Why's Everybody Dumping..???

[Shakespeare]

But 10.0's are visually perfect books....and it's EASY to grade perfect books.

I disagree...Greg has shown off his Rai #0 10.0, and there's cover wrap...Greg, are those pics on the site?

S

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

But 10.0's are visually perfect books....and it's EASY to grade perfect books.

I disagree...Greg has shown off his Rai #0 10.0, and there's cover wrap...Greg, are those pics on the site?

S

Cover wrap isn't wear.

[ckb]

If you look at the OGG, even 10.0 allows the "slightest" bindery defects.

That Rai 0 10.0 is so solid.

But 10.0's are visually perfect books....and it's EASY to grade perfect books.

I disagree...Greg has shown off his Rai #0 10.0, and there's cover wrap...Greg, are those pics on the site?

S

Cover wrap isn't wear.

[greg]

Detailed scan of the Rai 0 CGC 10

[DawgPhan]

Detailed scan of the Rai 0 CGC 10

where is my drool emoticon? anyway...man do i want that...but I think that every here knows that...

[Shakespeare]

Cover wrap isn't wear.

If you look at the OGG, even 10.0 allows the "slightest" bindery defects.

That Rai 0 10.0 is so solid.

Never said cover wrap is wear...nor that it wasn't a 10.0. I simply was stating that I disagreed that "10.0's are visually perfect books..." I can see the black from the back cover wrapping around...not visually perfect, IMO (which is seldom humble).

I would never give that a 10.0.

[Jaknife]

greg, i checked the pics of your rai 0. what makes it SOOOOO special? just wonderin.

[greg]

greg, i checked the pics of your rai 0. what makes it SOOOOO special? just wonderin.

I guess the fact that it's only one of two CGC 10.0s out of over 1,000
Valiant books graded makes it special.

It doesn't matter anyway 'cuz I'll never sell...

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Never said cover wrap is wear...nor that it wasn't a 10.0. I simply was stating that I disagreed that "10.0's are visually perfect books..." I can see the black from the back cover wrapping around...not visually perfect, IMO (which is seldom humble).

I would never give that a 10.0.

Yeah, that was my point. Cover wrap isn't wear, therefore it has nothing to do with the grade of the book. It's a long established tradition in other hobbies that flawed PRINTING doesn't have anything to do with wear, and thus nothing to do with the grade. CGC is following that tradition. A book doesn't have to be perfectly registered to be a perfect GRADE.

When I say a 10.0 is a 'visually perfect book' that means it has no WEAR, which I should have said instead of 'flaws' (I use flaws to mean wear, but I'll be more specific.) It's all about the wear.

Of course, if the wrap affects the EYE APPEAL of the book, that's a whole different story....and it's in the eye of the beholder.

Just as a 2003 off-center cent can be MS70...it's got a serious flaw...but if it's got no wear, it's got no wear.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

It doesn't matter anyway 'cuz I'll never sell...

Yes, but you're not gonna live forever....

...and I'll be waiting....

I may be 90...but still.

<wink>

[DawgPhan]

It doesn't matter anyway 'cuz I'll never sell...

Yes, but you're not gonna live forever....

...and I'll be waiting....

I may be 90...but still.

<wink>

You have to fight me for it...

[Rai-fan]

Regardless of what CGC says, I think 10.0's should be visually perfect.

Haven't seen the new OGG, but the first edition has cover wrap ("bindery defects") knocking books down to as much as an 80 (out of 100, VF).

Of course, at least in some cases, CGC doesn't count distributor ink against a book either.

[Shakespeare]

Of course, if the wrap affects the EYE APPEAL of the book, that's a whole different story....and it's in the eye of the beholder.

Your right...eye of the beholder..

But I think that a black cover wrap on a white cover does affect eye appeal.

And you can't really compare comics and coins...coin people love errors, comic people generally don't (and that's what's so confusing about BS#) Plat)

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Guys...that's the POINT. When you're dealing with eye appeal, it's ENTIRELY subjective. What bothers you may not bother someone else, etc. And how do you 'grade' that?

There's no such THING as a 'visually perfect book', even if you got down to microscopic detail, because of the nature of printing. In fact, there's not even a 'template for perfection'...because there is fall off in all printing when the paper is CUT, there's never going to be a 'perfectly centered, perfectly registered, perfectly cut, perfectly formed' book.

Wear, however, is NOT subjective (insofar as a 10.0 grade is concerned!) If it's there, it's not 10.0. So what's wear? Any flaws, marks, damage of ANY kind that occured AFTER the printing process is complete.

And its precisely that reason that printing defects, unless they're disastrous, aren't counted in the 'grade'. You can only grade the objective...and leave the subjective up to the buyers, sellers, and collectors.

[Shakespeare]

Zepher, using your logic

Any flaws, marks, damage of ANY kind that occured AFTER the printing process is complete

then a book with untrimmed (stuck together) pages could be a 10.0. Or a book with 1 staple instead of 2 could be perfect, just because it happened at the printers. (after all, that doesn't detract from eye appeal) Heck, a book with torn inner pages doesn't hurt eye appeal! Your logic says that every copy that comes off the presses is 10.0., even if it has Valiant corners.

Let's get back to the Rai. How is cover wrap subjective? You can see some of the back cover when looking at it from the front. What's subjective about that? On a white book, it detracts. It's a printing error (one that happens on 99% of books to some degree). Errors shouldn't get 10.0s, because that's not what was meant to happen! (it's like letterboxing and pan+scan...the standard is what the artist intended you to see. So it's not as subjective as you make it out to be...or do you think that artist of Rai #0 thought "when they see this cover, there's supposed to notice a 1/2 millimeter black bar of the left side.")

CGC is waaaaaay too lenient on bindary defects. So is OGG. But hey...thanks for just making 95 percent of my collection 9.8 or better (when in reality only about 1% is)[/b]

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Zepher, using your logic

Any flaws, marks, damage of ANY kind that occured AFTER the printing process is complete

then a book with untrimmed (stuck together) pages could be a 10.0. Or a book with 1 staple instead of 2 could be perfect, just because it happened at the printers. (after all, that doesn't detract from eye appeal) Heck, a book with torn inner pages doesn't hurt eye appeal! Your logic says that every copy that comes off the presses is 10.0., even if it has Valiant corners.

No, you missed the very important part of that statement, the QUALIFIER:

...."that printing defects, unless they're disastrous"....

Obviously, a book with stuck together pages would be a disastrous (as far as "grade" is concerned) flaw. Obviously, a book with pages that are torn during the printing process would be a DISASTROUS flaw.

You can't ignore a qualifier to make a point.

But yes, a missing staple WOULD have no problem being a 10.0...where's the flaw? A missing staple? How did it cause damage? If there's no damage to the paper, there's no damage to the paper. So, why would the book not be 10.0? So it's an ERROR comic...so? How does it affect the GRADE? Grade MEANS, insofar as collectibles are concerned, "how much WEAR and TEAR an item has."

So, outside of the QUALIFIER of 'disastrous printing flaws' which I already gave....EVERY BOOK off the presses is a POTENTIAL 10.0. POTENTIAL being another qualifier, there. That is absolutely correct, and that's how comics, coins, and baseball cards have been graded, going back almost 20 years. I think it's a safe bet that MERE HANDLING by the printers after the printing process is done accounts for perhaps 50-90% of the handling wear that knocks books out of 10.0 WITHIN MINUTES of being printed. That doesn't remove the POTENTIAL for 10.0.

So long as you don't forget the qualifier.

Let's get back to the Rai. How is cover wrap subjective? You can see some of the back cover when looking at it from the front. What's subjective about that? On a white book, it detracts. It's a printing error (one that happens on 99% of books to some degree). Errors shouldn't get 10.0s, because that's not what was meant to happen! (it's like letterboxing and pan+scan...the standard is what the artist intended you to see. So it's not as subjective as you make it out to be...or do you think that artist of Rai #0 thought "when they see this cover, there's supposed to notice a 1/2 millimeter black bar of the left side.")

It's subjective for two reasons: (1) It's not WEAR. It's not quantifiable as to how it affects the eye appeal of the book across the board for everyone involved. You can say 'has 1/16" wrap at the top'...but so? How does that affect the wear and tear to the book? How much 'wrap' would be acceptable to YOU for a 10.0? None at all? Why? How much is acceptable to someone else? Why? (2) If something is objectionable to someone, it may not be objectionable to others. THAT is what makes it subjective.

You CANNOT argue with "has a 1/4" bend in the upper right corner" or, "has a 1/16" spine stress mark 2 inches above bottom staple on front cover." You can't argue with it. If it has that, it's not a 10.0, period. That's utterly objective.

However...."has cover wrap"...so? That's not wear and tear, is it? How does the 'wrap' affect the eye appeal of the book? Doesn't bother me, but it bothers you.

That's precisely why it's subjective.

And you can't make the argument of 'what was intended' because we're talking about WEAR, here, which is how CGC and OGG GRADES..not printing flaws. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. I never said anything about 'artists' intentions' with regards to WEAR. Wear and printing flaws are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE defines the GRADE AND eye appeal of a book, the OTHER relates to the EYE APPEAL, or lack thereof, ONLY. Two different beasts.

If you wish to INCLUDE printing flaws as part of some 'overall analysis of the eye appeal of a book'...by all means, feel free. But don't lump GRADE together with that. It's just not appropriate where only wear is concerned, and CGC, NGC, PCGS, and the card folks all agree on this.

CGC is waaaaaay too lenient on bindary defects. So is OGG. But hey...thanks for just making 95 percent of my collection 9.8 or better (when in reality only about 1% is)[/b]

<laughs>...Shakes, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT your collection is 95% 9.8 or better, and I am fairly confident that 95% of your collection DOES NOT have any wear but 'bindery defects'. It's all about the wear.

Come on....let's debate, not use hyperbole to make specious 'points'. Ya know?

[Shakespeare]

Grade MEANS, insofar as collectibles are concerned, "how much WEAR and TEAR an item has."

With no exceptions, eh? Okay, let's use your qualifier. Let's say a comic gets a 1/4" bend on a corner when being printed. Or let's say that the bend was in the paper before it got to press. Far from disaterous. It's still a 10.0 to you. Wow...tunnel vision.

You know, I usually agree with you, Zeph...but this obsession with WEAR (your caps) while ignoring everything else (save your qualifier) is just a gimmick to raise the condition of collections. There are many more 10.0s in your world than in mine.

S

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Grade MEANS, insofar as collectibles are concerned, "how much WEAR and TEAR an item has."

With no exceptions, eh? Okay, let's use your qualifier. Let's say a comic gets a 1/4" bend on a corner when being printed. Or let's say that the bend was in the paper before it got to press. Far from disaterous. It's still a 10.0 to you. Wow...tunnel vision.

You know, I usually agree with you, Zeph...but this obsession with WEAR (your caps) while ignoring everything else (save your qualifier) is just a gimmick to raise the condition of collections. There are many more 10.0s in your world than in mine.

S

Nah, Shakes, you're just being hyperbolic to make your 'point'. OBVIOUSLY...OBVIOUSLY...this isn't 100%. Thus the use of the word potential. There are lots of times when paper is bent BEFORE it's printed...we call those 'printers creases' and guess what? It doesn't affect the grade. Never has. Eye appeal? Sure, maybe. Grade? Nope. Yes, it's still a '10.0' under the terms by which we're discussing it, as it relates to grading and CGC. It's still a POTENTIAL 10.0.

If that 'printers crease' makes it less than 'some other type of perfect "10" in terms of eye appeal' to you, that's FINE. There's nothing wrong with that. But it has nothing to do with grading the book, that's not what CGC or the OGG refers to, and that's not what the vast majority of the collecting public is referring to when they talk about 10.0.

And YOU are confusing the two. You're lumping in a whole other set of criteria to the process that simply isn't widely accepted.

And my 'obsession' with wear? That's the entire point, my friend....that's what grading IS. How, then, in a discussion of GRADING is the constant reference to wear an 'obsession'?

Come on.

No, it's not a 'gimmick'. It's about seperating and understanding what we're talking about, and knowing the working definitions that everyone is using, so that we're 'all on the same page'. Understanding WHY CGC thinks Greg's Rai #0 is a 10.0 is just as useful as knowing why you think it's not. You may not AGREE with CGC's analysis, or mine, or anyone else's....but at least you know from whence everyone's coming, and there's no 'how could they grade THAT a 10.0??', because you'll know. And if you don't like it...you have the opportunity to change it, by either buying CGC and changing their grading criteria...or starting your own grading company, into which printing flaws are incorporated into some overall 'grade'. Who knows, it may just work.

And you're right...in my world, there probably ARE more 10.0's than in yours. In my world, Greg's 10.0 is a 10.0. CGC's world, too. In your world, it's not. You've already stated that.

You and I can go back and forth to infinity on 'well, what about THIS situation, or what about THAT situation, or this and this and THAT?'...when, in fact, I'm relatively certain you understand the spirit of what I'm saying, and that it applies 99.999945% of the time.

Nothing is 100%. That should be a GIVEN, not something that has to be rehashed with every new debate.

[ckb]

Few books, right off the printing press, are 10.0. We just need to look at the Wizard First horror to prove this.

The OGG says the "most subtle" printing/bindery defects allowed in 10.0. It would appear the 1-2mm the cover is wrapped on the Rai 0 10.0 qualifies.

I would think that certain, small, very hard to see printers creases may still qualify, but as a general rule I'd wager a printers crease takes you down somewhere else.

Same with being miscut or warped. Anything that detracts from eye appeal would have an effect in these uber grades.

All IMO.

[Shakespeare]

So if you had a comic with a 1/4 inch crease on the paper that was made by the printing press, and I had another comic that I creased myself in an identical fashion, then your's could be a 10.0 while mine is a 8.5? THAT'S where the problem with only considering wear comes in. The comics are in the same condition!

I follow OGG as close as I can (and often have to have it in front of me to grade anything below NM-) but will never grade a book 10.0. That's just asking for trouble.

Needless to say, you'd be happy buying from me, as my 9.6 could be your 10.0

[DawgPhan]

So if you had a comic with a 1/4 inch crease on the paper that was made by the printing press, and I had another comic that I creased myself in an identical fashion, then your's could be a 10.0 while mine is a 8.5? THAT'S where the problem with only considering wear comes in. The comics are in the same condition!

I follow OGG as close as I can (and often have to have it in front of me to grade anything below NM-) but will never grade a book 10.0. That's just asking for trouble.

Needless to say, you'd be happy buying from me, as my 9.6 could be your 10.0

Let me see if I can clear this up...ZWH is saying that this is how CGC grades comics and this is how CGC allows for 10.0 You are talking about the way that you grade comics. They are 2 totally different grading scales that have different requirements for each grade. I dont really see where you can compare the 2 systems other than to say that yours doesnt allow for printer's mistakes and theirs does. I dont think that ZWH is trying to argue that CGC's scale is better than yours, though that arguement could be made. Hope that this clears things up...

[Shakespeare]

I know one thing...if that's the way CGC grades, I'm getting really excited to get my latest batch back...

[DawgPhan]

I know one thing...if that's the way CGC grades, I'm getting really excited to get my latest batch back...

I would getting very excited if I was you...are they valiants? When did you send them in...there turnaround time is very slows as of late...well so I have heard...IF they are valiants please list the grades of the books when you get them back.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

So if you had a comic with a 1/4 inch crease on the paper that was made by the printing press, and I had another comic that I creased myself in an identical fashion, then your's could be a 10.0 while mine is a 8.5? THAT'S where the problem with only considering wear comes in. The comics are in the same condition!

No, you're missing it again. If you cannot TELL how the damage occured, like with a crease...then it's 'wear', no matter HOW or WHERE it occured, and the book's not 10.0. What I'm referring to is OBVIOUS printing and PRINTING ONLY flaws, things that could ONLY have happened during the process and are identifiable as such. I'm not talking about random and generic flaws that could have happened anywhere, at anytime, including durkng the process.

So, a 1/4" generic crease that may have happened during the process, but which cannot be CONFIRMED (as in your example) to have happened during the process, is wear. Like I said, and this is speculation, but I think it's a safe to say that 50-90% of all books are immediately knocked out of 10.0 the instant they are handled at the printers after printing.

This may really seem like parsing and splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction. Things like cover wrap, printer's creases (ie, paper with an existing crease that is then PRINTED OVER), off-center, roller tears, etc etc etc...things that are obviously PRINTING, and PRINTING ONLY flaws...THAT is where it wouldn't affect the grade.

But if the roller creases a cover after printing...no one would have any idea HOW that crease got there, and thus would be wear. You're absolutely correct...the comics are in the exact same condition, and in that case, would be an 8.5. Not a 10.0.

I really hope that clears the confusion up. It's not about where the wear occured...but whether it can be identified as an obvious printing flaw, and ONLY a printing flaw, or not.

I follow OGG as close as I can (and often have to have it in front of me to grade anything below NM-) but will never grade a book 10.0. That's just asking for trouble.

And that's fine, there's an (old) school of thought that says 'there's no such thing'...except that there is. There are a few books...an infinitesimal amount, to be sure, but they do exist....that do not possess a single spot of wear. If you want to call them NM/M, or NM+, or whatever, that's your right. But I'll gladly pay you Guide if you have any of those.

I certainly don't think I have any. Maybe 1. Out of thousands. Maybe.

Needless to say, you'd be happy buying from me, as my 9.6 could be your 10.0

Not a chance. Unless you grade Greg's Rai #0 a 9.6 (do you?) it would never happen. Unless you have a book with no wear, it's not going to get a 10.0 from me, ever.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Let me see if I can clear this up...ZWH is saying that this is how CGC grades comics and this is how CGC allows for 10.0 You are talking about the way that you grade comics. They are 2 totally different grading scales that have different requirements for each grade. I dont really see where you can compare the 2 systems other than to say that yours doesnt allow for printer's mistakes and theirs does. I dont think that ZWH is trying to argue that CGC's scale is better than yours, though that arguement could be made. Hope that this clears things up...

Not a bad summation, counselor. Not bad indeed!