ASM 361 manufacturing "pick" holes on back and interior pages 0

[dm3]

Hi all,

On the back cover, there are very tiny pick holes, where the paper "grabber" of the printing press grabs the paper.   Sorry for the obtuse descripton.  Please see the photos below.  In real life these pick holes are very small.

 

what does this do to the CGC grade of the book? Otherwise it's a 9.6 or 9.8.

 

thanks.

[dm3]

On the first photo there's 2 pick holes.  The second one is hard to see, under the word "trademark" .  Both along the bottom edge.

FC doesn't have the holes, but some interior pages do,

[Bomber-Bob]

Usually these are okay because they are considered a bindery defect, however, this case seems a little more severe. They look more like tears rather than holes. Who knows unless you submit but unless the rest of the book was perfect , it might be held to 9.6.

[dm3]

Thanks.   I've seen these before on interior pages, never on an external cover.   It looks like the hole might have been so close to the edge that it hemorrhaged a tear.  I would be ok with a 9.6.   It's too bad CGC doesn't have some formal guidelines for some of the common manufacturing defects, and to what degree they can affect the grade, and what severity is acceptable at what grade.

if the grader is having a bad day, i can see this not turning out too good 8>(

 

is there a website with common manufacturing defect photos.?

 

thanks again

[James J Johnson]

6 hours ago, dm3 said:

Thanks.   I've seen these before on interior pages, never on an external cover.   It looks like the hole might have been so close to the edge that it hemorrhaged a tear.  I would be ok with a 9.6.   It's too bad CGC doesn't have some formal guidelines for some of the common manufacturing defects, and to what degree they can affect the grade, and what severity is acceptable at what grade.

if the grader is having a bad day, i can see this not turning out too good 8>(

 

is there a website with common manufacturing defect photos.?

 

thanks again

These should affect the grade the same way that chips do as both are manufacturing maladies that damage the paper, ergo impact the condition. These production tears and chips should not be in the same class of manufacxturing defects like mis-wraps and other aesthetic production flaws that don't damage the book. These are tears, and same as chips are missing pieces, these tear the paper and tat damage should be taken into account in the overall grade. It shouldn't matter if the machine tore the book, a human did, or a rat tore it with claws. The damage is still there and as such, a defect.

Edited April 8, 2018 by James J Johnson

[Lazyboy]

19 hours ago, dm3 said:

Hi all,

On the back cover, there are very tiny pick holes, where the paper "grabber" of the printing press grabs the paper.   Sorry for the obtuse descripton.  Please see the photos below.  In real life these pick holes are very small.

This issue has lots of common production defects for some reason. Loose staples, ugly diagonal miswraps, and gripper holes/tears on the cover.

19 hours ago, dm3 said:

what does this do to the CGC grade of the book? Otherwise it's a 9.6 or 9.8.

Likely nothing. There are many CGC 9.8s with this defect.

[dm3]

Hi James,  thanks.  I appreciate the feedback.

 

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the exact criteria that CGC uses for their grading processes, i.e. There are a  lot of grey areas.   I understand this is a subjective process, but they do need to standardize on some basic grading processes especially relative to very specific common manufacturing issues, which are very very clearly definable and controlled, meaning they could easily be quantifiable into the final grade.

these tears are less than 1 mm.  The zoom makes them look very very  large.  I'm not upset about them because I bought the comic book from the store way back then at cover price.

I did read that other thread on the same subject (about CGC publishing a book with examples of how they grade, how the magnitude of defects differentially affect the final grade, etc).  I understand why they will never publish a book, as it was pointed out clearly in that thread.

However, they really do need to rethink how to present their rating system in light of these deterministic manufacturing defects.

i also read a thread about another common manufacturing defect on asm 361 where the back cover print alignment is "rolled" to the front.  I read that that defect should **not** affect the grade, being that it is not spine role.  My 361 has no such "roll".   It has perfect front/back spine alignment,  

 

Why is one (manufacturing bindery tear) penalized, whereas the other ("roll") is not.    Who decides which manufacturing defects are penalized and which defects are not?  Where are these standards published?  Is it possible for one grader to give one type of defect a pass while another grader to penalize the same type of manufacturing defect?  Are they trained on these types of manufacturing defect so that grading is rendered consistently.

 

i don't expect you to answer these questions, and thank you for your comment.....  I'm just playing devils advocate, to highlight very specific grading biases that simply  don't make sense.  I believe that given this lax grading style, that there will not be any consistency across grading of comics with these types of specific manufacturing defects..  Since grading is ultimately subjective, there is no answer to these very relevant questions.   

 

 

[dm3]

Thanks lazyboy.  Appreciate the comment.   It does  look like there is no clear consensus on how this specific manufacturing defect will affect the grade.  CGC really does need to publish some very detailed grading criteria that specifically addresses how many types of common manufacturing defects affect the ultimate grade. 

[Bomber-Bob]

1 hour ago, dm3 said:

CGC really does need to publish some very detailed grading criteria that specifically addresses how many types of common manufacturing defects affect the ultimate grade. 

Why does CGC need to publish anything about how they grade defects ? It's not an analytical science, it's a subjective science. It really depends on the condition of the rest of the book. Also, the severity of the specific defect will always be different. Your gripper holes are large and look more like tears. Others may be hardly visibly. They cannot assign the same factor to both. You are trying to ascertain the grade of your book before you send it in. My advice would be to submit it, with other books, in a 9.8 prescreen. If they don't feel it is a 9.8, the book will be returned without being slabbed. All books returned without being slabbed are charged a nominal fee (5 bucks ?).

Edited April 8, 2018 by Bomber-Bob

[joeypost]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 7:17 PM, dm3 said:

Hi all,

On the back cover, there are very tiny pick holes, where the paper "grabber" of the printing press grabs the paper.   Sorry for the obtuse descripton.  Please see the photos below.  In real life these pick holes are very small.

 

what does this do to the CGC grade of the book? Otherwise it's a 9.6 or 9.8.

 

thanks.

Gripper marks (holes or tears). As others have said, CGC allows these on books up to a certain grade. Have a few 9.8's and 9.6's of this issue with varying degrees of gripper issues. 

[chrisco37]

Super common on ASM 361.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

26 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

Super common on ASM 361.

What If #1, MTIO Annual #2, Star Wars Annual #1 big time gripper marks.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

I found this list and thought deserves a bump.

All Star Western

10 – Almost always has a blue dot on the back in the advertisement.

 

Amazing Adventures

11 –streaks/smearing on the cover, through the index finger of Beast's right hand, horizontal scratches on the FC.

 

Amazing Spider-Man

121 - Gripper holes like on GSX 1.

122 - "M" shaped staple

300 – Right edge of front of book sometimes has a rough cut

361 – Odd staple "popping", and tiny bottom edge cut near the center of back of book

 

Batman

222 – Frequently has a green label qualified for detached staple.

 

Captain America

241 – Printer creases

 

Cerebus

1 – Has poor printing with multiple issues.

 

Daredevil

7 - Is a clinical example of an issue riddled with production defects. Production creases, staple tears, Marvel chipping, ink transfer, miscuts, miswraps - it's almost impossible to find a copy without some sort of defect and some copies have all of those defects on one copy.

158 - Often has a red smudge on the tomb stone under DD's billy club.

168 - Is another book that is almost always miswrapped, often mis-wrapped with ink smears along the spine, horizontal scratches on the FC.

 

Defenders

1 - Most copies have the wrinkle on the cover going from right hand edge thru the defenders logo.

 

Giant Sized X-Men

1 – is famous for printer creases on the back cover, including interior pages. I see plenty of those.

 

Hulk:

181 – Has a vertical scratch up the spine.

377 3rd print – what looks to be like white scratches on back cover that are just poor printing.

 

Marvel Team Up

1 - Horizontal scratches on the FC.

 

Marvel Two in One Annual

2 – Ink loss on the bottom front cover, notorious for grabber holes on the bottom of the FC.

 

New Mutants annual

2 - The upper right corner in the yellow triangle always seems to be cut wrong, and typically has tiny chipping. I've seen a couple of 9.8's with this.

 

New Teen Titans

44 – I've seen have been miscut down the right side.

 

Star Wars Annual

1 – Big time gripper marks.

 

Tales of Suspense

39 – Quotation marks are always cut or missing

 

Tales to astonish

78 – A few books have the staples pushed in tight.

 

True Life Secrets

23 – Rubs.

 

Weird War Tales

1 – Always has that damn printers crease at the right of the title.

 

What If

1 - Big time gripper marks.

 

Wolverine (1998)

35 – Evil spine tears

 

X-Men

120 – Jagged cut and BRC FC chip out

[dm3]

Hi blowupthemoon,  thanks for the list.

The tiny bottom edge cut on back edge bottom (it's under the word "trademark" on mine) is around 1mm

the one at the red area bottom is around 2mm-

 

very small to the naked eye.

[Foley]

I love the adjectives  

56 minutes ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

damn printers crease

Evil spine tears

 

 

[dm3]

"Why does CGC need to publish anything about how they grade defects ? It's not an analytical science, it's a subjective science. It really depends on the condition of the rest of the book. Also, the severity of the specific defect will always be different. Your gripper holes are large and look more like tears. Others may be hardly visibly. They cannot assign the same factor to both. You are trying to ascertain the grade of your book before you send it in. My advice would be to submit it, with other books, in a 9.8 prescreen. If they don't feel it is a 9.8, the book will be returned without being slabbed. All books returned without being slabbed are charged a nominal fee (5 bucks ?)."

 

hi BomberBob

 

 

I've been collecting for 30 years, and believe it or not, I've never had any of my books graded.  I'm just trying to understand the aspect of basic consistency or lack of it.  I did not know about the prescreen option.  That's good to know.

[dm3]

Thanks joeypost,

is there any consistency between the 9.6s vs the 9.8s relative to the ones that you have seen.   Those ones in the pics are between 1-2mm in length.    A mentioned earlier they are like little tears.

[joeypost]

2 hours ago, dm3 said:

Thanks joeypost,

is there any consistency between the 9.6s vs the 9.8s relative to the ones that you have seen.   Those ones in the pics are between 1-2mm in length.    A mentioned earlier they are like little tears.

Some can be severe and look like pieces are missing, and they get hit a little harder than the rest. In some cases the actual paper is present and can be finessed back into place. 

[Kevin76]

The tears aren't from gripper, grippers are on a sheet fed press and these books were run on a web press. They are "folder pin tears" Covers are printed separate from the insides called "the guts" . With the cover to the 361, the folder pin tears were supposed to be trimmed off, but the tears were long enough it didn't get trimmed all the way since the book is trimmed to a certain size 

[joeypost]

39 minutes ago, Kevin76 said:

The tears aren't from gripper, grippers are on a sheet fed press and these books were run on a web press. They are "folder pin tears" Covers are printed separate from the insides called "the guts" . With the cover to the 361, the folder pin tears were supposed to be trimmed off, but the tears were long enough it didn't get trimmed all the way since the book is trimmed to a certain size 

Did not know that. When did that switch happen?