Take a look at this 9.6!!!

[MrNice-migration]

9.6??? This book has it ALL: dust shadow (right edge), distributor's ink liberally oversprayed across the top front cover, bad folding (at an angle), an indented top staple and stresses at the bottom staple, a rough cut on the lower area of the right edge, and lastly, a bottom edge that in no way matches the crispness of the fractionally trimmed top edge.

 

Always interesting to see a 9.0 in a 9.6 holder, no matter how many times you see it!

 

 

web page

[blowout]

But apart from all those things its a great looking book...

 

Buy the book not the label.

[sborock]

".....a bottom edge that in no way matches the crispness of the fractionally trimmed top edge. "

 

Nice to have "Hammer/Meth/Black/etc" and his flowery mis-information back on the boards I wonder what his agenda is

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGuy]

Always interesting to see a 9.0 in a 9.6 holder, no matter how many times you see it!

 

 

web page

 

Go away fraud.

[fantastic_four]

Nice to have "Hammer/Meth/Black/etc" and his flowery mis-information back on the boards I wonder what his agenda is

 

Same as always...to discredit third-party certification because he's sick of taking returns on his restored raw sales. Can't wait to start hearing his opinions on the upcoming "Global" grading company (or whatever thing Hughes is rumored to be grading for).

 

However, he's got a point with the overspray/miswrap/dust shadow/rough corner...that 9.6 doesn't compare very well with the vast majority of the ones I've seen.

[LordRahl]

CGC does not downgrade for distributor ink and miswraps. This is NOT news. The rough corner I'm assuming is how the book was cut at the printers, that would make it a production flaw like a printers crease, once again something that CGC does NOT downgrade for. So the only thing is the dust shadow. Is this maybe slightly overgraded, perhaps a borderline 9.4? But taking into account what CGC does not downgrade for it's still fairly consistent. No way is that a 9.0 book. I can understand people having a problem with CGC not downgrading production flaws but at least they are consistent about it.

[fantastic_four]

CGC does not downgrade for distributor ink and miswraps. This is NOT news. The rough corner I'm assuming is how the book was cut at the printers, that would make it a production flaw like a printers crease, once again something that CGC does NOT downgrade for. So the only thing is the dust shadow. Is this maybe slightly overgraded, perhaps a borderline 9.4? But taking into account what CGC does not downgrade for it's still fairly consistent. No way is that a 9.0 book. I can understand people having a problem with CGC not downgrading production flaws but at least they are consistent about it.

 

My inference (and Dupcak's) was that they SHOULD be looking at those defects at the 9.6 level, particularly when they're all present on the same book! I could be wrong, but the only reason we're probably even seeing this book for sale publicly and not being traded privately or locked up in a collection is because the major Spidey collectors compared it to their current 9.4/9.6 copies and saw that it was inferior.

 

In my search for nice Marvels, I see this a LOT...at least half of the Silver Marvel 9.6s that come up for sale have one or more of these eye appeal defects that CGC doesn't downgrade for, including miscuts, miswraps, cream pages, date stamps, light transfer stains/translucency, soiling, overspray, or slight dust shadows. The really nice 9.6s are locked up tight or traded to friends and/or valued customers (i.e. big wallets) before most of us get to see them.

 

Last time I saw a bunch of really nice 9.6/9.8 copies for sale publicly was when "italian-treasure" went belly-up...short of that, I only see one every 1-3 months.

[tod09]

I think your right about a lot of the current 9.4's and up that are currently out on the market as being inferior examples. CGC does the best that they can do but they can overgrade at times so some of these books on Ebay could be overgrades that people are flipping 'cause they don't want to be stuck holding these overgrades. The true grades without all the defects that CGC doesn't take off for are in the permanent collections that may only see the light of day out of desperation. Sometimes I'd rather buy a high graded book from a store since they they don't cherry pick for their personal collections they just sell the books. It's the individuals that can be suspect if they sell since they are supposed to be collectors and we all know that it's hard for collectors to ever sell their books. Before I get any flames I'm not saying this is the case for all sellers that also buy books at the same time. It's just common sense that if you going to sell a book you'd choose a book you don't like or one that was overgraded as one of the first ones to go. How many people buy duplicates of books and sell the inferior one even if they are the same grade? This type of practice is much more common now since CGC has been around for a few years and so many books have sold through Ebay that the better books are bound to be "filtered" out into personal "locked-up" collections and the weaker ones will keep circulating. Almost like a game of hot potato.

 

Tod

[LordRahl]

I'm not arguing whether they SHOULD be looking at production flaws and downgrading for them. Some bother me more than others and everyone has their certain pet peeves. All I'm saying is that going by previous examples of how CGC grades today that book is not badly overgraded if at all. The defects on this book will bother some more than others, I just have this thing about how everyone thinks they can grade better than CGC and how CGC screwed them on this grade but overgraded X book and yada yada yada. If a certain defect bothers you and you don't agree with the grade then as people here are fond of saying "buy the book not the label".

[fantastic_four]

If a certain defect bothers you and you don't agree with the grade then as people here are fond of saying "buy the book not the label".

 

CGC's viability and profits lean heavily on mail-order buying...many of these types of defects are hard to see unless a scan is clear and large, which they quite often aren't. To further support mail-order purchasing, I'd much rather the label better reflected the book so that we didn't HAVE to "buy the book not the label." The primary reason this phrase has become so common is because of the defects CGC either doesn't downgrade for or doesn't note. Of course, another reason is due to mistakes...you'll never eliminate those, but there are a lot of things you can do to the grading and label standard to make the concept much less necessary.

 

Look at the labels here:

 

http://www.3pgrading.com/SAMPLES.htm

 

And here:

 

http://members.cox.net/dinaavedisian/xmen.jpg

 

I can think of much better descriptive solutions than both of these--and ones which take less time and require software to aid in the grading process--but they're both steps in the right direction. Neither CGG nor 3PG are a completely viable alternative to CGC due to their heavy leaning towards modern books or other miscellaneous shortcomings, but they've got some interesting ideas that I hope inspire thoughts in the mind of CGC or any major competitor which arises in the future.

[MrNice-migration]

So in one sentence you say, that I'm (me or Dupcheck..not exactly clear?) trying to discredit CGC by pointing out flaws that in no way should exist on a 9.6 book, then in the next, you point out that you too believe the book to be inferior to a legitimate 9.6, or what one should expect to see in a 9.6 labeled slab.

 

Is that what you're saying? Is the book a solid NM+ or not? What's your opinion? Do you even have a solid opinion or would you rather just not say for fear of upsetting the apple cart?

I think it's not. Are you going to do another 180 and disagree with me again, just to do so on principle, because it's "in vogue" to disagree with me even when I'm 100% correct??

 

Would YOU pay a 9.6 price for this if it were on your want list or wait for one more indicative of what a 9.6 should look like?

 

The histrionics that one in disfavor has to go through to hear, "yeah..you're right", are incredible.

[Illiterati-migration]

 

I think it's not. Are you going to do another 180 and disagree with me again, just to do so on principle, because it's "in vogue" to disagree with me even when I'm 100% correct??

 

Would YOU pay a 9.6 price for this if it were on your want list or wait for one more indicative of what a 9.6 should look like?

 

The histrionics that one in disfavor has to go through to hear, "yeah..you're right", are incredible.

 

Amen, brother! I mean, you're a nutbag and everything, but Aaaaamen.

[blowout]

All I'm saying is that going by previous examples of how CGC grades today that book is not badly overgraded if at all.

 

I don't think there is too much doubt that the book is overgraded no matter what your preferences are.

It is badly mis-wrapped, has ink overspray AND a dust shadow. Any ONE of these defects IMO should take the book out of the 9.6 grade.

 

With all these defects present, the book just isn't in NM shape.

 

Even factoring the whole 'CGC doesn't downgrade for production defects' angle, would anyone here seriously grade a book with a dust shadow (not a production flaw) a NM+?

[BronzeBruce13]

We already know that CGC does not downgrade for most production related flaws, nor deduct for "eye appeal" considerations (unless very severe in their estimation) in HG. That's just their system and its becoming a little clearer to understand as time goes by. Regardless if you agree or not with it (I can relate to arguments in both sides), at least we have a good idea what's up. They grade structure in HG and let the collector decide about the eye appeal and production flaws.

 

That said, you brought up a great point about the "dust shadow"... that is definitely damage that happened after the book was produced and is storage related. I've always found Steve Borock to be very available and willing to discuss questions I've had. Why not give him a ring and give us a recap of the conversation? We can get answers that way much faster and without guessing so much.

 

JR, you too...you brought up a great question about why "eye appeal" should be more important in HG... the opposite of what I understand the system to be. I offered a guess, but I'd like to hear that explanation too.

 

Give a ring and report fellas... inquiring minds want to know the answers to your excellent questions and I'm sure he's getting tired of me calling with a question every 2 weeks.

[MrNice-migration]

Do you think he'd prefer it if I were to call him every two weeks instead?

[drbanner]

Nice to have "Hammer/Meth/Black/etc" and his flowery mis-information back on the boards

 

[fantastic_four]

So in one sentence you say, that I'm (me or Dupcheck..not exactly clear?) trying to discredit CGC by pointing out flaws that in no way should exist on a 9.6 book, then in the next, you point out that you too believe the book to be inferior to a legitimate 9.6, or what one should expect to see in a 9.6 labeled slab.

 

Is that what you're saying? Is the book a solid NM+ or not? What's your opinion? Do you even have a solid opinion or would you rather just not say for fear of upsetting the apple cart?

I think it's not. Are you going to do another 180 and disagree with me again, just to do so on principle, because it's "in vogue" to disagree with me even when I'm 100% correct??

 

Which personality am I debating with? Hammer? Meth? Blackshotzky? MrNice? Your schizophrenia makes it tough to really explain this to you like it needs to be explained. The answer to your question was up in the posts above, but I guess MrNice and Hammer and comic-keys aren't communicating with each other today, so I'll try keep it simple--just because you're right about this Spidey 26 being overgraded doesn't mean you didn't post about it without a personal agenda.

 

If that doesn't make sense to you, I suggest you try talking with a psychologist to get your identity confusion cleared up.

[garthgantu]

I hope I'm not perceived as having an agenda... but I guess we all have *some* agenda, whether we care to admit it or not.

 

I think Mr. Nice has a valid point in this case, and I don't really care what his motive(s) might be. I know there are people on these boards who ONLY care about ulterior motives, and base their perceptions of various posters' postings on those motives, rather than the merits of the posts themselves.

 

If CGC would list the defects on the label, then you could by the label AND the book...

 

But people saying "buy the book, not the label" seem to be missing a significant point - I could ALWAYS buy the book... what's the point of the label if it's not providing a level of guidance/confidence that is intended to facilitate the buying of the book? So I don't think you can buy a slabbed book without buying the label, on some level.

 

Having said all that, I think it's fair to say that the grading of comics the way CGC does it is, in a way, an art -- in the same way that a sommelier "grades" a wine. There's so much more to grading a comic book than a coin or a stamp! Are there going to be oversights and less-than-perfect appraisals? Absolutely. Problem is, the back-issue-buying community as a whole is expecting perfection, particularly at the price point... when you pay $40 to have a book slabbed and (more importantly) graded professionally, you don't want to believe that there's any margin for error in terms of the grading. That's just unrealistic, and this ASM #26 simply serves to illustrate that point.

[fantastic_four]

I think Mr. Nice has a valid point in this case, and I don't really care what his motive(s) might be. I know there are people on these boards who ONLY care about ulterior motives, and base their perceptions of various posters' postings on those motives, rather than the merits of the posts themselves.

 

When it comes to comic-keys, that's exactly right--you've GOT to consider his motives WHENEVER he posts. As a new forum member, you might have missed all those threads where he made personal threats against several people; that's what led to the banning of his Methuselah and Hammer accounts. This guy has a LOT of money riding on his ability to scam people with restored books, and that gives him tremendous incentive to bend the truth into whatever form it takes to allow him to continue raking in the cash.

 

Have you stopped to think about how much money the guy who started this thread is making per year from selling restored books as unrestored? I can help you with the numbers if you're not sure about them; for starters, he's a Platinum E-Bay PowerSeller. Look at his sales from the last month. Professional evaluation of this guy's product forces him to have to accept returns from the buyers so they won't call the cops, thereby cutting into his profits.

 

His point in this thread is valid, EXCEPT the thing about the trim up top. And that's what Steve originally quoted that led the thread in this direction. Steve asked him what his motive was with noting that CGC had missed restoration on this book, and I responded that his motive for years has been to discredit third-party certification.

[supapimp]

where there's smoke, there's fire. checkout his past auction winning bids, they'll will soon surface as UNRESTORED NM. BIDS

you'll soon see what im talking about. when someone constantly slams CGC and never has a positive thing to say about it, the jig is up!