By the way, I would consider this book HG. So far, I'm the high bidder on it. Hoping that it will slip under the radar, and I can get it cheap!!! What do you think? OAAW #81

Uh, perhaps putting a link to this book is not the best way to slip under the radar? I agree it's a very nice book!

[Aman619]

nice book.... Metro has one in their catalog. Is this that copy??

[goldust40]

nice book.... Metro has one in their catalog. Is this that copy??

 

No, although that one looks remarkably sharp (it's an 8.0).

[JohnBull]

I'm with Eric, I don't think HG is a sliding scale that depends on availability.

 

In my opinion, the historic standard for HG has been 8.5/VF+ or higher. It's an aesthetic standard, not based on availability or desirability. Whether you can find copies in "HG" from any particular era, and whether you are willing to lower your standards and purchase a non-HG book because no HG copies are available, are different issues entirely. Just because you can't find a minty fresh copy of All-American 16 doesn't mean that a ragged out 3.0 copy is HG. It might be desirable, because you can't find a better copy, but it's still not HG.

 

Conversely, you can find a zillion Spawn #1s in 8.5 and above, and even though nobody wants an 8.5 copy, it doesn't mean it's not HG. It's just that people want an even higher grade.

 

'High' has to be a relative concept. Whether you choose to relate it to the set of all comics ever produced or just to the sub-set nearest to the example you're looking at, is a matter of choice.

 

If there are 10 million copies of Spawn #1 and 9.5 million of these are in cgc9.2+, then an 8.5 is not high grade for a Spawn #1. It may be high grade when compared with all the available DC's from the period 1936 to 1966, but what is that telling me?

[tth2]

I'm with Eric, I don't think HG is a sliding scale that depends on availability.

 

In my opinion, the historic standard for HG has been 8.5/VF+ or higher. It's an aesthetic standard, not based on availability or desirability. Whether you can find copies in "HG" from any particular era, and whether you are willing to lower your standards and purchase a non-HG book because no HG copies are available, are different issues entirely. Just because you can't find a minty fresh copy of All-American 16 doesn't mean that a ragged out 3.0 copy is HG. It might be desirable, because you can't find a better copy, but it's still not HG.

 

Conversely, you can find a zillion Spawn #1s in 8.5 and above, and even though nobody wants an 8.5 copy, it doesn't mean it's not HG. It's just that people want an even higher grade.

 

'High' has to be a relative concept. Whether you choose to relate it to the set of all comics ever produced or just to the sub-set nearest to the example you're looking at, is a matter of choice.

 

If there are 10 million copies of Spawn #1 and 9.5 million of these are in cgc9.2+, then an 8.5 is not high grade for a Spawn #1. It may be high grade when compared with all the available DC's from the period 1936 to 1966, but what is that telling me?

I say tomato, you say tomahto.

[sfilosa]

Tim.

 

I don't believe you clearly address my point which was:

 

"Is CGC's NUMERICAL GRADE, the only consideration on what is or isn't HG"?

 

Would you say a CGC 8.5 with Light Tan to Off-White page is automatically HG and a CGC 8.0 with White pages is not.

[tth2]

Tim.

 

I don't believe you clearly address my point which was:

 

"Is CGC's NUMERICAL GRADE, the only consideration on what is or isn't HG"?

 

Would you say a CGC 8.5 with Light Tan to Off-White page is automatically HG and a CGC 8.0 with White pages is not.

Steve, I thought I did, when I said this earlier in this thread:

 

"The CGC numerical grade, or the old-fashioned VF, NM grade, which is based on structure, is the baseline. In other words, a structurally 7.5 with blinding gloss and bright white pages still wouldn't qualify as HG, in my opinion. Perhaps a structurally 8.5 book with horrible appearance and poor page quality should not qualify as HG, even though structurally it meets the minimum requirement. The point is that if it weren't structurally an 8.5, it would never even be up for consideration."

 

If it's not at least 8.5 structurally, I won't consider it to be HG not matter how superlative its other attributes. If it's 8.5 structurally but really deficient in other ways, primarily PQ, I guess I wouldn't consider it to be HG either.

[JohnBull]

I say tomato, you say tomahto.

 

No, I say tomato, you say tomateo.

[tth2]

I say tomato, you say tomahto.

 

No, I say tomato, you say tomateo.

Wasn't he a former Liverpool and Leeds fullback?

[skybolt]

I say tomato, you say tomahto.

 

No, I say tomato, you say tomateo.

Wasn't he a former Liverpool and Leeds fullback?

 

The Netherlands 1978 World Cup soccer team had someone named Tomato.

[JohnBull]

I say tomato, you say tomahto.

 

No, I say tomato, you say tomateo.

Wasn't he a former Liverpool and Leeds fullback?

 

The Netherlands 1978 World Cup soccer team had someone named Tomato.

 

Didn't he make crappy synthesizer records in Japan in the 1970's?