Post your Promise Collection wins! 17 17

[buttock]

On 7/27/2023 at 4:13 PM, sfcityduck said:

Promise Detective 135 originally sold for $26.4K (approximately $22K more than any other copy Heritage has sold) is back on the market.

But is it a 9.8?

 

 

 

 

Yes.  It says 9.8 in the top left corner.  

[adamstrange]

On 7/27/2023 at 6:37 PM, MrBedrock said:

On 7/27/2023 at 6:28 PM, Sarg said:

No book with prominent writing in the middle of the cover is 9.8. I don't care if GCG wants to pretend it isn't there. 

I disagree.

Per CGC standards, distributor date on GA is incompatible with a 9.9 or 10.0 but allowed in 9.8.

I can't see anything from the front cover scan that is out of alignment with what I would expect in a 9.8 by my standards or CGC standards. There can always be defects on the back cover, and there may be defects that are only viewable with the book in hand.

Edited July 28, 2023 by adamstrange

[sfcityduck]

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, adamstrange said:

 

I can't see anything from the front cover scan that is out of alignment with what I would expect in a 9.8 by my standards or CGC standards. 

Top Left:

Versus Bottom left:

That looks like misalignment to me. 

A look at top and bottom pics also suggests that the right side of the cover is smaller than the spine as the corners aren't square. Thus, the cover is a trapazoid with the spine bigger than the right edge leading to increasing exposure of internal pages on the top and bottom towards the right side edge.  Is that normal alignment for a 9.8? (Serious not sarcastic question).

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Sarg]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:06 PM, adamstrange said:

Per CGC standards, distributor date on GA is incompatible with a 9.9 or 10.0 but allowed in 9.8.

I can't see anything from the front cover scan that is out of alignment with what I would expect in a 9.8 by my standards or CGC standards. There can always be defects on the back cover, and there may be defects that are only viewable with the book in hand.

Yes. I disagree with CGC "standards," which are, of course, arbitrary, subjective, and debatable. The notion that, for example, a mild spine roll could knock a whole point off the grade while large, prominent writing in the middle of a cover only counts for a .2 reduction is pure whimsy, utterly devoid of anything resembling aesthetic judgement. 

[buttock]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:57 PM, Sarg said:

Yes. I disagree with CGC "standards," which are, of course, arbitrary, subjective, and debatable. The notion that, for example, a mild spine roll could knock a whole point off the grade while large, prominent writing in the middle of a cover only counts for a .2 reduction is pure whimsy, utterly devoid of anything resembling aesthetic judgement. 

That seems arbitrary, subjective, and debatable. 

[Cat-Man_America]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:06 PM, adamstrange said:

Per CGC standards, distributor date on GA is incompatible with a 9.9 or 10.0 but allowed in 9.8.

I can't see anything from the front cover scan that is out of alignment with what I would expect in a 9.8 by my standards or CGC standards. There can always be defects on the back cover, and there may be defects that are only viewable with the book in hand.

I would almost suggest that CGC appears too hypercritical in respect to business and owner related marks on pedigree books. Distributor marks, dates, store stamps, etc. on a pedigree are the equivalent of mint marks or striking anomalies on a coin. The inclusions shouldn't penalize them, but like a high grade "proof" coin it separates it from commoner issues and considered a part of its enhanced value. In that respect, a 9.9 or 10.0 should be in reach, ...and Spinal Tap books should be able to get up to 11.0!  

Conversely, if I were being critical ...and as stated before, I'm totally neutral in respect to the Detective Comic discussed above... it seems like a case of a 9.8 classification that's too generous.  Before going on, just let me say the Promise Collection pedigree is a wonderful pedigree with many high grade books, without question!  

But in any real world analysis, one should be willing to occasionally ask tough question(s): Are these really superior in appearance to earlier graded pedigree counterparts which we admire as legendary, such as Edgar Church/Mile High, San Francisco/Reilly, Denver, Vancouver, etc.? There are white PQ examples among these books which appear equal to or better than grade, but only garner 9.4 or 9.6. I'd be hard pressed (pun intended) to find better Promise books that look as nice as their counterparts.  In the competition for grades, a tie should raises all bids, right?  Just my

BTW, I'm not trying to upset anyone reading these remarks as I own several Promise books and see this ongoing topic as fair and reasonable. I just think that books in the Promise Collection pedigree deserve more scrutiny and should be taken on a case by case basis. If that comes across as undue criticism of the pedigree, it's not intended as this is only meant as constructive criticism. 

 

[adamstrange]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:57 PM, Sarg said:

Yes. I disagree with CGC "standards," which are, of course, arbitrary, subjective, and debatable. The notion that, for example, a mild spine roll could knock a whole point off the grade while large, prominent writing in the middle of a cover only counts for a .2 reduction is pure whimsy, utterly devoid of anything resembling aesthetic judgement. 

From Day 1 of CGC I have not liked their standards since, inexplicably, they did not adopt mine.

I know what I like and, sometimes CGC makes that easier when they supply a low grade to a copy I think highly of.  In other cases, CGC makes it harder when they give too high of a grade to a book I like.

[tth2]

On 7/28/2023 at 3:40 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

I'm neutral, but 9.8 does seem a stretch and I do wish CGC took miscut/miswrapped/misaligned books into account for such high grades.

I guess CGC's position has always been that their job is to identify things that can't be easily or fully identified through a scan of a slab, such as structural defects and PQ, but anyone with eyes can look at a scan and see the QP problems and judge for themselves whether they still want the book.  Some people don't care about QP and some do.

For this reason, I don't understand why CGC say that writing is permitted in some grades and not in others.  Just grade the book for structure and let the buyers decide for themselves if they care about the writing or not.

Edited July 29, 2023 by tth2

[adamstrange]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

Thus, the cover is a trapazoid with the spine bigger than the right edge leading to increasing exposure of internal pages on the top and bottom towards the right side edge.  Is that normal alignment for a 9.8? (Serious not sarcastic question).

I would not knock the book out of a 9.8 for that minor of a variance from a pure rectangle, and I don't think CGC does either.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

On 7/28/2023 at 9:48 PM, tth2 said:

I guess CGC's position has always been that their job is to identify things that can't be easily or fully identified through a scan of a slab, such as structural defects and PQ, but anyone with eyes can look at a scan and see the QP problems and judge for themselves whether they still want the book.  Some people don't care about QP and some do.

For this reason, I don't understand why CGC say that writing is permitted in some grades and not in others.  Just grade the book for structure and let the buyers decide for themselves if they care about the writing or not.

Points well taken. I can understand writing, book store or date stamps on the label in respect to establishing a discernible pedigree mark, but allow me another hypothetical scenario.

If one owns a book that's say a 9.4 or 9.6 formerly highest graded copy with virtually no flaws (pedigree or not), and the renowned grading company permits another copy of the book with obvious structural flaws ...but for the sake of this hypothetical little or no other discernible difference of opinion in interior quality... to be graded 9.8 thereby supplanting the formerly highest graded book in status, visa-vie perceived value, how does this maintain trust and respect for the grading process?

Of coarse, one could resubmit the 9.4 or 9.6 with all the inherent risk and cost that entails ...on top of now having reservations about the grading regimen... or simply resign one's self to having the second tier grade. I suspect Joseph Heller would appreciate this analogous hypothetical, but I can only imagine how disappointed the owner of the now second tier book would feel being caught up in this hamster wheel game of thrones. If you can make it through this entire hypothetical and it still makes some kinda sense, you deserve a beer! 

[tth2]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:01 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

On 7/29/2023 at 10:48 AM, tth2 said:

I guess CGC's position has always been that their job is to identify things that can't be easily or fully identified through a scan of a slab, such as structural defects and PQ, but anyone with eyes can look at a scan and see the QP problems and judge for themselves whether they still want the book.  Some people don't care about QP and some do.

For this reason, I don't understand why CGC say that writing is permitted in some grades and not in others.  Just grade the book for structure and let the buyers decide for themselves if they care about the writing or not.

Expand  

Points well taken. I can understand writing, book store or date stamps on the label in respect to establishing a discernible pedigree mark, but allow me another hypothetical scenario.

If one owns a book that's say a 9.4 or 9.6 formerly highest graded copy with virtually no flaws (pedigree or not), and the renowned grading company permits another copy of the book with obvious structural flaws ...but for the sake of this hypothetical little or no other discernible difference of opinion in interior quality... to be graded 9.8 thereby supplanting the formerly highest graded book in status, visa-vie perceived value, how does this maintain trust and respect for the grading process?

I don't understand what your scenario has to do with QP, writing or any other clearly visible aesthetic issue, which is what I thought we were talking about.  

You seem to be commenting on the accuracy/consistency of CGC's grading, which is a completely different issue.

[Cat-Man_America]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:14 AM, tth2 said:

I don't understand what your scenario has to do with QP, writing or any other clearly visible aesthetic issue, which is what I thought we were talking about.  

You seem to be commenting on the accuracy/consistency of CGC's grading, which is a completely different issue.

It's a tomato tuh-mah-toe kinda difference. The writing only has merit if the books were cared for as it helps distinguish their point of origin from books which weren't well preserved, and it does provide interesting background stories. You were describing structural issues and this indeed relates to grading and aesthetic perception. Not to make too fine a point about it, I don't entirely agree with the premise that it's their job to ignore structural issues although I do agree that it may be a common assumption that this has always been their position. 

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

On 7/28/2023 at 4:49 PM, adamstrange said:

From Day 1 of CGC I have not liked their standards since, inexplicably, they did not adopt mine.

ok that’s funny

[batman_fan]

I definitely don't fully understand CGCs grading standard so I tend to buy based on my likes and dislikes.  For DCs, Needs to be well centered, good registration, and the circle in the upper right corner can't be cut.

First book, 

second book, miscut  

Third book, only the slightest miscue and a full circle 

[october]

On 7/28/2023 at 9:48 PM, tth2 said:

I guess CGC's position has always been that their job is to identify things that can't be easily or fully identified through a scan of a slab, such as structural defects and PQ, but anyone with eyes can look at a scan and see the QP problems and judge for themselves whether they still want the book.  Some people don't care about QP and some do.

For this reason, I don't understand why CGC say that writing is permitted in some grades and not in others.  Just grade the book for structure and let the buyers decide for themselves if they care about the writing or not.

We are still the only hobby dumb enough to value 9.8 QP freakshows higher than perfectly made copies with a minor flaw or two. I am not sure that many collectors "decide" much of anything. They let the number on the slab do the thinking for them. 

[lou_fine]

On 7/27/2023 at 3:37 PM, MrBedrock said:

On 7/27/2023 at 3:28 PM, Sarg said:

No book with prominent writing in the middle of the cover is 9.8. I don't care if GCG wants to pretend it isn't there. 

I disagree.

I would also disagree here since this particular writing is the pedigree code for the Promise Collection and not just some random writing.  

I will admit though that I don't care for its placement on the cover or the size of the writing, but it is what it is.  

When it comes to preferred pedigree code writing, the perfect example would be the Church pedigree code with its placement and small size that makes from my own personal POV, increases its desirability over a Church book without its signature pedigree code.    

 

[Mmehdy]

watch for the promise collection  price comeback in 2025!!!!!!!!!

[lou_fine]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:35 AM, Mmehdy said:

watch for the promise collection  price comeback in 2025!!!!!!!!!

I believe you just might have made a little typo there in your post up above:      

 

[lou_fine]

On 7/27/2023 at 2:48 PM, bounty_coder said:

 

I seem to recall (or have a vague mental recollection) that a lot of the Promise books were "pre-optimized" (read pressed) prior to encapsulation.  That may be a reason why so few are getting CPR'd... 

You do realize that this has NOT stop many of the submittors from sending their non-Promise books back into CCS/CGC over and over again in the hopes of even further optimization.  

From a pure business POV, is this not the perfect business model when you can convince your customers to happily pay for the exact same service not just once, but on multiple occasions even though they have to sometimes go through a waiting period of countless months to get their books back.  

Being a longer term collector from the so-called bad old days prior to the safe confines that we now find ourselves in with CCS/CGC here to look after our interests, I just find it kind of ironic and rather funny that collectors used to live in abject fear of restoration since it was seen to destroy the value of your books.  Now, we live in this clearly bizarro world where we live in abject fear of NOT having our books "restored" prior to grading so that we can maximize the potential value of our books.    

 

[tth2]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:15 PM, batman_fan said:

I definitely don't fully understand CGCs grading standard so I tend to buy based on my likes and dislikes.  For DCs, Needs to be well centered, good registration, and the circle in the upper right corner can't be cut.

First book, 

second book, miscut  

Third book, only the slightest miscue and a full circle 

I envy collectors who don't care about those kinds of things.  Life is so much easier.