MCMiles

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices. BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected. I've been at this for 40 years, so I'm not a child of the CGC era, and despite my screen name, I own comics at every grade level. Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today? ..And while new blood might not get it immediately, is it really difficult to apply "9.0 - same thing as VFNM" " 5.5 = fine minus"? After a couple of times you pretty much have it memorized. Easier than multiplication tables. As far as an "opinion" on defects. Well in many cases a 9.0 (or VFNM for many) can have a light crescent crease from an impact in considerable length. The fact is a 9.4 (NM) absolutely will not. That's just one example out of thousands of possible spine ticks or color flecks that differentiate between 9.0 and 9.2 and 9.4 and so on.

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair! Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently. I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby. However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

Well, obviously not. Hmm. What could have possibly prompted me to respond in kind to a snarky comment? I wonder... "According to CGC they do. According to me, they aren't that significant. That's the whole point." Now my opinion is an "opinion"... again proving that it's obviously isn't "welcome". BTW-- you already have bought books from me... you just don't know it. You get them from dealers who buy them from me, mark up the grades, or have them upgraded from CGC, and you happily pay a lot more from them than you ever would from me. Just sayin'... Still can't figure out how think you aren't welcome to your opinion. Because I disagree? Because I arrogantly said mine was better? According to CGC and most others experienced in high grade.they do. According to me, they aren't that significant. That's the whole point. Basically what you are saying is other dealers bought books from you because you under graded them, they graded them accurately and made more money. They probably left you with all of the books you over graded. Sounds like a good business model. Just sayin'

I never said anything about it being nefarious. I just said it's silly. And CGC didn't invent it... they simply gave the collecting community what it wanted. I understand that. But we've had dozens of threads showing (even unpressed) books resubbing from 9.4 to 9.6, or from 9.6 to 9.4 to prove that even professional graders cannot consistently tell the difference between them. The only reason that my system of treating 9.0 and 9.2 as 9.0, and 9.4 and 9.6 as 9.5, and 9.8 and 10.0 as 10.0 upsets folks... is that there are enough collectors who want to make sure they have the ONLY 9.6 to the others' 9.4 to claim bragging rights. Besides... no two copies of the same book are ever going to be identical... so why not go with the 100-point scale that Oversteet floated for awhile? I'll guarantee if you put two 10.0 copies of the same book on here, half the boards will declare that one copy is better than the other. It's not even a matter of saying some 9.6s aren't better than a 9.4... it's a matter of saying is the difference significant enough to merit its own separate classification? For some it is. For me it's not. I'll give you most of what you said here. It is obviously very difficult for even the professional graders to be consistent. There are a lot of 9.4 that are better than 9.6s. However, this has some accuracy but is mostly incorrect. "The only reason that my system of treating 9.0 and 9.2 as 9.0, and 9.4 and 9.6 as 9.5, and 9.8 and 10.0 as 10.0 upsets folks... is that there are enough collectors who want to make sure they have the ONLY 9.6 to the others' 9.4 to claim bragging rights." Your system 9.0, 9.5, and 10 doesn't upset anyone. It's just not a fine enough scale for higher grades.

It's not heresy. It's simply not reality. There is an obvious visual difference between 9.0, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8. ..... Important note to myself: Never buy high grade books from anyone that thinks there isn't a need for a two point system above 9.0 How would my scale be any different? Two ways: get rid of the Gem Mint B.S label, Mint is fine, and I'd get rid of the split grades. Obviously accepting the removal of split grades would be the big problem. But if you were to accept it, nothing much else would change. You'd still have NM+ (9.6), NM (9.4) and NM- (9.2). They just wouldn't be actual tenths of grades anymore, they'd be regular ("lower") grades. But they're still basically the same thing. Your scale is fine till you get to higher grades (9.0) and at that point there is a need (at least in my opinion) for a finer division of grades. It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly". You can stand back and say how far do you think that is? Someone might say "about a yard". Get a little closer and it might be "two and half feet plus or minus" and so on, but as it gets more refined it's going to get down to "Two feet seven and 7/8"" Of course if it's something that can be measured more precisely it should be. That's where I'll give Bookery some credit. It's a paper product. The scale should only be so fine. Once there was a 100 point system. It was way to fine for comic books, but to say there should only be three grade points in the higher end is not logical. It is finer than that and physically measurable.

Winnah and new world record! This is the fastest response yet with the ol' "you dare to have a different opinion than me so I'll never buy books from you" knee-jerk. Congratulations!!! (Not to mention it's not very bright... if I'm grading my books as a 9.0 and you can get a 9.2 or a 9.4 out of them from CGC... wouldn't it behoove you to especially buy books from me???). You are welcome to your opinion. I'm glad you have one. Mine is just better and based in facts and logic. Which you demonstrated with your snarky comment. Why would CGC (or anyone else) give your 9.0s a 9.2 or a 9.4? Is it because they are better than 9.0? Do they have less defects? BTW, I doubt it's a record. I've just seen this "opinion" from you before, and it was just as senseless then.

Important note to myself: Never buy high grade books from anyone that thinks there isn't a need for a two point system above 9.0

It's not heresy. It's simply not reality. There is an obvious visual difference between 9.0, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8. At least for most people experienced in higher grade comics. The difference or combination of defects aren't always the same, but in higher grades there are few enough defects to easily discern the difference in grade in most cases. It doesn't work as well below 9.0 because the accumulation of defects and different possible combinations of defects is too great in lower grade ranges.

Some of us are angry because this thread is being hijacked into a pressing thread. Pressing is not the problem. It's a conflict of interest. At the very least it's a thread about perception. Which of course we know there are going to be whackadoos on both sides. Some people are going to apologize for CGC till they ate blue in the face and make excuses, no matter how evident the problems are. Others are going to use any opportunity they can to come up with any cockamamy conspiracy possible such as CGC adjusting grading standards to accept defects caused by pressing. Lets not forget the people that want to blame everything from Hurricane Sandy to recessed staples that happened nearly fifty years ago when the books were manufactured on pressing.

Bob, I don't believe mess you say about damage that has occurred from pressing. It most certainly does happen. However, time and time again you just seem to have some hard on (a tiny one, I'm sure) about blaming anything and everything on pressing, or even further on CGC. You and your collective friends have submitted hundreds and thousands of books to CGC and apparently many of them have been pressed. According to you, many have been damaged. That's the real mess kicker, you are such a hypocrite, and constantly speak from both sides of your face. You claim all of these books have been damaged, you complain about CGC, yet you continue to utilize both services. Worse, when you decide not to use either one you try to portray it as if you're some sort of saint and doing the hobby or us other uniformed fools a favor. Even if you were ever right on any point about the effects of pressing on the books, I can't take anything you say seriously. You aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are, and if you or anyone else are having books pressed which are coming back with these defects, then do yourself and the books a favor and find a new presser.

Ok, Bob.

You may be right, but the fact that the book was graded 9.6 despite the staple is another of many indicators that CGC has chosen to ignore defects like indented staples and horizontal creases at the overhangs that sometimes happen during pressing. The Spidey and X-Men are 9.6s from Matt's inventory, by the way. Recessed staples are all over the place. CGC has never ignored them because it's a defect that's pressing related. (it's very rarely if ever pressing related). They ignore them because it's common in the manufacturing process, especially among SA Marvels.

The indentation on that Spidey is not from pressing

OMG are you referring to the obvious fact that nothing has changed in the hobby besides Matt's address. One sane boardie. John, I think what concerns people is the fact that this is now a service CGC has added because they want to make more money. They want a piece of that pie. Having said that I would expect the rates to probably increase from what ever rate Classics is currently charges. Back to the conflict: It's logical to think if CGC is going to sell you a service for $xx.00 that will suppossedly improve your potential grade they will want you to see results for that service. Otherwise, why would you continue to buy it? With that in mind, I can see how people would be concerned that every book psssing through the new on site upgrade department will not be looked at with the same scrutiny as a book that has not....tweeners will certainly get the bump. Basically, there will be an incintive for books pressed there to get a better grade. That incintive being repeat business. I'm sure CGC will say graders still will never know which books have or have not undergone the in house pressing, but people outside of CGC are understandably have their doubts. As far as turn around times, I've heard complaints that Classics takes a while as it is. I would expect customers that want the "works" will simply have to wait a time similar to what the combined time of the individual companies totals now...or more.

I don't see them going a month over due for FTs. There probably is a misunderstanding or a unique problem there. This is a fact: I have an Eco FT (20 day turn around) that is on the 26th day. This is the third FT I've had go five days or more over. It's actually not that big of a deal to me, but I drop off and pick up everything and try to schedule my visits when I expect subs will be ready so I'm often pushing back the days I want to go there, which also pushes back how quickly I can sub other books. This becomes a bigger problem for me because I submit a lot of books for customers for various reasons. They usually want those subbed as quickly as possible. Every once in a while I have a customer that doesn't have their own account and it's a pain in the azz trying to explain that CGC is behind. I hate making excuses, even if it is out of my control.

So you don't mind waving goodbye to your books for 3-9 months and paying for the privilege of doing it? At any given point in time, I might have books at CGC, books being pressed, books at Heritage, Clink, CC, MCS, etc. I'm also often waiting for checks from auction houses which translates to months from the time I send my book(s) off. There are times I can't buy/bid a book because everything is in limbo.It all gets a little confusing, fustrating and even exciting, but I am at the helm and when its all clicking in the cycle, with a little luck, sometimes I am glad CGC held my book so long. Time is a comic books best friend generally. These days I tend to have more time than money so I try to buy smarter books that generally sell for a profit, earn a bump in grade, or are just plain grail to me. If CGC is holding an AF15 of mine for 1 year, it is still mine and earning interest the whole time its there. Least of my worries. Flipping books that go Express is my main focus, not moderns. Yeah, you twerps that can ony afford to flip moderns need to put up or shut up. If you aren't going big and going express then quit you whining. BTW, express and walk through are about the only two tiers on schedule. Ya know, I'm kinda offended by this statement. So since I can only afford to dabble in moderns I'm a twerp and you "big boys" who deal in silver are better than me? F$%k you! I think Mike was being sarcastic about Junkdrawer's post. Yeah, I was definitely being sarcastic. I hope Chainnball was just adding to it, otherwise, that's a little quick with the FUs.

So you don't mind waving goodbye to your books for 3-9 months and paying for the privilege of doing it? At any given point in time, I might have books at CGC, books being pressed, books at Heritage, Clink, CC, MCS, etc. I'm also often waiting for checks from auction houses which translates to months from the time I send my book(s) off. There are times I can't buy/bid a book because everything is in limbo.It all gets a little confusing, fustrating and even exciting, but I am at the helm and when its all clicking in the cycle, with a little luck, sometimes I am glad CGC held my book so long. Time is a comic books best friend generally. These days I tend to have more time than money so I try to buy smarter books that generally sell for a profit, earn a bump in grade, or are just plain grail to me. If CGC is holding an AF15 of mine for 1 year, it is still mine and earning interest the whole time its there. Least of my worries. Flipping books that go Express is my main focus, not moderns. Yeah, you twerps that can ony afford to flip moderns need to put up or shut up. If you aren't going big and going express then quit you whining. BTW, express and walk through are about the only two tiers on schedule.

In what manner, homeslice? I have plenty of books that don't justify subbing knowing I have to wait 6 months or more. ...wether they are for flipping or not.

Word.

Wait, what? That better not be true. If you are asking for an extra fee to bring the service speed up to about what it should be already and now are falling behind on that then you are getting into some serious business ethics issues. It's all relative...they still aren't promising WHEN...just that it's done FASTER relative to the other tiers. Plus it is not unethical to fall behind. It may end up being bad business, but not unethical. I'm not saying it's unethical to fall behind. I'm saying it's unethical to charge a fee for faster (relative) turnaround times, fall behind and keep accepting the fee. The consumer has to determine at what point they will not pay extra any longer. Right now we are all paying significantly more for FT and FT is starting to not be so fast. Basically we are telling CGC that we will pay more. If they ever do get caught up, I would expect another price increase.

Wait, what? That better not be true. If you are asking for an extra fee to bring the service speed up to about what it should be already and now are falling behind on that then you are getting into some serious business ethics issues. It's all relative...they still aren't promising WHEN...just that it's done FASTER relative to the other tiers. At the rate they are going we will soon be getting FTs at regular estimated turn around times.

That's the best part.

Was surprised to find out there are no other graded copies of this. I don't guess it's part of the registry set either.