• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Batman 1 CGC 9.4!!!!
6 6

Started by LDarkseid1,

844 posts in this topic

lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2020 at 12:12 PM, N e r V said:

Even if you wanted to consider pressing micro-trimming resto. there’s not a single person out there that can detect for 100% that a books been pressed all the time so what’s the point. 

Well, if that's the case then how about micro-trimming if it's been done properly since that also can't be detected with 100% accuracy?  hm

Not talking about trimming a la Dupchak style, but micro-trimming a la Ewert style.  (tsk)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:
7 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

I believe you spoke too soon, as these CGC Graders Notes can be yours to share with all of us if you are willing to fork over a measly $10 to them:  :gossip:

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0065735001/

 

Oh that’s soo weird! Wonder why the 9.0 would still be recognized, whilst it is now a 9.6. Unless sent in raw and previous label wasn’t provided to remove the 9.0 grade 🤷‍♂️

Yes indeed, as I believe the CGC 9.0 label was never turned back in, but the CGC 9.6 label was turned back in when they added another CGC 9.8 graded copy into the census when it became the tied for the highest graded copy along with the Church copy of this book.  hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDarkseid1

LDarkseid1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, lou_fine said:

Yes indeed, as I believe the CGC 9.0 label was never turned back in, but the CGC 9.6 label was turned back in when they added another CGC 9.8 graded copy into the census when it became the tied for the highest graded copy along with the Church copy of this book.  hm

Hmm, well I’m interested, but not enough to spend $10 lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LDarkseid1 said:
2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Same here as I am always curious, but not willing to spend my $10 for the info.  lol

Guess I didn't pique enough of your interest to make you spend your $10.  :baiting:

You came close Lou, super close!

Well, how about if it comes back in its next incarnation as a CGC 10.0 graded copy then?  :bigsmile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Mmehdy said:
On 12/28/2020 at 12:12 PM, N e r V said:

Even if you wanted to consider pressing resto. there’s not a single person out there that can detect for 100% that a books been pressed all the time so what’s the point. 

what is the point of pressing a GA/SA comic book...to "game" the grading system and get the grade pumped up on steroids.

Mitch;

Is this like a case of something like what came first:  the chicken or the egg?  hm

The point of pressing might just be to level back the playing field so that you don't receive overly egregious punishment grades from CGC.  :gossip:

After all, wasn't it really CGC who "game" their undisclosed grading standards in order to pump up both their top line and bottom line to keep the CCG ownership happy?  hm (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, N e r V said:
22 hours ago, batman_fan said:

It would be nice if they downgraded some of the clear signs of bad pressing (see Sunken Staples for an example).

Yes, I know opinions vary on pressing but I think everyone agrees it’s a shame to see perfectly good books destroyed by bad pressing being done. Just like those who allowed cokes to be spilled on books or let cats pee on them...:devil:

I believe this was something that was indeed done when pressing first came to light on these boards way back in 2005, as Borock stated rather emphatically that books would be downgraded for defects arising from improperly performed pressing.  (thumbsu

From reading feedback on these boards here at the time, I believe this tolerance for pressing defects became more acceptable as time went on and definitely in place about 5 years ago after the pressing maestro (i.e. Nelson himself) shifted over from CCS to become the Head Grader at CGC.  hm

Especially since the newbies that took over the pressing work at CCS simply didn't have the same expertise and the CCG ownership knew they would be losing a substantial portion of their additional streams of revenues (i.e. pressing, resubs, etc.) if CGC started to downgrade for pressing defects that were now coming out from their own shop. :devil:  :censored:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N e r V

N e r V

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Well, if that's the case then how about micro-trimming if it's been done properly since that also can't be detected with 100% accuracy?  hm

Not talking about trimming a la Dupchak style, but micro-trimming a la Ewert style.  (tsk)

 

Use color touch as an example then. If there’s enough of it then it’s noted and falls into whatever section they decide but if there’s literally an undetectable amount of color touch should anyone really care at that point? 
 

There comes a point with anything if it’s so tiny and undetectable should you worry about it or how far should we take it to put it under the most powerful microscope in the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBedrock

MrBedrock

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/28/2020 at 6:41 PM, MasterChief said:

Frankly speaking, I’m of the opinion that if an educated hobbyist is advocating the position that the Church Collection could somehow be considered as having been naturally "pressed"  inasmuch the way that mechanical pressing produces treatment results, whether performed using the disassembled, intact, or localized treatment method, they are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to marginalize the concerns surrounding the issue and/or demonstrating a blatant desire and determination to publicly avoid the truth.

This response to Crowzilla's statement that the Church books were "naturally pressed" has sat here for a while with no response (other than a couple of folks whose emojis shed tears for me) and that really bugs me.

Whether or not, or to what degree, anyone believes that stacking comics in a pile for a long period of time in perfect storage conditions constitutes "natural pressing" is irrelevant to the comment above. What is relevant is that this poster feels so strongly in his viewpoint that if someone has the gall to disagree with him they must be "intellectually dishonest", and therefore his position must be intellectually honest.

I think that is a ridiculous, overbearing, self-aggrandizing stance to take in a discussion that has no definitive proof to back up either side.

Now the last time I disagreed with someone here I was labeled sexist. I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person. So be it.

But nobody puts Sean in the corner!!!

(And for the record I think the Church books were simply a result of optimal storage)

Edited by MrBedrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
buttock

buttock

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

This response to Crowzilla's statement that the Church books were "naturally pressed" has sat here for a while with no response (other than a couple of folks whose emojis shed tears for me) and that really bugs me.

Whether or not, or to what degree, anyone believes that stacking comics in a pile for a long period of time in perfect storage conditions constitutes "natural pressing" is irrelevant to the comment above. What is relevant is that this poster feels so strongly in his viewpoint that if someone has the gall to disagree with him they must be "intellectually dishonest", and therefore his position must be intellectually honest.

I think that is a ridiculous, overbearing, self-aggrandizing stance to take in a discussion that has no definitive proof to back up either side.

Now the last time I disagreed with someone here I was labeled sexist. I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person. So be it.

But nobody puts Sean in the corner!!!

(And for the record I think the Church books were simply a result of optimal storage)

I like you and I like Roy and I like Church books.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
porcupine48

porcupine48

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, batman_fan said:

I would really have to see Mr Bedrock in black leather pants, preferable shirtless, before I could draw any conclusion.

Ditto.

(nobody post that damn Roy pic either or I'll wangpic your inbox)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
porcupine48

porcupine48

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

 

Now the last time I disagreed with someone here I was labeled sexist. I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person. So be it.

Someone picking on you long tall and good taste in comics and tunes?

Shall I release the Kraken?

Spoiler

116042132_711676226342149_45334112208936

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
6 6
Go to topic listing