Tom789

I'll buy F.C. #203.

Um, no different than a year ago when the prices were higher?

I didn't use their funky FMV. Are their last 12-month sales values unreliable as well?

Small sample to support this. Last week's Heritage auction of CGC-graded SA Spider-mans. I was going to calculate a percentage down number and got lazy, but it's easy to see the market for this small sector, the most popular character by far, is still down. Price = auction sale price including 20% buyer's premium; G.C. = GoCollect 12-month average selling price. Apologies for the bad penmanship!

CGC gave me an AA grade (Authentic Altered) on this 1968 Topps Willie Mays card. The sticky note said Altered, but not what kind, and circled the front top left edge. I can't see anything there and it doesn't look trimmed to me. Can anyone else see what's wrong so I can get better at spotting alterations? Edit: Here's a link to the clearer certificate image: Verify CSG Sports Card Certification | Look Up a CSG Certification Number | CSG (csgcards.com)

I'm like you, I'm definitely a waiter.

Thanks for responding. The submission number is 1401003896. This is unfortunate because I thought one of the cards was relatively valuable - 1968 Topps Willie Mays.

Just got my first grading report for a bulk submission of 56 cards and 2 of them have no grades. Is this because you declined to grade them because you determined they were altered/fake?

Because the raw copy may have hidden flaws or flaws not apparent in the images, it may be tougher to resell raw, and if the buyer wants to get it graded there are fees, postage and the risk of a lower grade.

I think these links are an interesting juxtaposition regarding raw vs. graded prices these days. The first is a raw ASM #41 graded at F- (5.5) by Heritage. The second, in the very next auction, is of a CGC 5.5 ASM #41. The raw book outsold the graded by $48. The graded was more than $100 lower than my price guide (GoCollect) estimate. The first book has a somewhat better eye appeal IMO, but I don't understand how a raw book, especially one not held in hand, can go for that much higher than a slab in the same grade. The Amazing Spider-Man #41 (Marvel, 1966) Condition: FN-.... Silver | Lot #15246 | Heritage Auctions (ha.com) The Amazing Spider-Man #41 (Marvel, 1966) CGC FN- 5.5 Off-white to | Lot #15247 | Heritage Auctions (ha.com)

Under My Submissions there is a Confirm Package Delivery entry where you can put in your tracking number. I've used it successfully a couple of times to confirm that CGC has acknowledged receipt of the package.

Keys, SA and early BA maybe, but not later I think. I have a lot of late Bronze Age non-key books that might get 9.8s - last year they were worth taking a shot at grading because my estimate was that most were worth over $100. For me that's enough to grade, I know others here consider that too low. Anyway, I started cleaning and pressing them, but now it seems that even the 9.8 prices I've been monitoring are tanking and they're not worth sending in to get graded.

Being a novice grader, I consulted the CGC reference book for this one. It says tape fully along the spine can bring the grade down to 4.0, so that's what I gave it.

Two bullseyes but 6 points. Worst was 8.5 on the Avengers versus CGC 7.0. Completely missed the cover tear. Thanks to @CGC Mike and all the others who put in work for these contests. I enjoy them very much, and maybe I'm becoming a better grader for it!

Grades in. Popcorn emoji from CGC Mike. Doomed feeling.

That did look like a printer's crease to me on The Torch's leg. But I also marked way down for that spot above his head and a couple of spots above the T in Strange.

9 pts for me this round. Only 1 off on 4 books, but 5 off on the Strange Tales. I thought those were stains on the top left front cover, but no mention in the notes. Distributor's ink? Also marked it down for the spine wear. I've got a 6.0 that looks way better than this ST.

It looks like I was one of the lowest graders on HoS at 6.0 - but I didn't see any water stains either. My grade was based on what appears to be a reader's crease, at least fiber-breaking, running down most of the left front spine. But based on most grader's responses here, that wouldn't have resulted in such a low grade. I guess I was too harsh on the crease?

My best ever and 2 bullseyes! 3 this round redeems my awful first round 10. I got really lucky on the Harvey as it was a shot in the dark on how to grade those multiple split pages. More Fun #102 6.5 6.5 Harvey Library #1 5.0 5.0 TTA #11 7.5 7.0 Spidey #38 5.5 6.0 HoS #92 6.0 5.5

Grades submitted. Did poorly in round 1, this round might be even worse.

What's the old saying - a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step? Well, here are the first three steps in my low-grade, raw, Carl Barks duck collection. Long way to go!

Thank you! Will help in figuring out my poor scores!

Were the grader's notes posted as stated in @CGC Mike's original post or did I just miss them?

9 pts. Worst score I had was 4 pts for The Thing at 3.0 vs. 5.0 because I thought the nasty back spine was a major defect.

Grades posted for another 4 rounds of pain.