• 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.

PGX question

Started by Fedoraman,

115 posts in this topic

conditionfreak

conditionfreak

Posted
Posted

There appears to be more damage on the 9.4 IronMan #1, than on the 9.6.

 

For instance, bottom right corner and right edge.

 

Was this a case of CGC's "inferior" slabs?

 

As to the IronMan 15. Wow. What a difference. I would have loved to bought that on Ebay in a PGX slab and submitted it to CGC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timmay

Timmay

Posted
Posted
There appears to be more damage on the 9.4 IronMan #1, than on the 9.6.

 

For instance, bottom right corner and right edge.

 

Was this a case of CGC's "inferior" slabs?

 

:gossip: Seller doctored the photo to cover up the spine tick and damage to lower front corner.

 

Look really closely and you can see it.

 

No biggie, worth more in the CGC holder anyway. I was just happy it came back blue label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
What did I say to get *that* post deleted?

I wasn't out of line, was I? :cry:

 

 

How do you know if you get a post deleted...?

 

Do they send you a notice in your PMs?

 

No. My post is not there anymore.

It was a masterpiece too.

Would have sucked if a mod had deleted the Mona Lisa after it was painted. :frustrated:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
Yeah. Because all the hard evidence in the past was just a figment of everyone's imagination. :makepoint:

 

 

Why do you keep saying everything I wanted to say...? ;)

 

stfu_noob.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conditionfreak

conditionfreak

Posted
Posted
There appears to be more damage on the 9.4 IronMan #1, than on the 9.6.

 

For instance, bottom right corner and right edge.

 

Was this a case of CGC's "inferior" slabs?

 

:gossip: Seller doctored the photo to cover up the spine tick and damage to lower front corner.

 

Look really closely and you can see it.

 

No biggie, worth more in the CGC holder anyway. I was just happy it came back blue label.

 

I am assuming that the IronMan 1 PGX was after the CGC grading? Wish the CGC slab had a grading date on it. I do see how the spine problem may have been "doctored" (although it might just be a case of scanning with different DPI), but I can not see how the BRC was "doctored".

 

But then. I am old.

 

Concerning the IronMan 15. Which was the first grading? PGX or CGC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
Interesting re-subs. A one grading unit difference I would guess is somewhat common even if re-subbing to the same company... 9.0 to 9.6 is a surprise. Lucky you!

 

That one really illustrates how wacky PGX really is. There's a very obvious difference between a 9.0 and a 9.6. It's really starting to move beyong the "grading is subjective" safety zone.

 

I think this may have been a case of "oh, hey, look how TOUGH we are at PGX...er, I mean, look how TOUGH I am at PGX! See? The book *I* graded 9.0 came back a 9.6 at CGC!"

 

But wide swings in EITHER direction, while good in this case for Timmay who got the 9.6, just further demonstrates amateur hour at PGX.

 

It also demonstrates the importance of THREE graders, as opposed to ONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
I am assuming that the IronMan 1 PGX was after the CGC grading?

 

Do you really think someone would crack that book out of a CGC case and send it to PGX?

 

Ok...someone OTHER than Terrence Ledder? But that's just because he can get a PGX 9.9 case for it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
I am assuming that the IronMan 1 PGX was after the CGC grading? Wish the CGC slab had a grading date on it.

 

BTW...

Certification # 0146724001

Grade Date 08/08/2007

Title Iron Man

Issue 1

Issue Date 5/68

Publisher Marvel Comics

Country

Variant

Pedigree

Category Universal

Grade 9.4

Page Quality OFF-WHITE TO WHITE

Grade Text

Art Comments Archie Goodwin story Gene Colan cover

Gene Colan and Johnny Craig art

Key Comments Story continued from

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1

Origin of Iron Man retold.

Issue Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conditionfreak

conditionfreak

Posted
Posted

So. The assumption is that the IronMan 15 which was given a 9.0 by PGX, proves PGX is really bad at grading, because CGC gave the same book a 9.6?

 

hmmm, was there a pressing involved between?

 

But even if there was or wasn't a pressing. One could look at it another way. In this one instance. It tends to affirm the "rumors" held by many that PGX grades a little harsher than CGC, in many cases. Not all of course. Nothing is "all".

 

Additionally, I would submit that if PGX has such a bad reputation (no denying it, they (he) do) for grading wrongly. Then wouldn't it entice someone to take their "shot" at getting a higher grade because they could submit the book two or perhaps even three times to PGX, for what it cost to submit to CGC? Even if the book sits in a CGC slab as a 9.0, I could see submitting it to PGX in the hopes that they are off their game as usual, and you get a 9.4 or better. A PGX Avengers #4 labeled as a 9,4, is more valuable than a CGC Avengers #4 labeled as a 9.0, IMO. A lot more valuable.

 

I would not put it in the realm of improbable. Seems to be a lot of resubmitters on this forum. I personally don't get it though. I have several CGC books that I believe they totally missed the right grades on. I could scan some if anyone is interested.

 

But I still ain't gonna resubmit them. I just don't roll that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
So. The assumption is that the IronMan 15 which was given a 9.0 by PGX, proves PGX is really bad at grading, because CGC gave the same book a 9.6?

 

No, that's my assertion. I'm not assuming, I'm outright stating it.

 

And does it prove it?

 

No more than a tree standing in front of you "proves" that there's a forest somewhere around. It's simply one more piece of evidence. How many trees does one need to see before one concedes that, yes, that's a forest?

 

hmmm, was there a pressing involved between?

 

My assertion becomes entirely moot if there was a pressing in between that dramatically improved the appearance of this book. That goes without saying. Except this time. ;)

 

But even if there was or wasn't a pressing. One could look at it another way. In this one instance. It tends to affirm the "rumors" held by many that PGX grades a little harsher than CGC, in many cases. Not all of course. Nothing is "all".

 

Grading a "little" harsher would be to have the book sitting in a 9.4 or 9.2 slab. 9.0 is almost to the edge of "oh, come on, give me a break." There's a significant difference between 9.0 and 9.6, and moderately educated graders can tell that difference.

 

Again, there's "grades harsher" and "really doesn't grade consistently at all." Who are these "many" we're talking about?

 

And, as I stated before, you're absolutely correct...these are shades we're talking about, not absolutes.

 

Additionally, I would submit that if PGX has such a bad reputation (no denying it, they (he) do) for grading wrongly. Then wouldn't it entice someone to take their "shot" at getting a higher grade because they could submit the book two or perhaps even three times to PGX, for what it cost to submit to CGC? Even if the book sits in a CGC slab as a 9.0, I could see submitting it to PGX in the hopes that they are off their game as usual, and you get a 9.4 or better. A PGX Avengers #4 labeled as a 9,4, is more valuable than a CGC Avengers #4 labeled as a 9.0, IMO. A lot more valuable.

 

I would not put it in the realm of improbable. Seems to be a lot of resubmitters on this forum. I personally don't get it though. I have several CGC books that I believe they totally missed the right grades on. I could scan some if anyone is interested.

 

But I still ain't gonna resubmit them. I just don't roll that way.

 

There's no ethical issue regarding resubmitting. It's an ethically neutral activity. A person takes just as much chance that a book will come back LOWER as they do that it will come back HIGHER. Therefore, there's no real reason for you NOT to resubmit them, unless it comes down to personal taste, and that's fine.

 

But...for someone to truly be intellectually honest about the issue, they'd have to resub both books they think are OVERgraded, as well as under.

 

And does anyone really see that happening any time soon....? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
This is one of my favorite examples of PGX's "grading":

blazingcomics5.jpg

insidetear1.jpg

 

Yeah, that's the one I keep mentioning with the large tear on the first page. Thanks for posting that, GZ.

 

 

I also think that there was very strong evidence that the book pictured above has an unnoted married cover as well. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing