• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Can expert graders actually notice a difference on a 0.2 grade variation?

Started by RandomSidekick001-migratio,

26 posts in this topic

RandomSidekick001-migratio

RandomSidekick001-migratio

Posted
Posted

I was just browsing through a copy of Wizard for the first time in God knows how long, and in the CGC-graded price guide, I noticed there was frequently quite a large difference in price between 9.6 and 9.8 copies. I know there are all kinds of threads on inconsistencies in CGC's grading, inflated high-grade prices etc. etc., but that's not what I'm asking about here. I'm just curious if experienced graders can actually detect a 0.2 difference in condition. Or are such fine distinctions in grade mostly hype?

 

- SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

Yes, they can.

 

But not with perfect consistently. I have yet to meet anyone that grades with 90% or better consistency on the 25-notch scale. That should be the big goal with the grading standard--refine it to the point where the grading guidelines allow you to grade with a higher degree of reliability on the grading scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I'm just curious if experienced graders can actually detect a 0.2 difference in condition. Or are such fine distinctions in grade mostly hype?

 

I think it's real to a point AT THE TIME OF GRADING, assuming you realize that CGC 9.8's differ greatly by era.

 

But what makes it a Hype Market is that once the book has been shipped back to you, stored for a bit, etc.. it would probably be lucky to hit a 9.6. If the book has been resold and reshipped several times, we're probably talking 9.4.

 

Books shift in the holder, and when you're talking a 9.8, the slightest pressure or nudge lowers it automatically. I've seen CGC 9.6's fresh from CGC with huge dents at the top, from the the book impacting the two upper ridges.

 

That's my biggest problem with these ultra-high grades, they reflect a "point in time" and you are definitely buying the label and not the book, from a long-term point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted

Most of the time.....Joe Collector also has a good point also

Ideal's Iron Man 1 9.9 may be an example of what "Joe" is talking about.

There is no way that book would get a 9.9 if re-submittted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BronzeBruce13

BronzeBruce13

Posted
Posted

You're going to hear 2 sides, but "mostly" I think you'll hear that there is a difference, but slight, in most people's eyes. I think to be fair, its more credible if you've had a chance to see many 9.6's and 9.8's together as scans alone do not show everything.

 

If you talk to some of us that own quite a few 9.6's and 9.8's you may hear a different opinion since we have a larger pool of books to compare/scrutinize against one another. I just checked my database and I own about 120+ 9.8's and close to 200 9.6's and handled and scrutinized 2X that amount or more in the process of finding my "keepers", upgrading and selling.

 

In my experience, I feel there certainly is a difference in most cases, but its often not drastic... but enough to warrant registering that one is better than the other for sure. I feel that more than 60% or so of the 9.8's I own(ed) are noticeably better than the 9.6's I upgraded from. Side by side, I can clearly decide which one looks better IMO and that I'd want (the 9.8)... without doubting myself. Another 10-20% are better, but very slightly... and I have to look at them longer (sometimes using the magnifying light) to make a decision. On occasion I've even "flip-flopped" the next day after another comparison or decided to keep both. The rest are difficult for me to see why one is better than the other although it occurs to me there may be things I can't see when a book is within a slab.

 

There have also been a number of times when I bought a 9.8 to upgrade from a 9.6 and kept the 9.6 and sold the 9.8 and waited for another opportunity.. sometimes more to do with 'eye appeal" or "QP" (quality of production) than structural superiority. I have many 9.6's that I feel are every bit as nice as most of the 9.8's... or they are so close they should be 9.7's if there was such a grade.

 

Similarly, I still have a few 9.8's (but not many because I'll send them on there way if I don't feel they were worthy) that looked more like a 9.6. In some of these cases, they actually might have been better initially, but may have been damaged within the slab. I don't think this happens on a high percentage of slabbed books though as I would have far fewer "deserving" 9.8's in my collection and would have targeted 9.6's as my "keepers" long ago if that was the case. Damage is more apt to occur in the "looser" slabs where the book is not as snug as others. You can test how tight or loose the comic within the slab is by the ease or difficulty it takes to "tap the book" into a new position inside the slab. CGC added a "wedge" awhile back that now keeps the books safer than before and prevents them from moving around enough to be damaged.

 

Anyway, after you buy 10-20 of each you'll develop your own view.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

I'm just curious if experienced graders can actually detect a 0.2 difference in condition.

 

In my humble opinion, yes, they can. But only within their own selves. Lay out a dozen candiates for the upper echelon grades and have as many graders there and I think the variances will be surprising. (or not)

 

::yah yah - typo edits::

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomSidekick001-migratio

RandomSidekick001-migratio

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure what the capabilities of the experts are, since I'm personally still at the level where I'm learning to spot the differences between a 7.0 and a 9.0!

 

Actually, the gradations at the high end versus the low end still kind of confuse me. The CGC scale goes in increments of 0.5 below 9.0 and 0.2 above 9.0. Now, does that mean that the difference in quality between, say, a 9.2 and a 9.4 is roughly half of what the difference is between a 7.5 and an 8.0, since 0.2 is about half of 0.5? Or, on the other hand, is the amount of difference between 9.2 and 9.4 the same as the amount of difference between a 7.5 and an 8.0, since they both represent one increment on the 25 notch scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JiveTurkeyMoFo

JiveTurkeyMoFo

Posted
Posted

Actually, the gradations at the high end versus the low end still kind of confuse me. The CGC scale goes in increments of 0.5 below 9.0 and 0.2 above 9.0. Now, does that mean that the difference in quality between, say, a 9.2 and a 9.4 is roughly half of what the difference is between a 7.5 and an 8.0, since 0.2 is about half of 0.5? Or, on the other hand, is the amount of difference between 9.2 and 9.4 the same as the amount of difference between a 7.5 and an 8.0, since they both represent one increment on the 25 notch scale?

 

You would have loved to try and learn the old Overstreet 100-point scale. insane.gif

 

Seriously though, I liked that scale for higher grade material. It was just a pain to for anything lower then VF- 7.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

Just as the scale indicates, the difference in defects is very, very roughly greater the further you go down the scale.

 

However, it's not a smoothly linear proportion that allows you to say "that the difference in quality between, say, a 9.2 and a 9.4 is roughly half of what the difference is between a 7.5 and an 8.0, since 0.2 is about half of 0.5." The difference between a 9.2 and a 9.4 might be two 1/16" spine stresses, but the difference between a 6.5 and a 7.0 might be 2 inches worth of creasing! The defects allowed as you go down the scale raise in a non-linear way...maybe exponentially, although I've never tried charting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomSidekick001-migratio

RandomSidekick001-migratio

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ah. So, it's basically a question of certain defects being permitted at certain grade levels, and the use of numbers to "name" those grade levels isn't really indicative of any mathematical relationship between the grades. You could just as easily call them Grade A, B, C, D, etc. and say that particular defects are permissable for Grade B comics, but not for Grade A comics, right? I guess that makes sense, since who's to say that a color-breaking crease is precisely 50% more serious than a non-color-breaking crease, but why'd they bother switching to a number-based system in the first place if there's not really any mathematical relationship though? Wouldn't the old G/VG/Fn/VF/etc. system have worked just as well?

 

- SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
Ah. So, it's basically a question of certain defects being permitted at certain grade levels, and the use of numbers to "name" those grade levels isn't really indicative of any mathematical relationship between the grades. You could just as easily call them Grade A, B, C, D, etc. and say that particular defects are permissable for Grade B comics, but not for Grade A comics, right? I guess that makes sense, since who's to say that a color-breaking crease is precisely 50% more serious than a non-color-breaking crease, but why'd they bother switching to a number-based system in the first place if there's not really any mathematical relationship though? Wouldn't the old G/VG/Fn/VF/etc. system have worked just as well?

 

- SK

 

popcorn.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomSidekick001-migratio

RandomSidekick001-migratio

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Uh-oh. I'm new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that popcorn thing means a controversial, argument-starting point has just been made, right? wink.gif

 

If so, rest assured I don't mean to start World War 5,327 here. Just curious about how things work, since grading is a new thing for me.

 

- SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
Uh-oh. I'm new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that popcorn thing means a controversial, argument-starting point has just been made, right? wink.gif

 

If so, rest assured I don't mean to start World War 5,327 here. Just curious about how things work, since grading is a new thing for me.

 

- SK

 

Actually I thought that your question was an interesting one......and thought I'd sit back and learn something 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

 

( WELCOME TO THE BOARDS..... 893crossfingers-thumb.gif)

 

 

why'd they bother switching to a number-based system in the first place if there's not really any mathematical relationship though? Wouldn't the old G/VG/Fn/VF/etc. system have worked just as well?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
*chuckle* I guess I've been misinterpreting the popcorn thingy since I got here! Well, there we go. I've learned another new thing today. See, it always pays to ask questions. grin.gif

 

Actually.......it USUALLY means what you thought it did. I think I might have used the popcorn graemlin incorrectly sorry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
*chuckle* I guess I've been misinterpreting the popcorn thingy since I got here! Well, there we go. I've learned another new thing today. See, it always pays to ask questions. grin.gif

 

Actually.......it USUALLY means what you thought it did. I think I might have used the popcorn graemlin incorrectly sorry.gif

hi.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
why'd they bother switching to a number-based system in the first place if there's not really any mathematical relationship though?

 

I'm not sure, but I can think of two advantages:

 

  • It allows for expansion to as many different notches on the scale as the precision of the ever-evolving grading standard guidelines allow for as time goes on.
  • It suggests that a more methodical, mathematical approach is preferrable in grading, even if we haven't gotten to the point where it's well-defined enough to be directly comparable to mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing