MCMiles

Got an Avengers #14 from Val today. Graded accurately and got here lightning fast.

Happy Thanksgiving, to everyone here. Well, happy Thursday to our international boardies.

How can he say pressing is controversial, I thought most people don't know about it and those that do don't care Yes, people do not consider pressing restoration. And if they are unaware of the process, once explained, they do not care. But these crazy irrational types who do not like it, they are just in the head. I PREFER a book that has not been pressed over a pressed book. But we can manufacture hg books for profit and should do so. Why leave cash on the table right? It worked well for the BA market, look how healthy those 9.4's are with all the "new" 9.8's. 100% agree, all is good in the comic book world. The biggest question in my mind is what "new" process are people doing to books to help push the grade even higher while maintaining the blue status. So far we know. 1. Pressing 2. Dry cleaning 3. Micro trimming (when done properly) 4. Disassembly and reassembly. 5. Staple replacement (when done properly with vintage staples) 6. Reattachment with tape And those are all legitimate acceptable methods...... Yes, people do not consider pressing restoration. And if they are unaware of the process, once explained, they do not care. But these crazy irrational types who think this way are just in the head....and would go onto do anything possible to get a book a better grade in a blue label holder. Forget the fact that each person has his/her own ability to reason and conclude on their own that pressing is a non-issue while trimming, tape, disassembly and others are, or even further each procedure have a varying degree of concern for that individual. I don't mind pressed books at all and don't even inquire as to whether or not the book has been pressed. So, I guess I'm just a dumbazz that is over paying. But I'm the same dumbazz that won't buy a GA book with tape...but that doesn't make sense, because I don't care about pressing, so surely tape shouldn't bother me at all...as long as it's in a blue label. It's the same old stretch of an argument from the last six years. "OMG, if CGC accepts pressing the next thing you know, trimming will be ok by CGC and all the other sheep will fall in line. (as long as they are all making more money). It's a good thing they invented the interwebs, this time of year it probably gets cold outside standing on the corner preaching to the sinners that the end is near.

I love the comics, the pressed ones just as much as the unpressed ones. I'll be thrilled when this impending dooms day arrives for the hobby and I'll be able to drive around on garbage day loading up collections into the truck.

I don't get this either. Can someone explain the physics of how pressing would cause properly placed (not offset) staples to be driven into the book? How will a press create a force from the side to push a staple through the spine into the book? I find the Litch groin bump more plausible. The theory goes that if a cover has some bounce to it (large radius curve at the spine) and is pressed down onto the interior the spine might actually move back relative to the interior pages. Personally, I've never seen it but I suppose it is possible. Never seen it either, and if the person doing the work is doing things correctly it should be virtually impossible. The mechanics of how the press closes actually works to prevent that from happening if the work is being done correctly.

Oh, I believe people (especially unqualified people) can do all kinds of things to damage a book with a press, including push the cover back to where it looks like the staple was recessed or sink off set staples into the book. I don't believe it happens as often as some would like everyone to believe, and I believe the examples used are examples of books manufactured with recessed staples. I definitely don't believe CGC has adjusted their grading to allow for defects that may have been caused by pressing.

You put your picture on your stickers!

I'm easy. Numbers or letters. I'll figure it out.

But no one's arguing that a 9.0 is the same as a 9.4 (the 9.4 would simply be a 9.5 in my scenario). Can you give me an absolutist example, instead, of the unarguable difference between a 9.0 and a 9.2, or a 9.4 and a 9.6? That's what I'm talking about. Yes, there is a difference between 9.2 and 9.4. Even easier to discern between 9.6 and 9.8. I'm not saying there aren't thousands of examples where the difference is nearly indiscernible. There are even examples where grades seem to be assigned assbackwards. However, one vey small defect at the high end does make one book better than the other. It's not logical to me to group them in the same numerical (or letter) grade. Just to add. I get where you are coming from, but I can't give a 9.6 a 9.5 when I just gave a 9.4 a 9.5. They are two different books. Even in with the grades currently used. The term Strict or soft are often used. I definitely can't see giving a strict 9.6 a 9.5 and a soft 9.4 a 9.5...and before you say it - The strict 9.6 isn't quite a 9.8 and doesn't deserve it. The soft 9.4 is just too nice to give a 9.2.

Well, I personally prefer a numerical system to the old days... if for no other reason than it takes up less room on my labels. I just think the hobby went a bit too far on the number of breakdown points, that's all. For me, it's just simple logic. If a system, any system, cannot be largely consistent with its own standards, than to me, those standards are not valid. I think many arguing with me simply make my point... as it's been stated that thousands of dollars can ride on a .2 difference. Exactly! And if that .2 difference cannot be applied with any consistency, due to the difficulties in detecting said differences, than a lot of money is in a constant state of risk due to such inconsistencies, which over time, is unhealthy for collectors or investors. Which is why there is such panic over pressing (which, more often than not, is about aiming for a .2 upgrade) and multiple resubmissions (same thing) and other anxieties often expressed here. I simply posit a less-stressful collecting environment... which seems to inspire stress-filled threads! I don't disagree with you about consistency. In fact I hate inconsistency at CGC, but I also know it's difficult for the very best to be consistent. In fact, getting this thread back on track a little, I'd prefer CGC spend the money invested in acquiring Classic Inc. hiring more graders, instead of over working the ones they have, and training them to be consistent. Throwing out a perfectly good grading system, which in my opinion and many others, does work and is needed because there are quantifiable differences in the higher end grades is not the answer. Maybe it would be more quiet around here, but doubtful. There would just be more posts comparing and complaining about completely different 9.5s. The answer is for people to buy the books and not the label, which IMO is becoming more and more of a trend. Most experienced collectors know grading is subjective and inconsistent no matter who it is. That brings me to this point, I don't think the money would change that much. A fugly 9.5 might sell for a tenth of what a sharp copy sells for. High end collectors would track books better with serial numbers, scans etc. That's already proven by the fact that people pay a premium for white pages. Something they can't even see and we all know is inconsistent at a CGC. Yep that proves people want what the label says, but it also proves they want the best, and it may take more research, more hi-res scans and back cover scans, but people are still going to pay more for the best. So which brings it back full circle.

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.