This is a 4.0? 0

[JollyComics]

1 minute ago, The Lions Den said:

It could get a completely different result if resubmitted, that's for sure...

I doubt the re-submission will ever happen. If it's my book, I will stick to the grade.  Either way, the submitter gambled or just got curious to see what grade he/she got.  With that 4.0, the reactions have stirred up here and out there too.

[The Lions Den]

2 minutes ago, JollyComics said:

I doubt the re-submission will ever happen. If it's my book, I will stick to the grade.  Either way, the submitter gambled or just got curious to see what grade he/she got.  With that 4.0, the reactions have stirred up here and out there too.

I've noticed that...  

 

[The Lions Den]

2 hours ago, OtherEric said:

IF the book is otherwise almost perfect, and that slice is considered some sort of manufacturing defect rather than after the fact damage, I could just about see the 4.0... but it's fundamentally the sort of book that the numeric scale doesn't handle worth a darn at all.  That's a perfect example of something I would want a qualified label on.

By my calculations, about one-tenth of the front cover is missing. I would tend to agree with you...probably should have been Qualified. But there's no mention of that on the label...  

After careful consideration, I can see giving it a 1.8 or a 2.0 based on the amount of the cover that's missing. Anything higher than that does seem like a push...

[William-James88]

2 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

Opinions vary, but I don't think this is a mistake. I've seen books with major flaws like this wind up in the 3.0 - 3.5 range many times. Like the saying goes, buy the book, not the grade...

I don't think it's a mistake either since it seems in line with CGC's pros and cons grading. Here is a book from my collection, not one I am too proud of since, like this book, it has a defect that sucks HARD. However, it was a way to get this rare book for very cheap (I paid just slightly higher than the 2.0 guide value) and we can see CGC weighing the defects against the rest of the book. From what I can tell, that part of the cover missing is the only major defect. In my 3.0 below, while less is missing, it has some heavy staining on the spine and still didn't get below 3.0. Just presenting some evidence to help see how CGC grades such defects.

 

[Qalyar]

I suspect that CGC may have considered this a cover miscut. Production defects that affect the basic integrity of comics still are penalized, but not as harshly as if the right 10% of the cover had been torn off (like the corner of the 3.0 cover posted above). I would expect a ~1.5 for an otherwise similar book with a cover tear, but don't think the 4.0 is out of line if this is truly a miscut.

As I've noted before, technical grades are not intended to be a measure of visual appeal.

[speople]

2.0. Tops. That's as deliberate a slice as you will ever see. Unless that's a major key issue or w/e I can't imagine any collector wanting a book as unattractive looking as that. I'd take creases/stains and anything else over that any day as at least with creases/stains etc the book is still complete.

[Buzzetta]

Is this a case of the rarely seen EC Chipping?

[OtherEric]

1 hour ago, speople said:

2.0. Tops. That's as deliberate a slice as you will ever see. Unless that's a major key issue or w/e I can't imagine any collector wanting a book as unattractive looking as that. I'd take creases/stains and anything else over that any day as at least with creases/stains etc the book is still complete.

I would be happy to get a copy like that; a very structurally sound book which, while damaged, still has the interesting part of the cover image quite clearly.  It would make a wonderful reader copy... and a reader set of the EC's is all my budget will allow.  With that said, while I might defend the 4.0 technical grade if it's a production error- which I think it probably is, that cut is too neat and makes too little sense otherwise- I wouldn't pay a 4.0 price for it.  Buy the book, not the grade, as others have said.  But it's a defect that I would happily take to get an otherwise nice copy cheaply.

It baffles me that the book was slabbed at all, though.

[The Lions Den]

5 hours ago, OtherEric said:

I would be happy to get a copy like that; a very structurally sound book which, while damaged, still has the interesting part of the cover image quite clearly.  It would make a wonderful reader copy... and a reader set of the EC's is all my budget will allow.  With that said, while I might defend the 4.0 technical grade if it's a production error- which I think it probably is, that cut is too neat and makes too little sense otherwise- I wouldn't pay a 4.0 price for it.  Buy the book, not the grade, as others have said.  But it's a defect that I would happily take to get an otherwise nice copy cheaply.

It baffles me that the book was slabbed at all, though.

At CGC, you're bound to be baffled every day...  

[The Lions Den]

9 hours ago, William-James88 said:

I don't think it's a mistake either since it seems in line with CGC's pros and cons grading. Here is a book from my collection, not one I am too proud of since, like this book, it has a defect that sucks HARD. However, it was a way to get this rare book for very cheap (I paid just slightly higher than the 2.0 guide value) and we can see CGC weighing the defects against the rest of the book. From what I can tell, that part of the cover missing is the only major defect. In my 3.0 below, while less is missing, it has some heavy staining on the spine and still didn't get below 3.0. Just presenting some evidence to help see how CGC grades such defects.

I think 3.0 is a good grade for this book---thanks for showing it.

But I still can't see a 4.0 on the EC. Ah well, ya win some, ya lose some...   

[FineCollector]

That was scissors, there's a noticeable curve at the bottom of the cut.

If that amount of paper had been taken off the top, like a remainder copy, we'd be looking at a 0.5, right?

[Keys_Collector]

7 hours ago, Qalyar said:

technical grades are not intended to be a measure of visual appeal.

This should be a header on this forum AND when someone submits a book for grading.

[The Lions Den]

47 minutes ago, FineCollector said:

That was scissors, there's a noticeable curve at the bottom of the cut.

If that amount of paper had been taken off the top, like a remainder copy, we'd be looking at a 0.5, right?

It's funny you mentioned that, because my first impression was that this could be a remainder copy, albeit an odd one. And while rare, there have been cases where books were trimmed by hand at the publisher's office before being distributed. Coincidentally, EC was one of the publishers where this phenomenon ostensibly occurred. As I recall, that involved one of their "Picto-Fiction" magazines...  

But to answer your question, the remainder copies I've seen had significantly more of the cover missing than the book in question, thus resulting in the .5 grade. An interesting observation, however...

Edited August 24, 2020 by The Lions Den

[The Lions Den]

42 minutes ago, Keys_Collector said:

This should be a header on this forum AND when someone submits a book for grading.

[William-James88]

1 hour ago, Keys_Collector said:

This should be a header on this forum AND when someone submits a book for grading.

I think the one that would help more, from what you and I see here every day, would be the reverse: Visual appeal doesn't translate to a high technical grade.

[William-James88]

51 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

It's funny you mentioned that, because my first impression was that this could be a remainder copy, albeit an odd one. And while rare, there have been cases where books were trimmed by hand at the publisher's office before being distributed. Coincidentally, EC was one of the publishers where this phenomenon ostensibly occurred. As I recall, that involved one of their "Picto-Fiction" magazines...  

But to answer your question, the remainder copies I've seen had significantly more of the cover missing than the book in question, thus resulting in the .5 grade. An interesting observation, however...

Just to add to the discussion, here is a remaindered GA book I have. And it was indeed sold to me as a .5

 

 

[Galen130]

Run with it!!!  CGC probably knows something we don't.  

[The Lions Den]

45 minutes ago, William-James88 said:

Just to add to the discussion, here is a remaindered GA book I have. And it was indeed sold to me as a .5

 

 

From what I've seen, this could be a textbook example... 

 

[William-James88]

54 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

From what I've seen, this could be a textbook example... 

 

You think there's a chance for a CGC 3.0?  

[The Lions Den]

1 hour ago, Neckbone said:

Shock Illustrated #3. They were hand-bound, not sure if they were hand-trimmed.

Shock Illustrated ran for a total of three issues. The Picto-Fiction magazines lost money from the start, and when EC's distributor went bankrupt, the company had no choice but to cancel the prints. The third issue of this magazine is known as the rarest EC publication of all time. Although all 250,000 copies had been printed, publisher Bill Gaines lacked the funds to bind them, and all but 100 copies were destroyed.

Thanks for refreshing my memory...  

The story goes that Gaines had his employees hand trim the remaining copies. I've seen several copies of the book and every one of them did appear to be hand trimmed. They were all super high grade and at that time CGC didn't downgrade for it...