PGM HOS 226, 227...

[divad]

The commentary is more valuable . . .

 

Can't agree with that...

 

Both Sweet 9.0's btw . . .

 

Can agree with that. Exactly where I had them both.

 

Just giving grades tells no one anything . . . just like when you provide us condition details, it allows us to be more accurate

 

I totally agree on the condition details. I ofter peruse the posts in this forum and have no clue how some people arrived at their grades.

 

I know you know

[october]

what would you grade the 226? That tear hurts the technical grade a lot! Your right 7.5 might be overboard on that one! What do you think 8.5? It definitely has the appeal of a NM gem but 9.0 or better seems a little high on a book with such a defect!

 

Well, it's an easy 9.4 without the tear. I think 2 grade steps, maybe 3 at the most, is how much it should be knocked for the split. I just can't give an otherwise perfect book a VF because of one smallish defect that doesn't detract from the eye appeal in any way.

[october]

A better descriptive might be "clean 1/2" tear"

 

Why "clean"? Are there dirty tears?

 

Not dirty, but ugly, messy, rough, traumatic, etc.

 

Perhaps unobtrusive is the most appropriate word.

[mar-vell]

what would you grade the 226? That tear hurts the technical grade a lot! Your right 7.5 might be overboard on that one! What do you think 8.5? It definitely has the appeal of a NM gem but 9.0 or better seems a little high on a book with such a defect!

 

Well, it's an easy 9.4 without the tear. I think 2 grade steps, maybe 3 at the most, is how much it should be knocked for the split. I just can't give an otherwise perfect book a VF because of one smallish defect that doesn't detract from the eye appeal in any way.

 

all right i can live with 8.5 on that one but the inportant thing is it presents itself as a NM which makes it more desirable despite the technical grade! i will change my scores to 8.5 on both! I would like you to sell the 226 to me at a 7.5 price though!

[october]

what would you grade the 226? That tear hurts the technical grade a lot! Your right 7.5 might be overboard on that one! What do you think 8.5? It definitely has the appeal of a NM gem but 9.0 or better seems a little high on a book with such a defect!

 

Well, it's an easy 9.4 without the tear. I think 2 grade steps, maybe 3 at the most, is how much it should be knocked for the split. I just can't give an otherwise perfect book a VF because of one smallish defect that doesn't detract from the eye appeal in any way.

 

all right i can live with 8.5 on that one but the inportant thing is it presents itself as a NM which makes it more desirable despite the technical grade! i will change my scores to 8.5 on both! I would like you to sell the 226 to me at a 7.5 price though!

 

No can do buddy! These aren't going anywhere!

[nik]

Books that otherwise would grade very high, i.e. 9.4 or better, usually(this being the key word here) will get hammered from CGC with tears.

 

Not to be a pessimist, but I think the one with the tear will not grade any higher than an 8.5

[divad]

A better descriptive might be "clean 1/2" tear"

 

Why "clean"? Are there dirty tears?

 

Not dirty, but ugly, messy, rough, traumatic, etc.

 

Perhaps unobtrusive is the most appropriate word.

 

I like that too, but you'll lose a few buyers with such fancy-schmancy words . . .

[october]

Books that otherwise would grade very high, i.e. 9.4 or better, usually(this being the key word here) will get hammered from CGC with tears.

 

Not to be a pessimist, but I think the one with the tear will not grade any higher than an 8.5

 

I have yet to figure out their system for squarebounds. I would agree with you about the tear on normal books, but some of the slabbed squarebounds I have seen (and owned) have gotten bumps that are bornerline obscene.

[october]

A better descriptive might be "clean 1/2" tear"

 

Why "clean"? Are there dirty tears?

 

Not dirty, but ugly, messy, rough, traumatic, etc.

 

Perhaps unobtrusive is the most appropriate word.

 

I like that too, but you'll lose a few buyers with such fancy-schmancy words . . .

 

I cater to the high-brow crowd.

[marvelcollector]

Tear forced the 226 down to 7.5 at best....otherwise it looks like a 9.0....

8.5 for the 227....LRFC keeps it out of 9.0 IMO...

[Timulty]

If you are selling these October, there will be buyers. The Grading Bastiche says...8.0 and 8.0. But I have to tell you. Them be sweet 100 Pagers!!!

[october]

Tear forced the 226 down to 7.5 at best....otherwise it looks like a 9.0....

8.5 for the 227....LRFC keeps it out of 9.0 IMO...

 

Not going to sell these now. Wouldn't want to list them as 9.0s and have them returned due to overgrading.

[Timulty]

You are an evil man October. You could sell these at 8.0 and still make some duckies. These are nice copies.

[sterlingcomics]

october,

 

Very nice books!

 

Unfortunately, I can't grade 100 pagers worth a

That said, my shot:

 

9.4 (the tear probably knocks it down to 8.5)

 

8.5

[october]

Just to sum up, here are the ranges I have gotten:

 

HOM 226: 7.5-9.4

 

HOM 227: 8.0-9.2

 

[sterlingcomics]

take the median?

[october]

take the median?

 

[inconceivable]

The few books I have seen that were NM/NM+ but with a tear/major defect were all taken down to 8.5 VF+. I think that both books may qualify for that designation. Both excellent keepers.

 

Dan

[sterlingcomics]

The few books I have seen that were NM/NM+ but with a tear/major defect were all taken down to 8.5 VF+. I think that both books may qualify for that designation. Both excellent keepers.

 

Dan

 

That's why I re-graded the first one. The few I have taken to CGC got downgraded because of those defects.

[-cryptkeeper-]

8.0

9.0