Second Printings - Grader Obligation 0

[Jrempel]

Hello comic luminaries. I have a question regarding subsequent print runs of issues and grading. If a book is a second (or third, etc.) printing, is CGC required to note this on the label?  Is there a reason why they wouldn’t?  

[Get Marwood & I]

4 minutes ago, Jrempel said:

Hello comic luminaries. I have a question regarding subsequent print runs of issues and grading. If a book is a second (or third, etc.) printing, is CGC required to note this on the label?

They're not required to - it's up to them what they record - but they do as standard when they spot it. It's the right thing to do of course, to ensure that people know what they're getting, especially when it is noted only on the indicia that a book isn't a first printing.

4 minutes ago, Jrempel said:

 Is there a reason why they wouldn’t?  

Operator error. 

[Ride the Tiger]

If you can't look at the cover and immediately tell which print # it is then I think CGC should put it on the label.

[Jrempel]

Thanks everyone for your input and advice.  

[Get Marwood & I]

5 hours ago, Jrempel said:

Thanks everyone for your input and advice.  

Did you have a particular book in mind Jrempel?

[theCapraAegagrus]

15 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

They're not required to - it's up to them what they record - but they do as standard when they spot it. It's the right thing to do of course, to ensure that people know what they're getting, especially when it is noted only on the indicia that a book isn't a first printing.

Operator error. 

Nailed it.

[Jrempel]

Reason for the ask is that I was considering purchasing a graded copy of Batman 423 with the McFarlane cover, noticed the 75c price on the cover with no CDN or UK pricing, and no bar code, which is indicative of a 2nd/3rd print, but looked at the CGC label and there was no notation of the printing.  I've owned several graded second prints of various keys books of the same vintage and they all said "Second Printing" on the label.  It struck me as odd that something foundational to the value, such as print order, would be, and I'll use the term "missing" on the grader label.  Especially considering the disparity in value between printings.  

[Get Marwood & I]

8 minutes ago, Jrempel said:

Reason for the ask is that I was considering purchasing a graded copy of Batman 423 with the McFarlane cover, noticed the 75c price on the cover with no CDN or UK pricing, and no bar code, which is indicative of a 2nd/3rd print, but looked at the CGC label and there was no notation of the printing.  I've owned several graded second prints of various keys books of the same vintage and they all said "Second Printing" on the label.  It struck me as odd that something foundational to the value, such as print order, would be, and I'll use the term "missing" on the grader label.  Especially considering the disparity in value between printings.  

Indeed. The CGC staff are human, make mistakes and miss things like every other company. You will always find examples of missed notations which may have a material impact on value and desirability. I posted some examples recently of J C Penney reprints being graded as first printings. It happens and sometimes you have to accept that you need to do your own homework to decide if a slabbed book is indeed what it has been labelled as, using all the clues and cover variations available.

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, Jrempel said:

Reason for the ask is that I was considering purchasing a graded copy of Batman 423 with the McFarlane cover, noticed the 75c price on the cover with no CDN or UK pricing, and no bar code, which is indicative of a 2nd/3rd print, but looked at the CGC label and there was no notation of the printing.  I've owned several graded second prints of various keys books of the same vintage and they all said "Second Printing" on the label.  It struck me as odd that something foundational to the value, such as print order, would be, and I'll use the term "missing" on the grader label.  Especially considering the disparity in value between printings.  

Yeah, CGC is not good at recording printing information properly and they seem to have actually gotten worse over time.

The worst example I can think of is that TMNT #1.