drbanner Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Just picked up a nice run of 20-cent Spideys, but a couple had what I think are production-related ink smears (see below). Does CGC deduct for these? I personally don't, but like distributors ink, production creases, and centering, if I had my druthers I'd do without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquiti Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I think they would only deduct in extreme cases, OR if you are dealing in super high grade water. So maybe a 9.6 would end up a 9.4. But you know - I recall seeing a 9.6 with a fairly significant production crease that was posted here a while ago - so who knows? I would say, though, that a production crease is very easy to identify as a production defect, and while I agree with your assessment of the defects on your books, I am not 100% sure, and any time there is doubt like that, it makes me nervous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_BEYONDER Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 That ASM 103 looks alot like mine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supapimp Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 i think they(CGC) deducts a .02 -.05 for ink . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 I would say, though, that a production crease is very easy to identify as a production defect, and while I agree with your assessment of the defects on your books, I am not 100% sure, and any time there is doubt like that, it makes me nervous. This is true...the 103 obviously has an ink smear, and I suspect the defect on the 106 is an ink transfer defect where some of the blue got "stuck" on the book on top of it in the stack and some of the ink pulled off. However, since it's a vertical smear (like the 103), it could have been caused by the ink application techniques as well. The most infamous example of a similar defect is the ubiquitous ink smear on Amazing Adventures 11, and most of the copies I've seen (including my 9.4) have it. Does anyone have a 9.6 or better of this book without the ink smear?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greggy Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Does anyone have a 9.6 or better of this book without the ink smear?? Mark Haspel said at the SD forum dinner that the only one he saw without one at that time was the 9.8 copy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Fahrenheit Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) On 10/2/2003 at 5:06 AM, drbanner said: This is true...the 103 obviously has an ink smear, and I suspect the defect on the 106 is an ink transfer defect where some of the blue got "stuck" on the book on top of it in the stack and some of the ink pulled off. However, since it's a vertical smear (like the 103), it could have been caused by the ink application techniques as well. The most infamous example of a similar defect is the ubiquitous ink smear on Amazing Adventures 11, and most of the copies I've seen (including my 9.4) have it. Does anyone have a 9.6 or better of this book without the ink smear?? On 10/2/2003 at 7:44 AM, greggy said: Mark Haspel said at the SD forum dinner that the only one he saw without one at that time was the 9.8 copy! I realize this is a threadsurrection, but I was doing some print defect analysis and ran across this thread. I thought you might find this interesting. The Amazing Adventures #11 print defect (also called ink smear, print smear and roller smudge) has been found on every copy I've inspected. Since it is also present on the 9.8 below, it would appear that CGC does not deduct for print defects of this nature in 9.8 and below. LINK ---------- As such, I would assume that CGC will also not deduct for similar print defects on 9.8 and below, such as the one found on The Eternals #12. Is this a good assumption, or are there other factors involved? If so, what are they? Possibly the size of the defect, or the percentage of books that do not have it? Please discuss. Edited July 10, 2020 by Ditch Fahrenheit Harry Lime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 Wow, I was a young man when I wrote that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Fahrenheit Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 13 minutes ago, drbanner said: Wow, I was a young man when I wrote that! I always try to avoid starting a NEW thread when an OLD one already exists. Even if they are almost 17 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 On 10/1/2003 at 10:52 PM, supapimp said: i think they(CGC) deducts a .02 -.05 for ink . Supa - were you ever able to confirm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
