CGC's mysterious "Grading Standards"...

[rjpb]

I wouldn't be surprised if CGC has flexible criteria for grading books - I know they don't emphasize eye-appeal as much as many collectors do - but it doesn't seem they adhere to strict Overstreet Grading Guide type rules that seem to be overly harsh on limiting the grade for some specific defects no matter how nice the book is otherwise, though qualified grades are a great way to avoid really hammering a book for one flaw that might technically send a book into the ultra low grades.

[Flaming_Telepath]

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.

 

Very few dealers were willing to support CGC from the get-go. The whole concept would diminish their power and so many of them realised that they would have to up their game.

 

And the whole idea of the retailers helping set the standards is something of an urban myth. There might have been some vague discussion, but CGC marched to the beat of their own drum and imposed their own standards. A perfect example of this is the hammering of NCB dings and creases. Previously they were of little consequence when determining the overall grade. Come the advent of CGC, they were viewed as the plague.

 

Why? Because in tandem with the allowance of a certain restorative technique (pressing, which at that point was stated quite clearly to be resto by Overstreet) allowed for the whole crack, press and resub income stream. It's no coincidence that PCS was formed in 2001, around the time that CGC floated the idea of a restoration removal service...which was shot down by the public at large, and so went underground to a select customer base.

 

This is where published standards would have been quite handy for the collecting populace, but they were kept 100% in the dark and it was a very slow reveal by CGC as to what was being allowed through.

 

In truth, CGC only found widespread public acceptance after the Greg Manning auctions that realised some quite stupifying prices. Suddenly the dealers were all over slabs, seeing the potential for huge $$$. As dealers were going to drive business with their bulk submissions, this is where the slabbing game finally got off the ground.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

[Davenport]

I read lots of threads where people complain about CGC not publishing their grading standards. I was bored for a minute, and thought about this. Why should they?

Because it's what you're paying for?

 

As an unbiased independent 3rd party their grading standards should be readily available to both seller and buyer. That's who their service serves, ideally without prejudice toward either party.

 

Without any published standards the concept of an independent unbiased 3rd party becomes lost, and what takes its place is the concept of a central authority both buyer and seller should give their power over to.

 

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

(I admit I haven't read anyone else's replies to your question yet. If my response seems like an echo I apologise. )

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

I think it can serve the seller, Dav...if they are 'in the know'.

[Bosco685]

Very few dealers were willing to support CGC from the get-go. The whole concept would diminish their power and so many of them realised that they would have to up their game.

 

And the whole idea of the retailers helping set the standards is something of an urban myth. There might have been some vague discussion, but CGC marched to the beat of their own drum and imposed their own standards. A perfect example of this is the hammering of NCB dings and creases. Previously they were of little consequence when determining the overall grade. Come the advent of CGC, they were viewed as the plague.

 

Why? Because in tandem with the allowance of a certain restorative technique (pressing, which at that point was stated quite clearly to be resto by Overstreet) allowed for the whole crack, press and resub income stream. It's no coincidence that PCS was formed in 2001, around the time that CGC floated the idea of a restoration removal service...which was shot down by the public at large, and so went underground to a select customer base.

 

This is where published standards would have been quite handy for the collecting populace, but they were kept 100% in the dark and it was a very slow reveal by CGC as to what was being allowed through.

 

In truth, CGC only found widespread public acceptance after the Greg Manning auctions that realised some quite stupifying prices. Suddenly the dealers were all over slabs, seeing the potential for huge $$$. As dealers were going to drive business with their bulk submissions, this is where the slabbing game finally got off the ground.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

 

I yield the floor to the man of knowledge.

 

This made a lot of sense. When I came back into comics a few years ago, I had been told by a few collectors about the "Steve Borock getting the major dealers together so everyone could lock down a standard." Education completed!

 

The more we talk about if CGC released their standard, folks could call in and jump all over them about any tiny difference, I can see how this would be a business-killer after awhile.

 

[mica]

Why? Because in tandem with the allowance of a certain restorative technique (pressing, which at that point was stated quite clearly to be resto by Overstreet) allowed for the whole crack, press and resub income stream. It's no coincidence that PCS was formed in 2001, around the time that CGC floated the idea of a restoration removal service...which was shot down by the public at large, and so went underground to a select customer base.

 

This is where published standards would have been quite handy for the collecting populace, but they were kept 100% in the dark and it was a very slow reveal by CGC as to what was being allowed through.

 

In truth, CGC only found widespread public acceptance after the Greg Manning auctions that realised some quite stupifying prices. Suddenly the dealers were all over slabs, seeing the potential for huge $$$. As dealers were going to drive business with their bulk submissions, this is where the slabbing game finally got off the ground.

 

Very informative.

[Bosco685]

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...

 

I have ALWAYS had a super experience when calling into CGC to ask questions about a book. Even when I thought a book may have been trimmed, they patiently and carefully walked me through what they looked for, but also quickly confirmed if this was ever missed before their standards would never allow this.

 

I still think their grading standards, or some high-level summary, are not the competitive edge but rather the entire thorough categorizing and encasement, standing behind their product, and taking such action as addressing concerns when a given submitter has been discovered to alter their books and potentially gotten through their system.

 

But again, the more we talked about all the phone calls they would receive challenging them if the standard was released with every little detail, this could make it less cost-effective to operate the company. Not a good idea!

[Flaming_Telepath]

Very few dealers were willing to support CGC from the get-go. The whole concept would diminish their power and so many of them realised that they would have to up their game.

 

And the whole idea of the retailers helping set the standards is something of an urban myth. There might have been some vague discussion, but CGC marched to the beat of their own drum and imposed their own standards. A perfect example of this is the hammering of NCB dings and creases. Previously they were of little consequence when determining the overall grade. Come the advent of CGC, they were viewed as the plague.

 

Why? Because in tandem with the allowance of a certain restorative technique (pressing, which at that point was stated quite clearly to be resto by Overstreet) allowed for the whole crack, press and resub income stream. It's no coincidence that PCS was formed in 2001, around the time that CGC floated the idea of a restoration removal service...which was shot down by the public at large, and so went underground to a select customer base.

 

This is where published standards would have been quite handy for the collecting populace, but they were kept 100% in the dark and it was a very slow reveal by CGC as to what was being allowed through.

 

In truth, CGC only found widespread public acceptance after the Greg Manning auctions that realised some quite stupifying prices. Suddenly the dealers were all over slabs, seeing the potential for huge $$$. As dealers were going to drive business with their bulk submissions, this is where the slabbing game finally got off the ground.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

 

I yield the floor to the man of knowledge.

 

This made a lot of sense. When I came back into comics a few years ago, I had been told by a few collectors about the "Steve Borock getting the major dealers together so everyone could lock down a standard." Education completed!

 

The more we talk about if CGC released their standard, folks could call in and jump all over them about any tiny difference, I can see how this would be a business-killer after awhile.

 

I can understand why CGC won't publish their standards. If I was in their position, attempting to run a profit-making business, I'd have serious concerns about the ramifications.

 

It doesn't help me, but I can understand it.

 

The problem I really have is with the material facts that could have been disclosed from the outset that weren't...like the acceptance of pressing. There are a number of flaws/factors that could have been identified and their effect on the outcome explained from day one, instead of them being dragged out of Steve Borock like we were pulling his teeth.

[Bosco685]

Is that how Steve ended up with just gums and why he doesn't smile for the camera? Another great educational point.

 

Steve "Gummy" Borock did lay some great groundwork though for a company that was an industry game-changer.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Is that how Steve ended up with just gums and why he doesn't smile for the camera? Another great educational point.

 

Steve "Gummy" Borock did lay some great groundwork though for a company that was an industry game-changer.

 

Indeed he did and, whilst a critic of how they've gone about certain things, I am a great believer in the need for an organisation of this nature within the hobby. (thumbs u

 

In these specific circumstances, my problem stems from the fact that there was (and probably still is ) a group of insiders who had greater knowledge of the CGC thought process, as well as access to 'underground' services like PCS.

 

This was not in the interests of the wider collecting populace.

 

But sure helped certain playas make plenty of $$$

[Davenport]

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

I think it can serve the seller, Dav...if they are 'in the know'.

There probably was/is a small group of insiders privy to policy. Lucky them. But some very knowlegable sellers have posted their grading criteria confusion right along side consumers. Reading them you could feel their frustation.

 

I think the encapsualtion experiment was a long slow evolution that is now fully realized. Don't you? Maybe a tweak here and there, but done for the most part.

 

It turned out to be a system that can differentiate a 9.9 book from a 10.0 book, but finds no difference between altered and unaltered books (unless glues, paints, or chemicals were used in the altering). I personally wish that could've been stated on day-one of the experiment.

[Bosco685]

Now CGC has stated a few times none of their graders are aware of whose book they are handling, but rather it just flows through the process, they make their notes, and a final grade is assigned.

 

Does anyone know if that is correct, as that part of their process MUST be made clear or else it does leave into question customer favoritism.

[VintageComics]

They generally do not know who's books they are grading, that is true.

 

 

[Bosco685]

Then to me, that is part of CGC's value to the industry in ensuring the graders are not leaning towards a given submitter because of whatever outside influence.

 

Thanks

[DrWatson]

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

I think it can serve the seller, Dav...if they are 'in the know'.

There probably was/is a small group of insiders privy to policy. Lucky them. But some very knowlegable sellers have posted their garding criteria confusion right along side consumers. Reading them you could feel their frustation.

 

I think the encapsualtion experiment was a long slow evolution that is now fully realized. Don't you? Maybe a tweak here and there, but done for the most part.

 

It turned out to be a system that can differentiate a 9.9 book from a 10.0 book, but finds no difference between altered and unaltered books (unless glues, paints, or chemicals were used in the altering). I personally wish that could've been stated on day-one of the experiment.

You are like an echo pedal.

[VintageComics]

Yup. I agree. Now that's not to say they can't know who's books are in the house....for instance if some dealer drops of 10,000 books to be graded they might get wind of it...but the book in front of the grader is only identified by a bar code # and they are unable to tell who owns the book. In any case, I think that their service is pretty invaluable although it's going to be interesting to see how they evolve under Mark Haspel and without some of the original team members like Scott Talmadge. Scott was incredible in customer service...to me he was the oil in the gears of CGC.

 

R.

 

 

[VintageComics]

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

I think it can serve the seller, Dav...if they are 'in the know'.

There probably was/is a small group of insiders privy to policy. Lucky them. But some very knowlegable sellers have posted their garding criteria confusion right along side consumers. Reading them you could feel their frustation.

 

I think the encapsualtion experiment was a long slow evolution that is now fully realized. Don't you? Maybe a tweak here and there, but done for the most part.

 

It turned out to be a system that can differentiate a 9.9 book from a 10.0 book, but finds no difference between altered and unaltered books (unless glues, paints, or chemicals were used in the altering). I personally wish that could've been stated on day-one of the experiment.

You are like an echo pedal.

 

More like an echo with a little wah-wah.

 

Man I love that sound.

 

[Bosco685]

Yup. I agree. Now that's not to say they can't know who's books are in the house....for instance if some dealer drops of 10,000 books to be graded they might get wind of it...but the book in front of the grader is only identified by a bar code # and they are unable to tell who owns the book. In any case, I think that their service is pretty invaluable although it's going to be interesting to see how they evolve under Mark Haspel and without some of the original team members like Scott Talmadge. Scott was incredible in customer service...to me he was the oil in the gears of CGC.

 

R.

 

Agreed! I ran into him by accident on eBay, which was a good thing as he was great to deal with, as usual.

[Davenport]

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

I think it can serve the seller, Dav...if they are 'in the know'.

There probably was/is a small group of insiders privy to policy. Lucky them. But some very knowlegable sellers have posted their garding criteria confusion right along side consumers. Reading them you could feel their frustation.

 

I think the encapsualtion experiment was a long slow evolution that is now fully realized. Don't you? Maybe a tweak here and there, but done for the most part.

 

It turned out to be a system that can differentiate a 9.9 book from a 10.0 book, but finds no difference between altered and unaltered books (unless glues, paints, or chemicals were used in the altering). I personally wish that could've been stated on day-one of the experiment.

You are like an echo pedal.

 

More like an echo with a little wah-wah.

 

Man I love that sound.

 

I really didn't mean to catch the attention of board Clerics. You are correct to rush in whenever a stray independent thought appears. Stupid purist and their stupid passions are relentless and irritating. They should be dispatched. It is safer. And I did take the Prosium, I swear.

 

[DrWatson]

As a real world example look at that "photocopy cover" thread. Toward the end a second-hand 'official answer' was posted: there was an unknown change to an unknown policy four years ago.

How can uncommunicated criteria, standards, policies, or policy changes serve either a seller or a buyer?

 

I think it can serve the seller, Dav...if they are 'in the know'.

There probably was/is a small group of insiders privy to policy. Lucky them. But some very knowlegable sellers have posted their garding criteria confusion right along side consumers. Reading them you could feel their frustation.

 

I think the encapsualtion experiment was a long slow evolution that is now fully realized. Don't you? Maybe a tweak here and there, but done for the most part.

 

It turned out to be a system that can differentiate a 9.9 book from a 10.0 book, but finds no difference between altered and unaltered books (unless glues, paints, or chemicals were used in the altering). I personally wish that could've been stated on day-one of the experiment.

You are like an echo pedal.

 

More like an echo with a little wah-wah.

 

Man I love that sound.

 

I really didn't mean to catch the attention of board Clerics. You are correct to rush in whenever a stray independent thought appears. Stupid purist and their stupid passions are relentless and irritating. They should be dispatched. It is safer. And I did take the Prosium, I swear.

 

Finally, light dawns on Marblehead.