can 9.8's have bindery tears? 1 1

[FSF]

I really wish CGC would lower the grade ceiling for bindery tears.  I've seen way too many books, often with both corners with this issue, and it's apparent to the eye right away.  They look SO MUCH inferior to a comparable book that does not have the tears.

[I like pie]

1 hour ago, FSF said:

I really wish CGC would lower the grade ceiling for bindery tears.  I've seen way too many books, often with both corners with this issue, and it's apparent to the eye right away.  They look SO MUCH inferior to a comparable book that does not have the tears.

Agree but then there would only be 3 saga rrps at 9.8?

[VintageComics]

3 hours ago, FSF said:

I really wish CGC would lower the grade ceiling for bindery tears.  I've seen way too many books, often with both corners with this issue, and it's apparent to the eye right away.  They look SO MUCH inferior to a comparable book that does not have the tears.

If a perfect book didn't have bindery tears it would be a 9.9 or a 10.0

The size of the tears do affect the grade. For example, you can't have a particularly long tear on a 9.8.

What would you want the ceiling lowered to?

Edited June 10, 2018 by VintageComics

[newshane]

Overstreet allows minor bindery "defects" in 9.9s.

[FSF]

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

If a perfect book didn't have bindery tears it would be a 9.9 or a 10.0

The size of the tears do affect the grade. For example, you can't have a particularly long tear on a 9.8.

What would you want the ceiling lowered to?

9.6 and certainly less depending on severity.  I agree that it would depend on the size of the tears.  If it's maybe one corner and very minor effecting only the cover, then perhaps 9.8 could be given if the rest of the book is all there.  But there are plenty of books out there with both corners disturbed where the majority of the pages or every page is fraying.  How in the world that could be a 9.8 is beyond me. It's a VERY noticeable defect.  If a book deserves 9.9 or 10.0, then CGC should give it, but obviously never to one with any binder tears.  It's not like the majority of thee 9.8 books with bindery tears are any sharper (putting the tears aside) than most of other 9.8s that don't have it.

It might be apples and oranges, but in the card world a 10.0 card would be downgraded to 8 or less with one corner disturbed in such a manner.  Corners are focal points on books and cards and stand out.  And they are fugly as hell.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Generally speaking, using qualified terms is no good, since they mean different things to different people, and can only be defined relative to other things. What does "moderate" mean? What does "long" or "short" or "many" or "few" or "slight" or "large" mean? Quantified terms, like "1/8"" and "1/16" are preferable, because those are defined measurements.

[James J Johnson]

6 hours ago, FSF said:

I really wish CGC would lower the grade ceiling for bindery tears.  I've seen way too many books, often with both corners with this issue, and it's apparent to the eye right away.  They look SO MUCH inferior to a comparable book that does not have the tears.

This. And those corner tears have been part and parcel for thick and/or heavy paged comics for 80 years. They occur as the spring-loaded tongs of the folding/assembly mechanism do their job folding and binding the sheets of the comic into book form. Those spine corner tears are a very common restoration fix on golden age books, seen today as "tear seals" listed as one of the procedures. The problem of paper weight, book thickness and too much of a spring load still persists today, damaging the spine corners on thick books, same as it did 80 years ago.

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, newshane said:

Overstreet allows minor bindery "defects" in 9.9s.

They shouldn't, if the word, "tear" is included as any part within the language of the defect. Whatever caused a tear, whether the tear was caused in production or incurred as wear after production, it's still there, and still damages the book. Still a defect.

Edited June 11, 2018 by James J Johnson

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

This. And those corner tears have been part and parcel for thick and/or heavy paged comics for 80 years. They occur as the spring-loaded tongs of the folding/assembly mechanism do their job folding and binding the sheets of the comic into book form. Those spine corner tears are a very common restoration fix on golden age books, seen today as "tear seals" listed as one of the procedures. The problem of paper weight, book thickness and too much of a spring load still persists today, damaging the spine corners on thick books, same as it did 80 years ago.

The brand new ASM #800 being an excellent case in point. 

[James J Johnson]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The brand new ASM #800 being an excellent case in point. 

Unfortunately, if the folding arms of the mechanism have sufficient tension to fold the pages and assemble them, then as they slide up and down inside the spine, they have enough tension to tear the ends of the spine during the release phase of their job.

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, FSF said:

9.6 and certainly less depending on severity.  I agree that it would depend on the size of the tears.  If it's maybe one corner and very minor effecting only the cover, then perhaps 9.8 could be given if the rest of the book is all there.  But there are plenty of books out there with both corners disturbed where the majority of the pages or every page is fraying.  How in the world that could be a 9.8 is beyond me. It's a VERY noticeable defect.  If a book deserves 9.9 or 10.0, then CGC should give it, but obviously never to one with any binder tears.  It's not like the majority of thee 9.8 books with bindery tears are any sharper (putting the tears aside) than most of other 9.8s that don't have it.

It might be apples and oranges, but in the card world a 10.0 card would be downgraded to 8 or less with one corner disturbed in such a manner.  Corners are focal points on books and cards and stand out.  And they are fugly as hell.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

They shouldn't, if the word, "tear" is included as any part within the language of the defect. Whatever caused a tear, whether the tear was caused in production or incurred as wear after production, it's still there, and still damages the book. Still a defect.

But what do you guys base your criteria on?

Overstreet has been the grading guideline since 1970 and they have allowed for various defects in various grades (and the older the book the larger some defects are allowed by Overstreet).

So what is your reasoning?

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

They shouldn't, if the word, "tear" is included as any part within the language of the defect. Whatever caused a tear, whether the tear was caused in production or incurred as wear after production, it's still there, and still damages the book. Still a defect.

Except that production defects have been looked upon more favoring since the dawn of the hobby.

They're still factored into the grade but because so many books have bindery issues I can understand the reasoning to treat them differently.

Why change now?

[James J Johnson]

38 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Except that production defects have been looked upon more favoring since the dawn of the hobby.

They're still factored into the grade but because so many books have bindery issues I can understand the reasoning to treat them differently.

Why change now?

Inertia!  

[FSF]

2 hours ago, VintageComics said:

 

But what do you guys base your criteria on?

Overstreet has been the grading guideline since 1970 and they have allowed for various defects in various grades (and the older the book the larger some defects are allowed by Overstreet).

So what is your reasoning?

It's very simple.  We all agree that condition regarding collectibles is very important.  For me (and I think for most all collectors), condition denotes and connotes the appearance of the item in question. When a comic book looks CLEARLY better than another of the same grade (with TEARS) almost every single time, the problem isn't with my reasoning or interpretation of the grade, the problem is with this arbitrarily established guideline created by a limited number of so called experts that the endless flock of sheep (dealers and collectors) decide to treat as holy gospel.  It's completely illogical to me why two books that look clearly different aesthetically should get the same grade and approximately the same value in the marketplace.  We're talking about TEARS here.  It impacts the structural integrity of the book.

That Overstreet wants it that way and CGC wants it that way isn't good rationale as far as I'm concerned.  It's just another point of proof that the market is flooded with ignorant buyers who are speculating/investing and not really collecting.  As long as the plastic grade is there, who cares about the ACTUAL appearance of the book???  Well, REAL collectors do!

 

[VintageComics]

14 hours ago, FSF said:

9.6 and certainly less depending on severity.  I agree that it would depend on the size of the tears.  If it's maybe one corner and very minor effecting only the cover, then perhaps 9.8 could be given if the rest of the book is all there.  But there are plenty of books out there with both corners disturbed where the majority of the pages or every page is fraying. 

It's my understanding that this is exactly how CGC grades their books. I haven't seen plenty of books where both corners are disturbed and the majority of pages are fraying personally and I certainly don't get 9.8 grades on those types of books (and I submit a lot of 9.8 candidates).

What era are you talking about?

10 hours ago, FSF said:

That Overstreet wants it that way and CGC wants it that way isn't good rationale as far as I'm concerned.  It's just another point of proof that the market is flooded with ignorant buyers who are speculating/investing and not really collecting.  As long as the plastic grade is there, who cares about the ACTUAL appearance of the book???  Well, REAL collectors do!

This part of the post doesn't make a lot of sense.

1st, you're making the assumption that you're a real collector and people who work for Overstreet and CGC are not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

2nd, the Overstreet Guide was an initiative taken out by Bob Overstreet (who happened to be a lifelong collector) and was one of the only initiatives to publicly make grading somewhat standard.

3rd, you're saying that appearance doesn't matter. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is just another post about how CGC does it wrong and your way is better (and that happens a lot around here) but there is generally a reasonable reason as to why certification standards are what they are. They've evolved over nearly two decades.

[VintageComics]

10 hours ago, FSF said:

It's completely illogical to me why two books that look clearly different aesthetically should get the same grade and approximately the same value in the marketplace.  We're talking about TEARS here.  It impacts the structural integrity of the book.

Because, even within a given grade you can have a range of defects present. Just because one book has an extra defect doesn't automatically make it jump to the next grade.

 

[djpinkpanther67]

I still get occasional 9.8s with books with minor bindery tears.