Mile High books and the miscut look

[adamstrange]

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.

 

They don't use notes any more -- but I've certainly seen a few old-label holders with the mis-cut notation.

 

I don't recall seeing a book given a green label solely due to a miscut of this magnitude, but I can certainly believe that it could happen. Nor do I want to be the one to guarantee CGC's grading of any particular defect.

[adamstrange]

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.

 

It's usually safest to take my non opinion as a providing no evidence of what my actual opinion is.

[pennynike1]

It's usually safest to take my non opinion as a providing no evidence of what my actual opinion is.

 

 

A view expressed uncontested is a point found correct until expressed otherwise.

 

[adamstrange]

BTW, speaking of inconsistency, I can't believe that a book with such extensive dust shadowing received a 9.6!)

 

CGC doesn't take off very much for dust shadows blah, blah, blah you've heard the story before blah blah blah

[adamstrange]

It's usually safest to take my non opinion as a providing no evidence of what my actual opinion is.

 

 

A view expressed uncontested is a point found correct until expressed otherwise.

 

 

Actually I did just contest you view of my non-view. So your assumption about my view can't be correct though I didn't disagree with your original assumption so I must agree but then we just proved that we don't know if I do agree so I'm not sure where that leaves us except that now both my body and my brain are tired.

[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.

 

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!)

 

Again, one of the gray areas in terms of opinion. The dust shadows don't bother me in the least. Mis-cuts bother the heck out of me. Books that are very out of register bother me a ton. Loose centerfolds don't bother me very much. Spine rolls - bad, foxing - not so bad. Store stamps - bad, date stamps - not so bad. Just a matter of preference.

[pennynike1]

Actually I did just contest you view of my non-view. So your assumption about my view can't be correct though I didn't disagree with your original assumption so I must agree but then we just proved that we don't know if I do agree so I'm not sure where that leaves us except that now both my body and my brain are tired.

 

Lets just say that I mad at you for owning so many incredible unslabbed books and leave it that.

[pennynike1]

The dust shadows don't bother me in the least.

 

When talking about a book that costs over $1,000, it bothers the heck it out of me. A book that costs a couple hundred perhaps not so much, but I remember sending in an ASM #18 to CGC several months back, which I purchased as a VF+ copy. It came back a 4.5, which kind of reaffirmed my hatred of dust shadows.

[pennynike1]

Books that are very out of register bother me a ton

 

I have found that many super grade Mile High copies have registration problems where the spine is concerned. The problem is readily apparent where there is a vertical strip, such as on Fox books. It doesn't seem to effect the price, however, as the books I have seen in uber grade grade are going for thousands upon thousands of dollars. Stick the words Mile High on a book and voila!

[adamstrange]

stick the 9.4 grade on a book and voila!

 

Fixed it for you.

[adamstrange]

The dust shadows don't bother me in the least.

 

When talking about a book that costs over $1,000, it bothers the heck it out of me. A book that costs a couple hundred perhaps not so much, but I remember sending in an ASM #18 to CGC several months back, which I purchased as a VF+ copy. It came back a 4.5, which kind of reaffirmed my hatred of dust shadows.

 

Did you call them to validate that it was just a dust shadow that caused the 4.5 grade? CGC does grade differently for GA than SA, but that seems extreme unless it was a particularly obnoxious dust shadow.

[silverweb]

Books that are very out of register bother me a ton

 

I have found that many super grade Mile High copies have registration problems where the spine is concerned. The problem is readily apparent where there is a vertical strip, such as on Fox books. It doesn't seem to effect the price, however, as the books I have seen in uber grade grade are going for thousands upon thousands of dollars. Stick the words Mile High on a book and voila!

 

Mike,

Can you explain to me what you mean by "registration"? I cannot find a definition for it.

 

Thanks

[Aman619]

it means when you buy a book for more than $1000, you have to file a 1460-M Registration form with the US government within 30 days or risk confiscation.

[tth2]

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.

This was the 1940s we're talking about. I doubt most buyers (including Edgar) cared enough about condition and cut that the seller bothered to do this kind of sorting.

 

The first pedigree I'm aware of where the OO really seemed to care about centering and PQ was the Pacific Coast collection, which has uniformly superb PQ.

[tth2]

The dust shadows don't bother me in the least.

 

When talking about a book that costs over $1,000, it bothers the heck it out of me. A book that costs a couple hundred perhaps not so much, but I remember sending in an ASM #18 to CGC several months back, which I purchased as a VF+ copy. It came back a 4.5, which kind of reaffirmed my hatred of dust shadows.

 

Did you call them to validate that it was just a dust shadow that caused the 4.5 grade? CGC does grade differently for GA than SA, but that seems extreme unless it was a particularly obnoxious dust shadow.

I agree. It's really unlikely that CGC downgraded a 8.5 quality book down to 4.5 because of dust shadows. There had to be some serious structural problems.

 

Pennynike, perhaps you should call for the grader's notes?

[The Black Hand ®]

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

 

 

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

 

I think they were dazzled by the beautiful colors on this unblemished book. As far as dust shadows go, they are most definately a defect and weaken the paper underneath.

[skybolt]

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?

 

When I switched from collecting HG SA and BA books to GA about 3.5 years ago, I faced similar concerns. Sure, I wanted the highest graded copy of a certain issue, but it didn't necessarily mean that is was the best looking copy in existence. I do like CGC's services and agree with them about 80% of the time, but I have to use my own judgment if I'm to be completely happy with the books I collect. For instance, I'd much rather own a nice clean 7.5 copy of a certain issue with some spine stress marks, than a 9.0 copy that has ugly looking foxing, miscuts, production fadings, and similar defects that CGC does not severely deduct for.

 

I recently passed on bidding on an 8.0 (or 8.5?) Crippin copy of a Wonder Comics #16 in a recent Heritage auction due to foxing issues, and decided to go after a very clean non-pedigree 7.5 copy in their next auction. I'm much happier with this lower graded pick-up. I've never understood why a book with a small stain on the back cover can be knocked down in grade to 6.0/6.5, while another one with severe foxing can still get an 8.5 grade!

 

On the otherhand, I once posted my recently purchased 7.0 copy of Rangers Comics #25, that had lots of cover fading (which is common with Fiction House books), but would've much rather owned Flying Donut's 4.5 copy (which had beautiful colors) that he posted a few weeks earlier.

 

My recommendation to recent GA collectors would be to go after nice looking clean copies (even if they're in the 6.5 to 7.5 range), and save your money for other similar purchases. Trying to obtain the highest graded copy in GA may not be that rewarding depending on what you're pet-peeves are with certain defects.

[rjpb]

My recommendation to recent GA collectors would be to go after nice looking clean copies (even if they're in the 6.5 to 7.5 range), and save your money for other similar purchases. Trying to obtain the highest graded copy in GA may not be that rewarding depending on what you're pet-peeves are with certain defects.

 

I usually go for grades less than that (AKA "affordable grades") - but your point is excellent. I think many GA collectors are savvy enough to know that CGC's criteria puts little emphasis on eye-appeal, and that "highest graded" is not always "the best". I tend to be a bit more lenient with slight miscuts when considering the eye-appeal of GA books over say SA and later - just because it is so common, but I agree with others - that particular Blue Beetle wouldn't make it to 9.4 if I were grading it.

 

It seems that GA collectors aren't always willing to pay the automatic multiple for every .2 bump that Silver and Bronze collectors feel obligated to. The CGC grade vs. eye-appeal arguement may be a factor in that.

[lou_fine]

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

 

As has already been alluded to by the last two posters, you seem to be getting confused between two very different and distinctive concepts here: CGC grading versus eye appeal.

 

CGC grades primarily based upon a technical basis and pays far less attention to eye appeal factors such as miscuts, miswraps, foxing, etc., especially on the GA books. No doubt why we see so many ugly looking 9.4's along with so many gorgeous looking 7.5's or 8.5's.

 

It is very common for CGC to be very forgiving on a miswrapped book that you can clearly see across the convention floor and yet at the same time, bodyslam a really sharp looking book that has barely visible non-colour breaking creases that you can only see if you hold the book up at a certain angle to the light.

 

And unfortunately, probably one of the primary reasons why we see so much undisclosed artificial manipulation of books in the form of solo pressing as this has grown virtually overnight from nothing to the booming cottage industry it is today.

[tth2]

It is very common for CGC to be very forgiving on a miswrapped book that you can clearly see across the convention floor and yet at the same time, bodyslam a really sharp looking book that has barely visible non-colour breaking creases that you can only see if you hold the book up at a certain angle to the light.

Perhaps it's precisely because you CAN see the defect and don't need a third-party grader to tell you the defect is there!

 

Particularly buying over the internet or by mail order, where at best I'm relying on a scan or picture, I very well might not be able to see that "barely visible non-colour breaking crease", and therefore rely on CGC to factor that into the grade. In contrast, even in a poor scan or picture, as long as the whole book is there and the lines of the CGC slab are there to form a frame of reference, I could see that a book is mis-cut or miswrapped, or see more obvious dust shadows. If I don't like those kinds of defects, it's pretty easy to avoid them.