PROPOSAL: Independent Eye Appeal rating

[drbanner]

This is an old pet peeve of mine, and an idea I've tossed out before, but it would be really neato if one of the grading companies assigned an eye appeal grade that was independent of the physical grade of the book. Revolutionary idea, I know, but yet so frickin' obvious!!

 

Date stamps/writing and centering are mentioned time and again on these boards as a determining factor of how desirable a book is (especially for post-70 books), and ending prices on ebay reflect this bias. I think 3rd party grading services should address this demand/need in our hobby. Evidence the following books:

 

INCREDIBLE HULK 181 CGC 8.0 1st Wolverine Ending Price: $471.00

 

and:

 

INCREDIBLE HULK #181 CGC 5.0 ~ 1ST WOLVERINE Ending Price: $425.00

 

Not that the second book was all that great (although I'd highly recommend the seller), but the 8.0 has a big, gnarly date stamp right in the middle of the cover.

 

NGC assigns a "Star" rating to coins of exceptional beauty, and I hereby motion that comics deserve the same attention - even moreso due to the art/4-color beauty intrinsic to our hobby. Centering, color intensity, gloss, whiteness, and presence of writing/date stamps should all be accounted for, and all eras of books should be held to the same standard...power to the people!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ArAich]

[ArAich]

Post deleted so as not get in cause J_C to be too peturbed...

[joe_collector]

>>Take POV for instance...he likes date stamps...whereas I detest them...this leads me to believe that this would not be anything worth pursuing seriously....but it does make for good debate...

 

This makes no sense. It's like stating that I have a friend who loves rolled spines, yet I detest them.

 

Would POV really trade me even-up clean NM copies in exchange for NM copies, but with obtrusive date stamps on them? If so, PM me ASAP.

 

You certainly can't please everyone (and CGC is not doing that today) but proper registration, no white borders, high color and gloss and no writing or date stamps would be as close to "production fresh" as possible and I think that's what is being discussed here.

 

[ArAich]

Go suck an egg....it's clear that you understand the subject and I am a insufficiently_thoughtful_person...carry on J_C...I would not want to inhibit your intellect on subjects that only you are able to debate with gradiose elequence while I just get in the way and cause you to trip over your own tongue....

 

and don't correct my spelling....that wouldn't make any sense....

[joe_collector]

Hey, I think drbanner is onto something here, and it makes more sense than CGC changing their grading practices, something I espouse.

 

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore the trends, but collectors have steadily been working up to the ultra-high grade material, and it's only logical that the next to get weeded out are the less-than aesthetically pleasing comics with stamps, writing or printing defects.

 

It's like survival of the fittest, or in real-world terms, the difference between greggy's "nutsack creased" Defenders #1 he sold to Darth, and that stunning Conan #1 we were all slobbering over.

[drbanner]

This is weird...I'm siding w/JC while someone else argues with him!!

 

One has to look no further than off-center covers or date stamps to realize that CGC does not incorporate certain defects in their grade in proportion to the weight the collecting community assigns to it via their wallet! In other words, it has become apparent that the amount collectors are willing to pay for a book depends on the CGC numerical grade AND the physical appearance of the book, not just the CGC numerical grade (variability in grades due to the physical condition of the book notwithstanding.)

[sfilosa]

Obviously there will be different opinions on this (what has nice eye appeal).

 

What might be nice is some type of "Star" (or whatever) that is put on the label for a book that is manufactured perfectly.

 

Any miscuts, distribution marks, date stamps, printer's creases, etc. would nullify this "Star" but not the grade. Just like the whiteness of the paper doesn't have hardly impact on the grade, the whiteness of the paper does make a difference. Why shouldn't there be something similar to the "whiteness" notation for the "printing and distribution" process.

 

My pet pevee is this: Based on what I can tell, almost any defect that occurs during the printing and distribution process is not considered a structural defect.

I just bought a "Curator" CGC NM 9.4 that I was disappointed in because it is miscut and seems to have very little "Marvel tears" on the right side that clearly reduces the "Eye Appeal".

 

I have seen books with these Marvel tears and even Marvel chips get very high grades. Now I realize that a book with a printer's crease was manufactured that way. But the problem with these tears (or chips) is this:

 

Say a book has a few small Marvel chips out of it. How do I (or CGC) know that these weren't just small tears that over time are now chips? My point is, the defects during printing could have (probably have) got worse over time. Now these defects (because they appear to have happened during the printing process) do not reduce the grade as much as "normal wear and tear". That doesn't make sense to me.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

[Rickdogg]

"although I'd highly recommend the seller"

 

Damn straight

 

[greggy]

Pulled a (***) though!

[Rickdogg]

What's (****)

[BachelorOfComix]

greggy, this would look good next to your erotic Wonder Woman toy. Think threesome!

 

Cheers,

 

Bachelor of Comics

[greggy]

Selling a book before it was received!

 

Ooops...it is a secret code among other board members!

[greggy]

Think threesome!

 

I would if you lie beside it and take a picture so I could get in the "mood:!

[BachelorOfComix]

I would if you lie beside it and take a picture so I could get in the "mood:!

 

Cheers,

 

Bachelor of Comics

[seank]

Sorry to go back on topic, but...

 

An eye appeal rating is an interesting thought, but it seems to me that it would mostly come into play in mid-grade books where a variety of defects can make something a VG or F. For example, most date stamps don't bother me, but I hate subscription creases. So I consider the eye appeal of a sub-creased book to be fairly low. But an interesting date stamp on a gold or silver book (usually a store stamp with a name and address on it) is no problem. I like seeing when and where the book came from.

 

Consider also that eye appeal has a lot to do with cover art. Some books are classics and everyone can agree they're great, but to a Bronze-age Marvel zombie, a Fiction House jungle girl cover will look dumb and unappealing. That same cover will make a golden age collector salivate like a college boy in a strip club.

 

Eye appeal is very subjective. I don't know if I want CGC telling me what I should like or not like.

[blowout]

Eye appeal is very subjective. I don't know if I want CGC telling me what I should like or not like.

 

Thats one way of loking at it, and to some extent it does come down to collector preference. We are already seeing the prices fall on books with a low eye appeal for their grade as collectors start to question the CGC grade a bit more and don't just bid blindly on the number. I am sure that most on this board ask for large scans of CGC books to make up their mind whether the book suits their own particular preferences.

DrB's example illustrates the trend well. A CGC 8.0 (with a really ugly date stamp) realising a similar price to a 5.0.

[joe_collector]

>>Eye appeal is very subjective. I don't know if I want CGC telling me what I should like or not like.

 

Whoa, now you're going off on a tangent.

 

We weren't talking about if the cover has nice art or a compelling scene, only that at some point CGC has to admit that buyers are voting with their wallets and paying THE SAME amount for a nice looking CGC 5.0 Hulk 181, compared to a CGC 8.0 of the same issue, but with a big date stamp across the cover.

 

In essense, by not incorporating "production freshness"/eye appeal (or the closest the book resembles a perfectly printed, off-the-presses comic) the CGC grade is useless in determining resale values, and all the big investors will start getting cold feet.

 

I think banner's Hulk 181 comparison should be an eye-opener for everyone on here and a wake-up call for CGC.

[blowout]

I think banner's Hulk 181 comparison should be an eye-opener for everyone on here and a wake-up call for CGC.

 

The thread that was running a few days back comparing the graded coin market to comics should also offer the same wake up call.

It seems (obvious to any seasoned collector) that all the coins with lesser eye appeal, even though graded high, became virtually worthless.

As with any collectable market, the cream will always rise to the top, and if CGC want to remain competative they will have to address the production flaws/ date stamps etc and tighten their grading standards on them.

[fantastic_four]

Eye appeal is very subjective. I don't know if I want CGC telling me what I should like or not like.

Nobody tells you what you like; you decide that yourself. A grading company just gives you information; you process that information however you like.

 

If a "star" rating is "telling you what you should like," then realize that they're already suggesting what you should like through the standard Overstreet grading scale, just as dealers have been doing for decades. A "star" rating would further disclose information not currently captured via the numerical grade.