Does this look like a 9.8? 3 3

[Crops068]

1 minute ago, namisgr said:

Perhaps the screwup has been solved.  

That maybe they slabbed the wrong book?

[THE_BEYONDER]

48 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/1971585010/

Not sure what I’m looking at.  The cert # of the previous submission?  
 

9.8 reject got slabbed by mistake?  Who puts a 7.5 into a 9.8 pre-screen? 

Edited August 17, 2020 by THE_BEYONDER

[Ken Aldred]

17 hours ago, kav said:

Found another 9.8 candidate

 

44 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

They grade differently by age 

 

36 minutes ago, kav said:

So------------9.9?

For older comics they tend to grade tighter, and so that beaut’s an easy 9.4 at most.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Ken Aldred

[Domo Arigato]

22 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

Who puts a 7.5 into a 9.8 pre-screen? 

Link 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

5 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Link 

 

 

 

Surprised the kid never came back to give us another tongue lashing...

[DR.X]

20 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

21 hours ago, bobotski said:

I have bad eyesight, but looks like the right edge has been "mildly" chewed up by a "really careful" gerbil.

I concur. I noticed it’s ‘a bit rough-looking‘ there.

And that’s British understatement.

that top right corner has some problems too if you blow up the scan.

[DR.X]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

For older comics they tend to grade tighter, and so that beaut’s an easy 9.4 at most.

A little wonder bread on it and your in business.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

3 hours ago, Domo Arigato said:

Link 

 

 

that's the same thing I said. Definitely A Dylan 9.8 

[Larryw7]

11 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

 

 

For older comics they tend to grade tighter, and so that beaut’s an easy 9.4 at most.

Metropolis would list it as "Investment Grade".

[Ken Aldred]

3 hours ago, Larryw7 said:

Metropolis would list it as "Investment Grade".

If it was real estate it’d be ‘a fixer-upper with tremendous potential’, and restoration would be expected rather than frowned upon.

[kav]

7 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

11 hours ago, Larryw7 said:

Metropolis would list it as "Investment Grade".

If it was real estate it’d be ‘a fixer-upper with tremendous potential’, and restoration would be expected rather than frowned upon.

That book definitely merits a "L@@K" comment in any ebay listing.

[comixry]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:20 AM, namisgr said:

I agree with those who believe the image was photoshopped.  It's extremely bright/overexposed, and could easily have had a scan of the label of a 9.8 copy stuck onto the scan of the comic in the lower part of the holder, which appears to be around a 7.0.  The overexposure is used to cover up the seam where the two different images have been put together.

I suppose the book could have been swapped in to replace a 9.8 copy, but the new CGC holders are extremely tough for doing that, if not impossible.

CGC may make plenty of mistakes and questionable judgement calls, but not like this.

Apparently it was on Heritage.

 

 

[namisgr]

1 minute ago, comixry said:

Apparently it was on Heritage.

 

Thanks.  It's already been discussed.

On 8/17/2020 at 12:58 PM, namisgr said:

I didn't know we were being shown a Heritage scan.  No, I'm not saying that it's the nefarious work of Heritage.  Knowing that now, I'd venture the mistake WAS at CGC's end, switching two labels intended for the same issue.  I know for a fact that happens from time to time, having had submissions with labels having been switched between two different issues of the same title.

I don't believe a book with that much obvious wear would ever receive a 9.8 grade from the company.  The comic is literally 7 to 8 grading units below a 9.8.

[comixry]

Speaking of CGC quality....Has anyone also noticed more scuffing on the cases when they come back?

[Poekaymon]

That's rough.  I need to save this thread for the people on here who have tried to tell me that 9.8s are fungible.  (ie that they can, in their sale, post a scan of one 9.8 of a book and then deliver a different 9.8 copy).

[Domo Arigato]

On 8/16/2020 at 4:12 PM, Ceito said:

I'm asking because the in the image, it's got certain aspects of the book that don't look like it. There have been other of these that have been graded the same, and are of better quality. 

 

7 hours ago, comixry said:

Apparently it was on Heritage.

 

 

Ok......I have questions regarding this "9.8" book.

Is the book in the first post in this thread (my top quote above) supposed to be the same book that's in the video (my bottom quote above)?  I have clipped scans of the upper right portion from both of them and posted them next to each other below. 

Based just on what appears to be a light surface scratch on both books in the green area to the right of Wolverines shoulder and going up to the far right edge of the book at the bottom of the "E", it appears that they could be the same copy.

However, I see several issues that would indicate they are not the same copy.

1. Why do they have slightly different serial numbers? 1971585011 (left book below)...1971585009 (right book below from the video).
2. Why does the book on the left appear to have more cover to the right of the comics code than the book on the right?
3. Why does the book on the right appear to have damage to the right of the comics code when the book on the left doesn't?
4. Why does the additional damage along the right edges of both books not appear to match up?
5. If they are different books, how in the hell did they both get a CGC 9.8 grade?

Edit:  Many of these questions appear to have been answered (see my next post below).

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Domo Arigato

[Domo Arigato]

 

Just noticed that Rod Lyle made the following comments (quoted below) on YouTube regarding the video....which seems to answer many of my questions.  And I would like to know the answer to his question as well......how many of these craptacularly overgraded 9.8's are out there?  

One could be a mistake.......but multiples in the same batch seems like negligence.

 

Quote

"How many of these overgraded 9.8's are there? Another one appearing on the weekend Heritage auction is CGC #1971585011 while the one talked about here is #197158509. Similarly, it has glaring defects that in no way qualify it as a 9.8 You'll notice that the defects are different though and it is not the same book. Help Nick?"

 

Quote

"...oops, I meant #1971585009 (probably from the same seller as -5011 By the way, -5008 was sold a week earlier is in much better shape but still displays the longish 'scratches' (?) as does -5007 sold on Heritage a week prior to that."

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Domo Arigato