Rookie Mistake 2 2

[nines]

My mistake was throwing a bid on an auction without really looking at the book. Not a big deal, not a key, not a lot of money.. just want to know if my hypothesis is correct.

The item, an Incredible Hulk #112 was a couple of minutes from closing. I saw CGC 9.0, I saw what seemed to be an undervalued high bid, bing bang boom I placed my bid and a couple of minutes later the book was mine.

Then I looked a little more closely (on the small screen/phone). Yeeeeesh lol. How could this possibly be a 9. The heavy foxing, and it appears the bottom staple may be rusted. 

My theory is the book was amateurely pressed and overhumidified in the process, and straight to CGC. Being an old slab, it's had its years for that moisture to take effect. My subtheory is that transparent whites on the cover/back are a dead giveaway for a press. 

Im I correct in these assumptions? I'll also assume if the slab was cracked and regraded, it would get a ~ 7.5

Thanks!

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by nines

[faster friends]

8.0

[Jordysnordy]

It could be it was improperly stored for many years in a high humidity environment or lots of exposure to direct sunlight.

[joeypost]

High humidity would be a factor in accelerating the foxing. 

Keep in mind that in the Borock days of CGC, they were not as hard on foxing. Foxing started getting hammered when Haspel took over as head grader, and has been so ever since. 

[The Lions Den]

A book can still get a 9.0 with some rust on the staples; it all depends on how severe the rust is. Also, since this is an old label book, the chances are less likely it's been pressed. Moreover, it's extremely likely this book went through the Economy tier, which always seems to be the tier that receives the least amount of . From what I can see, I'd be comfortable somewhere in the VF category on this one...

[The Lions Den]

32 minutes ago, BigImp said:

Interesting that you point this out. In the early days CGC had a problem with "oily transparency" as you could see the interior page through the cover of some books. White covers were especially susceptible - there was an X-Men #1 that looked horrible. 

But it turns out it was an optical illusion like Newton rings. I forget how they fixed it but it might've had to do with putting the MC paper behind the cover.

Could be an issue with this book?

A certain amount of yellowing or age-toning (especially on the back cover) is normal for books from this era. From what I can see, this doesn't appear to be a severe example; it's what I would expect to see from a book that's over 50 years old. 

It is possible that the book has degraded a bit over time, but in my mind this is more likely an example of someone being a bit "loose" with the grade.

But to answer your question, yes, CGC did used to put microchamber paper in between the cover and the first and last page, so it should follow that this book would be the same way. In recent years, I've noticed that they often put the microchamber paper in between the first and second page and the penultimate and last page. There are also times when there won't be any microchamber paper at all... 

Edited September 1, 2020 by The Lions Den

[nines]

48 minutes ago, BigImp said:

Interesting that you point this out. In the early days CGC had a problem with "oily transparency" as you could see the interior page through the cover of some books. White covers were especially susceptible - there was an X-Men #1 that looked horrible. 

But it turns out it was an optical illusion like Newton rings. I forget how they fixed it but it might've had to do with putting the MC paper behind the cover.

Could be an issue with this book?

I hadn't thought about that. Maybe the inner sleeve compresses the book/pages enough to make the whites seem a bit transparent.

 

[H0RR0RSH0W]

While not venturing a guess as to what the grade might be today I would say that after close inspection of the slab I do not see alot of damage to the book itself. I do see age wear & a ton of it.  IMO it does not appear to have been pressed aside from being squeezed by the holder itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no quantifiable damage to the outside of the book . No CBC's, no soft corners, no ticks along the spine, no dents or creases. Its a beautiful book & even has a square wrap. It could have qualified for a 9.4 or a 9.6 once upon a time however the one thing we all see is discoloration galore.

[SamPool]

From my understanding, these old CGC labels predate anyone doing "pressing" on books...

[nines]

Appreciate the input fellas. seems my hypothesis was wrong. I was also under the assumption that pressing has been practiced for a lot longer than it has.

Still makes sense to me though that over hydrating might lead  to it holding moisture and problems down the line, given the conditions. but I don't know or won't attempt to research how long paper can hold moisture. That's why you leave it to the professionals👍

 

[The Lions Den]

2 hours ago, SamPool said:

From my understanding, these old CGC labels predate anyone doing "pressing" on books...

Not always, but this was before pressing had become so common...

[bobotski]

I wonder if someone at the CGC production line and go "uuuh, ain't no way this is 9.0" if you submit it for reholdering. I'm pretty sure they'll reholder it just to honor the current grade.

[James J Johnson]

5 hours ago, nines said:

My mistake was throwing a bid on an auction without really looking at the book. Not a big deal, not a key, not a lot of money.. just want to know if my hypothesis is correct.

The item, an Incredible Hulk #112 was a couple of minutes from closing. I saw CGC 9.0, I saw what seemed to be an undervalued high bid, bing bang boom I placed my bid and a couple of minutes later the book was mine.

Then I looked a little more closely (on the small screen/phone). Yeeeeesh lol. How could this possibly be a 9. The heavy foxing, and it appears the bottom staple may be rusted. 

My theory is the book was amateurely pressed and overhumidified in the process, and straight to CGC. Being an old slab, it's had its years for that moisture to take effect. My subtheory is that transparent whites on the cover/back are a dead giveaway for a press. 

Im I correct in these assumptions? I'll also assume if the slab was cracked and regraded, it would get a ~ 7.5

Thanks!

 

[Old_Man_Adam]

Photo of Eastern Bloc Cold War era comic book press circa 1974 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Old_Man_Adam

[Lightning55]

Unrelated, but why do I get this at the bottom of every post notification email? :

Seeing this every time is like that water drop torture method.

 

[William-James88]

20 hours ago, nines said:

My mistake was throwing a bid on an auction without really looking at the book. Not a big deal, not a key, not a lot of money.. just want to know if my hypothesis is correct.

The item, an Incredible Hulk #112 was a couple of minutes from closing. I saw CGC 9.0, I saw what seemed to be an undervalued high bid, bing bang boom I placed my bid and a couple of minutes later the book was mine.

Then I looked a little more closely (on the small screen/phone). Yeeeeesh lol. How could this possibly be a 9. The heavy foxing, and it appears the bottom staple may be rusted. 

My theory is the book was amateurely pressed and overhumidified in the process, and straight to CGC. Being an old slab, it's had its years for that moisture to take effect. My subtheory is that transparent whites on the cover/back are a dead giveaway for a press. 

Im I correct in these assumptions? I'll also assume if the slab was cracked and regraded, it would get a ~ 7.5

Thanks!

 

I think you are incorrect in your assumptions, especially with the assumption that this book can't be a 9.0 because it doesn't look like what you associate with a 9.0. That's something I hear on these boards all time time and it is flat out wrong. Eye appeal is in no way related to the grade.

The grade is based on one thing: the wear and tear of the book.

That's it. 

So tears, creases, damage, that sort of stuff. You remove points for it. But for the normal progression of time? It's not the same as wear and tear and thus wont be graded the same way. There are high grade copies of Fantastic Four 67 which are badly yellowed due to this grading standard. Your book is similar to that. Staple discoloration can happen due to oxidation, same with the foxing. I think the book looked like that when it was slabbed and I don't think that grade is a mistake, nor do I think you did a mistake. If you are wondering why you got it so cheap it's because demand for non keys has dropped heavily. Money is limited to all of us so for all the keys to be obtaining new records, other books had to be sold to finance that and there's less money around to spend on those. And since you bought it on auction, the price you paid is now the latest in the GPA, and that's the price others will expect to pay from here on out. So you didn't really get a deal as so much that you purchased the book for it's now fair market value.

Anyways, here is another example. Look how terrible this 8.0 looks. And yet, in terms of wear and tear it is an 8.0. And in a recent case, just to show that CGC will still give a decent grade to a book with such heavy foxing/discolouration.

Edited September 2, 2020 by William-James88
wrote FF 66 instead of 67

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, Old_Man_Adam said:

Photo of Eastern Bloc Cold War era comic book press circa 1974 

 

Fun fact!:

Repurposed for comic pressing, it was originally designed and used for pounding that pink veal, that Joe Pesci talked about to the tall, blonde showgirl in the front seat of his Cadillac in the movie, Casino, into cutlets for Wienerschnitzel, a vast improvement over the standard meat mallet when it came to tenderizing. 

[Keys_Collector]

buy the book, not the grade

[theCapraAegagrus]

15 hours ago, Jordysnordy said:

It could be it was improperly stored for many years in a high humidity environment or lots of exposure to direct sunlight.

Exactly my thoughts. Books still age inside slabs.

[1950's war comics]

yep rookie mistake ... just like in tee ball when the kid hits the ball and runs towards third base instead of first