• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please grade my Action Comics #79

Started by comicdonna,

19 posts in this topic

comicdonna

comicdonna

Posted
Posted

The page quality is off-white/white. The staples are not rusted. The spine is in great shape. Their is a vertical crease about 1 inch from the spine, that runs better than half way, from the top to the bottom. To the right of the N their is a scratch over an inch long. It can barely be noticed from the inside cover. Their is a ding just barely to the right of the S

actioncomics79cover.jpg

actioncomics79back.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
Looks like a solid 7.5, but grading is difficult when done from pics ( gossip.gifespecially those that are perspectivally distorted) rather than scans...I couldn't see the crease you describe, which would lower the technical grade to 4.5...

Nice book! thumbsup2.gif

 

I disagree on your assessment on a "technical grade". A crease like this is similar to a sub crease. Would a book that would have otherwise been a 10.0 now be a 4.5 because of a sub crease? I would not say so. I see them as being noted as bringing a book down to that level because typically in the instances when sub creases are found there is other moderate wear to go along with it. This book is certainly an upper mid grade book at least had it not been for the crease. I don't see a defect like that as sufficient to warrant the shift from upper high grade/lower high grade to lower mid grade. popcorn.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marvelcollector

marvelcollector

Posted
Posted
Looks like a solid 7.5, but grading is difficult when done from pics ( gossip.gifespecially those that are perspectivally distorted) rather than scans...I couldn't see the crease you describe, which would lower the technical grade to 4.5...

Nice book! thumbsup2.gif

 

I disagree on your assessment on a "technical grade". A crease like this is similar to a sub crease. Would a book that would have otherwise been a 10.0 now be a 4.5 because of a sub crease? I would not say so. I see them as being noted as bringing a book down to that level because typically in the instances when sub creases are found there is other moderate wear to go along with it. This book is certainly an upper mid grade book at least had it not been for the crease. I don't see a defect like that as sufficient to warrant the shift from upper high grade/lower high grade to lower mid grade. popcorn.gif

 

According to the OCGG as currently constituted, a crease of that length is not allowed in 5.0 or higher...

 

Yes, I agree that is one of many things that need changing, but as the standards are right now... confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
Looks like a solid 7.5, but grading is difficult when done from pics ( gossip.gifespecially those that are perspectivally distorted) rather than scans...I couldn't see the crease you describe, which would lower the technical grade to 4.5...

Nice book! thumbsup2.gif

 

I disagree on your assessment on a "technical grade". A crease like this is similar to a sub crease. Would a book that would have otherwise been a 10.0 now be a 4.5 because of a sub crease? I would not say so. I see them as being noted as bringing a book down to that level because typically in the instances when sub creases are found there is other moderate wear to go along with it. This book is certainly an upper mid grade book at least had it not been for the crease. I don't see a defect like that as sufficient to warrant the shift from upper high grade/lower high grade to lower mid grade. popcorn.gif

 

According to the OCGG as currently constituted, a crease of that length is not allowed in 5.0 or higher...

 

Yes, I agree that is one of many things that need changing, but as the standards are right now... confused-smiley-013.gif

 

The standards are meant for typical cases as I mentioned. The crease would not drop a 10.0 to a 5.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s-man

s-man

Posted
Posted
I just stacked 300 lbs. of books on top of it, so we should be able to fix that crease some. stooges.gif

 

Call the presses! 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thedude

thedude

Posted
Posted

I will say 6.0, I had a GA book with a similiar reading crease along the spine, the book was otherwise rather nice, and CGC gave it a 6.0, so you never know..I don't think CGC has any hard and fast rules for defects I think they just weigh the good v.s. the bad, and come up with an overall grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marvelcollector

marvelcollector

Posted
Posted
Looks like a solid 7.5, but grading is difficult when done from pics ( gossip.gifespecially those that are perspectivally distorted) rather than scans...I couldn't see the crease you describe, which would lower the technical grade to 4.5...

Nice book! thumbsup2.gif

 

I disagree on your assessment on a "technical grade". A crease like this is similar to a sub crease. Would a book that would have otherwise been a 10.0 now be a 4.5 because of a sub crease? I would not say so. I see them as being noted as bringing a book down to that level because typically in the instances when sub creases are found there is other moderate wear to go along with it. This book is certainly an upper mid grade book at least had it not been for the crease. I don't see a defect like that as sufficient to warrant the shift from upper high grade/lower high grade to lower mid grade. popcorn.gif

 

According to the OCGG as currently constituted, a crease of that length is not allowed in 5.0 or higher...

 

Yes, I agree that is one of many things that need changing, but as the standards are right now... confused-smiley-013.gif

 

The standards are meant for typical cases as I mentioned. The crease would not drop a 10.0 to a 5.0.

 

Point taken. I don't know what CGC would do/does, but if they strictly apply OCGG standards (a big and dubious if) then they must call it a 4.5...

 

Let me put it another way: you have one book that is otherwise, say an 8.5 with a near book length crease in it. Call it a 6.0 due to the crease.

 

Next to it we have a more "typical" 6.0, perhaps not as many positives, but lacking that one big negative.

 

Which do you choose, all other things being equal?

 

I would choose the typical 6.0. I would be disappointed in a FN book with such a big flaw. That's just my personal taste, I'm sure there would be those that would choose otherwise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicdonna

comicdonna

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Looks like a solid 7.5, but grading is difficult when done from pics ( gossip.gifespecially those that are perspectivally distorted) rather than scans...I couldn't see the crease you describe, which would lower the technical grade to 4.5...

Nice book! thumbsup2.gif

 

I disagree on your assessment on a "technical grade". A crease like this is similar to a sub crease. Would a book that would have otherwise been a 10.0 now be a 4.5 because of a sub crease? I would not say so. I see them as being noted as bringing a book down to that level because typically in the instances when sub creases are found there is other moderate wear to go along with it. This book is certainly an upper mid grade book at least had it not been for the crease. I don't see a defect like that as sufficient to warrant the shift from upper high grade/lower high grade to lower mid grade. popcorn.gif

 

According to the OCGG as currently constituted, a crease of that length is not allowed in 5.0 or higher...

 

Yes, I agree that is one of many things that need changing, but as the standards are right now... confused-smiley-013.gif

 

The standards are meant for typical cases as I mentioned. The crease would not drop a 10.0 to a 5.0.

 

Point taken. I don't know what CGC would do/does, but if they strictly apply OCGG standards (a big and dubious if) then they must call it a 4.5...

 

Let me put it another way: you have one book that is otherwise, say an 8.5 with a near book length crease in it. Call it a 6.0 due to the crease.

 

Next to it we have a more "typical" 6.0, perhaps not as many positives, but lacking that one big negative.

 

Which do you choose, all other things being equal?

 

I would choose the typical 6.0. I would be disappointed in a FN book with such a big flaw. That's just my personal taste, I'm sure there would be those that would choose otherwise...

I will say, that the seller has 25 years experience, is/was an overstreet advisor, and the last book I bought from him, he hit it right on the nose. I hope he undergraded this one. 893crossfingers-thumb.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted

 

Point taken. I don't know what CGC would do/does, but if they strictly apply OCGG standards (a big and dubious if) then they must call it a 4.5...

 

Not so. Overstreet's guide is just that. A "guide". It is a guide, NOT a rulebook. Right now you are using as a rulebook. It is a guide so that it can be adapted and used as a form of guidance in various situations. Had it been a "rulebook", then they would have outlined many, many more variables and the book would be 3000 pages long.

 

Let me put it another way: you have one book that is otherwise, say an 8.5 with a near book length crease in it. Call it a 6.0 due to the crease.

 

Next to it we have a more "typical" 6.0, perhaps not as many positives, but lacking that one big negative.

 

Which do you choose, all other things being equal?

 

I would choose the typical 6.0. I would be disappointed in a FN book with such a big flaw. That's just my personal taste, I'm sure there would be those that would choose otherwise...

 

Assuming that the colors of both books were the same quality, and all of the gloss was equal etc...personally...I'd go with whichever was cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing