Cliff Notes for the Jan Heritage Auction Thread?

[esquirecomics]

i.e., CGC might hire her to do the dirty work on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Timulty]

My God, the nose alone could eviscerate a man!!!!!

[esquirecomics]

Nah, she had it done.

[Timulty]

Who would have thunk it? Well, long as it makes her happy and she stays away from White Hall, I am cool.

[shadroch]

Don't worry Timulty, if CGC succeeds in taking you out in a hit, I have former CIA clients who were avenge you!

 

 

"former CIA clients". Thats as much an oxymoron as jumbo shrimp.

Let me guess-Do they now work for Black Water,or Halliburton?

[esquirecomics]

Don't worry Timulty, if CGC succeeds in taking you out in a hit, I have former CIA clients who were avenge you!

 

 

"former CIA clients". Thats as much an oxymoron as jumbo shrimp.

Let me guess-Do they now work for Black Water,or Halliburton?

 

I did have one former Special Forces client who was working for BlackWater. Never had a Halliburton client yet!

[Timulty]

Don't worry Timulty, if CGC succeeds in taking you out in a hit, I have former CIA clients who were avenge you!

 

 

"former CIA clients". Thats as much an oxymoron as jumbo shrimp.

Let me guess-Do they now work for Black Water,or Halliburton?

 

I did have one former Special Forces client who was working for BlackWater. Never had a Halliburton client yet!

 

Give it time.

[adamstrange]

steve borock's 2nd response on 1/14

 

I thought I would start a new thread so this would not get buried in the old one.

 

I’ve received numerous comments by email and PM about the Edgar Church/Mile High copy of Boy Comics #17, even after the first time I posted about it. It seems people felt that my answers were not sufficient (I did do it in a hurry). I will again address this issue. Mostly, the email and PMs, relate to the probability of a book going from a 4.0 to a 9.0. If someone had asked me, prior to this instance, if this jump in grade was possible, I would have said that it is not.

 

Here we have the exception to the rule.

 

The set of defects present on this particular book were such that this considerable jump in grade was possible. First, the front and back cover were heavily abraded, but there were almost no color breaks. Second, the two center wraps were detached. Having two center wraps detached significantly affects the grade of any comic book that is not already low grade. The wraps were re-attached by opening up the prongs of the staple and then placing them back down firmly in the same position over paper still present on the wraps. This is a non-restorative procedure (no glue or reinforcement). Re-attaching a centerfold, or even a cover, without adding anything to the book (thus not constituting restoration) is something that most hobbyists, collectors and dealers have done many times over. This kind of activity has NEVER been considered to be restoration. It is not always possible to re-attached a centerfold or cover without glue or reinforcement (Restoration). It would depend on the page quality, amount of paper at staple area and staple placement.

 

Then the Boy Comics #17 was probably pressed, removing some of the non color breaking defects. There are many ways to press a comic book and this one still retained some defects that could have been removed if pressed differently.

 

The Boy Comics #17 was sent to CGC and since there were less defects present on the comic book, it received a higher grade. The book must have been later on pressed to its full potential, which resulted in a second upgrade to a 9.0. Remember, we grade every comic book in front of us as a new submission and it is graded as it appears in front of us in an objective and impartial manner.

 

This clearly was a perfect candidate for pressing.

 

There are books that grade 4.0 and lower, but almost all cannot be improved to a 9.0, much less even a 5.0, without restoration or treatment resulting in an apparent (Restored) grade at CGC. In fact, the set of defects on this book is so unique that I am not sure I will ever see more than a handful of books like this, that’s possible to go from a 4.0 to a 9.0, in the future. I also want to make this very clear, CGC does not and has never considered re-attachment of original parts of a comic book (without using reinforcement or glue), erasure, dry cleaning or pressing to be restoration and as such, it is not noted on the CGC label.

 

Even if everybody does not agree 100% with our business (I don't know any business that consumers agree 100% with) you still have to ask yourself; are you better off and better educated today with CGC's certification and these boards than 6 years ago? 6 years ago (and today if you buy raw books) you had much, much more undetected restoration (color touch and tear seals among other things CGC and the rest of the hobby consider restoration) and un-objective grading because the person(s) grading the book owned it and one sellers 8.0 was another sellers 9.4. Some of you lived through this and that is why CGC got off the ground and is successful, some of you never had to deal with that stuff if you started collecting in the last 6 years, but you experience it online with raw books all the time. The bottom line is that I, and many others, believe we are much better off than before.

 

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

-Steve

[adamstrange]

Harvey Dude Posted on 1/15:

 

Taken from the STL forum.

 

[scourge456789-migration]

I am flabbergastted that someone would even consider buying the Edgar Church DD#1 at the current price. Especially considering that the book sold as a 9.0 for almost $40,000 less so recently. I dont understand how someone can not say this is morally wrong.

 

Heritage should be obligated to link the older auction with this one. IMHO.

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

I dont understand how someone can not say this is morally wrong.

 

Heritage should be obligated to link the older auction with this one. IMHO.

 

It's a little too late for you to be taking the moral high ground, krazykat.

 

[adamstrange]

Slab Em posted this on Jan 22:

 

CGC opened it's doors in early 2000.

 

CGC To Adopt Overstreet Grading System

Industry News, Scoop, Friday, July 18, 2003

CGC's Steve Borock has announced that due to the tremendous response within the industry, CGC has decided to fully adopt the Overstreet grading standards for their grading service!

 

Three weeks later...

 

Friday, August 08, 2003

Eichenbaum, Borock: No changes in CGC standards

by Nathan Melby

Comics Guaranty LLC. President Steve Eichenbaum told CBG that, even though the company has adopted Robert M. Overstreet's grading standards, it will not effect the companys original grading standards.

 

"We have not changed our grading standards"; Eichenbaum told CBG. "From the beginning, we have always worked closely with the fine folks at Gemstone, adopting the Overstreet standards combined with the consensus of many of the collecting community's top dealers and collectors interpretations for those standards to derive CGC's own overall grading standards.

 

"Now that the new Grading Guide has been published with quite a bit of input from CGC Primary Grader Steve Borock, Senior Grader and Pedigree Expert Mark Haspel, and Grader and Modern Age Specialist Paul Litch, there is now little difference between Overstreet and CGC."

 

Borock echoed Eichenbaum, stating, "There's no change in our standards. Overstreet's grading standards have been around for 30 years and they've constantly evolved over that time."

 

Who adopted whose standards?

The news that CGC will both be adopting Overstreet's standards and will not be changing its grading standards - logically requires CGC to have been using identical standards to Overstreet's current standards all along - but not necessarily those that Overstreet used to publish prior to the Grading Guide.

 

The record reflects such a distinction: In CBG #1431 (Apr. 20, 2001), the weekly CGC Price Index column was altered to add Overstreet's definitions for Near Mint, Very Fine, and Fine, to the listings for CGC grades 9.4, 8.0, and 6.0. A CGC representative contacted CBG following its publication, requesting that the Overstreet definitions be removed from their position next to the CGC grades. They were removed in CBG #1433 (May 4, 2001) with CBG passing along the CGC comment that the Overstreet definitions are not necessarily the ones CGC uses. CBG replaced the printed definitions with its own.

 

Given the suggestion that CGC's standards were not necessarily those used by anyone else, CBG requested CGC's actual definitions for publication. In a follow-up in CBG #1441 ("CGC Grading Definitions Held Close to Vest" June 29, 2001), a CGC representative indicated that the company has no plans to release them at this time.

[namisgr]

Thanks for the enlightening post down memory lane. One could take a cynical interpretation: no published standards means no need to be accountable for specific grading decisions.

 

One could be even more cynical, and suggest that a grading standard that places unprecedented emphasis on non-color breaking creases and indentations (which were never a focus in the old Overstreet standards) promotes the business of pressing such creases away, followed by a resubmission ($$) of a higher graded book ($$$).