They're Still Out There! 22 22

[MrBedrock]

4 minutes ago, greggy said:

To allow me a bigger gimp box in your basement. 

[MrBedrock]

4 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

Well, I had the right idea, lol....did not mean to insult your beautiful house;) it was just my way of suggesting you'd keep them.

I'd want to as well...but I'd need to win the lottery;) 

And I never meant anything sexist. I was just suggesting that everyone here on the boards loves you.

[jimbo_7071]

13 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

I've noticed over the years that some things bother some graders more than others. It seems sun shadows/dust shadows are OK on high grade books while dirt stains are horrible....

I'm pretending I didn't see the tear.

Quite a few Mile Highs have dust shadows. If they were going to penalize dust shadows severely, then they would have had to penalize many of the Mile Highs severely. That just wouldn't do. A dust shadow is a type of stain, so that example should be a wake up call for people: grading is all about CGCs bottom line. They're in business to make money. They're not in business to protect the integrity of the hobby.

[buttock]

54 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

If there’s anyone that doesn’t believe at least some of the Promise Collection books are overgraded, let’s play a game. If this is a 9.2 . . . 

then what is this?

 

The second copy with the big stains on the back cover and tear at the staple is probably a 7.0 or 7.5.  Can you not see those defects? I mean it's pretty clear which is the nicer copy, although the second one looks great before you turn it over.  But you can't just ignore glaring defects.  

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

55 minutes ago, buttock said:

The second copy with the big stains on the back cover and tear at the staple is probably a 7.0 or 7.5.  Can you not see those defects? I mean it's pretty clear which is the nicer copy, although the second one looks great before you turn it over.  But you can't just ignore glaring defects.  

Tough crowd

[VintageComics]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:15 AM, Robot Man said:

Codes don’t bother me if they are small, light and unobtrusive. It was such a common practice back in the GA that many books had. Often, they add to or make a book more desiresble to identify pedigrees. Church, Ohio come to mind. Who finds the name Larson or Okajima a problem? 

Pressing, or “maximizing” pedigree books is just wrong to me. Isn’t the whole point of a pedigree owning a nice book from a one owner collection? Don’t we pay more for these because of their special untouched state? Once they have been “maximized” they just lose a little of that sparkle to me...

The books in this collection don’t look like they need any help. The raw ones I saw were jaw dropping. I think they would bring record prices just the way they were found. 

The idea behind pressing books is to not leave money on the table.

If people who weren't interested in pressed books were willing to pay the prices of what books would press up to (that would take a little education on the bidder's part but not unreasonable considering how much money people are spending on books) then you would eliminate the press / resub market.

It's simple economics.

But it's unreasonable to expect sellers NOT to maximize their investment while buyer wouldn't pay a premium for the virgin material.

[buttock]

24 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Tough crowd

What's the grade? 

[szav]

36 minutes ago, buttock said:

What's the grade? 

They both look good for 7.5 to me  on account of back cover tears (I can't overlook the punched in staple and associated tears on the Promise copy) and staining/heavy shadowing.  Not sure what point is being argued now other than the promise copy is perhaps too leniently judged.  

1 hour ago, buttock said:

I mean it's pretty clear which is the nicer copy

Is it?  Maybe I'm missing something or being dense ... its happened before.   I think I'd rather have book number two which I assume would come at about 20-30% of the price of book one as well.  

Edited May 9, 2021 by szav

[Mmehdy]

3 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

If CBCS had graded this collection imagine how many 10.0s we would be seeing!

Exactly...you can never please all the people all the time...this collection is an opportunity to get these books from a time capsule and I think some of the complaints on grading is going be forgotten at auction time. I stand by my advice, chose the book carefully and pick your battles.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Mmehdy

[Sarg]

On 5/7/2021 at 6:20 PM, lou_fine said:

Looks like they've got the first 3 issues of the Seven Seas run up on deck already, but still missing the key SS 4 and SS 6 for now:     

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/seven-seas-comics-3-the-promise-collection-pedigree-universal-phoenix-feature-1947-cgc-nm-96-off-white-to-white-pages/p/7244-175144.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Preview-SearchResults-120115&lotPosition=2|0#

 

Highest graded copy of this Seven Seas 3 by a long shot at CGC 9.6, with the next highest graded copy being only a CGC 9.0.  Although it's definitely a nice looking copy here, still a bit surprised at the amount of color fading splatter in the red logo area at the top or is that from the glare of Heritage's bright lights that they used when they take their scans.  

Either way, hope this copy here goes for an absolute fortune since I have a nice HG copy of this book in my own personal collection, and like they say, a rising tide tends to lift all boats.    

 

Very fine, and an actual Baker cover, though drawn a year or two before publication date -- which explains why it looks primitive compared to Baker's masterpieces on #4 and #6. 

[buttock]

28 minutes ago, szav said:

They both look good for 7.5 to me  on account of back cover tears (I can't overlook the punched in staple and associated tears on the Promise copy) and staining/heavy shadowing.  Not sure what point is being argued now other than the promise copy is perhaps too leniently judged.  

Is it?  Maybe I'm missing something or being dense ... its happened before.   I think I'd rather have book number two which I assume would come at about 20-30% of the price of book one as well.  

I would be happy to sell you all the books you want with back cover defects and price them off the front cover.  Send me a list of what you want.  If you don't mind missing interior pages then I can really get you some nice looking books.  For those I'd even do half of NM price.  A steal considering only a fraction of the book is missing.  

[jimbo_7071]

2 hours ago, greggy said:

To allow me a bigger gimp box in your basement. 

At least you have one of your own. I heard that Gary Carter and Dan Greenhalgh have to share a Gimp Box in Bedrock's basement.

[szav]

24 minutes ago, buttock said:

I would be happy to sell you all the books you want with back cover defects and price them off the front cover.  Send me a list of what you want.  If you don't mind missing interior pages then I can really get you some nice looking books.  For those I'd even do half of NM price.  A steal considering only a fraction of the book is missing.  

Not entirely sure who to interpret this response sorry especially since I agreed with your grade on copy #2.  

Anyway, the Promise cap 46 is flush with back cover defects no worse than that other copy.  Doesn’t matter to me if CGC gives a pass to heinous dust shadows, or punched in staples with tears.  Those defects matter to me as much as staining and teensy tears.

if you’re implying the back cover on the Promise cap 46 has bo defects then “I would be happy to sell you all the books you want with back cover defects and price them off the front cover.  Send me a list of what you want.  If you don't mind missing interior pages then I can really get you some nice looking books.  For those I'd even do half of NM price.  A steal considering only a fraction of the book is missing.”

[Jayman]

4 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Although I've seen this same type of sentiment from many of the boardies here, it actually doesn't seem to make much financial sense from a supply and demand point of view.  

I would tend to think that GA prices might possibly just be trending lower short term if you are trying to sell books at a time when others are also trying to sell their books in order to raise monies to acquire books from this Promise Colllection.  Being more of a pure collector, I would tend to buy books either from current funds that I already have available or from funds that I could raise from other investments outside of the GA comic books.  

 I mean after collector’s purchase their upgrades from this Promise collection they then will be selling their undercopies. 

[Timely]

5 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

If CBCS had graded this collection imagine how many 10.0s we would be seeing!

No 10 Golden Age or Silver Age books yet!

[buttock]

36 minutes ago, szav said:

Not entirely sure who to interpret this response sorry especially since I agreed with your grade on copy #2.  

Anyway, the Promise cap 46 is flush with back cover defects no worse than that other copy.  Doesn’t matter to me if CGC gives a pass to heinous dust shadows, or punched in staples with tears.  Those defects matter to me as much as staining and teensy tears.

if you’re implying the back cover on the Promise cap 46 has bo defects then “I would be happy to sell you all the books you want with back cover defects and price them off the front cover.  Send me a list of what you want.  If you don't mind missing interior pages then I can really get you some nice looking books.  For those I'd even do half of NM price.  A steal considering only a fraction of the book is missing.”

1) the tearing at the staple on the second copy is much greater.  
 

2) sun shadows may be down the list of defects you don't like, but the discussion is about CGC grading, not what we all prefer individually.  Shadows have been well established as largely overlooked by CGC since its inception.  Stains have been hammered by CGC since its inception.  None of this is new.  It's one thing to gripe about your preferences, it's another to be surprised that these defects are treated the way they are when it's happened literally thousands of times over decades.  

[szav]

14 minutes ago, buttock said:

1) the tearing at the staple on the second copy is much greater.  

I guess if you're looking only at length of the tear, but copy one has two tears and the look of the staple being punched in is more of an eyesore to me.

18 minutes ago, buttock said:

None of this is new.  It's one thing to gripe about your preferences, it's another to be surprised that these defects are treated the way they are when it's happened literally thousands of times over decades.  

Not the least bit surprised how the defects were treated.  I was only surprised by the assertion that it was obvious which book is nicer.  To each their own as we whimsically discuss CGC grading and what we all prefer individually.  I'm sure both copies have found, or will find, loving homes with happy owners who don't routinely bother to look at the backs of their comics.

[buttock]

Just now, szav said:

I guess if you're looking only at length of the tear, but copy one has two tears and the look of the staple being punched in is more of an eyesore to me.

Not the least bit surprised how the defects were treated.  I was only surprised by the assertion that it was obvious which book is nicer.  To each their own as we whimsically discuss CGC grading and what we all prefer individually.  I'm sure both copies have found, or will find, loving homes with happy owners who don't routinely bother to look at the backs of their comics.

 fair enough!  

[lou_fine]

7 hours ago, buttock said:

How do you know none of them are under graded? You've got a million posts saying that there's no difference between a 9.6, 9.8, and 9.9. So many of the books in this collection are in that range, how can you say that they aren't under graded?

I don't know if any of them are possibly undergraded, because as I have already stated many times here before that you cannot accurately grade a book from just a scan, as you would need to have the actual book in hand to do a proper assessment.  It's just that although it's impossible to tell with any degree of confidence if a particular book is undergraded, this is not necessarily quite as impossible in the case of books that might possibly be overgraded based upon clear and obvious visible defects which you can see from scans.  

It's just that so far all of the questionable examples being posted here by various boardies have all been examples of seemingly overgraded books from the Promise Collection, with the only examples of seemingly undergraded books being ones NOT from the Promise Collection.  Because if the grading for this collection here is truly impartial, from a pure statistical point of view, we should also be able to see some clearly examples of possibly undergraded books from this collection here.  So, here's another opportunity for you to show us some examples of books from this Promise Collection that you feel may possibly be undergraded based upon their scans, since nobody else has so far to this point in time.    

It should be relatively easy for you to do this since from your post above, you leave the impression that grading is more of an exact perfect science as opposed to being a subjective opinion at a particular point in time.  Especially since I don't remember ever mentioning seeing undergraded books in the nosebleed condition levels that you are referring to because the differences between a CGC 9.6 to a CGC 9.8 or a CGC 9.8 to a CGC 9.9 are just so minute and minisucle that this is where you really DO need to have the actual book in hand to discern any differences, as you certainly cannot do this from just a scan.  The only time that I remember mentioning SEEMINGLY undergraded books from just looking at a scan have been in the grade ranges of CGC 6.5 through to CGC 9.0, and then and only then in comparison to equivalent graded books with more clearly visible defects on them.  

[lou_fine]

8 hours ago, buttock said:

10 hours ago, lou_fine said:

 In the final stetches of the game though, they are usually irrelevant in the equation as the only thing that matters in the end to the deep pocketed bidders and the whales is that big big number on the top left hand corner of the slab and they couldn't care less about the visual attributes of the underlying book itself.  

What an awfully judgemental statement.

Yeah, my bad here as I might not have stated this in the most clear and diplomatic way like @Mmehdy when he said that all complaints about the grading of the book will be forgotten in the heat of the auction.  

I was also referring more to the big new money that Mitch was alluding to as coming from outside the hobby just for this collection, as I am 100% certain that long time collectors like you and some of the other boardies here with not only years, but decades of collecting experience will indeed know all the attributes of the comics before bidding big dollars on it.  Most likely not so much for the newbies with the deep pocket who are thinking about moving in for the first time just for some of these books from the Promise Collection here, as I am sure that they will not be as aware of the minute and tiny defects on the comic books themselves, and will more than likely resort simply on the CGC grade to make their bids.  

Although successful people with lots of money to throw around are also usually very fast learners, I somehow don't think they are fast enough to learn about the intricacies and finer details of the whole grading game within a couple of short months before these books hit the auction block.