Corvonie Posted November 2, 2023 Share Posted November 2, 2023 (edited) Hi, Ready to face the music on these two heartbreaking back cover tears on an otherwise super-clean copy of this Doom classic. I had no business choosing this book as one of my first clean and press projects a year ago and, like Victor, was undone by my own hubris. thanks! Edited November 2, 2023 by Corvonie Added embarrassing anecdote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scburdet Posted November 2, 2023 Share Posted November 2, 2023 7.0/7.5. The color chipping around the title probably ends up hurting more than a small back cover tear. Corvonie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvonie Posted November 2, 2023 Author Share Posted November 2, 2023 On 11/2/2023 at 9:04 AM, scburdet said: 7.0/7.5. The color chipping around the title probably ends up hurting more than a small back cover tear. Wow ok better than I expected. Just want to make sure you saw the two tears on the back cover (TR and LR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadroch Posted November 2, 2023 Share Posted November 2, 2023 It's a nice-looking book, but I'm at 5.0, between the tears and the tape pull. Corvonie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scburdet Posted November 2, 2023 Share Posted November 2, 2023 I saw them. The cumulative length looks like the 6.0 range, but they're on the back cover. There are several instances in the CGC guide where they state a different penalty for front vs. back cover damage. The section on tears says they are on of the easiest defects to quantify, and then provides no details on how they actually quantify them. Whatever the ink loss around the title is the biggest aesthetic defect. The 7.5 is more like a aspirational upper limit b/c it's the kind of book one can see a grader giving every allowance conceivable. Based on observation, I believe there is both an objective & subjective component to CGC grading. The latter is clearly unknowable, and objective standard are left intentionally opaque. Corvonie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvonie Posted November 2, 2023 Author Share Posted November 2, 2023 On 11/2/2023 at 4:27 PM, scburdet said: I saw them. The cumulative length looks like the 6.0 range, but they're on the back cover. There are several instances in the CGC guide where they state a different penalty for front vs. back cover damage. The section on tears says they are on of the easiest defects to quantify, and then provides no details on how they actually quantify them. Whatever the ink loss around the title is the biggest aesthetic defect. The 7.5 is more like a aspirational upper limit b/c it's the kind of book one can see a grader giving every allowance conceivable. Based on observation, I believe there is both an objective & subjective component to CGC grading. The latter is clearly unknowable, and objective standard are left intentionally opaque. So you’re saying I should accidentally drop $20 between the book and the backing board when I ship it? 🤣 scburdet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvonie Posted November 2, 2023 Author Share Posted November 2, 2023 On 11/2/2023 at 4:27 PM, shadroch said: It's a nice-looking book, but I'm at 5.0, between the tears and the tape pull. I have many books that I call the Raquel Welch of (insert disappointing grade here), and have made peace with it. Although I may have to update my references if I try to list it that way 😀. The Eva Mendes of 5.0s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahsoka Tano Jedi Apprentice Posted November 3, 2023 Share Posted November 3, 2023 I'm at 6.5 but I agree with everything Schurdet says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicartfan Posted November 4, 2023 Share Posted November 4, 2023 I think 6.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
