Mile High books and the miscut look

[The Black Hand ®]

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.

 

Do you think that the fact that CGC is tough on non color breaking creases encourages people to have books pressed?

[MrBedrock]

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.

 

 

Do you think that the fact that CGC is tough on non color breaking creases encourages people to have books pressed?

 

Absolutely! It is the only reason i have books pressed.

[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.

 

 

Do you think that the fact that CGC is tough on non color breaking creases encourages people to have books pressed?

 

Absolutely! It is the only reason i have books pressed.

 

And do you believe this is the real reason why CGC slamed these books so hard in the first place?

 

It has been speculated that the game plan has always been in place for CGC's parent company to set up a restoration service (PCS?) to cash in on this newly created revenue opportunity. Fortunately, it didn't work out in the end for them.

[MrBedrock]

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.

 

 

Do you think that the fact that CGC is tough on non color breaking creases encourages people to have books pressed?

 

Absolutely! It is the only reason i have books pressed.

 

And do you believe this is the real reason why CGC slamed these books so hard in the first place?

 

It has been speculated that the game plan has always been in place for CGC's parent company to set up a restoration service (PCS?) to cash in on this newly created revenue opportunity. Fortunately, it didn't work out in the end for them.

 

I honestly feel that CGC grades these types of books hard because that is what they feel the hobby demands. They have consistently graded those types of defects hard from the beginning. Strictly speaking, from a structural standpoint that is the way light creases should be graded. The fact that they can be pressed out shouldn't be taken into consideration when grading them. They are either there or they aren't. As for a grand scheme, I really don't think the Illuminati care much what happens in the world of collectible comic books. CGC's attempt to capitalize on the pressing issue was undercut by two factors. One, the appearance of conflict of interest. Two, the superior service of others in the field of pressing.

[pennynike1]

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.

 

How does one identify a pressed book? I have read other posts on this forum of people disclosing that books were resubmitted to CGC after being pressed, recieving a higher grade. How does one avoid such books if the seller is not up front with such pressing?

[tth2]

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.

 

How does one identify a pressed book? I have read other posts on this forum of people disclosing that books were resubmitted to CGC after being pressed, recieving a higher grade. How does one avoid such books if the seller is not up front with such pressing?

that's the insidious thing about pressing. If it's well done, you can't tell, unless you knew what the book looked like before.

[adamstrange]

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.

 

How does one identify a pressed book? I have read other posts on this forum of people disclosing that books were resubmitted to CGC after being pressed, recieving a higher grade. How does one avoid such books if the seller is not up front with such pressing?

that's the insidious thing about pressing. If it's well done, you can't tell, unless you knew what the book looked like before.

 

It depends on what's being pressed. Bends that have been pressed will be pretty much undetectable if performed by a skilled practitioner. Non-color breaking crease that is pressed may result in improved appearance, but you can't fix the broken fibers. So while the pressing is undetectable, the original defect remains. With spine roll I'll fall back on my typical consultant answer and say "it depends".

[tth2]

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.

 

How does one identify a pressed book? I have read other posts on this forum of people disclosing that books were resubmitted to CGC after being pressed, recieving a higher grade. How does one avoid such books if the seller is not up front with such pressing?

that's the insidious thing about pressing. If it's well done, you can't tell, unless you knew what the book looked like before.

 

It depends on what's being pressed. Bends that have been pressed will be pretty much undetectable if performed by a skilled practitioner. Non-color breaking crease that is pressed may result in improved appearance, but you can't fix the broken fibers. So while the pressing is undetectable, the original defect remains. With spine roll I'll fall back on my typical consultant answer and say "it depends".

I know, I was just answering his question as to whether the pressing can be detected, to which the answer is no. Seems to me you're answering the question of "can pressing remove all flaws completely?"

[adamstrange]

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.

 

How does one identify a pressed book? I have read other posts on this forum of people disclosing that books were resubmitted to CGC after being pressed, recieving a higher grade. How does one avoid such books if the seller is not up front with such pressing?

that's the insidious thing about pressing. If it's well done, you can't tell, unless you knew what the book looked like before.

 

It depends on what's being pressed. Bends that have been pressed will be pretty much undetectable if performed by a skilled practitioner. Non-color breaking crease that is pressed may result in improved appearance, but you can't fix the broken fibers. So while the pressing is undetectable, the original defect remains. With spine roll I'll fall back on my typical consultant answer and say "it depends".

I know, I was just answering his question as to whether the pressing can be detected, to which the answer is no. Seems to me you're answering the question of "can pressing remove all flaws completely?"

 

Yes, I provided a much more informative and nuanced answer, free of charge!

 

Actually, I think spine roll is one case where there are situations that are detectable. Easier to show than explain.

[pennynike1]

You want me to trade you my comic for small rectangular sheets of green paper with the images of dead white men?

 

Quite simply, yes. Or, if those green sheets of paper aren't enough, I can arrange for many nice shiny coins.

 

Pressing sounds an awful lot like restoration to me. I don't like the sound of that one bit.

[adamstrange]

You want me to trade you my comic for small rectangular sheets of green paper with the images of dead white men?

 

Quite simply, yes. Or, if those green sheets of paper aren't enough, I can arrange for many nice shiny coins.

 

Pressing sounds an awful lot like restoration to me. I don't like the sound of that one bit.

 

Maybe we should start a thread just about pressing

 

 

If you do a little searching you'll find lots of threads about pressing in the General Forum. There are even more than a few threads that don't start out about pressing end up being all about pressing. A bit depressing, if you ask me.

[pennynike1]

Getting this subject back on topic, these are the following facts that I have garnered from the replies received on the relevant topic of the miscut look of the Blue Beetle book pictured on page 1:

 

1) Despite the extreme miscut look of the book, it still received a 9.6 from CGC;

2) The colors on the BB book are quite admittedly amazing;

3) There is a difference between eye appeal versus structural imperfections (as a possible explanation for why this miscut book still received a 9.6;

4) The general concensus regarding the BB book, when joking is being put aside, is still that this particular copy does not deserve a 9.6.

 

Which brings me back to my previous statement about placing the Mile High Pedigree on a book, and the grade seems to automatically increase because of the fantastic Pedigree. That, or this copy must have received the grade in error, as Bedrock suggested.

 

A show of hands for users who would consider paying $2,000+ for a FOX book (I realize that people would probably pay that money in a heartbeat for some Golden Age grail such Action #1, Batman #1, etc.) that looked as miscut as the pictured example?

[tth2]

3) There is a difference between eye appeal versus structural imperfections (as a possible explanation for why this miscut book still received a 9.6;

It's not a "possible" explanation, it IS the explanation. It's how CGC grades. You are asking a question, but seem to be open only to an answer that you want to hear.

 

Which brings me back to my previous statement about placing the Mile High Pedigree on a book, and the grade seems to automatically increase because of the fantastic Pedigree. That, or this copy must have received the grade in error, as Bedrock suggested.

Again, you're hearing but you're not listening.

[batman_fan]

personally, I hate miscut books and avoid them at all cost. I also hate bad print registration which is why I dumped a Green Hornet 1 I had. CGC doesn't seem to take off for it even though the book looks ugly.

[G.A.tor]

hello all..

my mile high/church Wonder Woman 4 looks good, but is not the typical NM that most MH's are...waiting to see what CGC has to say about it...it is not miscut, but is a lower grade

gator

[Socratic Wonder]

hello all..

my mile high/church Wonder Woman 4 looks good, but is not the typical NM that most MH's are...waiting to see what CGC has to say about it...it is not miscut, but is a lower grade

gator

 

goodluck!