They're Still Out There! 22 22

[N e r V]

17 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

I've looked at that one very closely and it appears to be a bindery issue, not a mouse chew... 

 

12 hours ago, VintageComics said:

My post was pretty harsh but I still feel the same way about the grade.

I remember seeing a SA key top out at 7.0 or 7.5 because there was a piece missing (likely from production, but really irrelevant how it got that way) inside affecting the story....you couldn't even see it from the outside. The book looked like a VF or VF/NM copy in the holder.

I remember another SA key book top out at 7.0 (I think that's what it topped out at) because there was a round hole punch through the FC.

I don't see how you can have a portion of the entire book missing all the way through and still keep it in the VF range. It seems illogical to me.

So I’d like to ask a question of you two and (hopefully) we don’t get piled on with a bunch of other opinions to detract. This is where my post on Overstreet condition guide is very subjective depending on the grader,collector,dealer,etc and in the end each person probably needs to make their own assessment if they agree or not with a grade.

So on this book I’m going to agree also that it looks like a bindery issue and not a chew. From the scan it looks to clean vs a rat or bug chew which is usually not at all the case. I also own books that have had similar cuts in them just not that location. So for the sake of argument let’s all assume it’s a bindery defect. Now below is the Overstreet condition guide for such:

8.5 VERY FINE+ (VF+):  Back to Top
Fits the criteria for Very Fine but with an additional virtue or small accumulation of virtues that improves the book's appearance by a perceptible amount.

8.0 VERY FINE (VF):  Back to Top
An excellent copy with outstanding eye appeal. A limited accumulation of minor bindery/printing defects is allowed. Cover is relatively flat with minimal surface wear beginning to show, possibly including some minute wear at corners. Inks are generally bright with moderate to high reflectivity. An unnoticeable 1/4" crease is acceptable if color is not broken. Stamped or inked arrival dates may be present. Minor foxing. Spine is almost completely flat with a possible minor color break. Staples may show some discoloration. Very slight staple tears and a few almost insignificant stress lines may be present. Paper is cream to tan and supple. Centerfold is mostly secure. Minor interior tears at the margin may be present.

 

Bindery Perforations: Small, evenly distributed holes on the page margins which sometimes occur as part of the manufacturing process. Not considered a defect.

Bindery/Printing Defects: Various defects done during manufacture. Includes mistrimming/cutting, miswrapping (cover overlaps front or back too much or at an angle), inaccurate stapling, paper wrinkling, off-registered or even missing color, misbound pages, etc.

 

The term “A limited accumulation of minor bindery/printing defects is allowed.” goes all the way up to 9.2 books. At 9.4 it changes to “Subtle bindery/printing defects are allowed.”

 

So if we are following Overstreet and not making up our own grading guides that type of defect is allowed up to the grade of at least 9.2 with it needing to be “subtle” instead of “limited” at 9.4.

The only argument on this book is to what degree this defect should exist and not that it should exist at  all if we agree on Overstreet terms. So I’m asking you two since you are both graders what would you consider a limited bindery defect you would allow on a book up to 9.2 then? I’m going to assume with Vintagecomics he’s going to think it’s to big a cut so how much smaller does it need to be to get that grade? Lions Den are you 100% satisfied with the grade too or would you personally change it?
 

For anyone else who argues it’s not a bindery defect I guess I could say show me a perfectly clean bug/rodent chew because that’s going to be pretty rare. Rats and mice aren’t known for their neatness.

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by N e r V

[buttock]

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

 

So I’d like to ask a question of you two and (hopefully) we don’t get piled on with a bunch of other opinions to detract. This is where my post on Overstreet condition guide is very subjective depending on the grader,collector,dealer,etc and in the end each person probably needs to make their own assessment if they agree or not with a grade.

So on this book I’m going to agree also that it looks like a bindery issue and not a chew. From the scan it looks to clean vs a rat or bug chew which is usually not at all the case. I also own books that have had similar cuts in them just not that location. So for the sake of argument let’s all assume it’s a bindery defect. Now below is the Overstreet condition guide for such:

8.5 VERY FINE+ (VF+):  Back to Top
Fits the criteria for Very Fine but with an additional virtue or small accumulation of virtues that improves the book's appearance by a perceptible amount.

8.0 VERY FINE (VF):  Back to Top
An excellent copy with outstanding eye appeal. A limited accumulation of minor bindery/printing defects is allowed. Cover is relatively flat with minimal surface wear beginning to show, possibly including some minute wear at corners. Inks are generally bright with moderate to high reflectivity. An unnoticeable 1/4" crease is acceptable if color is not broken. Stamped or inked arrival dates may be present. Minor foxing. Spine is almost completely flat with a possible minor color break. Staples may show some discoloration. Very slight staple tears and a few almost insignificant stress lines may be present. Paper is cream to tan and supple. Centerfold is mostly secure. Minor interior tears at the margin may be present.

 

Bindery Perforations: Small, evenly distributed holes on the page margins which sometimes occur as part of the manufacturing process. Not considered a defect.

Bindery/Printing Defects: Various defects done during manufacture. Includes mistrimming/cutting, miswrapping (cover overlaps front or back too much or at an angle), inaccurate stapling, paper wrinkling, off-registered or even missing color, misbound pages, etc.

 

The term “A limited accumulation of minor bindery/printing defects is allowed.” goes all the way up to 9.2 books. At 9.4 it changes to “Subtle bindery/printing defects are allowed.”

 

So if we are following Overstreet and not making up our own grading guides that type of defect is allowed up to the grade of at least 9.2 with it needing to be “subtle” instead of “limited” at 9.4.

The only argument on this book is to what degree this defect should exist and not that it should exist at  all if we agree on Overstreet terms. So I’m asking you two since you are both graders what would you consider a limited bindery defect you would allow on a book up to 9.2 then? I’m going to assume with Vintagecomics he’s going to think it’s to big a cut so how much smaller does it need to be to get that grade? Lions Den are you 100% satisfied with the grade too or would you personally change it?
 

For anyone else who argues it’s not a bindery defect I guess I could say show me a perfectly clean bug/rodent chew because that’s going to be pretty rare. Rats and mice aren’t known for their neatness.

 

decades ago, literally, I had a book similar to this that I sold to Richard Muchin.  He had a concept that I think applies really well when thinking about how to grade something like this.  Picture the average book in VG, FN, VF, etc., and imagine if you would rather have that book or this one.  If you'd rather have a standard VF over this one, then this one isn't VF.  If you'd rather have this one over a standard FN, then this one is nice than FN.  That gives you a range where the book should grade.  Obviously that's going to boil down to some personal preference, but in this case that missing corner would really bother me.  I'd probably take a nice FN over this copy, so I'd mark this one as something like VGF.  I don't know anyone in their right mind who would choose this over a VF, and 8.5 is silly.  

[lou_fine]

13 hours ago, VintageComics said:

18 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

I've looked at that one very closely and it appears to be a bindery issue, not a mouse chew... 

My post was pretty harsh but I still feel the same way about the grade.

Roy;

Exactly what book are you referring to here, since I seem to be getting lost in this maze of books that everybody's talking about here?  

If it's this copy of Subby 12, no matter how hard I look at the spine corners here, I don't really see much of a bindery corner issue here at all:  

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/sub-mariner-comics-12-the-promise-collection-pedigree-timely-1943-cgc-vf-75-white-pages/p/7244-175250.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Preview-SearchResults-120115&lotPosition=23|0#

 

[Mmehdy]

6 hours ago, Timely said:

There are many differences between all the different pedigrees. Different codes and markings, different smells, different texture to how the cover feels, different defects commonly associated with a given pedigree.

 

For example, I noticed many of the early Lost Valley books almost seem slightly brittle. For some reason the paper is extremely thin and it doesn’t take much to tear them. 
 

San Francisco Copies are the Whitest of all the 1940’s pedigrees. They have the crispest feel to them, but the colors and inks don’t “pop” like the Church books do.

 

Crippen books have a more dirty feel to them with minor to moderate foxing. They have a STRONG musky odor to them.

Big Apple Copies smell like gas, Ohio Copies smell like blue cheese.

I could go on and on... it’s like you could write an entire book on it!

As a buyer of multiple copies of each of the Church and SF I agree with the SF copies being the whitest of all the pedigrees I have ever bought directly with my hands. Both were great, by SF has the clear edge in my opinion.

[lou_fine]

3 hours ago, N e r V said:

8.0 VERY FINE (VF):  Back to Top
An excellent copy with outstanding eye appeal. A limited accumulation of minor bindery/printing defects is allowed. Cover is relatively flat with minimal surface wear beginning to show, possibly including some minute wear at corners.

First of all, not sure why you are referring to Overstreet's grading definitions when CGC's own grading definitions have still not been published or disclosed anywhere at all, due to supposedly proprietary reasons?  

Nevertheless, if you were to slab the book according to Overstreet's grading definitions, I guess it really depends upon you definition of what is considered to be "minor" and how big or much you are willing to accept before it moves beyond the minor classification.  Some fussier collectors might see a bindery chip that goes through every single page of the book from cover to cover as being more than minor, while some others might consider it to be only a minor amount.  

Another classic example of to each, their own, although CGC itself should have some type of standard for this which I guess nobody really knows what it is. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by lou_fine

[N e r V]

39 minutes ago, buttock said:

decades ago, literally, I had a book similar to this that I sold to Richard Muchin.  He had a concept that I think applies really well when thinking about how to grade something like this.  Picture the average book in VG, FN, VF, etc., and imagine if you would rather have that book or this one.  If you'd rather have a standard VF over this one, then this one isn't VF.  If you'd rather have this one over a standard FN, then this one is nice than FN.  That gives you a range where the book should grade.  Obviously that's going to boil down to some personal preference, but in this case that missing corner would really bother me.  I'd probably take a nice FN over this copy, so I'd mark this one as something like VGF.  I don't know anyone in their right mind who would choose this over a VF, and 8.5 is silly.  

That’s good advice.

Here’s a 7.5 and 8.0 of the same book for reference.

 

 

[lou_fine]

Is that the same copy of Subby 23 that was first graded as a CGC 8.0 copy back in 2003 and then got downgraded slightly to CGC 7.5 upon being regraded in 2005?  

Not sure about back then, but if this was today, I definitely would have been ecstatic with the CGC 8.0 grade and not try for a resub.  

Edited May 22, 2021 by lou_fine

[Zonker]

8 minutes ago, N e r V said:

 

Here’s a 7.5 and 8.0 of the same book for reference.

 

 

 

 

 

Really interesting.  Look at the 8.0- definitely something going on at the same corner.  Maybe the 7.5 as well, to a much lesser extent.  

[N e r V]

30 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

First of all, not sure why you are referring to Overstreet's grading definitions when CGC's own grading definitions have still not been published or disclosed anywhere at all, due to supposedly proprietary reasons.  

Nevertheless, if you were to slab the book according to Overstreet's grading definitions, I guess it really depends upon you definition of what is considered to be "minor" and how big or much you are willing to accept before it moves beyond the minor classification.  Some fussier collectors might see a bindery chip that goes through every single page of the book from cover to cover as being more than minor, while some others might consider it to be only a minor amount.  

Another classic example of to each, their own, although CGC itself should have some type of standard for this which I guess nobody really knows what it is. 

I used Overstreet simply because it’s one of the oldest grading guides. Yes after looking at a number of sites this morning alone people’s grading standards are all over the place. A number of sites pick and choose what they like from Overstreet and change the wording as they see fit.

Myself I still follow mostly the Overstreet views because the hobby was kind of built on those standards early on and people have altered them as they see fit today pretty badly.

An example is an 8.0 or above is No rust migration. A 7.0 can have Slight rust migration. A 6.0 can have minor rust migration. As a anti rust kind of guy I follow that standard perfectly but a whole lot of sellers including people who sell here don’t seem to see it that way when selling their rusty stapled books. “Yeah man it’s VF/NM copy that has a rusty staple/paper but hey it’s still a solid VF+ man”…seriously 

CGC like everyone else drops the ball on grades (both ways too) as does everyone else so I guess it’s just a matter of how often it happens that makes people feel comfortable or uncomfortable with their grading.

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by N e r V

[N e r V]

7 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Is that the same copy of Subby 23 that was first graded as a CGC 8.0 copy back in 2003 and then got downgraded slightly to CGC 7.5 upon being regraded in 2005?  

Not sure about back then, but if this was today, I definitely would have been ecstatic with the CGC 8.0 grade and not try for a resub.  

Could be. Either way it’s a half or full grade down to compare. If people think the Promise copy is equal and worth the same money as that copy more power to them. I’ll take the Promise copy myself.

[N e r V]

19 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Really interesting.  Look at the 8.0- definitely something going on at the same corner.  Maybe the 7.5 as well, to a much lesser extent.  

That copy has been a favorite of mice and rats for years now. Apparently the lower left corner is the sweet spot in dining. Call it the Kobe beef of comics for the discerning rodent…

[sfcityduck]

4 hours ago, N e r V said:

 

Bindery/Printing Defects: Various defects done during manufacture. Includes mistrimming/cutting, miswrapping (cover overlaps front or back too much or at an angle), inaccurate stapling, paper wrinkling, off-registered or even missing color, misbound pages, etc.

For anyone else who argues it’s not a bindery defect I guess I could say show me a perfectly clean bug/rodent chew because that’s going to be pretty rare. Rats and mice aren’t known for their neatness.

That's not a "perfectly clean" bindery defect.  It's a wavy rip or a chew.  Look at the corner.  Plus, I've never seen a bindery defect like that before.

[sfcityduck]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Is that the same copy of Subby 23 that was first graded as a CGC 8.0 copy back in 2003 and then got downgraded slightly to CGC 7.5 upon being regraded in 2005?  

Not sure about back then, but if this was today, I definitely would have been ecstatic with the CGC 8.0 grade and not try for a resub.  

You're right.  Same books.

[The Lions Den]

4 hours ago, N e r V said:

The only argument on this book is to what degree this defect should exist and not that it should exist at  all if we agree on Overstreet terms. So I’m asking you two since you are both graders what would you consider a limited bindery defect you would allow on a book up to 9.2 then? I’m going to assume with Vintagecomics he’s going to think it’s to big a cut so how much smaller does it need to be to get that grade? Lions Den are you 100% satisfied with the grade too or would you personally change it?

I wouldn't be any higher than 7.5 no matter how nice the rest of it is...

[N e r V]

21 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

That's not a "perfectly clean" bindery defect.  It's a wavy rip or a chew.  Look at the corner.  Plus, I've never seen a bindery defect like that before.

From previous threads on the subject here’s an example of rodent chews and these are the nice looking neat ones. Still looks to clean to me for a rodent chew. Looks exactly like what paper looks like at my work when using a cutter on it. If it’s to thick you get some tearing and not a perfect cut.

 

 

 

[N e r V]

22 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

I wouldn't be any higher than 7.5 no matter how nice the rest of it is...

My personal range was 7.0-8.0 with 8.0 being generous. Price being equal I’d take it over the 7.5/8.0 copy still. So I think many of us believe that ones over graded at least. Wonder how bidders will react? 

[cheetah]

32 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

That's not a "perfectly clean" bindery defect.  It's a wavy rip or a chew.  Look at the corner.  Plus, I've never seen a bindery defect like that before.

So this is a book that was printed then cut and bound using a bent blade?

[N e r V]

7 minutes ago, cheetah said:

So this is a book that was printed then cut and bound using a bent blade?

Another theory is Richard Kiel was over for tea one day and mistook it for a crumpet…

[VintageComics]

4 hours ago, buttock said:

decades ago, literally, I had a book similar to this that I sold to Richard Muchin.  He had a concept that I think applies really well when thinking about how to grade something like this.  Picture the average book in VG, FN, VF, etc., and imagine if you would rather have that book or this one.  If you'd rather have a standard VF over this one, then this one isn't VF.  If you'd rather have this one over a standard FN, then this one is nice than FN.  That gives you a range where the book should grade.  Obviously that's going to boil down to some personal preference, but in this case that missing corner would really bother me.  I'd probably take a nice FN over this copy, so I'd mark this one as something like VGF.  I don't know anyone in their right mind who would choose this over a VF, and 8.5 is silly.  

I do it in a similar manner, but I look at the defect and try to peg the range that this defect would be maximum allowed in.

At first look at the Subby book with the missing corner ( @lou_fine THAT was the book I was talking about) I couldn't see how a book missing an entire corner could be taken out of the VG range so I personally would give the book the maximum VG grade allowed, which is VG/Fine.

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

That's not a "perfectly clean" bindery defect.  It's a wavy rip or a chew.  Look at the corner.  Plus, I've never seen a bindery defect like that before.

 

3 hours ago, Zonker said:

Really interesting.  Look at the 8.0- definitely something going on at the same corner.  Maybe the 7.5 as well, to a much lesser extent.  

And THIS might be why CGC went with the grade it did. If this is a common bindery defect for that issue that would have very well been factored into the grade. There are MANY books with printing defects that are allowed in the grades that wouldn't be on other issues.

If that's the case, I can fully understand why they graded it higher than most would. They treated it like a miscut rather than a chew. And we've seen lots of miscut VF+ books from the GA. I'm guessing they just attributed all of the missing paper from one corner into the grade the way another miscut book might be missing paper along an entire edge.

 

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, cheetah said:

So this is a book that was printed then cut and bound using a bent blade?

Or there was something on the press that was tearing that entire corner off. Kinda like Marvel Chipping but on steroids.

At high speeds you could have that happen 1000's of times before someone realized it was happening and stopped the presses to correct it.