• 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.

Surprised distribution ink kept this to a 9.4...
2 2

28 posts in this topic

Hi, all.  I recently got back a silver age Amazing Spider-Man, and I was shocked it came back a 9.4.  The key defect, they noted, is the distribution ink on the back, mostly at the top.

I'll be honest, this barely registered for me before I bought it.  If it's not obtrusive, I don't pay any attention to distribution ink like this.  I've always considered it part of the comic.  I can see these marks keeping a comic out of the 9.9 / 10.0 grades, where production flaws really matter a lot.  By definition, they matter for mint and gem mint.  But near mint grades?  It seems crazy to me.  What do you guys think?

Here are pics of the back, with and without flash.  This doesn't show on the front.

 

20190704_145752.jpg

20190704_145758.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is fair grade by CGC as I would hate to see a 9.8 with that much overspray. I definitely detracts from the overall eye appeal of the book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

What else did the notes say? 

"very light spine stress lines"  These can barely been seen through the case.  It took me forever to find even one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Distribution is not production. You're lucky that distribution ink is common enough that CGC doesn't hit it that hard.

Distribution, production ... it's all part of the process of making comics.  I mean, sure, the bends from string used to tie a bale together would count as a defect.  But distributor's ink?  That isn't obtrusive like this?  It's just bizarre to me.  I mean, I've seen some bad distributor's ink, all over the back of the comic.  Like a spill or something.  But intentional spray?  Most comics from that era had at least the mark across the top.  I'm so used to seeing that color it didn't even register.  A flaw?  Nah.

Edited by Tedsaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tedsaid said:

"very light spine stress lines"  These can barely been seen through the case.  It took me forever to find even one.

So perhaps it was a case of a borderline 9.6 and the bc distributor spray nudged it over the edge.

I see it's got a spot of spray at the bottom right of the back cover as well as the significant amount along the top edge.

Edited by namisgr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tedsaid said:

Distribution, production ... it's all part of the process of making comics.  I mean, sure, the bends from string used to tie a bale together would count as a defect.  But distributor's ink?  That isn't obtrusive like this?  It's just bizarre to me.  I mean, I've seen some bad distributor's ink, all over the back of the comic.  Like a spill or something.  But intentional spray?  Most comics from that era had at least the mark across the top.  I'm so used to seeing that color it didn't even register.  A flaw?  Nah.

As I've said previously, there used to be some interesting arguments over books with distro ink. Thankfully, it appears CGC has softened their stance on this issue.

Personally, I can see why this book received a grade of 9.4; it's a little too much for a 9.6. It's tough for me to put a "plus" on a book that has such a noticeable amount of ink. Still, it's a very nice looking example. If you have the time, I'd love to see the front cover...

Edited by The Lions Den
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, namisgr said:

So perhaps it was a case of a borderline 9.6 and the bc distributor spray nudged it over the edge.

I see it's got a spot of spray at the bottom right of the back cover as well as the significant amount along the top edge.

I think there is more distributor spray on this book than 'normal'. As you mentioned, there is more on the bottom right corner also. As a collector, I would notice this and it would annoy me. Sorry but I think any desire for a 9.6 would really be loose grading. 9.4 seems correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

As I've said previously, there used to be some interesting arguments over books with distro ink. Thankfully, it appears CGC has softened their stance on this issue.

Personally, I can see why this book received a grade of 9.4; it's a little too much for a 9.6. It's tough for me to put a "plus" on a book that has such a noticeable amount of ink. Still, it's a very nice looking example. If you have the time, I'd love to see the front cover...

Well, I'm certainly glad CGC has started to accept this.  It is more in line with many - if not most - collectors, I think.  I take  @Bomber-Bob's point that he wouldn't want a copy with this.  There are probably many people who would agree, just as there are many who would ignore distribution spray.  My feeling is, you don't have to have the grade reflect every possible attribute.  You grade the comic as it is, not as you wish it to be.  I mean, everyone can clearly see the distribution ink, you know?  Just like everyone can clearly see a misaligned cover where it is printed askew or something.  It doesn't take any special expertise.  If such reduces the desirability, that's fine ... but you don't need the grade to reflect it, I think.

Anyway, Overstreet is my source on this.  They feel that distribution ink is not a flaw that should be graded.  In fact, the example they use is one I would have a harder time with, since the overspray is on the front.  But I get it.  Grading expertise is mainly for having an expert list the things we can't work out for ourselves.  Overspray doesn't need to be one of them ... it is what it is.  We can all see it.

Below I've put the relevant passage from Overstreet, and a couple front images of the book, two with flash and one without.  Let me know if you want better close ups of the spine or something.  And yes, @
namisgr was correct: the graders' notes list both places.

 

20190705_220633.jpg

20190706_203550.jpg

20190706_203529.jpg

20190706_203509.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2