• 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.

How common is this in our hobby?
1 1

67 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, Black_Adam said:

Pep_16_18.jpg

 

 

35 minutes ago, Dr. Love said:

So let me get this right.

GPA reports that a 1.0 of this book sold in Feb for $1550.  Census says that book has a label note: "Cover detached. Tape on cover & interior cover."  So it would appear that's the book in question?  And it went up for sale a month or so ago and ending up dropping almost half in price?

So now apparently Ritter (if the book Black Adam posted is THE book) feels it deserves the original sale price, but would have a better chance to get it again if that pesky 1.0 but especially the Cover detached notation wasn't in your face?  IF that's the same book the thing that would have me more upset isn't the cracking, nor the grade inflation, nor the price bump - but ABSOLUTELY leaving off the description that the cover is detached.  That would be outrageous.  And stupid - like it's not something you could hide in the hand.  What would be the point?  And Stephen may be different things, but stupid isn't one I've heard him described as.

 

I am now sure how @Black_Adam figured that out other than he is indeed got his detective skills from a wizard as his name would suggest haha!! Seriously impressive man. I didn’t mention the auction house or the dealer or even the publisher of the book haha!! That was mainly because I wasn’t calling anyone out but that is indeed the book. It sold on CC last month for $930. Same copy Again NOT judging the price or anything just was curious about overall practice in our hobby and greatly appreciate everyone’s input it is certainly enlightening 

C9722F5E-7E30-4D32-AC70-0E4FF4A72D95.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to see the back cover, and know just how much of the spine was being held together by tape, but the book looks like it could have been a coin flip as to whether it was graded a 1.0 or 1.5

But you are correct,  it does not have G/VG eye-appeal. It barely has 1.8 eye-appeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ritter is the dealer? I have an interesting anecdote about Worldwide. Several years ago they had a slabbed 9.2 copy of Catman Comics #1 on their site. I think it was priced at somewhere around $6500. The book showed up in a ComicLink auction while still on Worldwide's site, and it only got up to around $4,000 or maybe $4,500. The book disappeared from ComicLink's site a couple of days after the auction. (Sold books usually show on CLink's site for weeks or months.) I e-mailed Josh Nathanson asking for an explanation of why the book was deleted from the auction  results. (I suspected shill bidding.) Josh replied that he was on vacation and would get back with me. (Surprise,surprise--he never did.) The book either disappeared from Worldwide's site altogether or was showing up as sold; I don't remember which at this point.

At any rate, one would think that Worldwide no longer owned the book, right? But wait, there's more: Cat Conrad bought the book from Ritter and displayed it on the boards a few months after the CLink auction.

Edited by jimbo_7071
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Black_Adam said:

A GD- (1.8) grade allows for the cover to be detached, so one could argue it is graded accurately.

According to Overstreet's grading guide, any book rated at GD/VG 3.0 can be detached at one staple.  The next grade below that, GD+ 2.5, allows for a detached cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, fifties said:

According to Overstreet's grading guide, any book rated at GD/VG 3.0 can be detached at one staple.  The next grade below that, GD+ 2.5, allows for a detached cover.

I don't know how many in the community are that stringent. CGC will hand out 4.0s to nice looking books with detached covers, possibly even with higher grades. I'm guessing the majority of collectors and dealers would do the same with some raw books, if they re nice enough otherwise.

Adherence to OS standards on this would just encourage taping torn staple areas in order to reattach the cover in order to achieve a better grade, causing a version of the problem CGC had a few years back when it was handing out 2.5s to books that had completely split covers taped back together that would otherwise have been 1.0 to 1.5s. They are still too lenient in my opinion, as I believe not only should tape repair not be allowed to improve the grade of a book, but should perhaps reduce it, a possible exception being if it's actually holding a torn piece of the book on that might otherwise have been lost. 

A general problem with OS grading definitions, is that they are unclear on what the accumulation of allowable defects have. We've all seen novice or lenient sellers present books that are no better than GD as VG or VG/F because any given flaw is permissible in such a grade. Conversely their defined limits on things like detached covers and centerfolds, missing corner sizes, spine splits and the like can unduly punish a book for having a single flaw that exceeds that limit but is otherwise unrepresentative of overall condition. I will happily buy up FN or better appearing books that happen to have a 2" spine split or a 1/2" triangle missing from the back cover for 2.0 FMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, rjpb said:

I don't know how many in the community are that stringent. CGC will hand out 4.0s to nice looking books with detached covers, possibly even with higher grades. I'm guessing the majority of collectors and dealers would do the same with some raw books, if they re nice enough otherwise.

Adherence to OS standards on this would just encourage taping torn staple areas in order to reattach the cover in order to achieve a better grade, causing a version of the problem CGC had a few years back when it was handing out 2.5s to books that had completely split covers taped back together that would otherwise have been 1.0 to 1.5s. They are still too lenient in my opinion, as I believe not only should tape repair not be allowed to improve the grade of a book, but should perhaps reduce it, a possible exception being if it's actually holding a torn piece of the book on that might otherwise have been lost. 

A general problem with OS grading definitions, is that they are unclear on what the accumulation of allowable defects have. We've all seen novice or lenient sellers present books that are no better than GD as VG or VG/F because any given flaw is permissible in such a grade. Conversely their defined limits on things like detached covers and centerfolds, missing corner sizes, spine splits and the like can unduly punish a book for having a single flaw that exceeds that limit but is otherwise unrepresentative of overall condition. I will happily buy up FN or better appearing books that happen to have a 2" spine split or a 1/2" triangle missing from the back cover for 2.0 FMV.

I've noticed a general decline in the quality of books given certain grades over the years.  What before would have been a G is now a G/VG or even VG, and when I purchase from an eBayer, or even some dealers, whose grade exceeds what I think it should be, I'll either return it or ask for a partial refund, so the cost will be more in line with the books realistic grade.

Overstreet USED to have but 3 grades, GD, FN, and NM.  NOW there are 6 grades, the additional 3 filling in between the basics, and of course this leads to a wider subjective determination.  It can be difficult buying on the internet as opposed to seeing a book firsthand, in order to appraise it's grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fifties said:

I've noticed a general decline in the quality of books given certain grades over the years.  What before would have been a G is now a G/VG or even VG, and when I purchase from an eBayer, or even some dealers, whose grade exceeds what I think it should be, I'll either return it or ask for a partial refund, so the cost will be more in line with the books realistic grade.

Overstreet USED to have but 3 grades, GD, FN, and NM.  NOW there are 6 grades, the additional 3 filling in between the basics, and of course this leads to a wider subjective determination.  It can be difficult buying on the internet as opposed to seeing a book firsthand, in order to appraise it's grade.

There's always been soft grading out there. I haven't noticed any overall loosening as compared to buying at conventions and through catalogues and the CBG in the 1990s, and though my memories of collecting as a teenager in the 1970s are hazier, it seems to me that back then any book that didn't actually have tears or larger than 1/2" color breaking creases was minimally a VF and often a NM, and a VG was pretty much anything that looked better than a beater. 

In the early days of CGC, the most common complaint was how strict they could be in the upper grades, and for hammering books for small stains, or non-color breaking spine ticks. Conversely, I will agree that acceptance of implied CGC standards, has increased acceptance of some flaws in certain grades that would have been questioned in the past, specifically things like heavy foxing and dust shadows, Marvel chipping and pieces missing out of the cover. I've seen 7.0s with a 1/4" corner piece missing, and 5.0s with pieces out of the cover large enough to have knocked a book below VG back in the day. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2019 at 2:56 AM, gino2paulus2 said:

It was a CGC 1.0 that I had been outbid on less than a month ago but now it was cracked out. I checked the dealers site (i’m not naming who it is or what book because one this is not a witch-hunt and two I don’t want to show my cards of the book I am in the market for). Anyways the book is now raw and listed for darn near twice the price it sold for at auction. It is also listed as being G- with G/VG eye appeal so it got a nice little subjective grade bump as well.

I'd say this is quite common. Until you drew attention to it, I was going to buy the book off Ritter's site and list it in the marketplace as a GVG with VG+ eye appeal. :banana:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rjpb said:

There's always been soft grading out there. I haven't noticed any overall loosening as compared to buying at conventions and through catalogues and the CBG in the 1990s, and though my memories of collecting as a teenager in the 1970s are hazier, it seems to me that back then any book that didn't actually have tears or larger than 1/2" color breaking creases was minimally a VF and often a NM, and a VG was pretty much anything that looked better than a beater. 

In the early days of CGC, the most common complaint was how strict they could be in the upper grades, and for hammering books for small stains, or non-color breaking spine ticks. Conversely, I will agree that acceptance of implied CGC standards, has increased acceptance of some flaws in certain grades that would have been questioned in the past, specifically things like heavy foxing and dust shadows, Marvel chipping and pieces missing out of the cover. I've seen 7.0s with a 1/4" corner piece missing, and 5.0s with pieces out of the cover large enough to have knocked a book below VG back in the day. 

 

 

Certain things have gotten much softer. I wasn't collecting in the 70s, but in the 80s books would get hammered, for instance, for writing on the cover, including original-owner writing like what you see on Okajimas or Larsons. A book like that would not have been considered a high-grade book. Such books might have been priced high do nice eye appeal, but the stated grade would have been below VF. On the other hand, most books above what we would call a loose VF today were usually sold as near-mint or even mint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. Love said:

So a 1.0 allows for a detached cover - then why is it called out as a visible label note? Are all detached covers called out in this fashion, or is that a hit or miss standard?

CGC notes all detached covers, as all sellers should. And I have had a comic with a detached cover grade as high as 3.0 by CGC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing baffles me.  Ritter "hides" a defect which ultimately can't be hidden and is always called out at a professional grading level, and Gino objects to grade and price inflation but not to a detached cover not being disclosed?

The only logical conclusion is at these lower grades a detached cover is no big deal, to be expected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Love said:

This thing baffles me.  Ritter "hides" a defect which ultimately can't be hidden and is always called out at a professional grading level, and Gino objects to grade and price inflation but not to a detached cover not being disclosed?

The only logical conclusion is at these lower grades a detached cover is no big deal, to be expected?

Look at this from the stance of my original post. This was never meant to be about any one book specifically I’ve been pretty crystal about that with more than one post. It was an example used with the the fewest amount of specifics as I could to get my question across which was, “is this a common practice in the GA community to crack and relist” and my question was answered by a few folks. This can turn into the subjectivity of grading and OS vs CGC grading standards that’s fine by me. Ive never done business with Worldwide this wasnt meant to be about them and to be quite honest this won’t deter me from doing so in the future either if they have a tough book I need at what I can live with price wise I’m a buyer whether that is raw or slabbed I agree with the old adage buy the book not just the label and I put a premium on cover presentation first and foremost. Everyone has their likes and dislikes, phobias of certain flaws etc this wasn’t meant to be about that but i’m ok if it goes there it is always an interesting debate. Crack and relist without mention of just being cracked was my question and any specifics used in this story were only meant to paint a picture 👍

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Gino if it feels like I'm trying to get you to throw Ritter under the bus.  At this point I'm interested in your point of view as a buyer of this type of material in this grade range.  Is an undisclosed detached cover a deal breaker, frowned upon, or just no big deal in the 1.0-2.5 grade range?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. Love said:

I'm sorry Gino if it feels like I'm trying to get you to throw Ritter under the bus.  At this point I'm interested in your point of view as a buyer of this type of material in this grade range.  Is an undisclosed detached cover a deal breaker, frowned upon, or just no big deal in the 1.0-2.5 grade range?

For myself a detached cover isn't a deal breaker. If there was a book I wanted that was normally out of my price range but had dropped down to 1.8 (and otherwise presented well) because of a detached cover I would actually be very interested. However, based on the CGC grade of 1.0, I would say a detached cover is the least of this particular comic's problems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Love said:

  Is an undisclosed detached cover a deal breaker, frowned upon, or just no big deal in the 1.0-2.5 grade range?

It's more than a minor defect, and although might be expected in a book graded below 3.0, should still be disclosed, just as tears, creases, tape, pieces out or missing pages should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Black_Adam said:

For myself a detached cover isn't a deal breaker. If there was a book I wanted that was normally out of my price range but had dropped down to 1.8 (and otherwise presented well) because of a detached cover I would actually be very interested. However, based on the CGC grade of 1.0, I would say a detached cover is the least of this particular comic's problems.

 

@Dr. Love I really couldn’t have said it better than @Black_Adam just did here. I have many many books with detached covers that make up for it on the presentation and affordability side so yes some could say I welcome them. Undisclosed is obviously frowned upon as @fifties stated but probably not a deal breaker for me personally if said book fit my other criteria. With that being stated this book doesn’t really get high marks for presentation with the mold and tape etc. so it better make it up on technical side if doesn’t want to be just a 1.0. BUT WAIT, it was a 1.0!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2019 at 8:30 PM, Black_Adam said:

For myself a detached cover isn't a deal breaker. If there was a book I wanted that was normally out of my price range but had dropped down to 1.8 (and otherwise presented well) because of a detached cover I would actually be very interested. However, based on the CGC grade of 1.0, I would say a detached cover is the least of this particular comic's problems.

 

I made a deal recently with Jimjum for this copy and so no, in some cases it’s not a deal breaker...

 

4320CF69-7AF3-4FCE-9E34-0BB32A45CE48.thumb.jpeg.444d6ea66cdfa9e7c71ced69da406196.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2019 at 6:52 PM, Dr. Love said:

I'm sorry Gino if it feels like I'm trying to get you to throw Ritter under the bus.  At this point I'm interested in your point of view as a buyer of this type of material in this grade range.  Is an undisclosed detached cover a deal breaker, frowned upon, or just no big deal in the 1.0-2.5 grade range?

I think the story being told in this thread is what if anything threw the seller under the bus. The poster did his part in keeping it’s ambiguity as best as he could...

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
1 1