Timed

..

CGC did reholder, at least for the 252 MJ. The CGC scans show the new lower-grade book in the slab.

Have a link to the July sale?

His feedback is fine, but the amount of 9.8 grails he has is eyebrow-raising.

Not necessarily anything nefarious in this specific case; the first buyer probably never paid so it relisted.

Makes sense, yeah. Early morning me can't comprehend sentences.

Is there a picture of the 9.2? A less than 10 day turnaround for a reholder is stretching it though.

Seller is dodgy for sure, but need to question CGC as well. How could that NM 9.8 pass as a 9.8? Same with his other books as well. Many 9.4-looking grails getting a 9.8. On normal grading or even a reholder, some defects are just too obvious to miss.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I never thought anything sketchy was happening with that sellers' books because when I would lookup the cert numbers, they always checked out as existing, so I just attributed the glaring defects to bad grading. But when I saw that video today, I realized that there is obviously something amiss here.

Not to fear monger, but this is VERY bad for CGC optics. The seller has strangely been selling lots of big books for months. I say strangely because the supply of "9.8" (many had visible defects like multiple ticks) grails has been seemingly endless. Either QC has messed up big time or it's unfortunately an inside job.

Am I reading this correctly; 3 days late on an estimated TAT? Not sure if that is in refund territory just yet.

Honestly agreed. LOL probably not even a joke! True, those are issues that are important as well. The book has a miswrap that is less than 1/8th of an inch, which seems to be acceptable in 9.9s. White pages and no ink issues, with gloss. I suppose then, one could say that the slight miswrap may be the defect that breaks the camels back and disqualifies it, even though I have seen 9.9s with miswraps...

I understand that, I have never actually looked at a book and thought it could be a contender until now. Yeah, figures. One thing I am wondering, does anyone know if Unlimited Value graders spend more time looking at each book?

Yes, it has 9.9s, but no 10. I didn't mention the name as I didn't want any bias one way or the other (it's too cheap, don't even bother trying/it's so expensive, is that why you want a 9.9?!) I compared it to a few 9.9s and it looked just as good if not better - I noticed a tick on one 9.9, and slight bindery tearing on another.

Before I start, I am aware of the saying "never expect a 9.9, or even a 9.8". I have been submitting for years, and have learned to be conservative on estimates so as to not be disappointed on results. Now, I am not trying to delude myself, but I have stumbled across a 1980's book that is genuinely the most gorgeous copy of the book I have ever seen. I have submitted this issue many times before, with a bunch coming back as 9.8, but on those 9.8's there was always at least one defect if you looked hard enough. On this copy though, there is none. No ticks (not even non color breaking), extremely sharp corners, no marvel chipping, vivid colors, tight staples with no rust... not even any bindery tears on top or bottom. And yes I used a magnifying glass as well, just because I wanted to make sure that my eyes were not deceiving me. I have never been amazed by a book so much that I can say, it looks even better than most moderns I have handled. The question I have is, is there any way or path on giving this the best chance at a 9.9? I would even be willing to submit it in the UV tier, if that meant the graders scrutinize every single millimeter closely. Heck, I would even hand deliver it to Matt Nelson for a fee just so he can take a close look Just wanted to write about my thoughts, even though I know it will just probably come back a 9.8... lol.

No I was not upcharged after grading. I am just confused, since there is a space on the ME form to declare value. And IIRC I saw a comment on a different thread from a CGC employee to write the value of the comic after being graded, which would make sense... BUT if it did get downgraded and they say that they will only pay out $400 as it was the original value declaration, that would feel horrible.

Would value declared be the value declared when sending back as ME, or the original value declared? In my case, I submitted a modern book that ended up getting a 9.8 (value now over $2k). I only declared it at $400 originally.

If you got back a high grade book that is worth a few thousand $ or more and it had corner bend like the picture shown below... would you send in it as a mechanical error and hope the grade stays the same? Or just leave it be to not risk a downgrade? Anyone who has experienced this, what did CGC do or not do for you? If a book is say a 9.8 then gets downgraded to a 9.6, does CGC compensate the actual FMV of the book? Pic attached is not my book, but shows what I am talking about.

I have seen a few where the CGC scans for a book are still the original, after a mechanical error fix. Wondering if this is the norm to not rescan?

That's what I figured. Hoping that it doesn't affect the resell value of the book down the line... ugh.

Would you guys send this back for a reholder or keep it as-is? This book is 9.8, and it has a bit of an indentation on the back spine, likely due to the wedge. Not too big or noticeable, unless under direct light at an angle. It is an expensive book in a 9.8, and being potentially downgraded from a 9.8 to a 9.6 would be detrimental. The top and bottom edges also have a very slight waviness. The book was perfectly flat before getting graded, so the inner well may be too tight.

I don't know why, but the new logo seems too "fun". Maybe I just loved the professionalism of the old logo too much.

I am looking around for more high volume sellers to buy from and came across jscomics on eBay. Doing some research, and years ago most people seemed happy with them, but that they overgraded their books. I am curious if this is still the case or if they have adjusted grading standards now. Anyone with recent experiences, please share! Did you submit any of their books to CGC and if so, how were the results?

Yes, there is no reason for initial rejects to be given to the actual grader. But, the ones that pass the prescreen grade should not have a prescreen grade attached to them. The grader should grade the passed books with no knowledge of the prescreen, and if any of the grades he gives are under the prescreen, then those are then grouped with the initial rejects during the QC/encapsulating stage. If that makes sense.

"If the pre-screener is also the grader, then there might be a possibility that "borderline" books get awarded the pre-screen grade since they are human and the book was on the border between 9.6/9.4." Yeah, precisely, and I feel it could go both ways - a book that is borderline 9.6/9.8 could just get the 9.6 because the prescreen was for 9.6. "If the pre-screener is not the grader, then the grader should only grade the already-screened books "as is" and the encapsulation should reject any that don't meet the minimum, putting them with the other rejects." This is exactly how it should be! The actual grader for the prescreened books should not be aware of the prescreen grade. He/she should grade it normally, as any other non-prescreen book, then only after the books have been given a numerical grade, should the second batch (if any) of rejects be grouped with the others. So the process would be: prescreen to weed out rejects right off the bat, then the remainder of the books are graded normally, and then afterwards, if any of the graded books did not meet the prescreen threshold, they are lumped with the initial rejects. This adds a sort of "blind" element to the grading process. You summed up what I was thinking/trying to say perfectly. Thank you, valiantman.