GlennSimpson

I should say that it's not like I am way off, but there is a frequent temptation to go with 9.2 when not sure so I like to stop and review examples, which is where the disorganization and inconsistancy becomes an issue.

Well, I probably could if there was reliable information available on the difference and there weren't two different standards floating around. I posted a book in "spare a grade" and one guy said 9.2 and several others said 9.0, so I guess go with the majority? It would also be nice to look at some other 9.0, 9.2 examples in "spare a grade" but since they aren't organized, I'd have to pop open every thread to see whether it was even about a book in that range. I'd also not characterize someone as "greedy" for wanting to get a fair price on insurance if their house burned down.

But then if they are 9.2, that's thousands of dollars lost if I am underinsured.

Hey guys! Sorry, I was away from home for work for several days and didn't really have a chance to read and update. First, it's Glenn, not Greg. Usually people call me Chris when they get it wrong, but all good. OK, I am not planning on submitting (well, maybe eventually a few, but not really the main thing). I am also not really planning on selling any time soon. Here is what I am trying to do: I have my comics insured with www.collectinsure.com. The way they work is, you tell them the value of your collection, they tell you how much it will cost, and you write them a check every year. No lists, no appraisals. I have inquired with them how they handle it if I make a claim. They basically would not tell me what their valuation criteria is. They have their methods for determining what the value of my comics (based on the list of issues and grades I would provide at that point). So when I started, just based on rough "everything from the 80's is in 8.0" sort of grading to get a general idea, it's around $100,000. But I decided I wanted to grade and value them more precisely. If the accurately-graded-and-valued collection is likely to only be valued at $45,000, then I have wasted money insuring it at $100,000. If the same is valued at $150,000, then I don't want to not get that $50,000 in that situation. So I picked Overstreet for values, since that's a more long-time industry standard that is likely to be used, particularly with raw books. So then, it's just a matter of grading accurately. Which is most important for telling 9.0 from 9.2, because that's where the bulk of the Overstreet values make a difference. Which brings us back to the original issue, where the Overstreet criteria is vague but further information found online is likely to be CGC-reverse-engineering. Aside from the insurance, I would just like to know what it's worth. And grading-wise, if something DID happen to me, I would want my wife to be able to show a potential buyer an impressive amount of information. So that's the whys and wherefores. I hate to ask questions about grading for purposes other than CGC on a CGC board, but I haven't really found other resources for asking questions. Hell, I had to start an r/comicbookgrading subreddit myself.

How many of those bends could it have and still make 9.2?

By the way, I do appreciate everyone's comments.

Well, yes and no. Because if I'm using the Overstreet guide for grading (to keep it conservative), then for a given book that is $3 or $4 in 9.2, it's only $1 in 9.0. Now multiply that times like 30,000 books (where the other 14,000 or so are probably worth more than cover) and that's a big difference in value.

Well, yeah, the original hypothetical was because that would seem to be the more usual situation where having some clear standards would make sense, but mine is really the later.

And what if I just want to accurately grade books that I have no intention of submitting, because while they aren't worth much (individually, although collectively they can be worth a lot), I'd still like for my collection to be accurately graded?

Yes, there is a ton of horribly disorganized information on grading on the internet. I know all of these things you guys are telling me, the problem is the information is not organized or consistent. One source says finger-dents don't matter unless it is shooting for 9.8. Another guy in a video cracks a 9.4 and can't find anything wrong with it except for 3-4 finger dents. Books that are already (and still) slabbed, you can't tell anything about the surface of the book, dents and whatnot. I'm aware of and using the tools, the tools aren't all that great. What I was kinda hoping for was things like "if it's an Overstreet 9.2, you can probably assume it's a CGC 9.4" or some such.

Please provide grade prior to any pressing.

I assume CGC keeps it vague so people can't argue with them over the grade (or at least not any more than they probably do now). But that doesn't do other people much good. I think the problem is that even the Overstreet guide isn't sufficiently specific, but if you go to the internet for more information, all you get is CGC-reverse-engineering.

So what do we think the intention of CGC is for me to do in the hypothetical situation? Or do they not consider it their responsibility to prevent me from sending in Speedball #1 in 3.0 ?

I've seen where this comes up a bit around here and somewhat doesn't seem to be taken seriously, so let me ask the question a different way. As someone with a large collection, I would be trying to grade issues in that collection to narrow down the ones to hypothetically send to CGC. In order to do that, I need to grade the books as close to accurately as I might. The most recent Overstreet Grading Guide edition (from November 2016) has lots of pictures and information on determining the grade. It also has the benefit of having the information well organized. Online, I am hearing two schools of thought. One is that Overstreet has collaborated with CGC on the standards. Another is that they are still different, although I haven't pinned down specifically which ways. If you were someone in my position, trying to grade books to determine if they merited sending to CGC, would you reference the Overstreet Grading guide? Or would you stick to the various videos and whatnot that try to reverse-engineer the CGC grades, where the information is generally less centralized?

For some books, they have pricing in a range of grades. Or others, they only have a 9.2 value.

Actually sorta stumbled across my own thread on the internet searching for some other information, thought I would update this with what I decided. For books where Overstreet lists the 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 9.0, and 9.2, I just literally divide the gap by 2 or 4 as pertinent. So a book in 4.5 where the 4 is $4 and the 6 is $6 would be $4.50 (to use a very easy math example). For books where Overstreet only lists a 9.2 value, I started off with the basic "if it's not in 9.2, it's only a dollar". But then I thought, are we saying that the same book in 9.0 or 4.0 are both worth a dollar? That doesn't seem right. So I made up the following guidelines: I use the same 9.2 value in Overstreet for both 9.2 and 9.4.* Right now I am grading everything that is 9.4 and above as 9.4, may go back and review those again later. A book worth more than $6 in Overstreet 9.2 but that is the only grade listed - check another price guide for value (it's pretty rare but it happens) A book worth $6 in 9.2: $1 in 9.0-6.0, $.50 in 5.5-5.0, $.01 in less than 5.0 A book worth $5 in 9.2: $1 in 9.0-7.0, $.50 in 6.5-6.0, $.01 in less than 6.0 A book worth $4 in 9.2: $1 in 9.0-8.0, $.50 in 7.5-7.0, $.01 in less than 7.0 A book worth $3 in 9.2: $1 in 9.0, $.50 in 8.5-8.0, $.01 in less than 8.0 Some other items for context: I'm looking more at the total value of the collection rather than maximizing other items. I have a lot of time on my hands, but still need to move "fast" I am using $.01 rather than $.00 just to keep track of the difference between "worth nothing" and "haven't entered anything yet". When the new Overstreet comes out, there's some significant effort to identify the items that have changed. I am grading based on various online tutorials which are mostly based on reverse engineering CGC's grading, which is arguably more lenient than Overstreet's grading. So I acknowledge I am applying Overstreet values to CGC grades. Where that is generous is that it lists books still at cover price for 9.2 rather than 9.4. But otherwise it is very conservative. *Which is actually what I was rethinking today, trying to see if anyone had suggestions on what additions or multiples of Overstreet 9.2 to apply to 9.4, 9.6, 9.8.

I was making the assumption that the writing on cover would also create an impression. In fact, theoretically it would be a deeper impression.

...Which seems really odd to me, especially since the latter is less disruptive than the former. All I can think of is that it fits with what I have perceived to be the "stratification" of flaws: 1. Production errors: least harm to grade 2. Flaws developed in the process of owning and reading the comic (bends, wear, and apparently writing your name on it): medium harm to grade. 3. Mishaps that have no good reason for happening - stains, tears, creases, etc.: most hard on grade

Just an odd thought, wanted to make sure my line of thinking is accurate. If I had a book in, say, 9.4, and I wrote my name about an inch across in the upper right hand corner, my understanding is this would not drop the grade much, if at all. On the other hand, if I put a piece of paper over the comic, and wrote my name the same size on the paper, leaving no pen on the book but leaving an indention of the name, it would be considered a big crease and would drop the grade more significantly.

Well, good to see I'm not alone in my uncertainty...getting a nice range of suggestions.

Insides are all good. Some heavy dents around the DC symbol, not color-breaking. Already pressed. But between the messed-up staples and the ink problems on Dr. Mid-Nite on the front (which seem to be production-related), not sure what grade to put on this.

FWIW, I only included the True Believers because it was an example of it happening on a non-black cover. But we had a few #1's come out during the Stan Lee memorial period, and a couple of mine got ruined. And I had two Chadwick Bozeman issues get knocked down to 6.0 or whatever would apply.

I really didn't want to have to start wearing gloves just to read my comics, but I got fingerprints on two different Chadwick Bozeman comics and one True Believers book that i recently bought. I certainly am in favor of the spirit of the all-black covers but I am finding that they smudge really easily.

I was actually going to post asking if people agreed/disagreed with eta nick's flow.

How about before cleaning? Just to understand what that stuff does to the grade.