Mile High books and the miscut look

[pennynike1]

I have seen so many Mile High books that look like they have either been miscut (i.e. are not recangular shaped), or suffer from some kind of major paper shrinkage issue. Does anyone have an explanation why this is so? Was it the way they were stored, or is this simply how they were originally made?

[adamstrange]

No need to panic. Comics were just about the cheapest periodical printed so there's lot of QP issues starting from the very early days.

 

major paper shrinkage issue

 

Not sure what this is referring to. Got an example?

[pennynike1]

This sold for $2,530 on Heritage a few years back.

 

[MrBedrock]

This sold for $2,530 on Heritage a few years back.

 

 

That is a Fox problem, not something specific to Mile Highs.

[MrBedrock]

Kind of amazing it got a 9.6 considering how mis-cut it is!

[pennynike1]

That is a Fox problem, not something specific to Mile Highs.

 

There are many books in the collection with this kind of imperfection, including two Ranger (fiction house) books that were formerly in my collection. I don't see how a book can get a 9.6 grade looking like this, even if the problem originated with the publisher.

[MrBedrock]

That is a Fox problem, not something specific to Mile Highs.

 

There are many books in the collection with this kind of imperfection, including two Ranger (fiction house) books that were formerly in my collection. I don't see how a book can get a 9.6 grade looking like this, even if the problem originated with the publisher.

 

I certainly am not trying to contradict you, but I must say that it hasn't been my experience that there are more mis-cut MHs then normal. Out of 20 thousand books there are bound to be some manufacturers defects. Probably just the unluck of the draw that you have run across more of them.

[SurfingAlien]

That is a Fox problem, not something specific to Mile Highs.

 

There are many books in the collection with this kind of imperfection, including two Ranger (fiction house) books that were formerly in my collection. I don't see how a book can get a 9.6 grade looking like this, even if the problem originated with the publisher.

 

I believe that CGC grades structure based on what the degradation from its original state was. If the book's only original state was that all were miscut, with no perfect square copies extent - then they might be saying that "this is a 9.6 of whatever state was ever issued" Just throwing it out there...

[pennynike1]

I certainly am not trying to contradict you, but I must say that it hasn't been my experience that there are more mis-cut MHs then normal. Out of 20 thousand books there are bound to be some manufacturers defects. Probably just the unluck of the draw that you have run across more of them.

 

I created this thread because I typically will look up past auctions on Heritage regarding books that I am currently interested in that are on the market (mainly Fox and Fiction House books). I have seen quite a few Mile Highs at the top of the census, with scans similiar to this one (although the scan above is more of an extreme example).

 

If I had the choice of owning the 9.6 Mile High of a book, such as the BB #55 above, or a 9.4 book that was not miscut, I would choose the 9.4

[pennynike1]

I believe that CGC grades structure based on what the degradation from its original state was. If the book's only original state was that all were miscut, with no perfect square copies extent - then they might be saying that "this is a 9.6 of whatever state was ever issued" Just throwing it out there...

 

I would agree with you 100% if all books were produced that way. But when one miscut book is given a 9.0 - 9.8 CGC grade, and then a non-pedigree book is given a 8.0 that is completely rectangular, it doesn't seem to give the 8.0 justice in that context IMHO.

[MrBedrock]

That is a Fox problem, not something specific to Mile Highs.

 

There are many books in the collection with this kind of imperfection, including two Ranger (fiction house) books that were formerly in my collection. I don't see how a book can get a 9.6 grade looking like this, even if the problem originated with the publisher.

 

I believe that CGC grades structure based on what the degradation from its original state was. If the book's only original state was that all were miscut, with no perfect square copies extent - then they might be saying that "this is a 9.6 of whatever state was ever issued" Just throwing it out there...

 

That is a good point. But how are they to know that a whole print run is, in fact, mis-cut when in actuality they grade such a small percentage of any given issue?

[adamstrange]

This sold for $2,530 on Heritage a few years back.

 

 

This is not a "paper shrinkage issue" just a mis-cut book, and there are lots of them.

 

CGC doesn't count off particularly hard for those type of miscuts so even 9.6s can have them. Not sure about 9.8 or above.

[adamstrange]

That is a Fox problem, not something specific to Mile Highs.

 

There are many books in the collection with this kind of imperfection, including two Ranger (fiction house) books that were formerly in my collection. I don't see how a book can get a 9.6 grade looking like this, even if the problem originated with the publisher.

 

I believe that CGC grades structure based on what the degradation from its original state was. If the book's only original state was that all were miscut, with no perfect square copies extent - then they might be saying that "this is a 9.6 of whatever state was ever issued" Just throwing it out there...

 

I sincerely doubt they do this as there's never been this kind of information available and CGC prefers to grade the book in front of them.

[pennynike1]

That is a good point, but how are they to know that a whole print run is, in fact, mis-cut when in actuality they grade such a small percentage of any given book?

 

To answer your rhetorical question, they can't (unless there are extremely extroadinary circumstances). As indicated in my last post, they know that good (non-miscut) books are out there if they previously graded at least one that did not present with the defect. This doesn't mean that it is necessarily representative of a print run, but it does demonstrate that one at least was made correctly, and I would think that this would then reflect negatively on a miscut book in the same printrun.

[adamstrange]

I believe that CGC grades structure based on what the degradation from its original state was. If the book's only original state was that all were miscut, with no perfect square copies extent - then they might be saying that "this is a 9.6 of whatever state was ever issued" Just throwing it out there...

 

I would agree with you 100% if all books were produced that way. But when one miscut book is given a 9.0 - 9.8 CGC grade, and then a non-pedigree book is given a 8.0 that is completely rectangular, it doesn't seem to give the 8.0 justice in that context IMHO.

 

If they gave a book an 8.0 grade it's usually because it has defects that cause greater deductions than CGC would apply for miscuts. Might not be how you would grade, but they are consistent.

[pennynike1]

I sincerely doubt they do this as there's never been this kind of information available and CGC prefers to grade the book in front of them.

 

If what you say is true, as I suspect it is, then how would you explain the BB #55 depicted above getting a 9.6? Assuming that this book is 100% free of defects, other than the miscut, would you deduct only a 0.4 if you were grading this book?

 

Might not be how you would grade but they are consistent.

 

Obviously it is not the way I would grade the book, but I am wondering if this isn't similiar to the binding error process one comes to expect on Silver Age squarebound books such as Silver Surfer #1-7. Since Church collected so many books, keeping them in prime condition, I would have expected him to be searching for the finest available copy when making his selections.

[adamstrange]

If what you say is true, as I suspect it is, then how would you explain the BB #55 depicted above getting a 9.6?

 

I've seen similarly miscut books receive a 9.6 from CGC

 

 

Assuming that this book is 100% free of defects, other than the miscut, would you deduct only a 0.4 if you were grading this book?

 

I don't grade using points.

 

I am wondering if this isn't similiar to the binding error process one comes to expect on Silver Age squarebound books

 

CGC does not grade SA square-bounds the way they do other books from the same time frame due to the different binding process involving glue on the giants.

 

Since Church collected so many books, keeping them in prime condition, I would have expected him to be searching for the finest available copy when making his selections.

 

If there was a miscut book on the newstand, it's likely part of the same print run that was also miscut so he might very well have been buying the best on the newstand. Regardless, I'm not so certain how picky he was. I suspect that he had books set aside for him as otherwise it would have been hard for him to be so complete on so many runs for so many years. This is pure speculation on my part and I don't recall reading any comments that Chuck gleaned from the kids that described their father's buying habits.

[MrBedrock]

I think the BB #55 just got by somehow. I have books that are in green holders with the same amount of mis-cut. I also have had mis-cut books with notes. So I am not sure that CGC is as consistent as Adam feels they are.

As for the Mile Highs, I don't think Church sought out the best copies on the stands, he just did a really good of job storing the copies that he bought.

[pennynike1]

I suspect that he had books set aside for him as otherwise it would have been hard for him to be so complete on so many runs for so many years.

 

I suspect that are probably correct in this regard, and it may be that the seller gave him the worst copy available so he could sell the better looking copy to someone who did not have that kind of arrangement with the seller.

 

I don't grade using points.

. I take your silly response to be a concession that the BB #55 does not look like a NM+ book.

[pennynike1]

I think the BB #55 just got by somehow. I have books that are in green holders with the same amount of mis-cut. I also have had mis-cut books with notes. So I am not sure that CGC is as consistent as Adam feels they are.

As for the Mile Highs, I don't think Church sought out the best copies on the stands, he just did a really good of job storing the copies that he bought.

 

Thanks for the comments. I do wonder how someone could store so many books, and keep them in such great condition, if some of those books had the miscut. I am assuming this is what created the rear cover dust shadow on such books as the CGC 9.6 Flash Comics #1 (BTW, speaking of inconsistency, I can't believe that a book with such extensive dust shadowing received a 9.6!)