Batman 1 CGC 9.4!!!! 6 6

[Mmehdy]

13 minutes ago, woowoo said:

Can you people please keep your reply to 1 line. I had a few drinks and cant seem to read more than 20 words Thank you tonight only.

It has been a heck of year...start on New Years eve early...why not..

[woowoo]

38 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

It has been a heck of year...start on New Years eve early...why not..

Ya i feel like i have had a press and its to tight. Thanks @Mmehdy Happy new year to you

Edited December 29, 2020 by woowoo

[Crowzilla]

2 hours ago, MasterChief said:

Frankly speaking, I’m of the opinion that if an educated hobbyist is advocating the position that the Church Collection could somehow be considered as having been naturally "pressed"  inasmuch the way that mechanical pressing produces treatment results, whether performed using the disassembled, intact, or localized treatment method, they are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to marginalize the concerns surrounding the issue and/or demonstrating a blatant desire and determination to publicly avoid the truth.

I guess I should have used one of these: , I was just joking.

2 hours ago, batman_fan said:

"From the Cat Pee Collection". 

Could make for a VERY interesting label notation. 

Doubt they are going to label notate them, but unfortunately MANY Church copies now belong to/have come from this infamous collection.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

3 hours ago, batman_fan said:

"From the Cat Pee Collection". 

Could make for a VERY interesting label notation. 

 

2 hours ago, jimjum12 said:

 

 

2 hours ago, comicdonna said:

I'm waiting for the Pepe Le Pew collection.  

 

1 hour ago, batman_fan said:

How does it smell?

CGC custom Scratch and Sniff Labels! 

[woowoo]

1 hour ago, Crowzilla said:

I guess I should have used one of these: , I was just joking.

Doubt they are going to label notate them, but unfortunately MANY Church copies now belong to/have come from this infamous collection.

you keep forgetting to    

[lou_fine]

On 12/28/2020 at 12:45 AM, LDarkseid1 said:

On 12/28/2020 at 12:31 AM, lou_fine said:

Well, all I can say to this is that if it's due to defects that cannot be easily seen by the naked eye even with the use of enlarged detailed scans and instead, you need to refer to the Graders Notes to even identify them, then should it really hammer the grade down by 4 full increments?    

I can think of other much more readily visual defects than these near invisible defects which seems to be #1 with a bullet right at the top of CGC's grading hit parade.  

Yeah I mean unfortunately there’s no proof I can put forth in this conversation, and as far as that book goes since I’ll never have those graders notes.

I believe you spoke too soon, as these CGC Graders Notes can be yours to share with all of us if you are willing to fork over a measly $10 to them:  

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0065735001/

 

[LDarkseid1]

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

I believe you spoke too soon, as these CGC Graders Notes can be yours to share with all of us if you are willing to fork over a measly $10 to them:  

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0065735001/

 

Oh that’s soo weird! Wonder why the 9.0 would still be recognized, whilst it is now a 9.6. Unless sent in raw and previous label wasn’t provided to remove the 9.0 grade 🤷‍♂️

[lou_fine]

On 12/28/2020 at 12:12 PM, N e r V said:

Even if you wanted to consider pressing micro-trimming resto. there’s not a single person out there that can detect for 100% that a books been pressed all the time so what’s the point. 

Well, if that's the case then how about micro-trimming if it's been done properly since that also can't be detected with 100% accuracy?  

Not talking about trimming a la Dupchak style, but micro-trimming a la Ewert style.  

 

[lou_fine]

3 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

7 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

I believe you spoke too soon, as these CGC Graders Notes can be yours to share with all of us if you are willing to fork over a measly $10 to them:  

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0065735001/

 

Oh that’s soo weird! Wonder why the 9.0 would still be recognized, whilst it is now a 9.6. Unless sent in raw and previous label wasn’t provided to remove the 9.0 grade 🤷‍♂️

Yes indeed, as I believe the CGC 9.0 label was never turned back in, but the CGC 9.6 label was turned back in when they added another CGC 9.8 graded copy into the census when it became the tied for the highest graded copy along with the Church copy of this book.  

[LDarkseid1]

Just now, lou_fine said:

Yes indeed, as I believe the CGC 9.0 label was never turned back in, but the CGC 9.6 label was turned back in when they added another CGC 9.8 graded copy into the census when it became the tied for the highest graded copy along with the Church copy of this book.  

Hmm, well I’m interested, but not enough to spend $10

[MrBedrock]

20 hours ago, MasterChief said:

Frankly speaking, I’m ... being intellectually dishonest

[lou_fine]

2 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

Hmm, well I’m interested, but not enough to spend $10

Same here as I am always curious, but not willing to spend my $10 for the info.  

Guess I didn't pique enough of your interest to make you spend your $10.  

[LDarkseid1]

Just now, lou_fine said:

Same here as I am always curious, but not willing to spend my $10 for the info.  

Guess I didn't pique enough of your interest to make you spend your $10.  

You came close Lou, super close!

[lou_fine]

1 minute ago, LDarkseid1 said:

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Same here as I am always curious, but not willing to spend my $10 for the info.  

Guess I didn't pique enough of your interest to make you spend your $10.  

You came close Lou, super close!

Well, how about if it comes back in its next incarnation as a CGC 10.0 graded copy then?  

[lou_fine]

23 hours ago, Mmehdy said:

On 12/28/2020 at 12:12 PM, N e r V said:

Even if you wanted to consider pressing resto. there’s not a single person out there that can detect for 100% that a books been pressed all the time so what’s the point. 

what is the point of pressing a GA/SA comic book...to "game" the grading system and get the grade pumped up on steroids.

Mitch;

Is this like a case of something like what came first:  the chicken or the egg?  

The point of pressing might just be to level back the playing field so that you don't receive overly egregious punishment grades from CGC.  

After all, wasn't it really CGC who "game" their undisclosed grading standards in order to pump up both their top line and bottom line to keep the CCG ownership happy?   

[lou_fine]

21 hours ago, N e r V said:

22 hours ago, batman_fan said:

It would be nice if they downgraded some of the clear signs of bad pressing (see Sunken Staples for an example).

Yes, I know opinions vary on pressing but I think everyone agrees it’s a shame to see perfectly good books destroyed by bad pressing being done. Just like those who allowed cokes to be spilled on books or let cats pee on them...

I believe this was something that was indeed done when pressing first came to light on these boards way back in 2005, as Borock stated rather emphatically that books would be downgraded for defects arising from improperly performed pressing.  

From reading feedback on these boards here at the time, I believe this tolerance for pressing defects became more acceptable as time went on and definitely in place about 5 years ago after the pressing maestro (i.e. Nelson himself) shifted over from CCS to become the Head Grader at CGC.  

Especially since the newbies that took over the pressing work at CCS simply didn't have the same expertise and the CCG ownership knew they would be losing a substantial portion of their additional streams of revenues (i.e. pressing, resubs, etc.) if CGC started to downgrade for pressing defects that were now coming out from their own shop.   

[N e r V]

3 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Well, if that's the case then how about micro-trimming if it's been done properly since that also can't be detected with 100% accuracy?  

Not talking about trimming a la Dupchak style, but micro-trimming a la Ewert style.  

 

Use color touch as an example then. If there’s enough of it then it’s noted and falls into whatever section they decide but if there’s literally an undetectable amount of color touch should anyone really care at that point? 
 

There comes a point with anything if it’s so tiny and undetectable should you worry about it or how far should we take it to put it under the most powerful microscope in the world?

[MrBedrock]

On 12/28/2020 at 6:41 PM, MasterChief said:

Frankly speaking, I’m of the opinion that if an educated hobbyist is advocating the position that the Church Collection could somehow be considered as having been naturally "pressed"  inasmuch the way that mechanical pressing produces treatment results, whether performed using the disassembled, intact, or localized treatment method, they are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to marginalize the concerns surrounding the issue and/or demonstrating a blatant desire and determination to publicly avoid the truth.

This response to Crowzilla's statement that the Church books were "naturally pressed" has sat here for a while with no response (other than a couple of folks whose emojis shed tears for me) and that really bugs me.

Whether or not, or to what degree, anyone believes that stacking comics in a pile for a long period of time in perfect storage conditions constitutes "natural pressing" is irrelevant to the comment above. What is relevant is that this poster feels so strongly in his viewpoint that if someone has the gall to disagree with him they must be "intellectually dishonest", and therefore his position must be intellectually honest.

I think that is a ridiculous, overbearing, self-aggrandizing stance to take in a discussion that has no definitive proof to back up either side.

Now the last time I disagreed with someone here I was labeled sexist. I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person. So be it.

But nobody puts Sean in the corner!!!

(And for the record I think the Church books were simply a result of optimal storage)

Edited December 30, 2020 by MrBedrock

[Gotham Kid]

7 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person

Not even remotely close.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Gotham Kid

[buttock]

46 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

This response to Crowzilla's statement that the Church books were "naturally pressed" has sat here for a while with no response (other than a couple of folks whose emojis shed tears for me) and that really bugs me.

Whether or not, or to what degree, anyone believes that stacking comics in a pile for a long period of time in perfect storage conditions constitutes "natural pressing" is irrelevant to the comment above. What is relevant is that this poster feels so strongly in his viewpoint that if someone has the gall to disagree with him they must be "intellectually dishonest", and therefore his position must be intellectually honest.

I think that is a ridiculous, overbearing, self-aggrandizing stance to take in a discussion that has no definitive proof to back up either side.

Now the last time I disagreed with someone here I was labeled sexist. I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person. So be it.

But nobody puts Sean in the corner!!!

(And for the record I think the Church books were simply a result of optimal storage)

I like you and I like Roy and I like Church books.