• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

I thought slight color touch was allowed on GA books.

Started by shadroch,

15 posts in this topic

PokerKid

PokerKid

Posted
Posted
Recently won a Green Lama #1 off Comic Link. It has a purple label. Remarks say small amount of color touch. I thought this was allowed in GA books.

 

The best explanation I have heard is that it may get a blue label when it was a very tiny amount - perhaps "very minor" is the term used - and that the book would grade the same had the touch/spot of glue been not used or was removed.

 

Also, they seem to be slightly more forgiving on GA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cd4ever

cd4ever

Posted
Posted

Only the very slightest amount of color touch or glue will get the blue label. I believe 'slight' is the word used on the label.

 

Either way, it's a retarted policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted

Actually, I think "tiny" is the keyword that still gets a blue label, and usually refers to a tiny dot, like the head of a pen, and nothing else.

 

I think "minor" covers a larger area, and gets the PLOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.tor

G.A.tor

Posted
Posted

actually, I have seen "very small", "very Minor", "very slight" applied to blue labeled books with glue or C/T...generally, what someone else said is correct...if the amount is "irrelevant" to the grade (i.e. could be removed and not affect the grade), then it is noted , at cgc's discretion as universal...

minor amount is "minor" only in terminology (means a pretty "fair" amount relative to the "very")

hope that clears the confusion up :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted
actually, I have seen "very small", "very Minor", "very slight" applied to blue labeled books with glue or C/T...generally, what someone else said is correct...if the amount is "irrelevant" to the grade (i.e. could be removed and not affect the grade), then it is noted , at cgc's discretion as universal...

minor amount is "minor" only in terminology (means a pretty "fair" amount relative to the "very")

hope that clears the confusion up :insane:

 

My recollection (which could be faulty, as it was more than a year ago) of my discussion with Steve Borock on this topic is the following.

 

As a general rule, a pre-1950 book with minor glue or minor color touch (or "very minor," or "tiny" or whatever adjectives they decide to use) may get a blue label in CGC's sole discretion if the amount of glue or CT does not affect the grade by more than one level. For example, if the book appears to have been a 9.0 before having a tiny tear glued shut and a few dots of CT put on top of it, and the apparent grade is now 9.2, the book could get an 8.5 or 9.0 Blue label with CT/glue noted on the label. (Again, this is totally within CGC's discretion and there is no "bright line" rule, since this would be pretty tough to delineate and apply consistently in every case -- particularly as you see books that sort of "toe the line" at what is acceptable in Blue and what requires PLOD.)

 

If the glue or CT affects the apparent grade by more than 1 level, then the book generally gets a PLOD, with the apparent grade noted.

 

Steve or anyone else, please correct me if I have this wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aces

Aces

Posted
Posted
I'm sure it's covered in their published grading standards. :whistle:

 

I hear it will be in the second edition. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Calamerica

Calamerica

Posted
Posted
actually, I have seen "very small", "very Minor", "very slight" applied to blue labeled books with glue or C/T...generally, what someone else said is correct...if the amount is "irrelevant" to the grade (i.e. could be removed and not affect the grade), then it is noted , at cgc's discretion as universal...

minor amount is "minor" only in terminology (means a pretty "fair" amount relative to the "very")

hope that clears the confusion up :insane:

 

My recollection (which could be faulty, as it was more than a year ago) of my discussion with Steve Borock on this topic is the following.

 

As a general rule, a pre-1950 book with minor glue or minor color touch (or "very minor," or "tiny" or whatever adjectives they decide to use) may get a blue label in CGC's sole discretion if the amount of glue or CT does not affect the grade by more than one level. For example, if the book appears to have been a 9.0 before having a tiny tear glued shut and a few dots of CT put on top of it, and the apparent grade is now 9.2, the book could get an 8.5 or 9.0 Blue label with CT/glue noted on the label. (Again, this is totally within CGC's discretion and there is no "bright line" rule, since this would be pretty tough to delineate and apply consistently in every case -- particularly as you see books that sort of "toe the line" at what is acceptable in Blue and what requires PLOD.)

 

If the glue or CT affects the apparent grade by more than 1 level, then the book generally gets a PLOD, with the apparent grade noted.

 

Steve or anyone else, please correct me if I have this wrong.

 

This post was my understanding of the matter generally speaking...

 

CAL who also likes GA

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garthgantu

garthgantu

Posted
Posted
actually, I have seen "very small", "very Minor", "very slight" applied to blue labeled books with glue or C/T...generally, what someone else said is correct...if the amount is "irrelevant" to the grade (i.e. could be removed and not affect the grade), then it is noted , at cgc's discretion as universal...

minor amount is "minor" only in terminology (means a pretty "fair" amount relative to the "very")

hope that clears the confusion up :insane:

 

My recollection (which could be faulty, as it was more than a year ago) of my discussion with Steve Borock on this topic is the following.

 

As a general rule, a pre-1950 book with minor glue or minor color touch (or "very minor," or "tiny" or whatever adjectives they decide to use) may get a blue label in CGC's sole discretion if the amount of glue or CT does not affect the grade by more than one level. For example, if the book appears to have been a 9.0 before having a tiny tear glued shut and a few dots of CT put on top of it, and the apparent grade is now 9.2, the book could get an 8.5 or 9.0 Blue label with CT/glue noted on the label. (Again, this is totally within CGC's discretion and there is no "bright line" rule, since this would be pretty tough to delineate and apply consistently in every case -- particularly as you see books that sort of "toe the line" at what is acceptable in Blue and what requires PLOD.)

 

If the glue or CT affects the apparent grade by more than 1 level, then the book generally gets a PLOD, with the apparent grade noted.

 

Steve or anyone else, please correct me if I have this wrong.

 

Yes, as others have stated, this still seems to be a less than complete answer... so many gray areas...

 

Why can't CGC just publish a matrix that presents all their grading rationale in one place? Is there some concern that this is giving submitters too much information? Do the criteria for both grades and resto status change subtly over time? This may seem far-fetched, but before CGC arrived on the scene, the general consensus of what defined "VG" or "VF" or "NM" had already evolved significantly, so perhaps this is still happening?

 

I do think CGC's stance on restoration has changed somewhat over the years, with respect to GA books. It would be interesting to assemble a 'timeline' of slabbed GA books with work done to them, in both Blue and Purple labels, to see if a trend could be spotted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing