• 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.

9.6 my arse!

Started by Bonds25,

74 posts in this topic

BronzeBruce13

BronzeBruce13

Posted
Posted

No one's right or wrong of course, but If I had my choice... I'd opt for a straight 1/8th" "to the front" miswrap... maybe even a little (but not a whole lot) more in this particular case.

 

Generally speaking, I prefer a very slight "to the back" miswrap as well. Its nice to see image on the spine rather than the separation of front and back. More importantly, usually nothing on the front is compromised.

 

Getting back to the Hulk 181 in question, consider that with a 1/8" miswrap to the front... none of the image/design the eye is "accustomed to seeing" on that cover would be "cropped off" nor would parts of the illustration ride the spine edge as is the case on that copy. That book has so much of the left side design rolled around back it looks like a "Rare 5¢ Variant of the "_ncredible Hulk". Also, you have the beginning of the spine of another cover starting on the right as well as a 1/32" or so white edge.

 

From an eye appeal standpoint, I find that far more distracting and "unappealing" than a 1/8" white edge on a cover design that loses nothing to the right.

 

That said, there are instances in which I would select the opposite depending on the variables (position of the cover elements). For example, I've owned (3) DD 158 9.8's. As most know, a large number of these have angled miswraps to varying degrees... a vast majority towards the front, which I find particularly unappealing on this book for some reason (probably frequency). Anyway, 2 of the 3 9.8's had the described "to the front" miswrap.. but the 3rd had a similar sized "to the back" miswrap that did not interfere with what my eye wanted to see on the front. Even though the entire "Miller/Rubinstein" signature and Marvel copyright info were on the back... the book looked killer to me from the front. I also liked the extra "openness" on the right side. There was actually a little extra green in the banner following the "white box" and some needed clearance on the title "Daredevil" logo that improved the balance of the book IMHO.

 

See Scans Below.

 

 

Anyway, I think a more than slight "to the front" vs. "to the back" miswrap is better judged on an individual basis.

 

234379-%2ADD158CGC9.8Wf.jpg

234379-*DD158CGC9_8Wf.jpg.52ef4617eff167774968a80e36f4744e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

Yea, I totally agree. I tend towards preferring the back wrapping around to the front only because "things my eye is used to seeing" on Silver and Bronze Marvels are often over there on the left side; this includes graphics like banner text, the price, the character pictures in the upper left, and the "Marvel Comics Group" logo. When those wrap to the back, it bugs the [!@#%^&^] out of me; it's like a picture on the wall that's crooked and you can never right it.

 

But, it's an issue-to-issue thing. On some issues in some months, the publisher left a nice "gutter" on both the left and right and it doesn't matter much which way it's offset. On other issues in other months, the publisher situated the art to hug the left or right edge too much. A prime example of this is Amazing Spider-Man 23 versus Amazing Spider-Man 24. On #23 Marvel left a NICE amount of space between both the left and right page edges and most major graphics, and as a result, copies of that issue that are miswrapped in a way that bugs me are rare. However, on #24, they put the "Marvel Comics Group" logo FLUSH up against the left edge, and as a result, many copies of this issue look like they're made by the "rvel ics oup". Additionally on #24, the left half of Spidey's eye in the upper left often wraps to the back. Bugs me to death; it took me a while before I found a centered copy of that issue with none of the major graphics either off the right or wrapped to the back.

 

To notice these kinds of things, you probably have to have at least two personal attributes--an eye for graphic design and an anal/obsessive aspect to your personality. I know Bruce is great at graphic design, and I'm an amateur designer myself. We're both rather anal/obsessive. cool.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BronzeBruce13

BronzeBruce13

Posted
Posted

Maybe.. I like "obsessive" far better as a characterization. I don't understand the origin of the other term. Why did Freud associate "detail oriented/observant" with the nastiest of orifices?

 

I think there are plenty of "non designers" that are as much and possibly more analytical and selective concerning the books they want though.

 

Isn't my 158 a beauty?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

Maybe.. I like "obsessive" far better as a characterization. I don't understand the origin of the other term. Why did Freud associate "detail oriented/observant" with the nastiest of orifices?

 

Been over a decade since I heard the explanation, but I believe it was because that's the source of disorder that the majority of us are forced to place into order first, very early in our lives. I believe "anal retentive" is meant to describe someone who excessively tries to place things in order without functional purpose...certainly collecting high-grade comics serves no functional purpose.

 

Isn't my 158 a beauty?

 

Yep!!! No noticable graphic elements disturbed at all by that miswrap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BronzeBruce13

BronzeBruce13

Posted
Posted

Now I'm even less impressed with Freud and the term after reading that link 27_laughing.gif

I can honestly say I never held back a "#2" that was knocking on the door at any time, and especially not to exert any control over my parents? If anything, I was "too" sharing. I recall an instance when I was about 6 living in Illinois. The neighbor's son, who was bigger than me threw sand in my infant sister's face in our sandbox. After picking up a worthy stick (I needed something) and chasing him into his front door unbeaten, I later returned at dusk and "pinched a loaf" on their walkway to voice my dissatisfaction of being robbed of my right to whack him with the stick. I remember my Father asking me about it with an odd look on his face shortly after the phone rang. Its one of the few times I lied to my Dad... until of course i entered my "party stage".

 

I'll have to admit to being organized, but not a "neat freak". If you could take a look at my lawn... it's OK, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend all that time to compete with the "neat lawn neighbors".. you win, I saved 79 hours this summer. I'm only concerned with my work area's being organized basically because I have no patience when I can't find something and I start cursing and banging things around while I look.

 

So much for Freud

 

 

confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
Did I convince you the preference is best decided on a case to case basis... or would you still rather have that Hulk 181 instead of the 1/6 to 1/8" front miswrap where nothing is cropped off?

 

Dice-X?

 

Long answer...

Actually, if I have a choice. I am pretty anal about the cut, and want it as perfect as possible.

I can stand 1/16" or less of white from the back cover wrapping around to the front.

But if there is more than that...forget it.

 

I can gurantee that there is not a comic in my collection with more than 1/16" of white on the spine.

 

Add to that the fact that I simply despise when the Marvel Comics Group banner is touching the top edge of the book.

 

I guess I like my books pretty much dead centered.

I'll take almost any other flaw (other than water) on my books.

 

Short answer...

Yes. I'd still rather have a wrap toward the back. sumo.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BronzeBruce13

BronzeBruce13

Posted
Posted

..even though important parts of the cover are missing from the fornt? and even though there is a "white" non-printed area from the next cover's spine on the right side of the book? Isn't that the same thing, just on the other side which should be even more annoying?

 

Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
..even though important parts of the cover are missing from the fornt? and even though there is a "white" non-printed area from the next cover's spine on the right side of the book? Isn't that the same thing, just on the other side which should be even more annoying?

 

Just curious.

 

Good point.

Ok. Now I don't want either of them. tongue.gif

 

I don't mind the wrap to the back cover *as much* as I mind it to the front.

If there is a 1/16" wrap to the back, it's usually not noticable.

If there is a 1/16" wrap to the front, it slaps you in the face.

 

There is more of a tolerance for a wrap to the back before you start seeing the next cover show up on the right side.

If it's only slightly off towards the front, it can be seen.

You get at least 1/8" of wrap to the back cover before the cover ends on the right side.

 

So...I still prefer wrap to the back. But I'd never go for it if the white from the next cover starts creeping in from the right side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
Did you like my 158?

 

Your 158 is exactly the reason I prefer the wrap to the back.

I don't like the white line on the front cover.

And the bonus is, on this particular book, you don't lose anything on the cover.

 

Yes. The 158 is very nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing