RockMyAmadeus

It was. Remember, that SOO only covers up to issue #96, and includes newsstand returns. New Mutants was not an ultra hot seller, and the first Liefeld book to crack 500,000 copies printed was #100. And, of course, those are averages. On average, the book's sales continued to steadily decline...about 13% that year....until you get to X-Tinction Agenda, but that would not have contained #97 (which had a higher print run than #98), or the rest of the run. And where do you get that metric? You are unbelievable. Still living the dream... Jim This is a great example of someone who gets some sort of false impression stuck in their head, and carries it around with them for years, which shades their entire perspective about a person. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I don't have any idea what I did to Jim here, or why he's so angry at me, but it was obviously something, something he's carried around for a long time, and which has caused him to make claims about something that may or may not (another concession to you, Jim) have been said at one time or another, but which he cannot provide any evidence of (yes, yes, sentence ended a preposition with.)

You're plagiarizing my posts.

Nope #98. You defended, hotly, where it was a bottom dweller that wasn't "out there". Ridiculous. Your case was wildly_fanciful_statement at the time and still. Did you have a case of the comics at the time? Because others did. I can tell many stories of the Mannheim shows where there stacks of comics. Arch. Where are you? Release that discussion. If not for a historical perspective. Jim If you can't produce my actual quotes, then this is all just unnecessary hostility for no purpose. I'm perfectly willing to reason with you, and if I said what you're claiming I said (itself a concession to you), then I'm perfectly willing to reconsider...but saying "you said this, and that, and the other" without any proof isn't reasonable. We don't generally indict, much less convict, people in this country on the basis of what someone thinks they said "years ago", but cannot provide any evidence for. What a bizarre turn of the conversation.

It was. Remember, that SOO only covers up to issue #96, and includes newsstand returns. New Mutants was not an ultra hot seller, and the first Liefeld book to crack 500,000 copies printed was #100. And, of course, those are averages. On average, the book's sales continued to steadily decline...about 13% that year....until you get to X-Tinction Agenda, but that would not have contained #97 (which had a higher print run than #98), or the rest of the run.

It's possible that the book you're referring to was actually New Mutants #87, which DID have a much lower print run/distribution than later issues. The "100k" figure, while inaccurate, could be based on the 110k figure that was tossed around (I think even by Liefeld) in the early 90's.

No. NM98 was a hot comic at the time. All X-comics were. He claimed that they weren't until #100. That's untrue. 98 sold really well and is demonstrated by the number of HG copies graded and sold. This comic is relatively common and not an overlooked comic. Did people then know Deadpool would be what he is today? No. But the comic sold really well at the time and the remanents are now being shown. He denied that years ago. Jim Not correct, and, as always, context is everything. #98 was a "hot comic" like all New Mutants at the time were hot comics. You won't find a quote of me saying "New Mutants #98 wasn't a hot comic", or something along those lines (and, of course, what does "hot" actually mean? It's useless when discussing sales and the like.) In this thread, you'll find fairly exhaustive analyses of this book, by myself and others, giving it context of where it was at the time, relative to everything happening around it. Are you aware, for example, that the Capital City order numbers for X-Men #273, the book that came out the same month as NM #98, are nearly DOUBLE NM #98's numbers? And that Spiderman #7, also the same month, are nearly quadruple? And that was before the madness really kicked into high gear. You'll have to find the exact quote of mine you're referring to. I suspect you won't find it, because I've never said anything like that, much less denied that it sold really well. Sorry. Maybe you're thinking of someone else...? No. You implied it was a comic that didn't find much distribution. If I remember right it was barely a 100K. You implied no one was watching the title and as a result was rarer. That is definitely not true. Comic dealers were buying boatloads of X-Marvel comics since Wolverine #1 came out. Wish Arch could resurrect the thread to show the hypo racy. Jim Ok. Would you mind finding that post? I'm not sure why you're calling me a hypocrite. I suspect you have either A. the person confused, or B. the subject confused. But, please, if you could find that post, let's examine what I said, in context. That's a reasonable request, is it not...? CGC has purged the archives. Can't pull it up but you and I know it's true. And those who have been here awhile. Don't try the cop "if you can't find the post" it's untrue. You were very adamant about it at the time and should own up to it. Unless you have Alzheimer's it's not difficult to remember. Jim Ok. Remember that time when you insisted that Spiderman first appeared in Action Comics #1? Yes, you were totally adamant about it, I remember. You also implied that Venom's first appearance was in Pep #47, via a flashback retcon. He and Snoopy were tracking down the Phantom Stranger, as I recall you saying, and you insisted that Lois Lane was married to Batman, which made her Lois Lane-Wayne. I don't have an issue with you, Jim, but if you can't find what I said, how can you POSSIBLY, in good conscience, make claims about it? I say a lot of things, and I say a lot of things with nuance. The devil is in the details. What is a "high print run" in this context, is a "tiny print run" in that one. But without knowing the context of the discussion, neither you nor I can possibly know what exactly was said, by who, why, and how. So, no, I don't "admit I was wrong" to a conversation you think you remember from "years ago" but cannot provide the actual quotes to, and I wouldn't dream of asking anyone else to do the same. That's not at all reasonable.

So now you admit you were wrong? Jim I'd like to see the post(s) you're referring to. If I was wrong about something, I'd like the opportunity to be corrected. However, I'm pretty sure that I've been consistent about this subject for the entire duration of my time here. Who knows, I could be wrong. But if you could please post the pertinent comments, let's examine them.

Yeah, but c'mon, man. Spider-Man #7 had Ghost Rider in it! It deserved to have that print run, son! Pffft. Spiderman #7 had HOBGOBLIN in it.

No. NM98 was a hot comic at the time. All X-comics were. He claimed that they weren't until #100. That's untrue. 98 sold really well and is demonstrated by the number of HG copies graded and sold. This comic is relatively common and not an overlooked comic. Did people then know Deadpool would be what he is today? No. But the comic sold really well at the time and the remanents are now being shown. He denied that years ago. Jim Not correct, and, as always, context is everything. #98 was a "hot comic" like all New Mutants at the time were hot comics. You won't find a quote of me saying "New Mutants #98 wasn't a hot comic", or something along those lines (and, of course, what does "hot" actually mean? It's useless when discussing sales and the like.) In this thread, you'll find fairly exhaustive analyses of this book, by myself and others, giving it context of where it was at the time, relative to everything happening around it. Are you aware, for example, that the Capital City order numbers for X-Men #273, the book that came out the same month as NM #98, are nearly DOUBLE NM #98's numbers? And that Spiderman #7, also the same month, are nearly quadruple? And that was before the madness really kicked into high gear. You'll have to find the exact quote of mine you're referring to. I suspect you won't find it, because I've never said anything like that, much less denied that it sold really well. Sorry. Maybe you're thinking of someone else...? No. You implied it was a comic that didn't find much distribution. If I remember right it was barely a 100K. You implied no one was watching the title and as a result was rarer. That is definitely not true. Comic dealers were buying boatloads of X-Marvel comics since Wolverine #1 came out. Wish Arch could resurrect the thread to show the hypo racy. Jim Ok. Would you mind finding that post? I'm not sure why you're calling me a hypocrite. I suspect you have either A. the person confused, or B. the subject confused. But, please, if you could find that post, let's examine what I said, in context. That's a reasonable request, is it not...? (PS. Comic dealers were buying boatloads of X-Marvel comics since Paul Smith came out.)

The difference between a professional and an amateur is that the professional gets paid for their work. How about when a book is resubmitted and it comes back in a lower grade with no new defects introduced? Where does that stand in your opinion? According to cgc customer service it's impossible to resubmit a book without it being damaged while opening the slab. Also, you're exaggerating. Wait... I'm sorry what? When did they say this? Hi, I'm sorry do you know who you would have spoken to you that told you that? I'm the customer service manager here and I know for a fact that we can crack out books without their being any damage. Maybe there was some confusion in the conversation Hi Bree. I recently called in to get some grades, on an invoice that was at "Grading/QC", which is where we have been able to call in and get grades for the last, say, four years or so....I forget when the changeover happened...but I called in the other day, and was told grades weren't available on an invoice by a gentleman whose name I did not get. So, there's some confusion about policy. Oh, and Mollie needs a raise. Thanks!

That's crazy talk, John. The 2009-2010 period was the loosest CGC has ever been on moderns - books with 4, 5, 6 visible defects were coming back in CGC 9.8 holders. And none of those books would ever come back 9.8 today if they were resubbed. Fair enough. However would you say their grading standards have changed though? I do not think so. So Schmidt says it, and it's "fair enough", but I say it, it holds no water...?

Because I'm a decent 'amateur' grader. People pay me for my opinion about their comic book grades, so I guess that makes me a professional.

The CGC boards...where you are not only held to things you said, but may have changed your mind about later, from a decade ago...you're also held to the things you DIDN'T say. Not complaining, the alternative, where no one is ever held to anything they say, is much, much worse.

No. NM98 was a hot comic at the time. All X-comics were. He claimed that they weren't until #100. That's untrue. 98 sold really well and is demonstrated by the number of HG copies graded and sold. This comic is relatively common and not an overlooked comic. Did people then know Deadpool would be what he is today? No. But the comic sold really well at the time and the remanents are now being shown. He denied that years ago. Jim Not correct, and, as always, context is everything. #98 was a "hot comic" like all New Mutants at the time were hot comics. You won't find a quote of me saying "New Mutants #98 wasn't a hot comic", or something along those lines (and, of course, what does "hot" actually mean? It's useless when discussing sales and the like.) In this thread, you'll find fairly exhaustive analyses of this book, by myself and others, giving it context of where it was at the time, relative to everything happening around it. Are you aware, for example, that the Capital City order numbers for X-Men #273, the book that came out the same month as NM #98, are nearly DOUBLE NM #98's numbers? And that Spiderman #7, also the same month, are nearly quadruple? And that was before the madness really kicked into high gear. You'll have to find the exact quote of mine you're referring to. I suspect you won't find it, because I've never said anything like that, much less denied that it sold really well. Sorry. Maybe you're thinking of someone else...?

Weren't you the guy a couple years ago defending that this comic wasn't common? Just like I said at the time, EBay and CGC has proven that there are HG issues galore out there. Funny to see you now accepting that fact based on your attitude back then. Jim That is a mischaracterization. RMA's position has been to refute broad statements like "NM98 had a massive print run." It did not, for the time frame in which it debuted. Wow. Thank you. Yes, that's correct. It is neither rare, nor did it have a super massive print run, relative to its time frame.

Weren't you the guy a couple years ago defending that this comic wasn't common? Just like I said at the time, EBay and CGC has proven that there are HG issues galore out there. Funny to see you now accepting that fact based on your attitude back then. Jim That is a mischaracterization. RMA's position has been to refute broad statements like "NM98 had a massive print run." It did not, for the time frame in which it debuted. Wow. Thank you.

Kinda silly to play dumb, when that answer is right in your sigline.

When you care enough about minor details to use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation...trivial, insignificant details that should be easy to master by a perfectionist, right...?...then you can dismiss everyone else as "amateur graders." Until then, you have no room to talk. Truly. You are an amateur grader. However if you want a FREE grading lesson I will be more than willing to show you at the next convention you attend. If I'm an amateur, by default, you're a beginner. Again...words mean nothing...the evidence speaks loudly enough. You won't even use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar on a message board...simple, easy things that many children master by the age of 14 or so...but you expect to be taken seriously on your assessment of the ability of others to grade fine details on a comic book...? Come on, SOT, it's getting a little thick, here.

You were fortunate. Imho, this last year has been the tightest CGC has ever been on Moderns - I do a ton of SS books where I crack out 9.8s and I've never experienced this many grade drops upon resubmission. I like tight grading as much as the next guy, but I feel they've moved the needle way too far in the other direction now. Much, much too far. My latest sub was 280 SS books. Got a fair number of 9.8s....but I SUB 9.8s...and the rest was all over the map. 9.4 80's, 9.0 70's. Things that didn't use to be a problem...like production corner chips, which are as common as anything in 1980's books...are now being taken into account. Also, printer's creases, which used to be taken into account wayyyy back in the early days, and then no longer taken into account (which is as it should be) are now apparently being taken into account. The issue is that I knew what CGC graded 9.8, and what they did not. Now, I'm back to second guessing, and looking for total perfection before submitting (and still not getting above 9.8, either.) I cannot waste my time submitting a Web of Spiderman #31 and getting a 9.4. That slab is worth much less than it cost to get done. That's not acceptable. Also, I'm getting grading notes like "top front cover rippling/warping, bottom front cover rippling/warping"...on books like Silver Surfer #44 (1991). Every single copy of that book has that issue, as do most Marvels of that time frame (which is partly why Marvel went to offset printing and abandoned newsprint in 1992, and DC did the same.) That's something that Shawn Caffrey knows, because he's done this for so long. It's not something that the "new graders" seem to know, and it seems to be having an effect on grades. CGC cannot change its standards at halftime. We shall see how this turns out. This I know, and this I hope everybody at CGC understands: if a book is in a 9.8 slab, and it hasn't been damaged in the process...and there are enough ultra, ultra, ultra anal SS guys who don't let anything happen to the book in the process...and it comes back in a 9.6 or 9.4 slab....it's not going to be conducive to business. It's high time for a "guaranteed grade" program...and it's certainly possible to implement, if the will is there. I could be wrong, but my personal theory (based on only observations and nothing to do with anything CGC has said) is that some (or many) of the new recruits may not be long time collectors so they view the books as paper artifacts rather than comics. So many defects that a long time collector would view as inconsequential and not even be on our radar as collectors and may not worth deducting much for (as CGC has done over the last decade and a half) may be viewed as a defect to the paper now and is deducted for more than previously. The new grader is typically also the 1st person to see the book (called the pregrader) and so they would not only be responsible for counting the pages and inspecting the book first, they would also list all the defects they see - hence the grading notes being much more extensive than they used to be. They would then assign a grade to the book and pass the book onto the next grader. The next grader now sees the book and the pregrader's notes. The pregrader would influence the 2ndary grader and the finalizer with their notes and their initial grade. Having different teams would explain different grading standards. Yes, I think that's absolutely correct. They are looking for "artifact perfection", rather than "comic book perfection." I know that there are things...like printer's creases, which I take for granted, or corner chips, or misaligned staples, or "miscut", that I don't, and have never, considered as flaws, because they are PRODUCTION flaws....and which CGC hasn't considered as flaws, for the most part, either. I've gotten something in the neighborhood of 3,000 9.8s that I've subbed myself over the past 8 years or so...not super high volume, but certainly a goodly chunk...you develop a real handle for how CGC grades. However...CBCS has taken a very strong line stance against production flaws of post-1980 books, and you can have a flawless book with a slightly off-center spine...say, with a bad-ish wrap, white showing, etc...and it will grade no better than 9.6. Same with all other production type flaws. I truly hope that CGC hasn't adopted this same type stance, because it will radically change a lot of things. Great post, Roy. PS. Only (at least) two people are looking at books now, according to CGC's guarantee page: "CGC guarantees that Collectibles encapsulated in a CGC holder are authentic and have been inspected by at least two professionals. " https://www.cgccomics.com/grading/cgc-comics-guarantee.asp (Emphasis added.) Professional whats?

When you care enough about minor details to use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation...trivial, insignificant details that should be easy to master by a perfectionist, right...?...then you can dismiss everyone else as "amateur graders." Until then, you have no room to talk. Truly.

See above post. You don't bother with trivial details on a message board....and you don't have to....but that doesn't put you in a position to question people about being "professional graders." There are a handful of regular posters on this board who I would pick as professional graders, who look at books with LOUPES, who pay attention to even the tiniest, most insignificant details and assess books as they are, not as they wish them to be. Schmidt is one of them. Dre is another. Jesperson is another. There aren't many.

Grade that flaw like they have always graded that flaw, not tighter than they have always graded that flaw. Tight grading isn't the issue, changing grading standards is the issue. This, this, this. No no no No standards have been changed. Sorry, SOT, but I've got several hundred slabs that tell differently. And it's not that standards have "changed", per se...it's that new, inexperienced graders don't understand what they're looking at. "Rippling/warping", for example, is not an issue for a book like, say, X-Men #94. It IS an issue, however, for Silver Surfer #42, or X-Men #282, or any of a number of books that all came from the printer that way. No offense intended, but you aren't detail-oriented enough to care about spelling, grammar, and punctuation...simple things on a message board, which you have openly scoffed as "not important"....and I'm not degrading you, you don't have to be....but you can't then expect to challenge those who are about as anal as it gets. The devil is ALWAYS in the details.

I imagine that's pretty radically overpriced, if you took the time to GPA it. Plus, it's missing a book (#50), and everyone knows on eBay that if you're missing a single book, the whole lot is worth 50-75% less. At the end of the listing: "All the hard work is done here ,this great lot is ready to keep going up in value as the comic and tv show only get better These will be worth a fortune in no time" It is ILLEGAL to say things like this in the securities industry....yet, everywhere else, no problem! You'll double, no, triple, no, QUADRUPLE your money, NO time!

I imagine that's pretty radically overpriced, if you took the time to GPA it. Plus, it's missing a book (#50), and everyone knows on eBay that if you're missing a single book, the whole lot is worth 50-75% less.

Yeah. Comics SHOULD be traded like stocks and commodities. Screw the artform.