Comic damaged by seller? Or really a 9.8? 0

[Mchu0925]

Hello all, I just bought my first 9.8 CGC comic book via eBay from a seller in Canada and had a question because I didn’t expect to see this kind of damage graded a 9.8

Can anyone comment on if this was damaged while in sellers possession, or it is an acceptable defect for a 9.8 graded comic

Thanks in advance

Michael 

 

[Joosh]

Looks like a small bindery tear, considered a manufacturing defect, and typically not a problem  for a 9.8 from what I’ve seen.

[Mystafo]

I'm nearly certain the book was purchased that way new, prior to slabbing.  I agree with Joosh that it's not uncommon in in even NM books from this era.

[Mercury Man]

You got a 9.8 not a 9.9

[Mchu0925]

Thanks for all the helpful responses

 

Should I get it reholdered? It seems to be the older style case where it’s suspended within the Mylar bag so it moves around if you shake it. Grade date was in 2012 

[Bomber-Bob]

35 minutes ago, Mchu0925 said:

Thanks for all the helpful responses

 

Should I get it reholdered? It seems to be the older style case where it’s suspended within the Mylar bag so it moves around if you shake it. Grade date was in 2012 

I would not get it reholdered. 2012 was a very loose period for CGC grading. I really don't think this would be a 9.8 today. In theory, if the slab is fine, they will not review the book itself, just reholder. However, I have heard it can happen. I would not invest any more money into this book or risk the grade changing. Sorry.

[Tony S]

On 11/26/2018 at 2:19 PM, Mchu0925 said:

Thanks for all the helpful responses

 

Should I get it reholdered? It seems to be the older style case where it’s suspended within the Mylar bag so it moves around if you shake it. Grade date was in 2012 

Just for clarification, the book is not suspended in a Mylar bag. It's suspended inside a Barex inner holder. 

Barex is no longer manufactured, so now CGC uses PETG

[dfx1]

Can you post the pictures the seller used in the auction? Im guessing they avoided that corner at all cost and only showed it from a distance.

[newshane]

On 11/26/2018 at 2:59 PM, Bomber-Bob said:

I would not get it reholdered. 2012 was a very loose period for CGC grading. I really don't think this would be a 9.8 today. In theory, if the slab is fine, they will not review the book itself, just reholder. However, I have heard it can happen. I would not invest any more money into this book or risk the grade changing. Sorry.

Some thoughts:

1. Wouldn't be a 9.8 under today's ridiculously tight grading standards, but it's likely a slam-dunk 9.8 in reality. Joosh was spot on with his assessment of the bindery tear as a manufacturing defect. If the rest of the book is flat and perfect, the tear wouldn't have any inpact on the grade. Those flaws (small bindery defects on moderns) tend look far worse in pics as it does in person. 

2. Yes. 2012 was a "loose period" for grading. However, considering today's standards, so was 2013, 2014, 2015, and on and on until the batch of new hires were turned loose. 

3. NO WAY they will regrade that if a reholder is submitted. I'd bet my paycheck on that. Looks like a great candidate for a new slab, in fact. 

In short:

1. Don't worry about the grade. It's on mark. 

2. Don't worry about sending it in for a reholder. Based on my experiences, you will be just fine. 

[newshane]

On 11/26/2018 at 1:08 PM, Mercury Man said:

You got a 9.8 not a 9.9

I'm not sure what mythical formula CGC uses to determine 9.9s, but it's important for people to understand that the Overstreet Grading Guidelines still allows tiny bindery tears from the manufacturer. 

That being said, your point is true! A 9.8 is still a flawed book, at least it used to be. The ranks of perfection are honored with 9.9s and 10s. 

I'm still baffled at the CGC's grading as of late. In fact, I started a thread called "Yesterday's 9.8 is today's 9.6" and I think that rings true. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by newshane

[Bomber-Bob]

You can debate all you want about whether the 9.8 grade assigned to this book is 'allowable' but current marketplace expectations desire a 9.8 to at least look 'perfect'. We see it all the time on the Boards, new buyers in the marketplace showing disappointment in the look of their new book. Whether it's Newton rings, centering in the slab, bindery flaws, or lint in the inner well, new buyers of CGC slabs don't like these flaws. I would not be happy with this book as a 9.8. Allowable or not, that fuzzy corner would bother me. If CGC is tight on Moderns, I think that is good for the hobby. Submitters need to adapt and quit crying about the good old days.

[newshane]

7 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Submitters need to adapt and quit crying about the good old days.

I just don't think the inconsistency is doing anyone any favors. 

The whole premise upon which the CGC was founded was to provide consistent, third-party grading. 

But that's a topic that's been debated ad nauseum. 

As much as I hate the cliche, "It is what it is." 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

2 minutes ago, newshane said:

I just don't think the inconsistency is doing anyone any favors. 

The whole premise upon which the CGC was founded was to provide consistent, third-party grading. 

But that's a topic that's been debated ad nauseum. 

As much as I hate the cliche, "It is what it is." 

 

And on this I totally agree. BTW, I think the reason CGC softened up in the 2011/2012 timeframe was because they lost so many senior graders in a short period. Being short staffed also prompted them to cut corners. You will find Grader's notes are often missing during this timeframe. Being rushed, I think many books slipped by. It wasn't a formal, let's start softening edict, just a happening from the circumstances.

[ExNihilo]

2 hours ago, newshane said:

 2. Yes. 2012 was a "loose period" for grading. However, considering today's standards, so was 2013, 2014, 2015, and on and on until the batch of new hires were turned loose.

I love how you veterans who have been around the block a few times recognize quality of grades throughout the years the way wine afficionado's will say "20xx was a great year because of the rain/drought/etc."

[Tony S]

4 hours ago, newshane said:

I just don't think the inconsistency is doing anyone any favors. 

The whole premise upon which the CGC was founded was to provide consistent, third-party grading. 

But that's a topic that's been debated ad nauseum. 

As much as I hate the cliche, "It is what it is." 

 

 

4 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

And on this I totally agree. BTW, I think the reason CGC softened up in the 2011/2012 timeframe was because they lost so many senior graders in a short period. Being short staffed also prompted them to cut corners. You will find Grader's notes are often missing during this timeframe. Being rushed, I think many books slipped by. It wasn't a formal, let's start softening edict, just a happening from the circumstances.

Well, I don't think CGC can have it both ways. You can't have loose periods and tight periods AND have consistency. I might be quoting something you have said in the past Bob. I don't care where the goalposts are at. I care that I have a good idea of where the goal posts are at.  Quit moving them. Consistency is far more important to me than any particular grading standard 

I would also point out that the current way over the top strictness is not just an occasional worn corner.  CGC is now much stricter on foxing, treating it essentially as a stain. Stricter on stains, including sun shadows.  CGC appears - IMHO - to be completely obsessed with "light bends" and "light spine stress"  Sometimes it's "very" in front of both sentences. It's like if they decide a book isn't a 9.8 and they want to give it a grading note and there REALLY isn't anything worth mentioning as far as flaws then it has "light spine stress" or "light bend to cover" . It's like they just cut and paste. Because often times you sure can't see those flaws. 

A 9.8 is not perfect. If it is there is no need for 9.9 and 10. 

[The Lions Den]

2 minutes ago, Tony S said:

 

Well, I don't think CGC can have it both ways. You can't have loose periods and tight periods AND have consistency. I might be quoting something you have said in the past Bob. I don't care where the goalposts are at. I care that I have a good idea of where the goal posts are at.  Quit moving them. Consistency is far more important to me than any particular grading standard 

I would also point out that the current way over the top strictness is not just an occasional worn corner.  CGC is now much stricter on foxing, treating it essentially as a stain. Stricter on stains, including sun shadows.  CGC appears - IMHO - to be completely obsessed with "light bends" and "light spine stress"  Sometimes it's "very" in front of both sentences. It's like if they decide a book isn't a 9.8 and they want to give it a grading note and there REALLY isn't anything worth mentioning as far as flaws then it has "light spine stress" or "light bend to cover" . It's like they just cut and paste. Because often times you sure can't see those flaws. 

A 9.8 is not perfect. If it is there is no need for 9.9 and 10. 

I agree that the goalposts should stay in the same spot. Unfortunately, the guidelines can be interpreted differently depending upon which grader is making the final call... 

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

1 hour ago, Tony S said:

 

CGC appears - IMHO - to be completely obsessed with "light bends" and "light spine stress"  Sometimes it's "very" in front of both sentences. It's like if they decide a book isn't a 9.8 and they want to give it a grading note and there REALLY isn't anything worth mentioning as far as flaws then it has "light spine stress" or "light bend to cover" . It's like they just cut and paste. Because often times you sure can't see those flaws. 

 

I agree on both these points. I think pressing changed their stance on the light stress and bends. They are so used to seeing flat that the slightest bend is hammered. The slab itself often hides these light bends. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

20 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

I love how you veterans who have been around the block a few times recognize quality of grades throughout the years the way wine afficionado's will say "20xx was a great year because of the rain/drought/etc."

2008 was the last great year for Cabernet Sauvignon...

[newshane]

On 11/29/2018 at 5:39 PM, Bomber-Bob said:

I agree on both these points. I think pressing changed their stance on the light stress and bends. They are so used to seeing flat that the slightest bend is hammered. The slab itself often hides these light bends. 

Very good possibility indeed Bob. 

[Mchu0925]

On 11/29/2018 at 9:23 AM, Bomber-Bob said:

I would not be happy with this book as a 9.8. Allowable or not, that fuzzy corner would bother me. 

I can’t stop staring at that fuzzy corner. Sucks that I have to pay for return postage back to Canada.