gaz973

UXM 201 As Cable, New Mutants 86. Appeared on the very last panel (Ala Wolverine). That wasn't actually an "in story" appearance though. it was more like a teaser ad for the next issue. Now you've bought it up, this thread will probably go into a 10+ page discussion about what constitutes a 1st appearance.

I think that there are very few people who will argue against loosely graded books being left in slabs and tightly graded books mostly getting cracked out over time.cthis just seems completely obvious to me. I do tend to think that this trend of loosely graded books being the ones that stay in the slabs and therefore represent CGC's grading to the general comic buying public will over time influence the perception of how grading should be to the purchasers of slabs. If the majority of slabs hitting the market are loosely graded ones then the less educated (in the ways of comic grading) buyers will think that is what CGC's grading standards are.

I bought a couple of slabs from Hector and he was great to deal with. Fast and safe international shipping and a helpful guy to buy from. (thumbs u

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them. If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them. I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books. CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been. I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to. I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them. A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes. An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection. An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it. So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded. We are specifically talking about CGC grading then vs. CGC now. Not Garry vs. CGC or Nick vs. CGC. And in regards to your ASM 7.5 - 8.5 move that echoes what others have said - that they are a little more inconsistent on books in the mid range. That is a grade range I very rarely submit books in. So basically, all you're saying is that you think that their high end grading is consistent and you're not sure about books that aren't high grade? A conversation about CGC grading is never just about one thing. It's multi faceted. Whenever I have discussed CGC consistency I have tried to qualified it based on my experiences. What I am specifically saying is that their high grade seems to be more consistent now, but the idea that CGC was being tighter in the old days isn't entirely true. They have had cyclical consistency over the past 15 years, as proven to me by getting CGC to regrade their own books, and that cyclical consistency is never constant. IMO we just came off a 2 year tight, high grade streak. As tight as any other era I can personally remember. I strongly disagree about the 2 year tight period though my experience is more in the 6.0 to 9.4 range books. I'd agree to an extent with the cyclical grading consistency but over the last three or so years, I'd describe their grading as generally loose. While I haven't been submitting much recently, I've certainly been handling recently submitted books, discussing with people who have recently submitted books and had books that I've sold, submitted by customers.

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them. If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them. I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books. CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been. I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to. I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them. A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes. An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection. An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it. So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded. We are specifically talking about CGC grading then vs. CGC now. Not Garry vs. CGC or Nick vs. CGC. And in regards to your ASM 7.5 - 8.5 move that echoes what others have said - that they are a little more inconsistent on books in the mid range. That is a grade range I very rarely submit books in. So basically, all you're saying is that you think that their high end grading is consistent and you're not sure about books that aren't high grade?

This little gem should not be missed. Excellente! Thank you for highlighting that. (thumbs u Also worth mentioning that I didn't have to ask for that refund, Nick told me that I'd be refunded as he was telling me that the book got a PLOD.

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them. If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them. I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books. CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been. I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to. I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them. A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes. An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection. An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it. So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded.

Yep, as soon as people realised how much money could be made from pressing, they quickly got with the program including many who had initially been against it. Money talks.

NEVER go into a movie with high expectations. Always best to go in with no expectations at all. (thumbs u

I agree Marc, that it would be great to see both Falcon and the Winter Soldier in Avengers 2 but as Chuck said, there is already a lot going on in that movie. Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch and the Vision have all been added to the list of new additions and Hawkeye and the Hulk have both been promised larger roles in the movie.

Well, it looks like Cap 3 could be set up for a search for the Winter Soldier but anything could happen to Cap before then to change the focus of his next feature. The actor who played the falcon recently said that he hadn't received a call yet so looks unlikely that he'll be in Avengers 2. It's entirely possible that WS could be in Avengers 2 but I wouldn't count on it. Fury's eye patch removal and addition of glasses seemed to me to be motivated by a need to look different though I guess that it could also be taken as a symbolic gesture for having a new start (but Fury's character isn't usually one to be into symbolic gestures). My bet is that Crossbones will feature in Cap 3.

Just had a handful of deals wit Tom again after too long since the last times. Tom's always great to deal with and great to chat with too, one of my all time favourite boardies. Thanks again, mate. (thumbs u

I had a great deal with Mike, purchasing three slabs from him which turned out to be extremely nice. Mike had great communication was easy to work with and posted the books out quickly. I couldn't have asked for improvement on any aspect. Excellent seller and a credit to the boards. (thumbs u

If I'm forced to endure the drivel contained in this thread then so should you be.

It'd be hard to tell as many books that get a blue label, stay in that holder for the foreseeable future and therefore any missed resto probably stays undetected. Considering how many books you must sub and resub on behalf of people, I'd hazard a guess that you'd have as much insight into CGC's accuracy as anyone who isn't employed by them?

Nope. Show me the raw book that sells for more than the CGC equivalent. (thumbs u Here is what I bolded and was referring to: "Everyone would still prefer a slabbed book to a raw book of the same apparent condition." Nothing was said about price. I said Nope because I personally would rather have the raw book. Of course, this is why some people crack books out of the slabs to put in their collection. (thumbs u Also there are of course those people whose dislike for slabs means they won't ever buy a slab.

There are books that are definitive 9.6 and 9.8. The problem is that there is no 9.7 grade. I have seen thousands of books that "in my mind" I call a 9.7 and decide if I should give it a 9.6 or 9.8 depending on certain factors, one factor being "Will this book look like a 9.6 or a 9.8 in a holder". You also can't have a 9.1, 9.3, 9.5 or 9.7 grade in the scale, as it would make it even more difficult to be a consistent grader. PQ can change depending on the lighting. I had more trouble with PQ at onsite grading than I did sitting at my grading desk in an office. Luckily there was a 6.5 grade that the JiM # 83 should've maybe ended up at? Not trying to be an arse though, Steve. Just the first thing that popped into my head.

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread. Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them? If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion? I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system. Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion. The reason why Nick's quote isn't absolutely true to me is because a single dealer can have good and bad days as well. I had a very long winded conversation with a long time dealer and he said something along these lines: "Dealers buy and profit from other dealer's mistakes." He's absolutely right. You buy some dealer's SA books because he grades them as VF's and you can sell them as proper NM-'s. Or a dealer under prices his books not realizing that prices have changed. Or a dealer doesn't realize what he has in his inventory. Dealers get busy, tired and distracted the way a grader might. I can't even remember how many dealers have told me they'll grade a box of books sitting at their feet while watching a ball game or a TV show. And these are well respected, tight graders on the con circuit. At least with more than one set of eyes looking at a book, there is more than one opportunity to catch something that the first person misses. The bottom line is that you can't remove humanity from the equation. You can only try to. Of course no grader can be 100% consistent for 100% if the time, the same as any CGC grader but they can be very consistent if they take it seriously. However CGC grading can also vary between the different graders employed by them as well as being under pressure from trying to keep up with TAT's. Obviously a single experienced grader is going to be more consistent than a company employing a pool of graders. I can say in all honesty and not because I'm a friend of Nick that having examined hundreds of books that have been graded by Nick and hundreds graded by CGC that without doubt, Nicks grading has been a lot more consistent. Like Nick said, accuracy is another discussion so I won't even go there.

Do people not realise that by constantly responding to Kav, they insure that he'll post another dozen posts of garbage? Ignore him and he'll probably get bored eventually and maybe find something more worthwhile to do.

Personally, I always loved NM # 87. Cable was a favourite of mine from the beginning. It'd be very handy for anyone sitting on a stack of # 87's if it takes off in value.

This thread's been kinda funny lately but I think the show has drawn to a close now guys.

I agree, the "ages" serve no practical purpose beyond spawning endless discussions regarding when they started and finished. I'm sure that Golden, Silver and Bronze ages will always be referred to for as long as the hobby lasts but there is no real importance to defining them.

So who called that the end of the Copper Age? Bob Overstreet? Jerry Weist? Chuck Rozanski? Todd McFarlane? Pretty sure it was announced by papal edict. Seriously -- I laugh at these arbitrary cut-off dates as it's not very helpful for most collectors. Not to mention, fairly irrelevant.

Just received my second purchase from Don (slabbed TTA # 44) and it was another flawless transaction. I would happily buy with confidence from Don again, excellent seller. (thumbs u

You got me there, and I guess it would be more accurate to say "If I had known this stuff was going to explode (Ms. Marvel? Really?) I could have had a pile more sitting in my collection".