• 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.

PGM Action #77

Started by MCMiles,

50 posts in this topic

Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
A 5.0-5-5 silver

 

X-men50.jpg

 

X-men50BC.jpg

 

confused-smiley-013.gif

 

This book has more substantially more wear than the Action 77. LRC multiple feathering creases + water damage or soiling to URC + abrasion/ding top edge + subscription bend w/scuffing along line + general cover wear seen in black areas + dirty back cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Point Five

Point Five

Posted
Posted

As I said in the FF 48 thread, it's pretty difficult to compare apples to apples with mid-grade books (regardless of era), but I'll try...

 

The X-Men #37 is slightly better than the Action structurally, & yep, the slightly higher average grades reflect that. But to me, the spine of the Action is quite a bit nicer than that of the X-Men #26, which seems to suggest color flaking/slight roughness as well as spine breaks...the Action has a few moderate spine cracks, but the color is otherwise very smooth (which with a black spine is quite impressive). I think the Action is the nicer of the two even without a GA bump.

 

The X-Men #50 is so much worse than the Action, I hardly know where to begin. If anything, it seems to make your suggestion of 5.0/5.5 for both books problematic. confused-smiley-013.gif

 

flowerred.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
This one a cracked 8.0 with board opinions varying from 6.0-7.5

 

Frankly, a lot of people here have no clue about grading midgrade books and the grading is unrealistically harsh. They see a few spine stresses and it's automatically a 4.5. foreheadslap.gif

 

For them, the grading scale apparently drops from 9.0 directly to VG/FN.

 

makepoint.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Dog

Mad Dog

Posted
Posted

some good comments. Firstly this as nothing to do with this being my books, this has been applied to tons of other SA books where some people just seem to think it is best to be more strict than anyone else even if they are clueless about grading. I do however not have other peoples books scans handy, thus i used my own books as examples. I am not bitter in any way, this is fun and educational i am merely trying to learn. Haiving graded quite many books in the PGM forrum, and seeing as how the mojority seems to be in agreemetn with most of my grades i was therefore surpised at a couple of recent examples where i was far below everyone else. These were GA books and everyone seemed to grade lighter due to that, since i am new to anything GA related i took this opportunity to learn more about this alledged GA bump that has been mentioned quite a few times on the boards. When i see GA CGC books i see slightly softer criterias for GA books, in my opinion (my own, nobody's else) around 0.5 from what i think they would have been graded being a SA book.

 

As some suggested, maybe I have the wrong take on the Dustshadow and foxing issues where apparently the majority doesnt seem to think it affects grade when the book is below 9.0. Seeing as how i look at foxing as something ruining a book far more than a few spine ticks (my opinion) i maybe grade to harsh on books with a lot of apparent foxing, i dont know.

 

Lets remember this is not about being right or wrong, but i see the grading forum as a tool for everyone to learn more about how to grade books... unfortunately it is far from always being used for that, nonetheless i think that is the purpose of it and the purpose of me posting my books and giving grades to other peoples books.

 

Thanks for your comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Point Five

Point Five

Posted
Posted
I am not bitter in any way, this is fun and educational i am merely trying to learn.

 

thumbsup2.gif

 

 

I do see where you're coming from now when you bring up the foxing and the dust shadows on the Action. For better or worse, CGC seems to hammer the grade very little for these defects, concentrating more on the overall structure & wear of a book. These defects do bother me as well, but I guess over time we have learned to "tune them out" more, and have brought our grading more in line with CGC's with regards to defects like these on GA books. (That fair, guys?)

 

Hope this helps somewhat at least. Stick around!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thedude

thedude

Posted
Posted
After our 48 came back a 7.0, I might agree, but it didn't have anything as bad as the back cover crease, so i'll say 6.5.

 

true,.. I think the 6.0-7.5 range can be the toughest to guess what CGC will grade a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
As some suggested, maybe I have the wrong take on the Dustshadow and foxing issues where apparently the majority doesnt seem to think it affects grade when the book is below 9.0. Seeing as how i look at foxing as something ruining a book far more than a few spine ticks (my opinion) i maybe grade to harsh on books with a lot of apparent foxing, i dont know.

 

I agree with this totally. I don't blindly subscribe to the CGC notion that dust shadow or foxing is "no big deal."

 

Depending on the darkness and obtrusiveness of the shadow, I would deduct for it as if it was some sort of stain. Obviously, as the grade of the book got lower, the severity of the impact of the dust shadow would proportionately decrease however. That is, a dust shadow would have a big impact on a book that is otherwise 9.0, but not much impact on a book that is already 3.5.

 

I still can't figure out why CGC will crucify a book with an almost invisible spinner rack bend, yet turn a blind eye to an uglyazz dust shadow. screwy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted

Mad Dog

 

Zipper68 is only slightly exaggerating with his comments about board members grading (other people's) mid-grade books harshly. Your X-men #37 & #26 look like a 7.5 and a 6.5(!) to me. As for the #50, with that big crease down the middle, 4.5 is the highest I would go - it doesn't compare at all with the Action #77.

 

Because CGC has different people grading books, even with guidelines I'd say their grading is somewhat less consistent than some of the major dealers, so there will always be examples of books from the GA (or any era for that matter) that appear to have recieved a "soft" grade from them, but there are "harshly" graded books as well. Unlike Point Five, I haven't tuned out the general CGC leniency regarding foxing fading and shadows, but it will influence my answer to a "guess the CGC grade" sort of question. It is for these kind of flaws that I see a GA curve in effect, not for general wear and tear. There are plenty of early Marvels out there with a chipped up right edge that recieve a 4.5-5.5 from CGC, where a GA book with the same flaws would more likely be graded a 3.5 or less. So even if it can be argued there is a "GA curve" to CGC's grading it isn't universally applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rodan57

rodan57

Posted
Posted
As some suggested, maybe I have the wrong take on the Dustshadow and foxing issues where apparently the majority doesnt seem to think it affects grade when the book is below 9.0. Seeing as how i look at foxing as something ruining a book far more than a few spine ticks (my opinion) i maybe grade to harsh on books with a lot of apparent foxing, i dont know.

 

I agree with this totally. I don't blindly subscribe to the CGC notion that dust shadow or foxing is "no big deal."

 

Depending on the darkness and obtrusiveness of the shadow, I would deduct for it as if it was some sort of stain. Obviously, as the grade of the book got lower, the severity of the impact of the dust shadow would proportionately decrease however. That is, a dust shadow would have a big impact on a book that is otherwise 9.0, but not much impact on a book that is already 3.5.

 

I still can't figure out why CGC will crucify a book with an almost invisible spinner rack bend, yet turn a blind eye to an uglyazz dust shadow. screwy.gif

 

I find it hard to admire a book with foxing or dust shadows. They strike me as major defects.

 

If foxing is mould (and I admit there is scientific debate about the nature of foxing), then it is a structural defect as much as brittle pages.

 

And if something can change the colour of the paper (dust shadow), is it not also changing the structure of the paper?

 

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing