CGC's mysterious "Grading Standards"...

[joeypost]

 

We know major no-no's are: stains, CGC's, tears, prusty or opped staples, fading, etc. And bindery tears, printing creases, miscuts, etc are overlooked.

 

 

 

What are those??

 

He doesn't know.

Hey Watson.......................................bite me.

[Timmay]

 

We know major no-no's are: stains, CGC's, tears, prusty or opped staples, fading, etc. And bindery tears, printing creases, miscuts, etc are overlooked.

 

 

 

What are those??

 

He doesn't know.

 

I know what they are.

 

prusty and opped

 

[JohnT]

I understand why CGC thinks they need tokeep their criteria secret. Secrecy allows them to be the undisputed experts, period. You can say that through trial-and-error and experience you can figure out their standards--and that's probably true--but that doesn't mean I'm going to ask you what grade you think my book is and then be able to go out and sell it as that grade because you said that's what grade it is. Unless you're nik or toro

 

Also, if they released their methodology they would be open to endless second guessing--even more than now--because every book has a different combination of defects and positive qualities, and with the criteria known every customer would be able to make a half-assed argument why their book was undergraded.

 

Having said all that, I don't think secrecy is good for the hobby. People get ripped off because grading raw books is more subjective than it needs to be.

 

We've all believed in the value of an effective grading system. That's why Overstreet attempted it years ago, and why we all went out and bought their grading books when they came out. Unfortunately, Overstreet was just not very valuable because it was extremely vague. Now we have an effective grading system--CGC--but the exact methodology is unknown. That's just not the best situation for the hobby, but CGC feels it's best for them.

 

Personally, I think CGC would still thrive and dominate if their system became public knowledge, because the real value of their product is their certification process itself and their reputation for integrity. But that's just my opinion and obviously they don't agree. Or maybe they don't know and they're just going to err on the side of caution (why fix something that aint broke).

[DrWatson]

 

We know major no-no's are: stains, CGC's, tears, prusty or opped staples, fading, etc. And bindery tears, printing creases, miscuts, etc are overlooked.

 

 

 

What are those??

 

He doesn't know.

Hey Watson.......................................bite me.

How many times do I have to tell you? No sex talk.

[Claudio]

They probably don't publish the secret because then they could open themselves up to lawsuits.

 

Let's say you buy a 9.2 Action #1 for a million bucks in an auction but when you examine it you see a tiny crease that should have made it a 9.0. You sue CGC for damages. If they don't list the criteria, you can't second guess them.

 

I think it is that simple. There is no trade secret, I believe.

[JohnT]

They probably don't publish the secret because then they could open themselves up to lawsuits.

 

Let's say you buy a 9.2 Action #1 for a million bucks in an auction but when you examine it you see a tiny crease that should have made it a 9.0. You sue CGC for damages. If they don't list the criteria, you can't second guess them.

 

I think it is that simple. There is no trade secret, I believe.

 

I'm no lawyer but I would think they could put a disclaimer in the process somewhere that would cover them from that.

[Bosco685]

Oddly enough, none of them are given to conspiracy theories.

Not sure where you were going with this comment other than thinking we are in the comics X-Files.

 

Actually, if you read some of the forum comments lately about a shift, when it comes to 9.4 and 9.6 books stress lines that break color are starting to show up a little more than you ever saw before.

 

Nobody is talking about a conspiracy. But if you are trying to say CGC's grading is their competitive edge, I'd argue it is much more than that. Otherwise, anyone that could grade would be jumping into this business, rather than the lion's share of the market it still maintains due to a high level of trust.

[Claudio]

I'm no lawyer but I would think they could put a disclaimer in the process somewhere that would cover them from that.

They definitely would but that wouldn't stop the lawsuits. And to be honest, I think the lawsuits would have merit.

[VintageComics]

They probably don't publish the secret because then they could open themselves up to lawsuits.

 

Let's say you buy a 9.2 Action #1 for a million bucks in an auction but when you examine it you see a tiny crease that should have made it a 9.0. You sue CGC for damages. If they don't list the criteria, you can't second guess them.

 

I think it is that simple. There is no trade secret, I believe.

 

 

That is the other reason I believe they don't publish their standards.

 

Can you imagine every Tom, Dork and Harry calling their offices 20 times a day to argue that their book should be a 9.?? because their grading standards say so?

 

I understand grading to be like appreciating art.

 

There are simple basic rules, but you actually won't "get" the art unless you can really "feel" it or understand it. It's not something that is 100% quantifiable...it's more like "partially quantifiable and partially aesthetic" so they would never really be able to explain it to everyone...that's why there is a training period. It's not just a set of rules but also an appreciation of appearance.

 

R.

 

 

[Bosco685]

Personally, I think CGC would still thrive and dominate if their system became public knowledge, because the real value of their product is their certification process itself and their reputation for integrity. But that's just my opinion and obviously they don't agree. Or maybe they don't know and they're just going to err on the side of caution (why fix something that aint broke).

 

Now this statement I would have to agree with as CGC's methodology of grading would then be the defacto standard.

 

I still think CGC does a super job, but if I was going to say what makes them stand out, it is NOT grading as the leading feature. That is just expected naturally from the process that they will follow a common standard.

[DiceX]

Nope. The one you have now.

You mean the straight jacket? They let me keep it as a souvenir.

 

Seems to fit you.

 

 

[Shield]

Actually, I understand where your thought process is going when it comes to a "competitive edge" service, but with collectibles this is different.

 

CGC is supposed to drive not only a common standard sellers and buyers are comfortable with when conducting transactions, but also detect things such as restoration or book damage not caught before because we would have to buy based on a raw book picture.

 

Doesn't CGC do exactly this already?

 

 

So if a product like CGC is going to be marketable, their grading standard is what drives that interest and acceptance. I would think from their early days when they brought major retailers together and passed around books to come to an agreement on conditions, this is what made them agree to support CGC.

 

 

But isn't the proof in the pudding? We all have thousands of examples of books to look at that make up their standard; why should they feel pressure to publish these standards officially? Had they done this in Jan 2000 it'd already have been rewritten to become more accurate. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I respect your well thought out post; my question was more for those who always insist CGC should officially "publish" their grading standards. If they had a granular written standard they put out, wouldn't this make it much easier for another company to just "steal" their product?

[Shield]

I would use their service, not because they have a better set of standards, but because the professionals looking at the book and determining the grade are experts and take their job as seriously as I take my purchases.

 

I'm not a fan of:

"Here, your book got a 9.2"

"Why?"

"Because we say so!"

 

I would prefer to know the criteria that caused it - how much is taken off for page quality, dings, blunted corners, foxing, etc. Knowing the standards wouldn't change the fact that the grade is still an opinion and that a different grader might give it a slightly different grade, but at least I would know the criteria.

 

 

Hi PokerKid! I've called them personally about a book and they gave me the grader's notes, and the exact detail on why it was graded the way it was. They were very nice to me on the phone, and very detailed, i.e. "transverse crease back cover upper right" type of mumbo-jumbo...

[Shield]

I understand why CGC thinks they need tokeep their criteria secret. Secrecy allows them to be the undisputed experts, period. You can say that through trial-and-error and experience you can figure out their standards--and that's probably true--but that doesn't mean I'm going to ask you what grade you think my book is and then be able to go out and sell it as that grade because you said that's what grade it is. Unless you're nik or toro

 

Also, if they released their methodology they would be open to endless second guessing--even more than now--because every book has a different combination of defects and positive qualities, and with the criteria known every customer would be able to make a half-assed argument why their book was undergraded.

 

Having said all that, I don't think secrecy is good for the hobby. People get ripped off because grading raw books is more subjective than it needs to be.

 

We've all believed in the value of an effective grading system. That's why Overstreet attempted it years ago, and why we all went out and bought their grading books when they came out. Unfortunately, Overstreet was just not very valuable because it was extremely vague. Now we have an effective grading system--CGC--but the exact methodology is unknown. That's just not the best situation for the hobby, but CGC feels it's best for them.

 

Personally, I think CGC would still thrive and dominate if their system became public knowledge, because the real value of their product is their certification process itself and their reputation for integrity. But that's just my opinion and obviously they don't agree. Or maybe they don't know and they're just going to err on the side of caution (why fix something that aint broke).

 

Excellent post, JohnT! Can you imagine if CGC had started grading shortly after Overstreet started their guide? Overstreet used to use "Good, Fine, Mint" if I'm not mistaken. Imagine CGC AF 15's with only 3 different grade options.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Hell no, I wouldn't disclose it. After all these years, I know how to pick 9.8s. Occasionally I get a 9.6. The code can be cracked. It's called trial and error.

 

That is reverse grading and a process by elimination to a point where you estimate by comparison.

 

It's called a good business model as it keeps people submitting.

 

 

 

You guys summed it all up right there.

[greggy]

Hell no, I wouldn't disclose it. After all these years, I know how to pick 9.8s. Occasionally I get a 9.6. The code can be cracked. It's called trial and error.

 

That is reverse grading and a process by elimination to a point where you estimate by comparison.

 

It's called a good business model as it keeps people submitting.

 

 

 

You guys summed it all up right there.

Send my books yet, lagger?

[JohnT]

Hell no, I wouldn't disclose it. After all these years, I know how to pick 9.8s. Occasionally I get a 9.6. The code can be cracked. It's called trial and error.

 

That is reverse grading and a process by elimination to a point where you estimate by comparison.

 

It's called a good business model as it keeps people submitting.

 

 

 

You guys summed it all up right there.

Send my books yet, lagger?

 

Hey Greggy, what do you think about CGC not publishing their grading standards?

[PokerKid]

I would use their service, not because they have a better set of standards, but because the professionals looking at the book and determining the grade are experts and take their job as seriously as I take my purchases.

 

I'm not a fan of:

"Here, your book got a 9.2"

"Why?"

"Because we say so!"

 

I would prefer to know the criteria that caused it - how much is taken off for page quality, dings, blunted corners, foxing, etc. Knowing the standards wouldn't change the fact that the grade is still an opinion and that a different grader might give it a slightly different grade, but at least I would know the criteria.

 

 

Hi PokerKid! I've called them personally about a book and they gave me the grader's notes, and the exact detail on why it was graded the way it was. They were very nice to me on the phone, and very detailed, i.e. "transverse crease back cover upper right" type of mumbo-jumbo...

 

Yeah, I was definitely overstating their stance. They have always been helpful when I have called and I have no troubles with the company. I just didn't see the harm in making standards public, but many of the posts here help me see reasons that could pose potential problems/confusion if they were made public.

[Drakeprimeone]

Even if there are basic standards that CGC uses for grading books I believe ultimately it becomes subjective.

 

To think there are EXACT guidelines that CGC uses would lead me to believe they have a chart or a slide rule or something that assigns a grade for any possible defect for every varying degree. Is it feasible to think that? Is there any other field where people evaluate condition as meticulous and as uniformly in order to give the same grade every time. After all we are talking about assigning grades to the tenth of a point.

 

"1/32 of a tear is a .1 deduction but any longer and its .2". Im not sure it works like that. I agree with a couple of the other posters.. that grading starts off as a science but ends up becoming an art that you cant put on paper to follow each time.

 

If CGC assigned grades by whole points only then Im sure there is a formula they follow that can be published and disclosed without much hassle but as meticulous as they grade i dont think there is anything they could disclose without opening themselves to lawsuits and the like.

[General Zod]

They probably don't publish the secret because then they could open themselves up to lawsuits.

 

Let's say you buy a 9.2 Action #1 for a million bucks in an auction but when you examine it you see a tiny crease that should have made it a 9.0. You sue CGC for damages. If they don't list the criteria, you can't second guess them.

 

I think it is that simple. There is no trade secret, I believe.

 

It is no secret that GA books are graded a little more leniently than the subsequent ages.

 

There is also a lenthy disclaimer on the back of every CGC label about their grades being of a subjective opinion. It's right there in the first two sentences.

 

All CGC does is provide a service of being a third party to grade books and check for restoration/destruction. Their standards are what you agree upon if you are purchasing a slabbed book or submitting to them. That's all there is to it. If you don't agree with their standards, then stick to raw books and rely upon your own abilities to determine grade and unrestored/restored status of the books you come across.