techtre2003

You should post more often. (thumbs u When the update was posted regarding the book going back to blue, and the backlash was getting amped up, and people were asking what CGC was going to do, etc... I thought about when the Ewert stuff first went down. I remember a post that you made about crisis management and damage control. It was in response to CGC creating the advisory board (anyone remember that?) made up of customers (including board members). Hey thanks Chrisco, its old home week in this thread. I used to post a lot more in CG, but an interesting thing happened over the last 10+ years on the CGC boards - a lot of these people became my friends. I mean I was invited to jeffreykli and FFB's weddings and goldust, Pov, Steve B., greggy, joey, tth2, garth, david, rhino (steve) (oh man I dont want to miss anyone ) have actually sat down and had dinner on many occasions. Have to admit I enjoy those discussions a lot and tend not to post in CG much and If I hadn't have been at the Con having dinner / drinks with a lot of the forumites mentioned I may have never known about this thread. I encourage ANYONE to go back and read the Ewert thread, there are more than a few but a couple of the big ones. If you are spending your money on slabs, you should know as much as possible about what you are potentially getting. Also want to call out Steve Borock's post, but besides Dr. banner's post which caused me to think bad thoughts, Steve's post reminded me of the pre-CGC days and all the shenanigans that went on. Certification did cull a lot of the techniques. (back in the day I would only spend $100 on a comic book, when I had it which was rare, with 2 dealers"Doug Sulipa and Jim Payette" for fear of god knows what going on with the books) The rub is books are more expensive now, achieve more multiples of guide in HG, so IMO certification needs to be held to an increased standard congruent, or in the ball park to, the increased dollars that these items are costing. to the whole post but especially to the bolded part concerning this thread.

there's a big difference between original art and mass produced comics though.

This is exactly what I've been asking. This discussion between you and I hasn't been about who is better than CGC because there isn't. If you don't use CGC (or any established, credible 3rd party service) then what are your options? You are either relying on someone else or yourself. Those are your options. In other words, unless you have someone spectacular in your back pocket (like Fishler) there are no other viable options. How much would one have to (theoretically) pay Fishler per hour for resto detection on books he isn't selling you? This sounds like a question for kav! Post it on my thread, and I'll answer it. I thought you only showed up when someone said your name 3 times!

This is exactly what I've been asking. This discussion between you and I hasn't been about who is better than CGC because there isn't. If you don't use CGC (or any established, credible 3rd party service) then what are your options? You are either relying on someone else or yourself. Those are your options. In other words, unless you have someone spectacular in your back pocket (like Fishler) there are no other viable options. agreed. I'll rely on myself since in all actuality I really don't give a hoot if my book is micro trimmed.

And what does a unicorn fart smell like? Unicorns don't fart. I have a pretty reputable source that assures me unicorns do in fact fart rainbows.

There is no better teacher than experience. At this point who has the experience say that they've graded 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 comics? At this point there is likely no organization that will be able to do it as efficiently as a well established certification company. As an interesting side note, I've been told that Stephen Fishler of Metropolis is the best resto detection dealer in the business bar none (by some very credible sources). How many people have a reputation like that. Sounds like CGC needs to sub some work out to this guy!

I'm not suggesting CGC hasn't done good things for the hobby, I'm merely suggesting that their detection efforts are lacking. Everyone's detection efforts are lacking when compared to a perfect, 100% average. The question is how does CGC stack up to everyone that is not CGC? I don't think you will find anyone here who would argue that CGC isn't the best 3rd party grading service, I mean who is their competition? Again, I don't use their service, but if I did I would want it to be because I had full confidence in them; not because that's the only choice I have. Like I said before, everyone's tolerance for error will vary (thumbs u

When you are have a 98% chance that a book is restored or a 98% chance a book is not restored, which one instills more confidence? If those were true proven numbers I'd say you got me. But you and I both know they aren't.

I'm no different then you. When I got back into comics back in 2002 or 2003 I had no idea what CGC was. The big picture is what matters if people want to throw around sweeping criticisms. Otherwise we lose all perspective. But you are different. You knew what it was like trying to buy books before CGC so you compare that experience to your experience now that you have CGC. That's fine, and I believe you when you say it was better than before. I'm just coming in with a "fresh set of eyes" and see things differently. I can't say "well it's a lot better than what we had before". I can only say "this is what we have?" Well, as I've said several times it was a crapshoot. Everyone graded differently (they still do), numerous people did not disclose restoration (many still don't) and before the internet often you'd even have someone ship you the wrong book, never mind the wrong grade. As far as buying without actually having to be there in person, 3rd party authentication has changed the way people buy and sell on the internet. It's brought a form of authentication and standardization that was unavailable any other way. ok, I can accept the idea that they have made buying and selling online much better. That's really the only value I myself see in a grading company anyway. So when the only reason I am going to use your service is shown to have flaws like we've seen here it really doesn't instill a lot of confidence. I want to back a product because I think it's a great product. Not because it's the only real game in town and the alternatives suck.

I'm no different then you. When I got back into comics back in 2002 or 2003 I had no idea what CGC was. The big picture is what matters if people want to throw around sweeping criticisms. Otherwise we lose all perspective. But you are different. You knew what it was like trying to buy books before CGC so you compare that experience to your experience now that you have CGC. That's fine, and I believe you when you say it was better than before. I'm just coming in with a "fresh set of eyes" and see things differently. I can't say "well it's a lot better than what we had before". I can only say "this is what we have?"

I thought you had your own thread to post in now

Would those people be any less happy with those books though? That would be up to them to answer. Everyone finds enjoyment in a different way but happiness wasn't really the point of my post. It's important to keep the discussion in perspective. We are talking about getting what you pay for when buying a comic and fact is that you are getting that to a much greater (almost 100%) degree post CGC than you would be pre CGC. Like I said, I remember older back issues from catalogs and often getting entirely the wrong book, let alone the wrong grade or with resto. And if you don't like CGC, no problem. You can either crack your graded books out (something many people who enjoy touching their comics do) or simply buy raw based on your own skill set. Your perspective and mine are much different though. Like I said earlier, you were buying serious books when I was a kid grabbing dog eared books from the spinner racks, a $15 book in a bag and board was a big purchase, and if I had even heard about CGC then I would have thought you were talking about some secret government agency I can only speak from the limited experience I have and what I have seen over the last couple years since I've gotten back into the hobby. Even though it may not sound like it sometimes, I do take what you vets have to say seriously. I'm just sharing what I have seen and as a newbie how I feel about it all (thumbs u Oh, and on that last part about cracking and buying raw, I got that one down

This. +1 +1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now? Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly. There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time. I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books. Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce. I wouldn't go that far at all. I still see a much higher rate of error come from some of the "best" dealers. In my last 6 purchases I had only 1 correctly graded. I had one book with both a detached cover and a little bit of glue missed. If CGC was roughly as good as the "best" dealers I'm guessing most wouldn't pay for the service. Correctly graded by who though? I wouldn't call a dealer who missed a detached cover one of the best! If you feel CGC has been accurate and consistent with your books than I can't argue with you and wouldn't try to; you're happy with the service that's great. I'm just looking at this example with Spider-Dan and shaking my head. And let's not forget it wasn't just the JIM 83 he sent in that went from blue 6.0 to purple 7.0 but on the same submission had the Avengers #1 go from blue 7.0 to purple 6.0. I'm guessing a lot of people don't use the service because they think the grading is as good as the best dealers. I'd say they are using the service because they get a crazy premium on books because they are graded by CGC. When I state the "Best" I mean some of the best rated dealers from Cheetahs list. These were mostly books with clear errors and missed damage like a large vertical front crease along the spine on a NM book. And I would say the boardie grading here is even worse. Another point is the middle grades tend to be the hardest to correctly grade. No I don't think CGC are always "accurate and consistent" but the point I am making is if you think they are "on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector" grading is then you are likely not buying enough books. Or any books with a larger dollar amount attached. If so I would love to know your sources. If best rated dealers are missing stuff like that I'd have to ask why they are top rated; just like I'm questioning CGC. Out of all the boardies here I'd be at the bottom of the list of top graders but even I've gotten pretty decent about looking at books and coming within a grade or 2 of the consensus. I guess I'd expect top dealers to be much better than me at grading but if not that's another problem itself.

"Just imagine out of 3 Million comics graded how many would be sitting with unknown resto and unknown grades in people's collections." Would those people be any less happy with those books though?

This. +1 +1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now? Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly. There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time. I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books. Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce. I wouldn't go that far at all. I still see a much higher rate of error come from some of the "best" dealers. In my last 6 purchases I had only 1 correctly graded. I had one book with both a detached cover and a little bit of glue missed. If CGC was roughly as good as the "best" dealers I'm guessing most wouldn't pay for the service. Correctly graded by who though? I wouldn't call a dealer who missed a detached cover one of the best! If you feel CGC has been accurate and consistent with your books than I can't argue with you and wouldn't try to; you're happy with the service that's great. I'm just looking at this example with Spider-Dan and shaking my head. And let's not forget it wasn't just the JIM 83 he sent in that went from blue 6.0 to purple 7.0 but on the same submission had the Avengers #1 go from blue 7.0 to purple 6.0. I'm guessing a lot of people don't use the service because they think the grading is as good as the best dealers. I'd say they are using the service because they get a crazy premium on books because they are graded by CGC.

This. +1 +1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now? +1 Blue. Purple. Blue. Purple. That's going to be my new screen name... I think CGC is going dark on this and will wait for it to go away. And by the vigorous defenders of CGCs grading who see this as an isolated, one-in-a-million-what's-the-big-deal kind of thing...it's obvious there are dealers who don't want change. They profit from playing the resub game. For them, CGC is purr-fect-o. Most people buy the number (eBay), while they buy the book, resub, and voila, the number changes. That statement is funny to me as IMO most of the people playing that game aren't dealers. They're the average Joe collector like Dan (the OP). I know anti-CGC people keep harping about how dealers profit so much from CGC etc and miss the fact that it's really the average guy that profits the most from CGC. I don't know Dan, but just from reading this thread I'd have to say he isn't just the average joe collector. While he may not be an actual dealer it sounds like it's a pretty good side job for him. I have no problem with Dan or anyone else doing that; I wish I had the means to do it myself. And as an aside, for me and my collection I am anti-cgc. However, I don't want them to go away because I've benefited from the stigma that PLODs carry with them. I've gotten a few awesome deals on books with slight color touch that I would have paid a decent amount more for in raw format!

This. +1 +1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now? Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly. There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time. I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books. You make a good point when you say the hobby doesn't have a set in stone standard. However, I'd argue it's not just an unreasonable expectation that the company whose sole job is to grade books has a concrete grading system, I'd say it's inexcusable that they don't. I'd also agree with you that most people don't sit down with a calculator and ruler to add up each individual flaw as it would get complicated. However, CGC isn't most people. They are a company being paid for a service so there is no excuse to why they can't do this. If I really wanted to, I could sit down and figure out tax code and go step by step through my returns and do them myself but I'd rather pay an accountant to do it. Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce. I'm not sure there are too many accountants who will come up with the same numbers twice on a schedule C. probably not.

It depends on the circumstances and the individual. Like others here, I have enough experience in judging a book's grade and in restoration to be comfortable making a judgement on a raw book. If a raw and a slabbed were in the same grade and the similarly priced, I would buy the raw for my collection, allowing me to examine it fully. I would buy the slabbed if I wanted to resell in the holder, as it would save me time and money in getting it graded. For example, I bought a slabbed 5.5 Mister Mystery some years back. Looked very nice until I cracked it and there were a pair of spline splits...about 3/4" at the top and a "spider-web split" smack in the center of the spine of about an inch, going about 1/2" into the back cover. Had I seen that raw I would not have paid as much as I did. Don't think these boards represent the general world of comic collecting. This is a fairly rarefied atmosphere. We have developed a baseline that includes CGC. It colors our perception of what the collecting world is really like. This. Thanks FT. Not sure what is going on but for a while now 95% of my posts are not replied to. I appreciate it. You should probably try including more unsupported arguments, overstated attacks on CGC or its defenders, and direct criticism of the posts of others. Bingo. The reason people don't reply to POV is because he's usually bang on. I always think no one reads my posts because either no one responds or 40 minutes later someone posts pretty much the same thing. I figure that's because I'm a noob though

This. +1 +1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now? Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly. There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time. I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books. You make a good point when you say the hobby doesn't have a set in stone standard. However, I'd argue it's not just an unreasonable expectation that the company whose sole job is to grade books has a concrete grading system, I'd say it's inexcusable that they don't. I'd also agree with you that most people don't sit down with a calculator and ruler to add up each individual flaw as it would get complicated. However, CGC isn't most people. They are a company being paid for a service so there is no excuse to why they can't do this. If I really wanted to, I could sit down and figure out tax code and go step by step through my returns and do them myself but I'd rather pay an accountant to do it. Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce.

I think you are absolutely correct here. If there were a standard the grader would have gotten out a ruler, measured the crease, and deducted x amount of points for that flaw. If people here are correct in their suggestions that the graders only take somewhere between 30-120 seconds to grade every book I can see why this isn't getting done.

I can agree! But one question I would like answered: WHY? Why would you de-slab a book and then resubmit it? Because CGC are inconsistent and you're hoping for a grade bump...or as in this case, a designation bump. There are a lot of people who play this game. Why? Because CGC are inconsistent. You can't call CGC inconsistent for an error in judgement. I am a professional in my line of work but I too make mistakes, that doesn't make me inconsistent. Not every book that comes off a press is the same, nor is every person's impression of a books grade. If everyone had the same opinion of everything what a very strange world this would be. But I guess the fact that my opinion of this "error in judgement" differs from yours is proof positive that would never happen. If there are enough 'errors of judgement', a pattern is produced and it is called inconsistency. There are enough 'errors of judgement' with CGC for people to use the crack and resub game to make good coin. I would respectfully suggest that's a pattern. I'm an estimator in the construction industry. My job is all about details and counting, measuring and counting again. I can take off a job three times and come up with three different prices. It doesn't mean I've made an error in judgement, it's called a variance. Getting a differing opinion of a grade is a variance. Getting a blue label and a purple label in this case would be an error in judgement. If everything were absolute then grading a book would not require three people (or 12 in this case?) one would suffice. Your job and what CGC does really aren't comparable. It sounds like your job has a certain tolerance for variance. There are many jobs that don't have that tolerance and too many errors are going to get you fired. As we have seen in this thread people have a different amount of tolerance on how many errors CGC are allowed.

It was blue twice, so while I agree mistakes can be made, in this case, it was either made TWICE on the same book, if it is trimmed. But I dont think it is, so hence the mistake was made once saying it was trimmed. Whether it was one mistake or two. The problem is how Dan was treated, the fact that CGC has no established practice/protocol for dealing with mistakes, and that they are able to dismiss or impose things on their customers who have no choice but to accept it. So had Dan's book come back at say 6.5 with a blue label would we be calling it a mistake or just good fortune? How many books have been resubmitted and gotten higher grades? Do we hear about those? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm being sincere. Do we ever hear about books being re-submitted that come back at a higher grade? And I'm not referring to those that get pressed or dry cleaned. When I originally cracked the 6.0 Blue - I thought it was at least a 6.5. As it turns out it got a 7.0. I don't know what happened to the book after I sold it in the Purple slab. Perhaps it got a little damaged when the new owner took it out of the slab, maybe a dinged corner in shipment to Florida Except for that crease, it was a beautiful book. The person I bought it from is SUPER pickey about his books, so that just confirmed my opinion Dan, did you have the book when it was raw, or did you acquire it slabbed? He got it as a 6.0 blue

News flash EVERYONE: Because a company exists EVERYONE wants their product. You can all go home now.

I wasn't losing sleep over it, that's why I posted a simple "nope". Do you think even a majority of comic collectors collect slabbed books? Well then after the simple 'nope' you went on a wild foaming at the mouth tirade...that's why i worried you would lose sleep over it.... I did?

I wasn't losing sleep over it, that's why I posted a simple "nope". Do you think even a majority of comic collectors collect slabbed books?