Staple tears due to SCS 2 2

[Bluemedgroup]

Just bought a CGC 3.0 book from eBay. Book was packed very carefully in a oversize box with peanuts.  Despite that it received the ol’ shaken comic syndrome courtesy of USPS and received a staple tear at the lower staple to the back cover.   Front cover already had a slight tear which very slightly increased it. 

Now I know it’s hard to quantify the value of the damage but obviously damage has occurred. So I’m reaching out to y’all. 

Is the book still a 3.0?  Should I return the book?  Or should ask for a discount?  

 

 

[joeypost]

Cant tell any detail from the first picture. Can you take one that is clearer? 

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, Bluemedgroup said:

Just bought a CGC 3.0 book from eBay. Book was packed very carefully in a oversize box with peanuts.  Despite that it received the ol’ shaken comic syndrome courtesy of USPS and received a staple tear at the lower staple to the back cover.   Front cover already had a slight tear which very slightly increased it. 

Now I know it’s hard to quantify the value of the damage but obviously damage has occurred. So I’m reaching out to y’all. 

Is the book still a 3.0?  Should I return the book?  Or should ask for a discount?  

It's a 3.0, there's wear at the staples, as most 3.0s have, and you think this to be from SCS how? Did you examine the staple areas prior to the seller shipping it to you (aside from the horrible before pic)? Were his scans clear enough to show the area? Which book?

And as I'm studying both images, the wear on the after photo appears to be showing on the before image. It's just that the before is so bad, the actual edge of the spine and a little bit inward so badly distorted that the details are almost completely lost. The wear at the staple looks like a cover that was pulled too far open, something that couldn't have happened in the slab no matter how violently it was shaken.

Edited August 22, 2019 by James J Johnson

[Bluemedgroup]

I tried to pull off a better pic from eBay.  Here's the best I can do.

[Bluemedgroup]

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

It's a 3.0, there's wear at the staples, as most 3.0s have, and you think this to be from SCS how? Did you examine the staple areas prior to the seller shipping it to you (aside from the horrible before pic)? Were his scans clear enough to show the area? Which book?

And as I'm studying both images, the wear on the after photo appears to be showing on the before image. It's just that the before is so bad, the actual edge of the spine and a little bit inward so badly distorted that the details are almost completely lost. The wear at the staple looks like a cover that was pulled too far open, something that couldn't have happened in the slab no matter how violently it was shaken.

No, I did not examine the staple areas prior to shipping. The reason I think SCS may have occurred besides the staple tear, is that the right edge of the cover did shift a very small amount to the left.

[James J Johnson]

46 minutes ago, Bluemedgroup said:

No, I did not examine the staple areas prior to shipping. The reason I think SCS may have occurred besides the staple tear, is that the right edge of the cover did shift a very small amount to the left.

There's nothing on the before image that remotely looks like the severe tears in the after pic, only at the same exact spot, a grayish, shadowy crosshatch pattern. The spine looks completely different, that grayish pattern dominates. Could it have been photoshopped to disguise the tears? That's the only thing I can conceive of causing such a drastic difference in that torn area. You'd have to shift the cover almost a full inch to cause those tears of that size and severity, and how is it going to shift by more than 1/16th, maybe an 1/8th of an inch at most inside that slab? If there weren't tears there at all on the before, and there doesn't appear to be, how did they magically appear on a book that remained in the slab? Unless the image itself is altered, and that's where Photoshop comes in. If that's the same book, and of course it is, that's the only answer.

Edited August 22, 2019 by James J Johnson

[Hollywood1892]

12 hours ago, Bluemedgroup said:

Just bought a CGC 3.0 book from eBay. Book was packed very carefully in a oversize box with peanuts.  Despite that it received the ol’ shaken comic syndrome courtesy of USPS and received a staple tear at the lower staple to the back cover.   Front cover already had a slight tear which very slightly increased it. 

Now I know it’s hard to quantify the value of the damage but obviously damage has occurred. So I’m reaching out to y’all. 

Is the book still a 3.0?  Should I return the book?  Or should ask for a discount?  

 

 

Its probably still a 3.0

[boatfund]

14 hours ago, Bluemedgroup said:

Just bought a CGC 3.0 book from eBay. Book was packed very carefully in a oversize box with peanuts.  Despite that it received the ol’ shaken comic syndrome courtesy of USPS and received a staple tear at the lower staple to the back cover.   Front cover already had a slight tear which very slightly increased it. 

Now I know it’s hard to quantify the value of the damage but obviously damage has occurred. So I’m reaching out to y’all. 

Is the book still a 3.0?  Should I return the book?  Or should ask for a discount?  

 

 

The before picture is so ill defined.  In the after picture look at the filled in coupon, the ILL state abbreviation is very clear while on the before it is almost non-existent as well as the lines the address is written on.

As far as the staple tears, on the before picture you have a blurred dirty area, the after picture is much easier to see .  IMO the tears are probably there in the before picture however it is so out of focus no one can tell.

Did the seller have some clearer pictures?  And yes it is  still a 3.0.

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

With a grade as low as a 3.0, I suspect the cover was not attached. I just don't see how you can claim SCS caused any new damage. I also don't see the grade going lower either. Of course, we are not realling looking at much here anyway. 

[Sensei Ryan]

I'm going to go with the possibility that this could have been slightly photo-shopped as someone mentioned above...even the 2nd slightly better picture looks off somehow and to me there is no way that this level of damage - like the same above poster said - could have happened in the slab.  

Edited August 22, 2019 by Sensei Ryan

[Dick Pontoon]

How about a link to the auction?

[Bluemedgroup]

6 minutes ago, Pontoon said:

How about a link to the auction?

Here you go

[joeypost]

Additionally, the tears around the staples have had time to gather and collect dirt. If these were fresh tears that occurred due to SCS they would not look that dirty. A doctored image may be closer to the truth compared to SCS. 

[Bluemedgroup]

3 minutes ago, joeypost said:

Additionally, the tears around the staples have had time to gather and collect dirt. If these were fresh tears that occurred due to SCS they would not look that dirty. A doctored image may be closer to the truth compared to SCS. 

Interesting and reasonable thought joeypost!  However it doesn’t make much sense someone would want to doctor just the back image, as the front images were completely true to all their defects....

[Bluemedgroup]

I just purchased the grader's notes. No mention of staple tears...interesting

Grader Notes:	large, multiple stain full top of cover multiple crease full right of front cover breaks color multiple crease left bottom of back cover multiple readers crease front cover breaks color puzzle coupon filled out right bottom of back cover very small, multiple tear full bottom of back cover

[jokiing]

If I was making such a large investment I would have asked for better pictures. You kind of know what you're into at a 3.0 but those ebay pics are so bad that one really can't see detail, especially the back cover.

I'm guessing the the seller doesn't have any better pics that would show that area any better. When I look at the tear area in the ebay pic it is slightly darker which tells me that the tear might be there, but pixelated and fuzzy due to poor quality.  As far as the grader notes go, there is so much going on that the grader may be limited with the number of defects they can list. I'm sure there are others that know if that is the case with notes.

I know you're disappointed discovering the large staple tears, which is a real bummer, but it's still a solid and classic book. Good luck.

[Bluemedgroup]

3 minutes ago, jokiing said:

If I was making such a large investment I would have asked for better pictures. You kind of know what you're into at a 3.0 but those ebay pics are so bad that one really can't see detail, especially the back cover.

I'm guessing the the seller doesn't have any better pics that would show that area any better. When I look at the tear area in the ebay pic it is slightly darker which tells me that the tear might be there, but pixelated and fuzzy due to poor quality.  As far as the grader notes go, there is so much going on that the grader may be limited with the number of defects they can list. I'm sure there are others that know if that is the case with notes.

I know you're disappointed discovering the large staple tears, which is a real bummer, but it's still a solid and classic book. Good luck.

True.  In hindsight I should have asked for better pictures, but looking generally at it, I felt the condition looked like a 3.0.  Had nice colors and presented well too. 

That last sentence of yours nailed it on the head.  Yes I'm happy to own a holy grail, but was disappointed when I discovered the staple tears and looked at the original pics and did not find them there.

Not sure if my purchase timing was good either, as literally the day it arrived Sony announced it is no longer sharing Spider-man with the MCU.

[Topnotchman]

The tear looks aged and has been there for some time, its not visible in the picture because its a quick phone pic and has to little detail.   The general heavy wear falls in line with what a 3.0 grade is, back cover looks to have similar wear as the front cover which has better pics.  I see no conspiracy theory here.  

[Topnotchman]

If you get the same angle, take an equal out of focus picture and we shall see if that flaw becomes so blurred it disappears.  

[jokiing]

8 minutes ago, Bluemedgroup said:

Not sure if my purchase timing was good either, as literally the day it arrived Sony announced it is no longer sharing Spider-man with the MCU.

Until Disney buys Sony.... it's just a matter of time.