Bronze Chipping?

[Weird]

So I bought a slabbed book recently and just got it in the mail. The cover looks great - the back, however, has tearing/chipping which I can only assume was from the production process. I would think this is similar to the "Marvel Chipping" with many of their early Silver books. This book is Bronze though.

 

 

 

I was wondering what others opinion of this phenomena is especially considering it is a 70s book? Let's say aside from the chipping/tearing the book is otherwise 9.2-9.4, what would you bring it down to while taking the flaws into account? I'll post the CGC grade later.

[joe_collector]

Without the CGC grade and a full-size scan, it's impossible to tell what CGC categorized the chipping as, production or wear.

[Weird]

Without the CGC grade and a full-size scan, it's impossible to tell what CGC categorized the chipping as, production or wear.

 

My question was more to the point of how other collector's treat such flaws and how often they run into them. I know how CGC graded it - as a production flaw.

 

Here is a full size scan of the back of the book:

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

My question was more to the point of how other collector's treat such flaws and how often they run into them. I know how CGC graded it - as a production flaw.

 

Personally speaking, I would not want to see that kind of "production damage", regardless of whether it actually is, on a Bronze comic above 7.0.-7.5 or so.

 

Those are huge rips on the back of a comic, and if CGC wants to assign a high-grade due to "production tears", then they should use a Qualified label. A tear is still a tear, regardless of what caused it, and this is far different than things like production creases or mis-cuts.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

That's 'factory'? Is it possible that the right side edge of this book is a production issue?

 

 

My ASM 33 has almost the exact production tears, but I've never heard of this for Bronze books.

[Mr. Zipper]

 

That's 'factory'? Is it possible that the right side edge of this book is a production issue?

 

 

My ASM 33 has almost the exact production tears, but I've never heard of this for Bronze books.

 

It has to be a production issue. I've seen tears like this on otherwise NM-ish bronze books. Not nearly as common as Silver Age chipping (or pre-chipping tears), but I suppose the blades got dull once in a while in the 70s too.

[THE_BEYONDER]

How about Squarebounds? Would the tears along the spine be production as well?

 

[divad]

My question was more to the point of how other collector's treat such flaws and how often they run into them. I know how CGC graded it - as a production flaw.

 

Personally speaking, I would not want to see that kind of "production damage", regardless of whether it actually is, on a Bronze comic above 7.0.-7.5 or so.

 

Those are huge rips on the back of a comic, and if CGC wants to assign a high-grade due to "production tears", then they should use a Qualified label. A tear is still a tear, regardless of what caused it, and this is far different than things like production creases or mis-cuts.

 

I agree

 

Production or not . . . a tear is a tear is a tear

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet . . .

[joe_collector]

How about Squarebounds? Would the tears along the spine be production as well?

 

Nah, those are from kids bending the cover on the spinner rack.

[Weird]

My question was more to the point of how other collector's treat such flaws and how often they run into them. I know how CGC graded it - as a production flaw.

 

Personally speaking, I would not want to see that kind of "production damage", regardless of whether it actually is, on a Bronze comic above 7.0.-7.5 or so.

 

Those are huge rips on the back of a comic, and if CGC wants to assign a high-grade due to "production tears", then they should use a Qualified label. A tear is still a tear, regardless of what caused it, and this is far different than things like production creases or mis-cuts.

 

Oh, believe me, I didn't want/expect to see it either. With the CGC grade and no notes on the label, I would have thought it would have been a decent amount of spine stress or maybe a crease or two. I think, at best, using OS grading guide ("An accumulation of [bindery] defects") 5.0 or Very Good/Fine would be about the best this book would get. Someone correct me if I am misinterpreting that definition in OS. I know CGC and OS aren't exactly the same.

 

It was only $10, so no big deal. I was just surprised by it. I haven't broken it out yet, but those really do appear to be bindery tears/chipping along the top. I can see that they are definitely tears along the outer edge. I'll probably bust it out later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[october]

I don't think am 8.0 is totally off base. If the rest of the book is around NM, I personally think those tears would drop it down to 7.0.

[Weird]

I don't think am 8.0 is totally off base. If the rest of the book is around NM, I personally think those tears would drop it down to 7.0.

 

Remind me to never buy any raw books from you again.

[drbanner]

I've seen those types of tears (and the tear on the squarebound) on many books, so they're both definitely production-related. On the B&B, that books sure looks a lot nicer than an 8.0, so it appears CGC did downgrade for those tears. They're pretty extreme, production or no!

[october]

I don't think am 8.0 is totally off base. If the rest of the book is around NM, I personally think those tears would drop it down to 7.0.

 

Remind me to never buy any raw books from you again.

 

I would disclose the tear along with my grade, dumbarse.

[Point Five]

I thought Weird had to be kidding? ...October is one of the best/most consistent graders I've worked with, and many others will say the same. And obviously this is a subjective flaw, so "grade with disclosure of flaw" would be the only way to go.

 

Or if your comment was serious, Weird, does that mean that you will never buy CGC-graded books again either, since they gave the book a higher grade than October did and did not disclose the flaws on the label?

[divad]

I thought Weird had to be kidding? ...October is one of the best/most consistent graders I've worked with, and many others will say the same. And obviously this is a subjective flaw, so "grade with disclosure of flaw" would be the only way to go.

 

Or if your comment was serious, Weird, does that mean that you will never buy CGC-graded books again either, since they gave the book a higher grade than October did and did not disclose the flaws on the label?

 

He was kidding, hence the punctuation.

[Weird]

I don't think am 8.0 is totally off base. If the rest of the book is around NM, I personally think those tears would drop it down to 7.0.

 

Remind me to never buy any raw books from you again.

 

I would disclose the tear along with my grade, dumbarse.

 

Still doesn't look like a 7.0 or 8.0 to me, but I guess grading is subjective. It's now freed from its' slab and listed as a VG/FN in my inventory.

 

Still looking for a raw 9.4.

 

Oh, and you're a douchenozzle.

[Weird]

[Point Five]

Cool.

FWIW, I much agree with your original points about the book, Weird...I too would have been quite disappointed to discover the problems on the back, regardless of the book's grade (and the CGC grade of 8.0 is pretty astonishing to me too). Is it safe to assume that your seller didn't disclose the problems, and that there was no back cover scan provided?

[october]

I don't think am 8.0 is totally off base. If the rest of the book is around NM, I personally think those tears would drop it down to 7.0.

 

Remind me to never buy any raw books from you again.

 

I would disclose the tear along with my grade, dumbarse.

 

Still doesn't look like a 7.0 or 8.0 to me, but I guess grading is subjective. It's now freed from its' slab and listed as a VG/FN in my inventory.

 

Still looking for a raw 9.4.

 

Oh, and you're a douchenozzle.

 

Nice Jeff the Drunk avatar.