• 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.

CBG Letter 1/16/04

Started by drice6900,

28 posts in this topic

drice6900

drice6900

Posted
Posted

Did anyone see the letter in the latest CBG from Eric Koppi on his opening 15 CGC slabbed comics? He kind of did his own survey to see if CGC grading met his requirements (which appear to be a stalemate - he agreed with 7, felt 4 were undergraded, and 4 were overgraded), but what was really interesting is the problems he found with two issues. I wish I could find the letter on-line somewhere, but to summarize:

 

Eric opened a Doc Savage Comics #11 CGC 5.5 (#0062073005). He found that a 2 1/4 by 1 3/4 inch piece missing from the centerfold of the comic, the prior page had a 1 inch tear, and the following page had a 1 by 1/4 inch piece missing.

 

He also bought a Flash Comics #nn Wheaties Giveaway CGC 3.0 (#0062718001). This issue also had pieces missing to the cover, although he admits that the OS guide says pieces can be missing from grades 4.0 and lower.

 

I would like to know if CGC missed the problems with the Doc Savage book, or they list the errors in the grader's notes and still gave it a 5.5 893naughty-thumb.gif

 

Any thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocketeer

Rocketeer

Posted
Posted

I didn't see the letter (01/16/04???)...but I do know that the Flash #NN promo book is almost always with pieces missing on the cover cause it was taped to the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drice6900

drice6900

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yep, I just got the 1/16/04 issue (#1574) today in the mail.

 

This Eric guy does mention the tape problems with the Flash issue, and ultimately admits he got a decent deal on the book (paid $189.00). He expresses concern though that the grade was a bit too high (G/VG) with pieces missing rather than just tape residue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocketeer

Rocketeer

Posted
Posted
Yep, I just got the 1/16/04 issue (#1574) today in the mail.

 

He expresses concern though that the grade was a bit too high (G/VG) with pieces missing rather than just tape residue.

 

 

From what I understood the book was graded more lenient purposely, cause it was impossible to get it off without tearing the cover,...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
murph0

murph0

Posted
Posted

I don't follow what's allowed in F- range but I thought a tiny piece missing on the cover was allowed. If that's so then a slightly bigger piece missing from the centerfold wouldn't be that big a deal.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I don't follow what's allowed in F- range but I thought a tiny piece missing on the cover was allowed. If that's so then a slightly bigger piece missing from the centerfold wouldn't be that big a deal.

 

It's all about disclosure. CGC notes anything foreign on the internals (like signatures or store stamps) but pieces missing on multiple pages just gets swept by?

 

Or look at it a different way. Let's say that was a Hulk 181 he bought, and opened it to discover the Marvel Value Stamp cut out. Even at Fine, that would kill any resale value he may have, and essentially he paid multiples of what the book would have gone for with full disclosure.

 

Now imagine that as the grades and $$$ move up.

 

I really wonder what surprises await the hearty souls who crack the slabs in the years to come. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drice6900

drice6900

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Did he elaborate on what books he thought were overgraded? Were they all G.A. books?

 

Brian

 

He doesn't specifically say what each of the 15 books are, but he says early in his letter that he is a Golden Age collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Ahhh I see, you didn't really want to discuss whether that would be allowed at that grade.

 

What are you talking about? I want to talk about DISCLOSURE, as CGC seems to be overly-anal in some instances, yet lets hacked-up books by without a mention.

 

And just as an FYI, Fine (+/-) allows NO missing pieces, and this book in question doesn't even adhere to the VG Overstreet standards.

 

Now talk about that!! makepoint.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

"He found that a 2 1/4 by 1 3/4 inch piece missing from the centerfold of the comic, the prior page had a 1 inch tear, and the following page had a 1 by 1/4 inch piece missing."

 

Overstreet:

 

Fine Range: Missing Pieces: NONE

 

VG/Fine Range: Missing Pieces: NONE

 

VG Range: Misssig Pieces: 1/4" Triangle, 1/8" Square

 

G/VG Range: Missing Pieces: 1/4-1/2" Triangle, 1/8-1/4" Square

 

Good Range: Missing Pieces: 1/2" Triangle, 1/4" Square

 

Now once you get lower, obviously more is allowed, and come to think of it, these Grading Specifications were one reason CGC came up with the Qualified Grade.

 

So why wasn't it used in this case? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted
I wish I could find the letter on-line somewhere, but to summarize:

 

I download the .pdf version so here's a cut and paste with the editors response as well.

 

Eric Koppi

6 Wychwood Way

Warren, NJ 07059

My comic-book collection is one of the joys of my

life.

For more than 35 years, from the days of the neighborhood

grocery store to the comics retailer of today, I

have continued to purchase and read comic books.As I

grew older, my disposable income increased, while my

comics interest has expanded.F inding hidden treasures,

especially among Golden Age comics, has become

my penchant.Until five months ago, my comic-book

purchases, excluding new issues, were divided evenly

between retail stores and mail-order ads.I relied on a

small handful of mail-order sources, since most had

grading I would not consider accurate.Those I found

to be fair and accurate had my repeat business.

I consider accurate grading to be no more than one

half grade different from my grade.F or example, a

comic book I purchase that I consider Fine, I would expect

to be between VG/FN and FN/VF.W ith those

dealers who garner my continual purchases, the range

usually falls to one-quarter-grade difference — say,

given the above example, from FN- to FN+.Obviously ,

if a comic book is very costly, even one-quarter-grade

difference can make quite a monetary difference.

Grading should remain consistent, whether the comic

book being graded is owned or not owned by the grader.

The advent of the CGC grading service has created

a pool of comics to be purchased that one would expect

to be graded in a consistent manner.

To me, although CGC is a service, any comic book

graded by CGC is from a single “dealer.” Those who

sell from this “dealer,” as far as I have experienced,

unequivocally state sales are final.T o expand my collection,

I have consciously decided to purchase CGCgraded

comics when the opportunity presents itself.

All CGC comics that I purchase are opened, graded,

and read.The first 15 CGC comics I purchased had

the following grading breakdown:

7 were “accurate” (within one-half grade)

4 were undergraded

4 were overgraded

Remember, I am one person using my standards to

grade these comics.Whether CGC would agree with

my grading is moot.

Compared against my grading criteria, I would expect

these CGC comics to fall roughly under one category:

namely, undergraded, accurate, or overgraded.I

found them to be inconsistent.Granted, my sample

size is small when compared to the total number of

CGC graded comics.Nonetheless , I must state that I

would never have given any other “dealer” 15 chances

to prove himself consistent.

Yet this is not the reason I am writing this letter.

My last two CGC purchases were unacceptable.This

is what prompted my letter.

My penultimate purchase was Doc Savage Comics

#11 graded FN- 5.5 (CGC #0062073005). After opening

the CGC holder, I looked through the comic book

to grade it and found a 2¼ inch by 1¾ inch piece missing

from the centerfold.The prior page had a 1-inch

tear, and the following page had a 1 inch by ¼ inch

piece missing.FN-? Hardly.How could such a mistake

be made? The following possibilities exist:

The centerfold was not inspected.

The centerfold was inspected but ignored.

The proper comic book was not loaded in the holder.

The grader did not know how to grade.

The grading standards being followed were inaccurate.

The grading was a variation of any of the above.

What else could it be? What other CGC-graded

comics have hollowed-out interiors? Slightly sarcastic

but nonetheless relevant.I have no chance at remuneration.

CGC certainly won’t reimburse the $106.84 I

paid for the book.After all, CGC states, “Opening the

holder voids the CGC certification.” Forget the fact

that the certification may be invalid.

My last purchase was Flash Comics #nn (1946

Wheaties giveaway) graded G/VG 3.0 (CGC

#0062718001).I received this comic book in the mail

and discovered, without opening the holder in this

case, the upper-right corner of the front cover with a ¾

inch by 1¼ inch piece missing and the lower right corner

with a 1 inch by 1 inch piece missing.Y es, all

these Flash giveaway books were taped to a cereal

box, but how does this warrant a G/VG? Simply put, it

doesn’t.Overstreet only guides this book as high as a

Fine condition.Overstreet does state that tape residue

is acceptable for any grade, but pieces missing are not

tape residue.Even though the Overstreet GD price is

$325, I only paid $189.14 for this comic book. Though

overgraded, I have still, fortunately, paid a reasonable

price.

Still, that is not the point.I want consistency in

grading, and the CGC-graded comics I have purchased

do not demonstrate this quality.Apparently, the jeweler’s

loupe used by CGC to distinguish between a 9.6,

9.8, 9.9, and 10.0 grade cannot detect such obvious

flaws as pieces missing.

Consequently, given my unsatisfactory experience,

CGC is a “dealer” I no longer care to frequent.

 

Maggie: There are a couple of issues here, and I’d

suggest to begin with that the “all sales are final” dictum

from a seller of a CGC-graded comic book is something

to watch out for. In case of a misgrade, it should

be possible to work out an accommodation with the

seller — and it is always possible to ask CGC for a reexamination

on a particular grade. The firm has a

photographic record of the items it grades, in part in

order to protect against copy-swapping.

The second issue is one that has been raised from

the very beginning of third-party grading: the standards

used in the grading. It seems clear that your

standards vary from those CGC graders use. On the

other hand, going by the 2003 Overstreet suggestions,

pieces can’t be actually missing above a 4.0 (VG). It

seems that CGC places less emphasis on tears and

missing chunks than on other criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted

Maggie Thompson's reply illustrates what drives me mad about most editor's replies in CBG these days. They don't take a stand one way or another and ALWAYS treat an issue with kid gloves. They could at a minimum say "in their opinion", and state that opinion. All we get now are "gentle" answers that serve to not alienate one side or the other.

 

At least Don used to be more forceful in his replies.....pro or con.....I miss that....

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing