How is this a 5.5 with the piece out? 2 2

[Bayowolf]

This was just sold on Heritage Auctions $240 w fee. How could CGC grade this as a 5.5 with that piece out on back bottom left corner?

[Funnybooks]

I've seen cgc 7.0 graded books with a 1 inch tear, so, it's not hard to conceive a book with a 1.5-1.75 inch tear grading in the 5.0/5.5 range by their standards

However, that piece out does suggest it should have graded lower...

Edited May 24, 2021 by Funnybooks

[Galen130]

The bigger the piece missing, the harder that grade gets dinged...

[theCapraAegagrus]

A 5.5 isn't really farfetched here.

[djzombi]

That is a considerable chunk.  I wouldn't put that higher than a 4.0, to be honest.  

[kav]

I mean lets say a book is otherwise an 8.0 but has that piece missing-does that knock it all theway down to a 4.0?  I dont see a problem with a 5.5.

Edited May 26, 2021 by kav

[djzombi]

7 hours ago, kav said:

I mean lets say a book is otherwise an 8.0 but has that piece missing-does that knock it all theway down to a 4.0?  

Yes.  
Otherwise, it gets a "qualified" label.  If you're gonna go blue, you take the hit.  

[kav]

4 hours ago, djzombi said:

Yes.  
Otherwise, it gets a "qualified" label.  If you're gonna go blue, you take the hit.  

well i've done several grading contests and i have to disagree a missing piece that size knocks a book down 4 full grade points.

[djzombi]

[Funnybooks]

Where's Dylan?

[William-James88]

I don't like it, but I see what CGC did here. Overstreet wise it should not be a 5.5, BUT at times CGC does play the compensation game with their grades, which we see a lot of when it comes to detached covers/centrefolds and the like. 

[Randall Dowling]

That book shouldn't be any better than a 4.0.  If you have a perfect book with a subscription crease, it would be a 5.0 at best.  If a rat chewed off a corner of a book, it's a 3.0 at best.

I suppose next someone is going to tell me that a 3-hole punched comic can grade 8.0 as long as the rest is really nice.  

[rjpb]

On 5/26/2021 at 6:50 PM, William-James88 said:

I don't like it, but I see what CGC did here. Overstreet wise it should not be a 5.5, BUT at times CGC does play the compensation game with their grades, which we see a lot of when it comes to detached covers/centrefolds and the like. 

It's not the first time I've seen them give books with fairly notable pieces missing a grade higher than one would have thought, though it seems more often that the book is from the Golden Age. As you say, CGC generally seems to have higher thresh holds for specific flaws than Overstreet guidelines would accept. On a personal level, sometimes I agree with this assessment, sometimes I don't, in this case I don't think they are too far off, but that's in part because I don't consider back cover flaws to be quite as impactful as front cover flaws. I seemed to be in the minority when I brought that topic up for discussion on the boards years ago, with the general opinion that a flaw is a flaw, and should factor the same into the grade whether front or back cover. Most argued that CGC does not make a distinction when considering front and back cover flaws, and perhaps in their actual guidelines this might be true, but I've seen enough books to feel certain that at least subconsciously they often do make the distinction. Had that same piece been missing front a front corner and not the back, I imagine it would have gotten a 5.0.

[Kevin76]

Here is your answer as to why it's a 5.5 with a missing piece.   Starts @ 4:55