They're Still Out There! 22 22

[Rip]

59 minutes ago, Sarg said:

I've never understood why writing on the cover is not considered a more prominent defect. How can a book with writing grade at 9.6? 

Years ago there was a bit more of a debate. For example some dealers would mark down distributor marks on the Church copies to around 9.2 when it was otherwise more like a 9.6. As time progressed and the value between a 9.2 and a 9.6 because greater, it seemed kind of a shame to lower the grade for markings that were both part of the distribution process and identification marks to distinguish the pedigree. Furthermore, because these marks were used to distinguish the pedigree, books with the marks often became more desirable. 

Now, October is talking about the River City collection, (Brain Peets /A-1 comics has a great video online opening a box filled with lower grade termite ridden raw copies). This was pedigree found close to my location with Grease Pencil markings. Sometimes writing with Grease Pencil can be a bit obtrusive.

[tth2]

22 hours ago, october said:

I've only been paying attention to stuff like this for a decade or so.

Be less old, old-timer. 

Damn know-nothing newbie! 

[Bronty]

On 4/27/2021 at 1:30 AM, PopKulture said:

It's strange seeing some of these golden age books with those gasp-inducing numbers in the upper left corners after reading all those threads in General about submitting moderns and variants that might have an imperceptible spine tick - is this a 9.6 or a 9.8? People roll the dice and submit a batch of fifty books and are happy when, what, maybe five come back as 9.8's? No way those moderns that come back as inferior 9.6's aren't structurally superior to their golden-age equivalents! And by equivalent I mean books with matching numbers in the corner.

There shouldn't be separate standards for books from different eras. That's why you set standards, so that they can be applied even-handedly. 

To a point.  By the same token GA and modern books are constructed so differently that you can't truly grade them on identical standards.   

How do you assess the quality of rib eye steaks and tofu patties on the same scale?    

Isn't any attempt for consistent standards across those two products a bit of an intellectual conceit to start with?   My beef better not have tofu in it.   Whereas I'm quite accepting of tofu in my tofu patty.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Bronty

[mwotka]

46 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

I love books that say “Larson” or a nicely placed “Tom Reilly” stamp on the back cover. 

And on the flip side, is there anything worse than a Larson copy with the name (and color of the cover) erased?  

[tth2]

16 hours ago, buttock said:

Can you tell I'm at work? 

[Robot Man]

46 minutes ago, Bronty said:

To a point.  By the same token GA and modern books are constructed so differently that you can't truly grade them on identical standards.   

How do you assess the quality of rib eye steaks and tofu patties on the same scale?    

Isn't any attempt for consistent standards across those two products a bit of an intellectual conceit to start with?   My beef better not have tofu in it.   Whereas I'm quite accepting of tofu in my tofu patty.

GA books and Modern books are constructed the same. Saddlestitched and trimmed. The difference is that GA books are generally larger and thicker. Also, some wartime books have only one staple witch makes them more prone to cover detachment. Other than that, they have always been manufactured the same. 

I have always questioned why GA squarebound books are graded the same as saddlestitched ones? Totally different process. 

[sfcityduck]

7 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

GA books and Modern books are constructed the same. Saddlestitched and trimmed. The difference is that GA books are generally larger and thicker. Also, some wartime books have only one staple witch makes them more prone to cover detachment. Other than that, they have always been manufactured the same. 

I have always questioned why GA squarebound books are graded the same as saddlestitched ones? Totally different process. 

Maybe he's referring to the paper quality.  My impression is that "modern" comics, have heavier cover stock (as well as non-newsprint interiors) which should protect them more against tanning, bending, and other defects that strike the lighter cover stock and newsprint interior books that were the standard into the 1980s.

[ChillMan]

Awesome Comics #34 (Kirby Puckett)

CGC Warehouse Presdegree 9.6

6th & 18th appearance of Ghost Cat (El Negro [español]....mi gatoooo 😪)

Classic Kirby Puckett cover

$20,000

Edited April 28, 2021 by ChillMan

[Bronty]

Different page counts, different page quality, 

23 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

GA books and Modern books are constructed the same. Saddlestitched and trimmed. The difference is that GA books are generally larger and thicker. Also, some wartime books have only one staple witch makes them more prone to cover detachment. Other than that, they have always been manufactured the same. 

I have always questioned why GA squarebound books are graded the same as saddlestitched ones? Totally different process. 

What's that?  You say they aren't the same? 

[Bronty]

14 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Maybe he's referring to the paper quality.  My impression is that "modern" comics, have heavier cover stock (as well as non-newsprint interiors) which should protect them more against tanning, bending, and other defects that strike the lighter cover stock and newsprint interior books that were the standard into the 1980s.

different page counts, different paper, modern presses, etc.    it may not seem like much to me it is.   You're going to have bindery chips as part of manufacture on those big fat GA books.   You're not going to have them on modern books.  etc. etc.

[ChillMan]

Get a room

 

 

 

 

 

[ChillMan]

SA will always be GA's little b---- .  But not this way....this 'pedigree' is more boring than Little Jackie Wright's little old bald guy replacements on the Benny Hill Show.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by ChillMan

[entalmighty1]

5 minutes ago, ChillMan said:

SA will always be GA's little b---- .  But not this way....this 'pedigree' is more boring than Little Jackie Wright's little old bald guy replacements on the Benny Hill Show.

 

What books would have excited you?

[CrocHntr]

33 minutes ago, Bronty said:

different page counts, different paper, modern presses, etc.    it may not seem like much to me it is.   You're going to have bindery chips as part of manufacture on those big fat GA books.   You're not going to have them on modern books.  etc. etc.

Yeah, but a chip is a chip.  GA or modern, it sure makes the book fugly.  Why would the grade not represent what is obvious to the eye as a flaw (either manufactured or not)?  

[batman_fan]

1 hour ago, mwotka said:

And on the flip side, is there anything worse than a Larson copy with the name (and color of the cover) erased?  

Actually no, it is one of the worst defects on a comic.

[ChillMan]

9 minutes ago, entalmighty1 said:

What books would have excited you?

None of these common issues.  Throw down 20% on a key, yeah SA 1st app.  Or celebrity current valid drivers licenses or passports when they died.  I like 'cameo' and 'ad' 1st appearances.  But not high grade common boring issues.

[ChillMan]

14 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

Actually no, it is one of the worst defects on a comic.

Some of us can't tell if you're joking lol.....

[adamstrange]

21 minutes ago, CrocHntr said:

Yeah, but a chip is a chip.  GA or modern, it sure makes the book fugly.  Why would the grade not represent what is obvious to the eye as a flaw (either manufactured or not)?  

Some collectors think that production defects should not count off as significantly as defects introduced later.

Some collectors think the tiniest stain is the kiss of death.  Others, not so much.

 

Every collector is free to like what they like, and dislike what they dislike.  The problem in defining a single grading standard is that you can't ultimately include everyone's preferred approach because they are contradictory. 

CGC created a "reasonable" standard after consultation with a variety of collectors and dealers.  They have also, to my observation, altered that standard a time or two as the principals have changed places.  If it were up to me, I wouldn't have chosen any of the standards they use, but that doesn't mean that the collecting community would like my standards any better. 

[Rip]

Manufacturing defects are kind of a grey area especially when it comes to bindary chips and page stock impressions around the spine. But I've seen bronze age DC dollar books given the same bindary chip pass as golden age books with regard to that defect.

That said it does look like some of these have been graded a bit soft. Although it would be better if I could see them in person. 
I suggest others hold off on bidding so I can do the proper assessment needed.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Rip

[Rip]

53 minutes ago, CrocHntr said:

Yeah, but a chip is a chip.  GA or modern, it sure makes the book fugly.  Why would the grade not represent what is obvious to the eye as a flaw (either manufactured or not)?  

Manufactured defects exist in all ages. A good example of a more recent book is  ASM 361. The book often has 2 marks on the lower part of the book front cover. But since most copies have it, and it was part of the manufactured process, the book is given a pass.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Rip