CGC Grading and Bindery Defects...

[Earthbornpig]

Hello Everyone!

 

Just a comment and question I guess. I have noticed a number of high grade bronze age books on eBay and other retail sites with very high CGC grades - 9.6 and up, but with slivers of the back cover showing on the front. In a very old Overstreet Grading Guide I have (1992) version - it lists these types of defects.

 

Personally I don't like seeing that sliver of white along the left front cover - and it is just that I have noted some very high grade books with a fairly noticeable white back cover running along the spine and front. I guess my question is....does CGC make any account for this? It is actually still considered a defect and does it knock down the grade and by how much. Is a true 9.8 book nocked down to another grade with this type of defect.

 

Does it depend on the severity of the defect - is it rectangular or triangular...etc.

 

I would certainly appreciate any comments you all have.

 

PS... Sort of just getting back into comics - what would be the most current issue of the OS Grading guide or is it even still being made???

 

Thanks in advance for your comments and assistance...

 

Happy collecting!

 

Karl.

[Psiknight]

Hello Everyone!

 

Just a comment and question I guess. I have noticed a number of high grade bronze age books on eBay and other retail sites with very high CGC grades - 9.6 and up, but with slivers of the back cover showing on the front. In a very old Overstreet Grading Guide I have (1992) version - it lists these types of defects.

 

Personally I don't like seeing that sliver of white along the left front cover - and it is just that I have noted some very high grade books with a fairly noticeable white back cover running along the spine and front. I guess my question is....does CGC make any account for this? It is actually still considered a defect and does it knock down the grade and by how much. Is a true 9.8 book nocked down to another grade with this type of defect.

 

Does it depend on the severity of the defect - is it rectangular or triangular...etc.

 

I would certainly appreciate any comments you all have.

 

PS... Sort of just getting back into comics - what would be the most current issue of the OS Grading guide or is it even still being made???

 

Thanks in advance for your comments and assistance...

 

Happy collecting!

 

Karl.

 

This type of printing defect is generally only considered at the 9.8+ level, I think. A book that has a bad cut, miswrap, etc. can still obtain a 9.6 (maybe 9.8) grade.

[mosconi]

Hi Karl,

 

If you are in fact referring to the spine miswrap, then I do not believe CGC downgrades at all for this defect. I also do not like books with this characteristic and avoid many purchases if it is significantly miscut but many people do not mind it. I actually had a top census, and at the time 1 and only Conan #37 CGC 9.8 with a severe miscut before I sold it to Bill Hughes and picked up a nicer looking one in my opinion. I think this is what you are referring to:

 

[Earthbornpig]

That is exactly what I am refering to. Guess it is everyones own personal opinion - personally I don't particularly like books with this type of "defect" - but I can see where it would not bother other collectors. To each his/her own.

 

But where CGC comes in - this is a "defect" right? I was just curious as to how they view this defect - from what I have seen, it does not look like they deduct for it. Should they....??

[Mephisto]

I'd much rather habe a miswrap of the BC showing up on the front then the oart of the FC being on the back. Those always bugged me about a lot of SA Marvels where it seems more common. There is pont where the white does bug me though.

[joe_collector]

This post perfectly identifies one of my major beefs with CGC's flawed grading system. Only the most anal-retentive label-buyer would prefer the mis-cut CGC 9.8 freakshow over a pefectly cut, and much less expensive, CGC 9.6.

 

I actually had a top census, and at the time 1 and only Conan #37 CGC 9.8 with a severe miscut before I sold it to Bill Hughes and picked up a nicer looking one in my opinion. I think this is what you are referring to:

 

[Earthbornpig]

This is what I am saying. When this is listed as a defect - how can a book with this "defect" - grade out at a 9.8 - I don't get it. I assume it does not enter into the scheme of things when they are grading a book - but shouldn't it???

 

I think the Conan book at 9.6 without the bindery defect is much more attractive.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[joe_collector]

This is what I am saying. When this is listed as a defect - how can a book with this "defect" - grade out at a 9.8 - I don't get it. I assume it does not enter into the scheme of things when they are grading a book - but shouldn't it???

 

Of course, and we've been debating this for years - since CGC first sprouted up. Me and a few others constantly hammered CGC for this stupidity, while many "label chasers" heartily agree with CGC's total disregard for production flaws.

[blutobc]

This is what I am saying. When this is listed as a defect - how can a book with this "defect" - grade out at a 9.8 - I don't get it. I assume it does not enter into the scheme of things when they are grading a book - but shouldn't it???

I think the Conan book at 9.6 without the bindery defect is much more attractive.

Thanks for your comments.

 

You keep calling the miswrap a defect as if it was post production.

CGC grades the structural integrity of a book from when it was produced.

This does allow certain types of "defects" to fall through the cracks...

miswrap, production creases, double covers, etc.

 

You will find a variety of "what were they thinking" moments as you compare CGC books...but as best as I understand their non-published standards...they only grade the structural not the eye-appeal of the book. Which is where one of the most quoted phrases on the board comes from...

"buy the book, not the label".

 

Other famous but not really helpful forum phrases are:

pound sand

is this trimmed?

Please grade my______(which actually is helpful).

and I'm sure as heck not gonna use the "P" word.

[Mutantcollector]

The miscuts that are straight do not bother me to much, it’s the ones that are uneven that I hate. The Conan 9.8 is a little much, but if the white area was half the size it wouldn’t bother me too much. The 9.6 annoys me a little because a little bit of the cover is wrapped around the binding. Seeing some of the binding is worse than having some of the cover wrapped around the binding in my opinion. But most importantly, the cover must be straight.

[joe_collector]

You keep calling the miswrap a defect as if it was post production.

CGC grades the structural integrity of a book from when it was produced.

 

So if the press shredded a comic, that was otherwise perfect, then CGC would give it a CGC 9.8 or higher?

 

I think they'd have to.

[batman_fan]

The mis-wrap is just one of many production defects CGC turns a blind eye to. I had a book graded by them that was real nice except it had a crease in the paper stock used for the front cover. Real ugly, but the CGC graders gave it a 9.6! I would have called it a 9.0 with that defect, maybe lower.

[jkc313]

So, if a book comes off the line with the bottom crumpled, that's ok because it's not "post production"? I have been doing this for 43 years and I can tell you absolutely the huge majority of collectors have always considered off center books to be defective. I argued with Steve about this years ago and if you look at prices on books, I'm turning out to be right. People are starting to look at the book, not just the grade. How could ANY off center book be graded above 9.4? It's a glaring defect that detracts from the beauty of the book. The same thing happened with cards years ago. There was a grade "mint and centered". Now, it has to be centered to be mint. I went through this same kind of stuff with Roter when he atrted grading books at PCE. He, too, was mainly interested in structural integrity so you got the insanity of an FF Annual #2 with a terrible transfer stain and ugly as hell graded NM and another Annual 2 with a few spine stresses but blazing white being graded VF. Take the two book to 100 dealers and every one would rather have the prettier book.

 

keith contarino

[batman_fan]

So, if a book comes off the line with the bottom crumpled, that's ok because it's not "post production"? I have been doing this for 43 years and I can tell you absolutely the huge majority of collectors have always considered off center books to be defective. I argued with Steve about this years ago and if you look at prices on books, I'm turning out to be right. People are starting to look at the book, not just the grade. How could ANY off center book be graded above 9.4? It's a glaring defect that detracts from the beauty of the book. The same thing happened with cards years ago. There was a grade "mint and centered". Now, it has to be centered to be mint. I went through this same kind of stuff with Roter when he atrted grading books at PCE. He, too, was mainly interested in structural integrity so you got the insanity of an FF Annual #2 with a terrible transfer stain and ugly as hell graded NM and another Annual 2 with a few spine stresses but blazing white being graded VF. Take the two book to 100 dealers and every one would rather have the prettier book.

 

keith contarino