Trimmed? Yay or Nay. 1 1

[MustEatBrains]

Not an expert on trimming by suspect at least the right side FC may have been.  Just looking for a few other opinions.

 

[steveinthecity]

It helps to get a look at the book from a top or side view in order to see the pages or to compare the portion suspected of being cut to the rest of the interior for variation in color or uniformity in how the pages present.  Do you have any other pics to work off?  
 

Fwiw, just looking at the back cover (as is) isn’t ringing any alarm bells for me.

 

 

[James J Johnson]

On 11/7/2020 at 12:33 AM, steveinthecity said:

It helps to get a look at the book from a top or side view in order to see the pages or to compare the portion suspected of being cut to the rest of the interior for variation in color or uniformity in how the pages present.  Do you have any other pics to work off?  
 

Fwiw, just looking at the back cover (as is) isn’t ringing any alarm bells for me.

 

 

eBay.png">

But when you consider the relationship of symmetry of the long edge, back cover vs front cover, that right edge of the front cover alone, becomes suspect, IMO.. There's an angle to the fanning of the pages from the back cover to th centerfold that doesn't match the front cover to centerfold symmetry. The samer amount of front cover left edge page exposure is not counterbalanced by the back cover.

There could be a few reasons for this, but typically, the culprit, when this is seen, is the trimming of the front cover only (not the pages too). So I can't conclusively state that the book is trimmed based on these two images, but I can say that if this book ran through my hands, I'd see a tell for possible trim and give that right edge of the front cover a real close, magnified look.

Edited November 8, 2020 by James J Johnson

[theCapraAegagrus]

It's suspect.

[EC Star&Bar]

There's a CGC 8.5 blue label copy on ebay currently that looks very comparable as far as the right edge.  Other high-grade copies exhibit significantly more checks by the CCA stamp.  So unless the 8.5's grader missed a trim, I think this book could well be untrimmed.  Inconsistent factory cuts?

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, EC Star&Bar said:

There's a CGC 8.5 blue label copy on ebay currently that looks very comparable as far as the right edge.  Other high-grade copies exhibit significantly more checks by the CCA stamp.  So unless the 8.5's grader missed a trim, I think this book could well be untrimmed.  Inconsistent factory cuts?

Compared to these? 

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Detective+359+CGC+8.5&_in_kw=1&_ex_kw=&_sacat=0&_udlo=&_udhi=&_ftrt=901&_ftrv=1&_sabdlo=&_sabdhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=15&_stpos=11758-6572&_sargn=-1%26saslc%3D1&_salic=1&_sop=1&_dmd=1&_ipg=200&_fosrp=1  

 

The right edge on this raw one is night and day by comparison. Not only is the right edge alone of this 359 atypical with respect to page protrusion and and configuration/symmetry relative to that right edge of the cover, but it being atypical is further magnified by the symmetry of the back cover's long edge. Looking at the back cover, I would never expect to see what I do on the front cover regarding the long open edge, and vice-versa. Pages are fine both front and back, the back cover is fine, it's that front cover alone that is highly suspect. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by James J Johnson

[EC Star&Bar]

It will be interesting to have this resolved.  You make an excellent point regarding how the pages protrude -- however, the cuts of other samples really vary as far as the right edge of the cover alone.  I still think the oddity can be solely a production thing.  The lack of squareness of the cover, seen from the blue dashed lines on the back, could account for some odd protrusion of the interior paper.

Most importantly, if you look at the partial checks to the right of the CCA stamp, one of the 8.5 graded copies clearly has slightly less check showing than this raw copy...!  And by that I mean very little showing.

This issue must have had a tremendously big press run by most any standard, in part due to the Batman TV series.  I've seen where even a DC war comic from '66-'67 had a half-million copies run off.  I think that can help explain inconsistency on the cover cuts.  

Another thing to keep in mind is that DCs of the "go-go checks" period had good quality, glossy cover stock that tended to not overhang.  (In '68, after that period, DC changed briefly to a less glossy stock that was more prone to tanning on the edges.)  I just don't think this issue tended to have edgewear that would compel someone to trim it.

I'm going to stick with my belief it may not be trimmed.  I realize this being a high-value key will increase the likelihood, but a factor is that unlike sixties Marvels, I think this book was not prone to the type of wear that someone would trim off.  This was probably among my favorite DC cover stocks.  I have a Fox & Crow /Stanley & His Monster from right around the same month that I bought with some significant cover dirt that cleaned off easily. Gorgeous result. This type of DC cover stock returned in '69-70, changed again in '71'-72, and with some exceptions like around '73 and '75, has not been as  good since IMO.  

Edited November 10, 2020 by EC Star&Bar

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, EC Star&Bar said:

It will be interesting to have this resolved.  You make an excellent point regarding how the pages protrude -- however, the cuts of other samples really vary as far as the right edge of the cover alone.  I still think the oddity can be solely a production thing.  The lack of squareness of the cover, seen from the blue dashed lines on the back, could account for some odd protrusion of the interior paper.

Most importantly, if you look at the partial checks to the right of the CCA stamp, one of the 8.5 graded copies clearly has slightly less check showing than this raw copy...!  And by that I mean very little showing.

This issue must have had a tremendously big press run by most any standard, in part due to the Batman TV series.  I've seen where even a DC war comic from '66-'67 had a half-million copies run off.  I think that can help explain inconsistency on the cover cuts.  

Another thing to keep in mind is that DCs of the "go-go checks" period had good quality, glossy cover stock that tended to not overhang.  (In '68, after that period, DC changed briefly to a less glossy stock that was more prone to tanning on the edges.)  I just don't think this issue tended to have edgewear that would compel someone to trim it.

I'm going to stick with my belief it may not be trimmed.  I realize this being a high-value key will increase the likelihood, but a factor is that unlike sixties Marvels, I think this book was not prone to the type of wear that someone would trim off.  This was probably among my favorite DC cover stocks.  I have a Fox & Crow /Stanley & His Monster from right around the same month that I bought with some significant cover dirt that cleaned off easily. Gorgeous result. This type of DC cover stock returned in '69-70, changed again in '71'-72, and with some exceptions like around '73 and '75, has not been as  good since IMO.  

Here's the case-cracker. The Det 359 equivalent of the picture of Joe Pesci in the shower.

As the cut progresses, top to bottom, or further from the body towards the body of whoever is trimming this, the elbow draws out, the natural tendency to angle the wrist outward to follow the forearm. This typically results in an outward arc of the trimmed edge as seen here. On the white line to the right I replicated and exaggerated the fluctuating trajectory that the blade followed at the end of the trim closest to the trimmer's body!  There is no bowing out at the corners in normal production on the factory, original production cuts. This is definitely a tell for trim and I'm confident that if submitted, this feature will not be lost as a tell by CGC. 

Bolstering this, there are what were small chips and tears on the edge of the cover, which should have been at least a half a row of "checkerboard" wider! Which happens to be just about the exact distance to where the pages end if predictably mirroring the back cover configuration. 

 

[James J Johnson]

23 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

It's suspect.

You're good! 

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

You're learning! 

FTFY.

Your teachings have helped a lot.

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

FTFY.

Your teachings have helped a lot.

Teaching or not, you have to not only have an eye for it, but be very observant, and then develop a sensitivity to how it should look based on seeing original owner books by the hundreds; by the thousands, etc, to spot tells that are atypical to your understanding of how normally produced books look without any after-market alteration. And you've got that! This was not an easy tell. 

[James J Johnson]

On 11/6/2020 at 8:37 PM, MustEatBrains said:

Not an expert on trimming by suspect at least the right side FC may have been.  Just looking for a few other opinions.

 

Great eye, BTW!    

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Teaching or not, you have to not only have an eye for it, but be very observant, and then develop a sensitivity to how it should look based on seeing original owner books by the hundreds; by the thousands, etc, to spot tells that are atypical to your understanding of how normally produced books look without any after-market alteration. And you've got that! This was not an easy tell. 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[EC Star&Bar]

James' analysis is very impressive, but I will still maintain that if the book can't be examined in person, we can't say with 100% certainty it's been trimmed.  We're presuming that the book's edge is perfectly flat when we view it.  But if the paper has a slight waviness, it will appear as an edge that is not perfectly "factory" straight.  "Bowing" due to a trim, or due to our perception? A book this valuable, altered or not, will likely be submitted, so I hope it is sent in and I'll be back to admit it if I was wrong.

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, EC Star&Bar said:

James' analysis is very impressive, but I will still maintain that if the book can't be examined in person, we can't say with 100% certainty it's been trimmed.  We're presuming that the book's edge is perfectly flat when we view it.  But if the paper has a slight waviness, it will appear as an edge that is not perfectly "factory" straight.  "Bowing" due to a trim, or due to our perception? A book this valuable, altered or not, will likely be submitted, so I hope it is sent in and I'll be back to admit it if I was wrong.

@oldrover

[EC Star&Bar]

37 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Here's the case-cracker. The Det 359 equivalent of the picture of Joe Pesci in the shower.

As the cut progresses, top to bottom, or further from the body towards the body of whoever is trimming this, the elbow draws out, the natural tendency to angle the wrist outward to follow the forearm. This typically results in an outward arc of the trimmed edge as seen here. On the white line to the right I replicated and exaggerated the fluctuating trajectory that the blade followed at the end of the trim closest to the trimmer's body!  There is no bowing out at the corners in normal production on the factory, original production cuts. This is definitely a tell for trim and I'm confident that if submitted, this feature will not be lost as a tell by CGC. 

Bolstering this, there are what were small chips and tears on the edge of the cover, which should have been at least a half a row of "checkerboard" wider! Which happens to be just about the exact distance to where the pages end if predictably mirroring the back cover configuration. 

 

Regarding wideness of the go-go checks, how do you explain the CGC blue label 8.5 on ebay whose checks are LESS WIDE than those on this raw book??  If they MUST be wider to be an untrimmed book, then the 8.5 on ebay is a MIS-GRADED trimmed book with a blue label, no trimming noted!

[MustEatBrains]

6 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

Great eye, BTW!    

Thanks for all the replies!  Learned quite a bit from you all.  Here's the books the seller currently has up as FYI.  They are listed as unrestored but I was def suspect when I saw the tec.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/buying_everything/m.html?_trksid=p3692

 

 

[James J Johnson]

11 hours ago, EC Star&Bar said:

Regarding wideness of the go-go checks, how do you explain the CGC blue label 8.5 on ebay whose checks are LESS WIDE than those on this raw book??  If they MUST be wider to be an untrimmed book, then the 8.5 on ebay is a MIS-GRADED trimmed book with a blue label, no trimming noted!

The size is incidental. Size of the whole or a part of it can be a tell, but not conclusive. The symmetry trumps size, typically. There is a certain symmetry of the page ends, and their relationship to each other and the covers, front and back, that is either typical of factory production or not. This isn't. Look at those three trajectory changes of the cut on the bottom of the right edge. Machines can produce a plethora of miscuts, but they typically do not alter the path of direction at points along the way. No, that's a hand cut on the right edge of the cover. The goal was to remove chip-like defects (part of which are still there) and micro-tears on the right edge of the cover that usually accrue when the cover slightly overhangs the pages due to not being firmly protected by the pages, and/or rough page turning/opening. 

 

[James J Johnson]

11 hours ago, EC Star&Bar said:

James' analysis is very impressive, but I will still maintain that if the book can't be examined in person, we can't say with 100% certainty it's been trimmed. 

Absolutely agree. I'm at 98% with regards to the chance of right edge cover trim. But in-person, magnified page-end scrutiny trumps all opinions based on images.