GL 76 -- HG Prices Still Going Up

[mrlatko]

Who wants to call CGC and get the grading notes on this book to post here? Whoever does that will be my hero for this week.

[kimik]

That is definitely just a 9.4 at best based on the scans. I have received 9.6 on books with a slightly fuzzy corner and one color breaking spine stress, but this one has more than one so it it should not be a 9.6. Another gift grade IMHO (just like the Mound City SC #22).

[joe_collector]

No one knows what exactly it takes to be a 9.6 in CGC's opinion. Do they?

 

According to CGC and OS, they use OS Standards, which are detailed and cataloged in many publications.

[Foolkiller]

Well. Since grading is subjective. Who knows what this book is, for sure.

 

Spine ticks and corner blunts away, makes a book almost perfect. A 9.6 is not perfect.

 

So...........this book is in fact a 9.6. I can prove it. (just look at the pic of the label above the book).

 

It is like a ball or strike in baseball. Or a foul in basketball. If it ain't called (or in this case, is called), then it is what they say it is.

 

Right?

 

No one knows what exactly it takes to be a 9.6 in CGC's opinion. Do they?

 

I agree. We have universal grading for a reason.

 

The only reason it would make sense to me for someone to legitimately question grading is if 1) it was an extremely knowledge and experienced grader and 2) the person held the book in hand to grade the book in its entirety.

 

From my understanding, alot goes into the grading of a book beyond what you can see from a scan on a computer screen.

 

Otherwise, to call in to question a books grade, seems in itself questionable.

 

Since you had two different people who finalized the book -- Haspel and Borock -- and presumably different pre graders, there are obviously going to be differences in a CGC grade.

 

If you can visibly see defects in a scan that would automatically take it out of the 9.6 category, there is nothing we are not seeing that would boost its grade.

[Hedge Collector]

Well. Since grading is subjective. Who knows what this book is, for sure.

 

Spine ticks and corner blunts away, makes a book almost perfect. A 9.6 is not perfect.

 

So...........this book is in fact a 9.6. I can prove it. (just look at the pic of the label above the book).

 

It is like a ball or strike in baseball. Or a foul in basketball. If it ain't called (or in this case, is called), then it is what they say it is.

 

Right?

 

No one knows what exactly it takes to be a 9.6 in CGC's opinion. Do they?

 

I agree. We have universal grading for a reason.

 

The only reason it would make sense to me for someone to legitimately question grading is if 1) it was an extremely knowledge and experienced grader and 2) the person held the book in hand to grade the book in its entirety.

 

From my understanding, alot goes into the grading of a book beyond what you can see from a scan on a computer screen.

 

Otherwise, to call in to question a books grade, seems in itself questionable.

 

Since you had two different people who finalized the book -- Haspel and Borock -- and presumably different pre graders, there are obviously going to be differences in a CGC grade.

 

If you can visibly see defects in a scan that would automatically take it out of the 9.6 category, there is nothing we are not seeing that would boost its grade.

 

I get what you are saying.

 

Just that I don't think there are many out there who do a better job than those at CGC, and one really can't do a better job based on a scan that can sometimes maximize or minimize defects.

 

I don't believe their word is gospel. And I do believe, in the end, in voting with one's wallet and buying the book and not the label.

 

But buying on the internet can be a tricky thing, at least for me. Do I give greater weight on the label? Or do I give greater weight on a scan of the book? I tend to give more weight on the label when buying off the internet.

 

However, when in doubt, and this may be one of the times, I will just pass because I suppose you'd want to be comfortable with both the label and the scan especially for such a $$ book.

 

I just can't call into question the grade of the book since I don't have the equivalent skills as a Haspel or Borock and I haven't held the book in hand.

[conditionfreak]

No one knows what exactly it takes to be a 9.6 in CGC's opinion. Do they?

 

According to CGC and OS, they use OS Standards, which are detailed and cataloged in many publications.

 

That's fine, as far as it goes.

 

But then you have to explain the book here in question (along with other infamous CGC'd books such as the Action #1 low grade discussed on these boards many times, which Borock himself blushes at), and also explain the differences in grades from re-subs with no work down. Then you would have to explain the difference in grades given by different graders at CGC.

 

Finally, you would have to explain how some long established comic dealers state they use Overstreet standards because CGC has not published their standards or criteria.

 

Oh, one more thing. An explaination for this book and others, would have to be made in the context of either CGC just plain got it wrong, or "we" have it wrong.

 

Which do you choose?

 

It is sort of like the Bible. If there is one thing in the Bible that you can assert with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is wrong. Then the whole Bible is suspect. Is CGC suspect? I would hate to go there on this forum. But sure they are. Just like we are in our own gradings.

 

Or, are "you" not suspect in your gradings (the "you" here not being anyone in particular).

 

At least, that is how I look at it.

 

Is the industry standard Overstreet or CGC, or are they one and the same.

 

I believe they are not the same, and I believe that CGC uses different standards than Overstreet states. For one thing, CGC has admitted that Golden Age books are not judged the exact same as modern books. Yet, to my knowledge (unless things have changed in recent years) Overstreet does not allow an allowance for Golden Age books.

[mrlatko]

No one knows what exactly it takes to be a 9.6 in CGC's opinion. Do they?

 

According to CGC and OS, they use OS Standards, which are detailed and cataloged in many publications.

 

It is sort of like the Bible. If there is one thing in the Bible that you can assert with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is wrong. Then the whole Bible is suspect. Is CGC suspect? I would hate to go there on this forum. But sure they are. Just like we are in our own gradings.

 

I would like to plead the 5th, and maintain the separation of church and comics here on the boards.

[mschmidt]

Another explanation could be that a low-res scan grossly magnifies what might be either miniscule defects or, gasp, scratches on the case to make this book look worse than it is :shrug:

 

We've had this discussion tons of times before - whenever a 9.6 or 9.8 key is posted, there's always the cries of "gift grade" and the pointing out of visible defects that should keep the book out of whatever grade CGC gave it ... but, in reality, you just can't tell unless you hold the book in hand.

 

I see it all the time when I'm scanning books in my own collection - the scanner will pick up tiny flaws that are near-invisible to the naked eye & magnify them to a degree where my beautiful 9.8's all look like 9.2's.

[Twistty1]

Another explanation could be that a low-res scan grossly magnifies what might be either miniscule defects or, gasp, scratches on the case to make this book look worse than it is :shrug:

 

We've had this discussion tons of times before - whenever a 9.6 or 9.8 key is posted, there's always the cries of "gift grade" and the pointing out of visible defects that should keep the book out of whatever grade CGC gave it ... but, in reality, you just can't tell unless you hold the book in hand.

 

I see it all the time when I'm scanning books in my own collection - the scanner will pick up tiny flaws that are near-invisible to the naked eye & magnify them to a degree where my beautiful 9.8's all look like 9.2's.

 

I agree and have noticed that on my own books as well. However, I think because of that dark green back ground any break in the spine that is visible in a scan is going to be visible enough, in hand, to bring the grade down. Thats partly what makes this book so hard to find in uber HG.

[conditionfreak]

Another explanation could be that a low-res scan grossly magnifies what might be either miniscule defects or, gasp, scratches on the case to make this book look worse than it is :shrug:

 

We've had this discussion tons of times before - whenever a 9.6 or 9.8 key is posted, there's always the cries of "gift grade" and the pointing out of visible defects that should keep the book out of whatever grade CGC gave it ... but, in reality, you just can't tell unless you hold the book in hand.

 

I see it all the time when I'm scanning books in my own collection - the scanner will pick up tiny flaws that are near-invisible to the naked eye & magnify them to a degree where my beautiful 9.8's all look like 9.2's.

 

This happened to me here recently. In hand the book looked very nice. Scanned, not so nice. I like to use the scans here to actually grade the book, instead of grading in hand, because the scans do pick up and magnify defects.

 

I still don't know if CGC uses magnification when grading, or not. I have asked and no one answered.

[tth2]

Another explanation could be that a low-res scan grossly magnifies what might be either miniscule defects or, gasp, scratches on the case to make this book look worse than it is :shrug:

 

We've had this discussion tons of times before - whenever a 9.6 or 9.8 key is posted, there's always the cries of "gift grade" and the pointing out of visible defects that should keep the book out of whatever grade CGC gave it ... but, in reality, you just can't tell unless you hold the book in hand.

 

I see it all the time when I'm scanning books in my own collection - the scanner will pick up tiny flaws that are near-invisible to the naked eye & magnify them to a degree where my beautiful 9.8's all look like 9.2's.

 

This happened to me here recently. In hand the book looked very nice. Scanned, not so nice. I like to use the scans here to actually grade the book, instead of grading in hand, because the scans do pick up and magnify defects.

 

I still don't know if CGC uses magnification when grading, or not. I have asked and no one answered.

When you guys say "in hand", you`re talking about the book through the slab, correct? I would say that it still can`t be accurately assessed in that state because the plastic tends to minimize the visibility of defects. Does anyone remember the term "mylar mint", which referred to the fact that every book looked about 2 grades better than it really was when viewed through a mylar? Which is why no experienced HG collector grades a book through a mylar and always asks the dealer to take the book out for review.

 

Some of those creases that seem to be magnified by the scan, and minimized by the plastic, might again be very apparent when held raw, particularly if the book is held up into the light to reveal indentations in the surface.

[conditionfreak]

Good point about a book looking a whole lot better in mylar. Books at the Cons look so much better on the shelfs in mylar, than when you take them out. Even close up.

 

But when I personally use the term "in hand", I mean not slabbed. You have to be able to check the interior to grade a book................(I almost wrote "to grade a book accurately"). But that would not be a correct statement, because grading is subjective.

 

One can say that the N.Y. Yankees are a great baseball team, but then another person could say that they are better than most now. But that they are not great. That person might say the Big Red Machine from years gone past (Cincy Reds) was a great team and that the current Yankees are just good, or very good.

 

Grading is subjective. But no one can say that CGC "got it wrong" or "got it right" on any particular book. Unless it is a very gross over or under. Sometimes it is obvious, but if it is not obvious by a large margin then it is just a matter of opinion when taking the book into consideration as a whole and not just from a scan of a front and/or back cover. When someone on Ebay states "VF", they are not automatically wrong or a liar. Just bad at it or have a difference of opinion, within reason (meaning that what would pass for a Good is labeled as a VF, is rediculousy off).

 

Until someone makes you (not anyone in particular) King of grading, then it is just your opinion and others diffinitely will vary.

 

Just look at the grading contest results here and at one of the Cons recently conducted.

 

Grading is subjective and those that say emphatically it is not subjective, are full of themselves. How many times have we not agreed with CGC, PGX, Heritage or the "other guy"?

 

Plenty. But that is just human nature. Each one of us thinks we have more on the ball than the other guy in most circumstances. Although often we will defer to someone with clout or reputation. But inside, we think that "he" is not quite got it right, although he did spot that thing I missed and now I am embarrassed.

[Hedge Collector]

Are you asking?

 

$3723

 

versus the $6600 last month

 

Wow.

 

Looks like I just may have to eat my words on the 9.6. I certainly wouldn't mind the price going down, I just don't expect it.

 

We'll know if or when it closes in Pedigree's Nov auction. Don't see it listed yet. He could be waiting to headline his next newsletter with it.

 

I would pat myself on the back, but I'm disappointed the 9.6 wasn't a better copy.

[D Edge-migration]

What kind of huckster sell is this?

 

"This beauty is UNREAL and is obviously unread and unopened. The pages are near-white, the colors are blinding and the structure is magnificent."

 

Am I the only one laughing?

[Twistty1]

[rjpb]

What constitutes a 9.6 is certainly open to interpretation, but I can't help but feel the flaws shouldn't be immediately noticable on a medium sized scan. Though it is true that 9.6 is still 3 grades short of perfection.

[Hedge Collector]

So, less than 48 hours until the Pedigree auction closes.

 

9.6 OW/W with slight white at the bottom and a better than average chance of having been pressed.

 

Bid is currently $16,250.

 

Anyone have a guess as to what it will close at?

[paperheart]

So, less than 48 hours until the Pedigree auction closes.

 

9.6 OW/W with slight white at the bottom and a better than average chance of having been pressed.

 

Bid is currently $16,250.

 

Anyone have a guess as to what it will close at?

 

$24k- far inferior to serpi's copy.

[Hedge Collector]

So, less than 48 hours until the Pedigree auction closes.

 

9.6 OW/W with slight white at the bottom and a better than average chance of having been pressed.

 

Bid is currently $16,250.

 

Anyone have a guess as to what it will close at?

 

$24k- far inferior to serpi's copy.

 

Sorry, but who is serpi?

[paperheart]

So, less than 48 hours until the Pedigree auction closes.

 

9.6 OW/W with slight white at the bottom and a better than average chance of having been pressed.

 

Bid is currently $16,250.

 

Anyone have a guess as to what it will close at?

 

$24k- far inferior to serpi's copy.

 

Sorry, but who is serpi?

 

joe serpico, otherworlds33 (or close to that on the boards)