This TMNT #1 was in the magazine express tier. They got it back to me 2 weeks later--on the nose!

The other books were submitted under modern tier. That's a 40 day estimate turnaround. Next week I'll call to check their progress.

My main goal was to submit books which would have been strongly affected by the May 1st CGC tier criteria change and consequentally higher submission fees. I just got lucky on eBay with winning the TMNT #1 for only $530 and getting it in time to send it to CGC with the other books.

The seller had the book advertised as "FINE -." My grade with the book in hand was 6.5-7.0 (I was praying for the later). And I planned to email the seller the results of the grading. Then thought twice about it when I learned it got a lot higher grade. The last thing I'd want to find out if I were the seller is that a rare expensive book I sold as a 5.5 actually was CGC'd 3.0 points higher with white pages.

Yeah, I'll just be quitely grateful that I found not only a replacement book for the one PGX lost but also an upgrade. I'm very fortunate indeed. 

What's in my long boxes? http://www.comicspriceguide.com/world/default.asp?m=Magic%20Dan

You have to remember what you are dealing with.

1. Independent comic - 1st comic printed from a new company - According to their own website - the comic was oversized because :

"We'd gone to a printer (who knew nothing about printing comics) with a locally produced TV schedule giveaway." Kevin commented. "We told him, 'This is what we want: a colored stock cover and black and white newspaper inside.' We never thought to specify size, so he printed the issue in the same dimensions as the TV schedule giveaway we used as a sample!"

2. Very low print run - 3,000 comics

You can't compare a low print run comic from a printer that has never printed comics to a high print run from Marvel or DC. If you could go back in time to April 1, 1984 and pick through all 3,000 copies, even the best copy would probably only grade as a 9.5 when compared to the best printed that day by Marvel or DC. But, being the best copy and hot off the press that would still be the "10" that all other copies would have to be compared and graded to.

No. Not more lenient. But you grade according to what it is you are grading. A brand new comic hot off the press from the 40s is gonna look pretty bad compared to one from the 60s. Same as comparing 60s to 80s or 80s to today's comics. You look for the "Holy Grail" from each era and grade accordingly. With Independent Comics it's basically the same as grading by era.

Don't get me wrong. You still basically grade the same, whether it's a small print run from a 1st time printer or a Gold or Silver Age key comic. But, you have to be realistic and realize the limits put on certain eras and independents by the technology they were using at the time. Otherwise you are actually grading and comparing comics to a so-called "10" that never actually existed.

Now without closer inspection, everyone will probably agree that the white along the spine and various corners and edges of the cover are probably due to damage of some kind that caused the black ink to flake or rub off.

But, what about the spots that are 1/2 inch to an inch away from the spine or edges? Is this damage after the comic was bought or damage from the printer?

As a layman who hasn't had a lot of these comics go through my hands, I would say damage after the comic was bought and grade accordingly.

But, what if the graders at CGC have seen the exact same damage on every issue that's been graded and actually have written and photographic evidence that certain spots in certain areas on the back cover of this comic all match up and it's been judged to be because of damage by the printer?

Should they ignore their own evidence and grade as if each comic was damaged by the purchaser/reader?

Although I can forgive the occassional printer's defect, I practice holdng the same grading bar to all comics across the board. From era to era and publisher to publisher I don't see it mattering since we can assume the paper is/was new, the ink is/was fresh and the cutter blades are/were sharp enough to slice to size. Only circulated handling wear affects a comic unless the book is in ultra NM+ to Mint grade (then printing faults can sway my grading judgment).

What I'm trying to say is that grading a comic is not always black and white. On occasion there are grey areas.

At the same time, if there does exist a grey area, I'm not gonna take the word of that one grader or the label of a CGC slab ... not without evidence to back it up.

I don't agree with the so-called "grading on a curve" either. If a grader is not deducting points because the comic is 60 years old, that's bullshit. But, at the same time if he's not deducting points because he knows a 60 year old "10" is going to be different from a 2 year old "10". Then that's ok ... if he can articulate how he goes about his grading process.

Ignoring obvious damage because the comic is old is wrong. Admitting that the technology of the 40s would look like an 8.5 compared to todays standards is just being honest ... it was still a 10 for that era. But, you still have to deduct for aging ... you can't just say "well, it's old, it's supposed to look like that".