Grading structure or paper too?

[FFB]

The thing is, if page quality and structural grade are entirely separate and distinct, then a NM/MT 9.8 book should be able to have brittle or slightly brittle pages. Or brown pages, even. Yet no one would grade such a book 9.8.

I would. If the brown pages are perfectly smooth with no creases, nicks, dings, tears, etc., I would give it a structural 9.8 grade. I would also note that it has brown pages.

 

OK, let me rephrase. No one IN AMERICA would do it.

 

All kidding aside, how do you address the double penalty (or double bonus) issue I raised? If a significantly reduced grade already reflects the brown pages, and yet, per market practice, potential buyers then further lower their bid prices because of the separate brown pages notation, isn`t a book`s value being overly penalized?

 

The same goes for the scenario going the other way, such as the tweener book that gets a 9.4 instead of a 9.2 because of its white pages, and now gets valued as a 9.4 plus perhaps gets an additional boost in its price because of the white pages notation.

 

As Beyonder said, unless there is some sort of description on the label that clarifies how much the book`s "overall" grade was reduced/increased by the PQ, the grade will be misleading leading to the distorted valuations I describe above.

 

My personal feeling is, a book with white pages SHOULD get a bonus and a book with brown pages SHOULD get the extra penalty.

 

Brown and/or brittle pages mean something structurally. They mean that on a chemical/stability/permanence level, the book suffers a serious defect in remaining paper strength, odor, and appearance. I do not think that a book with brittle/slightly brittle/brown pages can or should get a 9.8 NM/MT grade. What does "Near Mint/Mint" mean, literally? It is supposed to mean that the book is in virtually the same state as it was when it left the "mint" (printer). You cannot say that about a book with pages that are brown, slightly brittle, etc.

[divad]

The thing is, if page quality and structural grade are entirely separate and distinct, then a NM/MT 9.8 book should be able to have brittle or slightly brittle pages. Or brown pages, even. Yet no one would grade such a book 9.8.

I would. If the brown pages are perfectly smooth with no creases, nicks, dings, tears, etc., I would give it a structural 9.8 grade. I would also note that it has brown pages.

 

The Rush Limbaugh of comic grading

[divad]

The thing is, if page quality and structural grade are entirely separate and distinct, then a NM/MT 9.8 book should be able to have brittle or slightly brittle pages. Or brown pages, even. Yet no one would grade such a book 9.8.

I would. If the brown pages are perfectly smooth with no creases, nicks, dings, tears, etc., I would give it a structural 9.8 grade. I would also note that it has brown pages.

 

OK, let me rephrase. No one IN AMERICA would do it.

 

All kidding aside, how do you address the double penalty (or double bonus) issue I raised? If a significantly reduced grade already reflects the brown pages, and yet, per market practice, potential buyers then further lower their bid prices because of the separate brown pages notation, isn`t a book`s value being overly penalized?

 

The same goes for the scenario going the other way, such as the tweener book that gets a 9.4 instead of a 9.2 because of its white pages, and now gets valued as a 9.4 plus perhaps gets an additional boost in its price because of the white pages notation.

 

As Beyonder said, unless there is some sort of description on the label that clarifies how much the book`s "overall" grade was reduced/increased by the PQ, the grade will be misleading leading to the distorted valuations I describe above.

 

CGC's "QP Cut-Off" is a perfect example of what you're describing. Remember that HULK 181 that they graded a 9.6 even though SB himself said it would be a 9.8/9.9 if not for the extreme miswrap?

 

The owner of that book got completely robbed. Instead of the book being seen by potential buyers as a "fugly 9.8/9.9"....it was instead a "fugly 9.6" due to the absence of any notation.

 

In that specific case, we're talking about a potential loss in the area of 10K if assigned a 9.8 grade.......and possibly 4X that amount if assigned a 9.9

 

The absence of a notation explaining the "QP cut-off" is borderline criminal.

 

That's an example of CGC's foibles . . . we're above that

[joe_collector]

CGC's "QP Cut-Off" is a perfect example of what you're describing. Remember that HULK 181 that they graded a 9.6 even though SB himself said it would be a 9.8/9.9 if not for the extreme miswrap?

 

You actually believed him?

[THE_BEYONDER]

CGC's "QP Cut-Off" is a perfect example of what you're describing. Remember that HULK 181 that they graded a 9.6 even though SB himself said it would be a 9.8/9.9 if not for the extreme miswrap?

 

You actually believed him?

 

Are you suggesting that CGC doesn't have a QP cut-off?

[ciorac]

The thing is, if page quality and structural grade are entirely separate and distinct, then a NM/MT 9.8 book should be able to have brittle or slightly brittle pages. Or brown pages, even. Yet no one would grade such a book 9.8.

I would. If the brown pages are perfectly smooth with no creases, nicks, dings, tears, etc., I would give it a structural 9.8 grade. I would also note that it has brown pages.

 

OK, let me rephrase. No one IN AMERICA would do it.

 

All kidding aside, how do you address the double penalty (or double bonus) issue I raised? If a significantly reduced grade already reflects the brown pages, and yet, per market practice, potential buyers then further lower their bid prices because of the separate brown pages notation, isn`t a book`s value being overly penalized?

 

The same goes for the scenario going the other way, such as the tweener book that gets a 9.4 instead of a 9.2 because of its white pages, and now gets valued as a 9.4 plus perhaps gets an additional boost in its price because of the white pages notation.

 

As Beyonder said, unless there is some sort of description on the label that clarifies how much the book`s "overall" grade was reduced/increased by the PQ, the grade will be misleading leading to the distorted valuations I describe above.

 

My personal feeling is, a book with white pages SHOULD get a bonus and a book with brown pages SHOULD get the extra penalty.

 

Brown and/or brittle pages mean something structurally. They mean that on a chemical/stability/permanence level, the book suffers a serious defect in remaining paper strength, odor, and appearance. I do not think that a book with brittle/slightly brittle/brown pages can or should get a 9.8 NM/MT grade. What does "Near Mint/Mint" mean, literally? It is supposed to mean that the book is in virtually the same state as it was when it left the "mint" (printer). You cannot say that about a book with pages that are brown, slightly brittle, etc.

 

FFB, you continue to impress!

[joe_collector]

CGC's "QP Cut-Off" is a perfect example of what you're describing. Remember that HULK 181 that they graded a 9.6 even though SB himself said it would be a 9.8/9.9 if not for the extreme miswrap?

 

You actually believed him?

 

Are you suggesting that CGC doesn't have a QP cut-off?

 

No, I am suggesting that that particular response was one part truth and one part pure BS.

 

I can remember Steve saying the EXACT same thing ("Oh, it coulda been a 9.8 contender of not for the QP") about an freakshow-QP ASM 129 CGC 9.6, then when we got larger scans, more obvious damage was present - well in line with a CGC 9.6/9.4.

 

It's all intended to do the same thing: to shut us up about all the freakshow books parading around in CGC 9.6 cases.

[THE_BEYONDER]

CGC's "QP Cut-Off" is a perfect example of what you're describing. Remember that HULK 181 that they graded a 9.6 even though SB himself said it would be a 9.8/9.9 if not for the extreme miswrap?

 

You actually believed him?

 

Are you suggesting that CGC doesn't have a QP cut-off?

 

No, I am suggesting that that particular response was one part truth and one part pure BS.

 

I can remember Steve saying the EXACT same thing ("Oh, it coulda been a 9.8 contender of not for the QP") about an freakshow-QP ASM 129 CGC 9.6, then when we got larger scans, more obvious damage was present - well in line with a CGC 9.6/9.4.

 

It's all intended to do the same thing: to shut us up about all the freakshow books parading around in CGC 9.6 cases.

 

Fair enough. But putting this little guy " " at the end of your comment is condescending, and would explain the reaction you get from people on this forum.

 

I've never been one to join in on the "J_C slamfest", so maybe next time you could extend some courtesy.

[tth2]

The thing is, if page quality and structural grade are entirely separate and distinct, then a NM/MT 9.8 book should be able to have brittle or slightly brittle pages. Or brown pages, even. Yet no one would grade such a book 9.8.

I would. If the brown pages are perfectly smooth with no creases, nicks, dings, tears, etc., I would give it a structural 9.8 grade. I would also note that it has brown pages.

 

The Rush Limbaugh of comic grading

I prefer to think of myself as the Hugo Black of comic grading.

[tth2]

My personal feeling is, a book with white pages SHOULD get a bonus and a book with brown pages SHOULD get the extra penalty.

But in the case of the tweener 9.2/9.4 that got a 9.4 grade because of the white pages, it already got a bonus by getting the 9.4 grade (which could mean a doubling of its price). Now it`s getting an additional bonus over what a 9.4 book would normally command because it`s got (ooh aah) white pages. Just doesn`t sit right with me.

[FFB]

My personal feeling is, a book with white pages SHOULD get a bonus and a book with brown pages SHOULD get the extra penalty.

But in the case of the tweener 9.2/9.4 that got a 9.4 grade because of the white pages, it already got a bonus by getting the 9.4 grade (which could mean a doubling of its price). Now it`s getting an additional bonus over what a 9.4 book would normally command because it`s got (ooh aah) white pages. Just doesn`t sit right with me.

 

As long as I can remember, comic books that were "professionally" graded (such as by AACC or Sotheby's/Christie's grading committees) have always been given a separate OWL score that, while a separate score, also factored significantly into the book's "structural" grade at the higher levels. For determining the structural grade of most books, the page quality factor is academic anyway, because if the pages are cream or better, the page quality won't keep the book out of any but the absolute highest of grade levels. And books with brown pages are almost never NM structurally, and usually have significant cover tanning or oxidation/sun shadows, which iare and always have been counted as structural defects (despite the fact that they are chemically similar to or the same as browning/tanning interior pages).

 

My point here is that the thing you have a problem with has always been part of the way that books have been graded by people who followed the original Overstreet grading guide that came out in 1992, and the standards in that guide came from people who were already grading that way before then.

 

If we are to treat page quality as a separate entity from structure, then we should also treat things like color fading separate from structure, since faded colors are physically/structurally no different from books with darkened pages. All the same physical components are still in their respective places, but the coloration of the inks have changed because of chemical changes affecting the pigments in the inks. And I think it's safe to say that everyone factors color fading as a defect that affects structure, even if the structure of the book is still 9.8 or 9.6.

[rjpb]

In that specific case, we're talking about a potential loss in the area of 10K if assigned a 9.8 grade.......and possibly 4X that amount if assigned a 9.9

 

That such arbitrary and hair-splitting distinctions in grade result in such increases in theoretical value, giving only secondary consideration to the page quality and overall appearance of a book is a good arguement for factoring PQ and QP into grade. If the number is what matters most, then the number should be a more comprehensive representation of the quality of the book.

[john72tex]

Should CGC list structural defects and/or grader notes on the label as well? Would that clear things up more?

[rjpb]

Should CGC list structural defects and/or grader notes on the label as well? Would that clear things up more?

 

It wouldn't hurt.