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

[Tony S]

On 7/5/2019 at 8:38 PM, 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.

Distribution is not the same as production -  and distribution defects do not and should not "get a pass". If it were, then we'd see lots of bent and impacted corner 9.8's because that's the condition they arrived from Diamond Comic Distributors. A result of their packaging and handling.  

I'm not sure how we'd judge the "Most comics from that era had at least a mark across the top".  Where I lived - in Southern Indiana - distributor ink did not start being applied by the local distributor until about 1973-74. Just from buying and selling comics for decades, I see more arrival dates on Silver Age and older books than I do distributor ink. But again, could be based on what part of the country/who the regional distributor for periodicals was. 

 

[Tedsaid]

1 minute ago, Tony S said:

Distribution is not the same as production -  and distribution defects do not and should not "get a pass". If it were, then we'd see lots of bent and impacted corner 9.8's because that's the condition they arrived from Diamond Comic Distributors. A result of their packaging and handling.  

I'm not sure how we'd judge the "Most comics from that era had at least a mark across the top".  Where I lived - in Southern Indiana - distributor ink did not start being applied by the local distributor until about 1973-74. Just from buying and selling comics for decades, I see more arrival dates on Silver Age and older books than I do distributor ink. But again, could be based on what part of the country/who the regional distributor for periodicals was. 

 

You're right, I'm not speaking with precision about "the era."  I grew up in the 70's buying comics off the rack.  These all had it, through the 80's as well.  That's "the era" I was speaking of, a few decades.  I made assumptions about this comic, which was before my time. 

Anyway, I wouldn't say - in fact, did say - that other flaws from the distributor such as bends and tears should get a pass.  The main points are: 1) Overstreet doesn't count this as a flaw.  That's huge.  I believe the reason why is due to (2): anyone can judge and see it for themselves. It doesn't take an expert to see there is distribution ink on the back of the comic, you know?

And, also, I think Overstreet reflects the majority of collectors here.  People talk about how "forgiving" CGC (and others) can be on grading flaws and such.  "Forgiving" is an interesting word.  I think it indicates how people feel about the collector who bought the original comic, or the dealer who sold it.  That is: it isn't their fault.  They are "forgiven."  The comic just came that way. 

A lot of comics came that way, and that's just reflective of the system that was in place.  The store could have been as careful as possible and the collector could have handled with the utmost care, and their is nothing they could have done about distribution marks.  It's just part of the comic.

Anyway, it's the same with most arrival dates.  Up to 9.9 (!) comics can have arrival dates, if they are small and inconspicuous, even when (usually) on the front cover.  I have a 9.6 Superman's Girlfriend from January 1968 that has an arrival date on the front, and I think it's actually pretty cool.  Shows the difference between when it actually arrived (in Nov., 1967) and the official "date" of the comic that is some months later.  So it doesn't bother me.  And if it did?  I wouldn't need a grader to tell me that. 

[Tony S]

1 minute ago, Tedsaid said:

You're right, I'm not speaking with precision about "the era."  I grew up in the 70's buying comics off the rack.  These all had it, through the 80's as well.  That's "the era" I was speaking of, a few decades.  I made assumptions about this comic, which was before my time. 

Anyway, I wouldn't say - in fact, did say - that other flaws from the distributor such as bends and tears should get a pass.  The main points are: 1) Overstreet doesn't count this as a flaw.  That's huge.  I believe the reason why is due to (2): anyone can judge and see it for themselves. It doesn't take an expert to see there is distribution ink on the back of the comic, you know?

And, also, I think Overstreet reflects the majority of collectors here.  People talk about how "forgiving" CGC (and others) can be on grading flaws and such.  "Forgiving" is an interesting word.  I think it indicates how people feel about the collector who bought the original comic, or the dealer who sold it.  That is: it isn't their fault.  They are "forgiven."  The comic just came that way. 

A lot of comics came that way, and that's just reflective of the system that was in place.  The store could have been as careful as possible and the collector could have handled with the utmost care, and their is nothing they could have done about distribution marks.  It's just part of the comic.

Anyway, it's the same with most arrival dates.  Up to 9.9 (!) comics can have arrival dates, if they are small and inconspicuous, even when (usually) on the front cover.  I have a 9.6 Superman's Girlfriend from January 1968 that has an arrival date on the front, and I think it's actually pretty cool.  Shows the difference between when it actually arrived (in Nov., 1967) and the official "date" of the comic that is some months later.  So it doesn't bother me.  And if it did?  I wouldn't need a grader to tell me that. 

Many collectors - myself included - actually like neat arrival dates. They settle discussions of when books arrived on the newsstand.  Distributor ink lacks any such meaning.  And a neat arrival date is way less noticeable than even a modest amount of ink overspray. 

As for Overstreet Grading - an interesting discussion that has happened many a time before here. The bottom line is that CGC doesn't exactly follow the OPG grading guidelines.  I could make a list of differences. Examples include CGC allows better grades with spine splits than OPG. CGC hasn't adopted the .01 and .03 grades.  CGC doesn't allow staples to be cleaned nor replaced with vintage staples. CGC's stance on tape is different than Overstreet's. As for Overstreet grading and distributor ink, obviously at some point it has to make a difference.  I owned for years an FF 45 that was clearly NM or better that graded 8.5 because of ink overspray. It was all on the back cover - but a good amount more than your book. 

Your example is a pretty book, but graded over 9.4 would seem excessive to me.  The purpose of Professional grading and encapsulation is to remove the subjectivity of grading from the equation - once graded. The grade assigned was done by humans and so is inherently subjective. But CGC serves as a neutral, professional third party whose purpose is to eliminate the subjectivity of condition for future sales.  Someone that isn't bothered by a bit of distro ink on the back cover might well pay a premium above the assigned grade for the book. And someone that is bothered by distro ink might want to pay less or walk away. But the grade - for the most part - is settled as long as the case is intact. 

[Buzzetta]

On 7/4/2019 at 8:54 PM, The Lions Den said:

CGC seems to have softened their stance on distro ink in the last few years, so I think you made out pretty well here...   

Good to know... I am tempted to send in one of my ASM 129's that is an 8.5.  They HAMMERED the book on distribution ink... and it is nowhere near as bad as what is on this 9.4. I will have to get a scan and start a thread to see what people think.  With the way that the book has spiked it might made sense to get it graded again. 

[Tedsaid]

18 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Good to know... I am tempted to send in one of my ASM 129's that is an 8.5.  They HAMMERED the book on distribution ink... and it is nowhere near as bad as what is on this 9.4. I will have to get a scan and start a thread to see what people think.  With the way that the book has spiked it might made sense to get it graded again. 

Here is what the reply was, when I emailed them asking about the distro ink:

"We don't follow Overstreet's standards to a tee; we've evolved the grading standards into our own over the years because there are so many nuances that Overstreet doesn't account for.  [...]  Distro ink is usually small, and we ignore it in those cases. But sometimes the ink is large enough to affect a comic book's aesthetics, and we will begin to downgrade accordingly. The worst is when it's sprayed on 3 sides and heavily bleeds into the cover, which can go as low as 6.0. For your book, the width and bleed into the cover is larger than usual, which is why we downgraded to 9.4."

I don't agree, of course, but it is what it is.  Sounds like yours, though, would get a grade bump. 

[Buzzetta]

11 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

Here is what the reply was, when I emailed them asking about the distro ink:

"We don't follow Overstreet's standards to a tee; we've evolved the grading standards into our own over the years because there are so many nuances that Overstreet doesn't account for.  [...]  Distro ink is usually small, and we ignore it in those cases. But sometimes the ink is large enough to affect a comic book's aesthetics, and we will begin to downgrade accordingly. The worst is when it's sprayed on 3 sides and heavily bleeds into the cover, which can go as low as 6.0. For your book, the width and bleed into the cover is larger than usual, which is why we downgraded to 9.4."

I don't agree, of course, but it is what it is.  Sounds like yours, though, would get a grade bump. 

I will try to remember to pull the slab and scan and take some pics of it.   

[The Lions Den]

15 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

I will try to remember to pull the slab and scan and take some pics of it.   

It may be worth your time...good luck!  

[UncleBEN]

Have it removed and resub for a 9.6 or higher, seems that CGC is fine with said removal as is apparent on several CPR candidates as of just recently