How does cover tanning affect a comic book's grade?

[CommandD]

I've been seeing lots of slabbed books lately with big numbers that have cover tanning - not a sun shadow, but an all over tan.

 

How does a slight/medium or severe cover tan affect an otherwise 9.4 book?

[OrangeNemesis]

my wolverine #1 is in awesome condition but recived a 9.2 because of back cover tanning so id assume it makes an impact.

[Inhuman Fiend]

Total guess, but I'd say a downgrade of about .2

 

I can only base that on my Batman 232 which has moderate back cover tanning and looks structurally every bit of a 9.4, but only received a 9.2

[JohnT]

Tanning is the one defect that I think Overstreet misses the grade on. To me it should affect the grade more than it does. But you guys are right, both Overstreet and CGC don't seem to care that much.

 

In looking at the third addition of the grading guide, it appears that 9.2 is the highest grade that has some browning (ex on p. 138, "minor browning"). That's a pretty high grade for an off-color book! However, if you read the grade criteria for each grade, "tan" first appears at 8.0.

 

Like I said, it kind of surprises me that they aren't harder on tanning. To me, a comic with nice crisp whites on the front and back covers, and good page color, is much more desirable than a tanned book, all other things being equal.

[TeddieMercede]

If youre talking about interior tanning on the cover (front and back) CGC absolutely destroys books for this defect. Ive had books that would otherwise be in the 9.0-9.2 range come back 7.0 from CGC because of this sort of defect.

[CommandD]

But shouldn't it matter? After all it is evidence that the paper is actually starting to decay.

[chrisco37]

I used to own a Cap #111 9.0, that structurally was every bit a 9.2 (possible 9.4), but was tanned all to heck. So, I'd say CGC goes down at least .2, maybe .4 depending on the severity.

 

IMO, it actually should go even lower. A white cover book should have some hint of white.

[Fazybones]

I could't agree more that tanning is one ugly flaw and the signs of a books's eventual decay. I can't really speak for what CGC grades those books since I've never submittted a book to them, but I love white covers more than any other type.

There are many sweet dark colored covers that give my favorites a run for their money and a nice black cover with very few flaws or color breaks are absolutely breath taking.

[divad]

Tanning is the one defect that I think Overstreet misses the grade on. To me it should affect the grade more than it does. But you guys are right, both Overstreet and CGC don't seem to care that much.

 

In looking at the third addition of the grading guide, it appears that 9.2 is the highest grade that has some browning (ex on p. 138, "minor browning"). That's a pretty high grade for an off-color book! However, if you read the grade criteria for each grade, "tan" first appears at 8.0.

 

Like I said, it kind of surprises me that they aren't harder on tanning. To me, a comic with nice crisp whites on the front and back covers, and good page color, is much more desirable than a tanned book, all other things being equal.

 

[Calamerica]

Agree. A .2 to .5 reduction can be warranted - case-by-case basis.

 

CAL

[Mac Man]

That's nice to know- I picked up a really nice copy of Batman 200 in what I ball parked to be in 6.5-7.0 but the front and back cover have an all-around tannish look. Nice to see I won't have to penalize it as harshly as I had (knocked it down a full grade).

[tabcom]

If youre talking about interior tanning on the cover (front and back) CGC absolutely destroys books for this defect. Ive had books that would otherwise be in the 9.0-9.2 range come back 7.0 from CGC because of this sort of defect.

 

Me too!

 

I have a Conan #1 that graded 7.0

Conan #2 9.2

Conan #3 9.4

 

 

Same collection that I had for 30 years. What is different is the #1 was filed at the end of my shelve in my closet. When using the tanning ruler, get ready to downgrade.