Guess the grade game!

fc · February 19, 2010

Interesting. It doesn't seem to cover under-grading, just over-grading. So it doesn't really protect the submitter, but the party purchasing from the submitter at a later date, or anyone making a purchase further down the chain.

I wonder why they do this for coins but not comics?

Yes.. just over grading. Submitters have to decide if they agree with the grade

or not. If not, send it back in. That is very common. If the grade does not fit, one

has to resubmit.

------------

From CGC's FAQ.

"Does CGC offer a grading guarantee?

Due to the fragile nature of comic books, CGC does not offer a grading guarantee. However, CGC does offer the following guarantee: a) CGC guarantees that one pre-grader and two senior graders will review every comic book submitted for grading. b) CGC guarantees its holder to be free of defects. Defective holders will be replaced at no charge, except when it is determined (at CGC's sole discretion) that the holder was subjected to abuse, or if damage is the result of storage in a hazardous environment. c) CGC guarantees that all books it certifies are authentic, as described on the CGC grading label."

Basically the only thing it seems to cover is that you do not end up with a book

that is fake, the slab is built well, and it is graded by 3 people.

So it sounds like if a fake Cerebus managed to slip into a slab CGC would gladly

reimburse you for the going rate at the grade you bought it at. Crack it out and then

sell the fake on the open market if it has any value. Some fakes do.

I think shaken comic syndrome or whatever they call it is a main reason they

cannot guarantee the grade. Just by shaking the comic book you could possibly

damage it inside the slab. Coins... that would be very very difficult. The move

around a bit but only the rims are touched for the most part and naturally it is

a harder material.

Speedy-D · February 19, 2010

Well, sorta. But it's definitely a common factor that they've assigned a numerical grade to a collectible.

[Actually, I don't even know if coins get a number grade, but I assume they do.]

[[i also don't know how tightly associated CGC and NGC are.]]

[[[i also also don't know what numismatic means!]]]

fc · February 19, 2010

Well, sorta. But it's definitely a common factor that they've assigned a numerical grade to a collectible.
[Actually, I don't even know if coins get a number grade, but I assume they do.]

[[i also don't know how tightly associated CGC and NGC are.]]

[[[i also also don't know what numismatic means!]]]

coins have a grading scale of 1 to 70. 60 to 70 is the mint state range to give you

an idea. that is 11 possible different mint state grades.

CGC and NGC are very related. But I will not speculate much further without being

sure.

http://www.collectors-society.com/ it has a tab for NGC (coins) and CGC (comics).

http://www.collectiblesgroup.com/

numismatics is the study or collecting of currency.

i do not feel bad for taking this thread off topic. it was pretty much dead and you

seem curious in your questions.

Speedy-D · February 19, 2010

The original topic was guessing the grade, and that died forever ago!

Paratrooper · February 19, 2010

the creator of this thread made some excellent points and the MOST responders to this thread were
quite pathetic.

it is hilarious reading the same tired replies from the same people. their typical

defense when they know they are wrong. the OP made perfect sense in almost

every aspect of his posting.

his concerns are valid and obviously he does not drink the kool aid while most here

do.

I don't know about how valid the guy's points are but he did get a pretty crappy welcome right from the first page.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

Yeah but seriously Roy, the guy sets up a lame "grading contest" which is quickly exposed as a fabrication to rant about the grade CGC gave this book...so why the coyness and subterfuge, just come out and say what's on your mind...and then after that, SERIOUSLY, the guy was pretty unintelligible...the guy's on the couch and I'm his shrink and I still don't understand what he's sayin'

I don't know Tom. I think personally people were a little rough. He's obviously new here.

I got hammered as a PGX shill when I first started posting here years ago. People lay a beat down on me because I didn't agree or march in line with everyone here from day one.

I could be wrong but this guy could genuinely be trying to prove a point. He may just not be internet savvy enough to do it effectively.

I mean, nobody even really proved anything except that he's got somewhat of a sense of a humor and isn't that smooth at internet communication.

Is that enough evidence to lynch someone on?

hey.. do not defend the guy. you might be called a tool also by the peanut gallery.

he used a grading contest post to start the conversation. he wanted opinions on

the book before he gave his own. naturally before the first page was over he was

called a shill. (using the cgc forum definition which makes absolutely no sense

to someone new to the forum).

the original poster wanted to buy the book but the grade was so far off from what

he thought it should be he will probably pass. He listed the reasons he thought it was off.

His reasons made sense to me.

the original poster then has to wade through many nonsense posts of one liners

and stupid pictures found on the internet.

he then mentions he dislikes grading a new book any different then an old book. I

agree with him.

He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business.

I also find it humorous that there really is no guarantee. I know comics are fragile

and perhaps they will make good on any mistake.. but that is all up to them. This

it totally different then coins which NGC grades. They will eat a mistake with cash.

Money on the barrel head!!!

the original poster even states:

"& I'm not bashing anyone. I disagreed with "the opinion" placed on a book."

it is the regulars here doing all the bashing.

man i could go on and on.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

indeed.

"He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business."

Seriously, that line made me laugh. You're one funny dude, unless you weren't trying to make me laugh...then you're just pathetically retarded.

casarachi · February 19, 2010

Folks, I found this forum because I had a question about what a grade could be if a comic is mint and has rusty staples. I did not come here to bash anyone. I was curious to get other's opinions. In fact was inspired to start this thread by reading another that had to do with losing .5 of grade when a book was submitted for re-evaluation.

I assumed the CGC, since they say "universal grade" on the top of the label, uses OVERSTREET grading guidlines, but now know differently. (if what you said is true) I am glad to know this. Thank you.

Now that I have been told CGC does not use Overstreet as a basis for grading, believe IMO, there is a problem, when a company represents a book as CGC 9.4 and states Overstreet says $value in 9.2. But has absolutely nothing to do with Overstreet value.

It's a great book, but it's not 9.4 according to overstreet. Yet will be judged and sold according to overstreet.

Paratrooper · February 19, 2010

Folks, I found this forum because I had a question about what a grade could be if a comic is mint and has rusty staples. I did not come here to bash anyone. I was curious to get other's opinions. In fact was inspired to start this thread by reading another that had to do with losing .5 of grade when a book was submitted for re-evaluation.

I assumed the CGC, since they say "universal grade" on the top of the label, uses OVERSTREET grading guidlines, but now know differently. (if what you said is true) I am glad to know this. Thank you.

Now that I have been told CGC does not use Overstreet as a basis for grading, believe IMO, there is a problem, when a company represents a book as CGC 9.4 and states Overstreet says $value in 9.2. But has absolutely nothing to do with Overstreet value.

It's a great book, but it's not 9.4 according to overstreet. Yet will be judged and sold according to overstreet.

We need a back-peddling graemlin here.

Speedy-D · February 19, 2010

Dude, you keep mixing up Overstreet's grading with their pricing. They're not 100% unrelated, but are definitely two separate things.

And while CGC has not released their grading criteria, you can bet that they're pretty similar to Overstreet's. They'll take into account the same factors, but possibly weigh them a bit differently.

fc · February 19, 2010

the creator of this thread made some excellent points and the MOST responders to this thread were
quite pathetic.

it is hilarious reading the same tired replies from the same people. their typical

defense when they know they are wrong. the OP made perfect sense in almost

every aspect of his posting.

his concerns are valid and obviously he does not drink the kool aid while most here

do.

I don't know about how valid the guy's points are but he did get a pretty crappy welcome right from the first page.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

Yeah but seriously Roy, the guy sets up a lame "grading contest" which is quickly exposed as a fabrication to rant about the grade CGC gave this book...so why the coyness and subterfuge, just come out and say what's on your mind...and then after that, SERIOUSLY, the guy was pretty unintelligible...the guy's on the couch and I'm his shrink and I still don't understand what he's sayin'

I don't know Tom. I think personally people were a little rough. He's obviously new here.

I got hammered as a PGX shill when I first started posting here years ago. People lay a beat down on me because I didn't agree or march in line with everyone here from day one.

I could be wrong but this guy could genuinely be trying to prove a point. He may just not be internet savvy enough to do it effectively.

I mean, nobody even really proved anything except that he's got somewhat of a sense of a humor and isn't that smooth at internet communication.

Is that enough evidence to lynch someone on?

hey.. do not defend the guy. you might be called a tool also by the peanut gallery.

he used a grading contest post to start the conversation. he wanted opinions on

the book before he gave his own. naturally before the first page was over he was

called a shill. (using the cgc forum definition which makes absolutely no sense

to someone new to the forum).

the original poster wanted to buy the book but the grade was so far off from what

he thought it should be he will probably pass. He listed the reasons he thought it was off.

His reasons made sense to me.

the original poster then has to wade through many nonsense posts of one liners

and stupid pictures found on the internet.

he then mentions he dislikes grading a new book any different then an old book. I

agree with him.

He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business.

I also find it humorous that there really is no guarantee. I know comics are fragile

and perhaps they will make good on any mistake.. but that is all up to them. This

it totally different then coins which NGC grades. They will eat a mistake with cash.

Money on the barrel head!!!

the original poster even states:

"& I'm not bashing anyone. I disagreed with "the opinion" placed on a book."

it is the regulars here doing all the bashing.

man i could go on and on.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

indeed.

"He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business."

Seriously, that line made me laugh. You're one funny dude, unless you weren't trying to make me laugh...then you're just pathetically retarded.

Not all experts agree with CGC's grades. The comic book store chain Mile High Comics offers their customers a refund if a comic book which they evaluated as "Near Mint" is given a lower grade by CGC.[10] For its part, Comics Guaranty LLC has been tight-lipped about its grading standards. In 2001, when the Comics Buyer's Guide changed its "Price Index" column to add Overstreet's grading definitions to CGC's grades, CGC requested that this change be reversed, stating that Overstreet's definitions were not necessarily the same as its own. When asked by the Comics Buyer's Guide to clarify its definitions, CGC declined. However, in July 2003, CGC announced that it had decided to fully adopt Overstreet's grading standards.[11] In October of that year, CGC President Steve Eichenbaum stated that although the company had adopted the Overstreet standards, CGC's standards remained unchanged. Eichenbaum cited the 2002 publication of the 2nd edition of The Official Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide – with input from CGC's graders – as the reason for the July announcement, stating that "there is now little difference between Overstreet and CGC."[12] In reporting on the subject, Comics Buyer's Guide reporter Nathan Melby asked, "Who adopted whose standards?"[12] According to Mile High Comics owner Chuck Rozanski, prior to the publication of the new grading guide, Overstreet was negotiating a "middle ground" between the standards established in their 1992 guide and the stricter CGC standards. Rozanski questioned the wisdom of changing Overstreet's standards – which could greatly lower the value of several collections – in order to achieve a "political solution" with CGC.[13] In September 2003, CGC changed the labels it puts on graded comics, removing most descriptive terms used by Overstreet ("near mint", "fair", etc.), instead using just CGC's own numeric grading scale.[14] On CGC's message board, the company's then-President Steve Borock explained that this change was made so that the numeric grade would be larger and easier to see. He added that the descriptive terms which were removed are becoming obsolete.[15] Overstreet now uses both the numeric point grade and the alpha descriptive grade in their annual price guide and their official grading guide.[16] Likewise, CGC's grading guide now lists the corresponding descriptive grade next to the numeric grade.[7]

from the wikipedia page. what a convoluted paragraph eh? notice the political aspect. Those are not even my words. Others used the term.

politics: Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

retarded eh?

Count · February 19, 2010

Overstreet Grading Guide:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Overstreet-Comic-Grading-Guide/dp/0375721061/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266560037&sr=8-2

Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Overstreet-Comic-Price-Guide/dp/0375723110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266560113&sr=1-1

I'd figure for someone that's been collecting comics for 30 years would know the difference between the two. Then again that would explain the 9.5723654 grades he gives books lol

Paratrooper · February 19, 2010

the creator of this thread made some excellent points and the MOST responders to this thread were
quite pathetic.

it is hilarious reading the same tired replies from the same people. their typical

defense when they know they are wrong. the OP made perfect sense in almost

every aspect of his posting.

his concerns are valid and obviously he does not drink the kool aid while most here

do.

I don't know about how valid the guy's points are but he did get a pretty crappy welcome right from the first page.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

Yeah but seriously Roy, the guy sets up a lame "grading contest" which is quickly exposed as a fabrication to rant about the grade CGC gave this book...so why the coyness and subterfuge, just come out and say what's on your mind...and then after that, SERIOUSLY, the guy was pretty unintelligible...the guy's on the couch and I'm his shrink and I still don't understand what he's sayin'

I don't know Tom. I think personally people were a little rough. He's obviously new here.

I got hammered as a PGX shill when I first started posting here years ago. People lay a beat down on me because I didn't agree or march in line with everyone here from day one.

I could be wrong but this guy could genuinely be trying to prove a point. He may just not be internet savvy enough to do it effectively.

I mean, nobody even really proved anything except that he's got somewhat of a sense of a humor and isn't that smooth at internet communication.

Is that enough evidence to lynch someone on?

hey.. do not defend the guy. you might be called a tool also by the peanut gallery.

he used a grading contest post to start the conversation. he wanted opinions on

the book before he gave his own. naturally before the first page was over he was

called a shill. (using the cgc forum definition which makes absolutely no sense

to someone new to the forum).

the original poster wanted to buy the book but the grade was so far off from what

he thought it should be he will probably pass. He listed the reasons he thought it was off.

His reasons made sense to me.

the original poster then has to wade through many nonsense posts of one liners

and stupid pictures found on the internet.

he then mentions he dislikes grading a new book any different then an old book. I

agree with him.

He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business.

I also find it humorous that there really is no guarantee. I know comics are fragile

and perhaps they will make good on any mistake.. but that is all up to them. This

it totally different then coins which NGC grades. They will eat a mistake with cash.

Money on the barrel head!!!

the original poster even states:

"& I'm not bashing anyone. I disagreed with "the opinion" placed on a book."

it is the regulars here doing all the bashing.

man i could go on and on.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

indeed.

"He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business."

Seriously, that line made me laugh. You're one funny dude, unless you weren't trying to make me laugh...then you're just pathetically retarded.

Not all experts agree with CGC's grades. The comic book store chain Mile High Comics offers their customers a refund if a comic book which they evaluated as "Near Mint" is given a lower grade by CGC.[10] For its part, Comics Guaranty LLC has been tight-lipped about its grading standards. In 2001, when the Comics Buyer's Guide changed its "Price Index" column to add Overstreet's grading definitions to CGC's grades, CGC requested that this change be reversed, stating that Overstreet's definitions were not necessarily the same as its own. When asked by the Comics Buyer's Guide to clarify its definitions, CGC declined. However, in July 2003, CGC announced that it had decided to fully adopt Overstreet's grading standards.[11] In October of that year, CGC President Steve Eichenbaum stated that although the company had adopted the Overstreet standards, CGC's standards remained unchanged. Eichenbaum cited the 2002 publication of the 2nd edition of The Official Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide – with input from CGC's graders – as the reason for the July announcement, stating that "there is now little difference between Overstreet and CGC."[12] In reporting on the subject, Comics Buyer's Guide reporter Nathan Melby asked, "Who adopted whose standards?"[12] According to Mile High Comics owner Chuck Rozanski, prior to the publication of the new grading guide, Overstreet was negotiating a "middle ground" between the standards established in their 1992 guide and the stricter CGC standards. Rozanski questioned the wisdom of changing Overstreet's standards – which could greatly lower the value of several collections – in order to achieve a "political solution" with CGC.[13] In September 2003, CGC changed the labels it puts on graded comics, removing most descriptive terms used by Overstreet ("near mint", "fair", etc.), instead using just CGC's own numeric grading scale.[14] On CGC's message board, the company's then-President Steve Borock explained that this change was made so that the numeric grade would be larger and easier to see. He added that the descriptive terms which were removed are becoming obsolete.[15] Overstreet now uses both the numeric point grade and the alpha descriptive grade in their annual price guide and their official grading guide.[16] Likewise, CGC's grading guide now lists the corresponding descriptive grade next to the numeric grade.[7]

from the wikipedia page. what a convoluted paragraph eh? notice the political aspect. Those are not even my words. Others used the term.

politics: Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

retarded eh?

Yes, you are. But I'm also willing to believe you may have some extra water in the brain.

Boozad · February 19, 2010

Now that I have been told CGC does not use Overstreet as a basis for grading, believe IMO, there is a problem, when a company represents a book as CGC 9.4 and states Overstreet says $value in 9.2. But has absolutely nothing to do with Overstreet value.

It's a great book, but it's not 9.4 according to overstreet. Yet will be judged and sold according to overstreet.

Who has stated Overstreet prices? You keep saying this like it's CGC's fault about the pricing of a book, it's down to the seller how he prices it. As I said before, most people use GPA as a pricing reference for CGC graded comic books.

If you can explain why you keep saying this it would make things clearer, but as of yet it still makes no sense.

fc · February 19, 2010

Overstreet Grading Guide:
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Overstreet-Comic-Grading-Guide/dp/0375721061/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266560037&sr=8-2

Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Overstreet-Comic-Price-Guide/dp/0375723110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266560113&sr=1-1

I'd figure for someone that's been collecting comics for 30 years would know the difference between the two. Then again that would explain the 9.5723654 grades he gives books

the guy simply used those values to represent a comic that he thought could go

either way. he went even further by using those numbers to portray a comic that

he was leaning even more to one side.

it is quite common to do that in other collectible areas by very well known collectors.

l o l what? it is not very hard to understand.

fc · February 19, 2010

the creator of this thread made some excellent points and the MOST responders to this thread were
quite pathetic.

it is hilarious reading the same tired replies from the same people. their typical

defense when they know they are wrong. the OP made perfect sense in almost

every aspect of his posting.

his concerns are valid and obviously he does not drink the kool aid while most here

do.

I don't know about how valid the guy's points are but he did get a pretty crappy welcome right from the first page.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

Yeah but seriously Roy, the guy sets up a lame "grading contest" which is quickly exposed as a fabrication to rant about the grade CGC gave this book...so why the coyness and subterfuge, just come out and say what's on your mind...and then after that, SERIOUSLY, the guy was pretty unintelligible...the guy's on the couch and I'm his shrink and I still don't understand what he's sayin'

I don't know Tom. I think personally people were a little rough. He's obviously new here.

I got hammered as a PGX shill when I first started posting here years ago. People lay a beat down on me because I didn't agree or march in line with everyone here from day one.

I could be wrong but this guy could genuinely be trying to prove a point. He may just not be internet savvy enough to do it effectively.

I mean, nobody even really proved anything except that he's got somewhat of a sense of a humor and isn't that smooth at internet communication.

Is that enough evidence to lynch someone on?

hey.. do not defend the guy. you might be called a tool also by the peanut gallery.

he used a grading contest post to start the conversation. he wanted opinions on

the book before he gave his own. naturally before the first page was over he was

called a shill. (using the cgc forum definition which makes absolutely no sense

to someone new to the forum).

the original poster wanted to buy the book but the grade was so far off from what

he thought it should be he will probably pass. He listed the reasons he thought it was off.

His reasons made sense to me.

the original poster then has to wade through many nonsense posts of one liners

and stupid pictures found on the internet.

he then mentions he dislikes grading a new book any different then an old book. I

agree with him.

He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business.

I also find it humorous that there really is no guarantee. I know comics are fragile

and perhaps they will make good on any mistake.. but that is all up to them. This

it totally different then coins which NGC grades. They will eat a mistake with cash.

Money on the barrel head!!!

the original poster even states:

"& I'm not bashing anyone. I disagreed with "the opinion" placed on a book."

it is the regulars here doing all the bashing.

man i could go on and on.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

indeed.

"He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business."

Seriously, that line made me laugh. You're one funny dude, unless you weren't trying to make me laugh...then you're just pathetically retarded.

Not all experts agree with CGC's grades. The comic book store chain Mile High Comics offers their customers a refund if a comic book which they evaluated as "Near Mint" is given a lower grade by CGC.[10] For its part, Comics Guaranty LLC has been tight-lipped about its grading standards. In 2001, when the Comics Buyer's Guide changed its "Price Index" column to add Overstreet's grading definitions to CGC's grades, CGC requested that this change be reversed, stating that Overstreet's definitions were not necessarily the same as its own. When asked by the Comics Buyer's Guide to clarify its definitions, CGC declined. However, in July 2003, CGC announced that it had decided to fully adopt Overstreet's grading standards.[11] In October of that year, CGC President Steve Eichenbaum stated that although the company had adopted the Overstreet standards, CGC's standards remained unchanged. Eichenbaum cited the 2002 publication of the 2nd edition of The Official Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide – with input from CGC's graders – as the reason for the July announcement, stating that "there is now little difference between Overstreet and CGC."[12] In reporting on the subject, Comics Buyer's Guide reporter Nathan Melby asked, "Who adopted whose standards?"[12] According to Mile High Comics owner Chuck Rozanski, prior to the publication of the new grading guide, Overstreet was negotiating a "middle ground" between the standards established in their 1992 guide and the stricter CGC standards. Rozanski questioned the wisdom of changing Overstreet's standards – which could greatly lower the value of several collections – in order to achieve a "political solution" with CGC.[13] In September 2003, CGC changed the labels it puts on graded comics, removing most descriptive terms used by Overstreet ("near mint", "fair", etc.), instead using just CGC's own numeric grading scale.[14] On CGC's message board, the company's then-President Steve Borock explained that this change was made so that the numeric grade would be larger and easier to see. He added that the descriptive terms which were removed are becoming obsolete.[15] Overstreet now uses both the numeric point grade and the alpha descriptive grade in their annual price guide and their official grading guide.[16] Likewise, CGC's grading guide now lists the corresponding descriptive grade next to the numeric grade.[7]

from the wikipedia page. what a convoluted paragraph eh? notice the political aspect. Those are not even my words. Others used the term.

politics: Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

retarded eh?

Yes, you are. But I'm also willing to believe you may have some extra water in the brain.

i give up. feel free to call me names. i do not mind.

Count · February 19, 2010

I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER COLLECTIBLE AREAS.

We are talking COMICS HERE. He's been collecting comics FOR 30 YEARS...WHERE? ON MARS?

Paratrooper · February 19, 2010

the creator of this thread made some excellent points and the MOST responders to this thread were
quite pathetic.

it is hilarious reading the same tired replies from the same people. their typical

defense when they know they are wrong. the OP made perfect sense in almost

every aspect of his posting.

his concerns are valid and obviously he does not drink the kool aid while most here

do.

I don't know about how valid the guy's points are but he did get a pretty crappy welcome right from the first page.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

Yeah but seriously Roy, the guy sets up a lame "grading contest" which is quickly exposed as a fabrication to rant about the grade CGC gave this book...so why the coyness and subterfuge, just come out and say what's on your mind...and then after that, SERIOUSLY, the guy was pretty unintelligible...the guy's on the couch and I'm his shrink and I still don't understand what he's sayin'

I don't know Tom. I think personally people were a little rough. He's obviously new here.

I got hammered as a PGX shill when I first started posting here years ago. People lay a beat down on me because I didn't agree or march in line with everyone here from day one.

I could be wrong but this guy could genuinely be trying to prove a point. He may just not be internet savvy enough to do it effectively.

I mean, nobody even really proved anything except that he's got somewhat of a sense of a humor and isn't that smooth at internet communication.

Is that enough evidence to lynch someone on?

hey.. do not defend the guy. you might be called a tool also by the peanut gallery.

he used a grading contest post to start the conversation. he wanted opinions on

the book before he gave his own. naturally before the first page was over he was

called a shill. (using the cgc forum definition which makes absolutely no sense

to someone new to the forum).

the original poster wanted to buy the book but the grade was so far off from what

he thought it should be he will probably pass. He listed the reasons he thought it was off.

His reasons made sense to me.

the original poster then has to wade through many nonsense posts of one liners

and stupid pictures found on the internet.

he then mentions he dislikes grading a new book any different then an old book. I

agree with him.

He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business.

I also find it humorous that there really is no guarantee. I know comics are fragile

and perhaps they will make good on any mistake.. but that is all up to them. This

it totally different then coins which NGC grades. They will eat a mistake with cash.

Money on the barrel head!!!

the original poster even states:

"& I'm not bashing anyone. I disagreed with "the opinion" placed on a book."

it is the regulars here doing all the bashing.

man i could go on and on.

What's the matter with you people? Seriously.

indeed.

"He is very correct that grading companies involve politics in their day to day business."

Seriously, that line made me laugh. You're one funny dude, unless you weren't trying to make me laugh...then you're just pathetically retarded.

Not all experts agree with CGC's grades. The comic book store chain Mile High Comics offers their customers a refund if a comic book which they evaluated as "Near Mint" is given a lower grade by CGC.[10] For its part, Comics Guaranty LLC has been tight-lipped about its grading standards. In 2001, when the Comics Buyer's Guide changed its "Price Index" column to add Overstreet's grading definitions to CGC's grades, CGC requested that this change be reversed, stating that Overstreet's definitions were not necessarily the same as its own. When asked by the Comics Buyer's Guide to clarify its definitions, CGC declined. However, in July 2003, CGC announced that it had decided to fully adopt Overstreet's grading standards.[11] In October of that year, CGC President Steve Eichenbaum stated that although the company had adopted the Overstreet standards, CGC's standards remained unchanged. Eichenbaum cited the 2002 publication of the 2nd edition of The Official Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide – with input from CGC's graders – as the reason for the July announcement, stating that "there is now little difference between Overstreet and CGC."[12] In reporting on the subject, Comics Buyer's Guide reporter Nathan Melby asked, "Who adopted whose standards?"[12] According to Mile High Comics owner Chuck Rozanski, prior to the publication of the new grading guide, Overstreet was negotiating a "middle ground" between the standards established in their 1992 guide and the stricter CGC standards. Rozanski questioned the wisdom of changing Overstreet's standards – which could greatly lower the value of several collections – in order to achieve a "political solution" with CGC.[13] In September 2003, CGC changed the labels it puts on graded comics, removing most descriptive terms used by Overstreet ("near mint", "fair", etc.), instead using just CGC's own numeric grading scale.[14] On CGC's message board, the company's then-President Steve Borock explained that this change was made so that the numeric grade would be larger and easier to see. He added that the descriptive terms which were removed are becoming obsolete.[15] Overstreet now uses both the numeric point grade and the alpha descriptive grade in their annual price guide and their official grading guide.[16] Likewise, CGC's grading guide now lists the corresponding descriptive grade next to the numeric grade.[7]

from the wikipedia page. what a convoluted paragraph eh? notice the political aspect. Those are not even my words. Others used the term.

politics: Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

retarded eh?

Yes, you are. But I'm also willing to believe you may have some extra water in the brain.

i give up. feel free to call me names. i do not mind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you names. I'm just making an assessment of your mental acuity. I have judged by your recent posts that you may need some psychiatric help.

fc · February 19, 2010

I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER COLLECTIBLE AREAS.

We are talking COMICS HERE. He's been collecting comics FOR 30 YEARS...WHERE? ON MARS?

he does not expect a third party grading company of comics to use it. it was his

way to describe things in more detail.

it is no different then when people used the grade "fine". they decided down the

road that was not good enough so they created "fine-", "fine", and "fine+.

He is just doing that with numbers. 5.25 is to him, a PQ 5.0.

5.375 is, to him, a PQ 5.0 with a shot for 5.5 and he leans more that way versus

5.0.

maybe only Martians can understand this easy concept.

thehumantorch · February 19, 2010

Now that I have been told CGC does not use Overstreet as a basis for grading, believe IMO, there is a problem, when a company represents a book as CGC 9.4 and states Overstreet says $value in 9.2. But has absolutely nothing to do with Overstreet value.

It's a great book, but it's not 9.4 according to overstreet. Yet will be judged and sold according to overstreet.

Who has stated Overstreet prices? You keep saying this like it's CGC's fault about the pricing of a book, it's down to the seller how he prices it. As I said before, most people use GPA as a pricing reference for CGC graded comic books.

If you can explain why you keep saying this it would make things clearer, but as of yet it still makes no sense.

I believe the OP put up a image of a book on Heritage and then wondered why Heritage would quote Overstreet values for a CGC graded book.

As a guideline for those that follow Overstreet values.

fc · February 19, 2010

Folks, I found this forum because I had a question about what a grade could be if a comic is mint and has rusty staples. I did not come here to bash anyone. I was curious to get other's opinions. In fact was inspired to start this thread by reading another that had to do with losing .5 of grade when a book was submitted for re-evaluation.

I assumed the CGC, since they say "universal grade" on the top of the label, uses OVERSTREET grading guidlines, but now know differently. (if what you said is true) I am glad to know this. Thank you.

Now that I have been told CGC does not use Overstreet as a basis for grading, believe IMO, there is a problem, when a company represents a book as CGC 9.4 and states Overstreet says $value in 9.2. But has absolutely nothing to do with Overstreet value.

It's a great book, but it's not 9.4 according to overstreet. Yet will be judged and sold according to overstreet.

well at least you got something from this thread besides abuse ;-)

casarachi · February 19, 2010

I have the overstreet 2009 in my hands, and most people use overstreet by the way,

and I quote:

1. "9.4 NEAR MINT (NM): Nearly perfect with only minor imperfections that keep it from the next higher grde. The overall look is "as if it were purchased and read once or twice"

________

This book does not "look as if it were purchased". I never purchased a new book that had a sun-shadow. have you?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. ""Cover is flat with no surface wear"

________

what is a sun shadow? Not surface wear? It is BEATEN by the sun!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. "Small, inconspicuous, lightly penciled, stamped or inked arrival dates are acceptable as long as they are in an unobtrusive location."

_______

The pencil is NOT an arrival date. The grade where pencil otherthan arrival dates is allowed is in VG. If it were from a pedigree collection, this wouldn't apply. It's not.

Overstreet VG says "store stamps, name stamps,arrival dates,initials, have no effect on this grade."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4. "No soiling, staining or other discoloration apart from slight foxing"

_______

a sun shadow is not "discoloration?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

***********

..... I believe this book should have at most received a "qualified" label because of the pencil alone. Yet achieved "best comic in the census".

If you go by this, the book is VG in universal.

if I go by CGC's website...

A Qualified label is used by CGC for certified books that have a significant defect that needs specific description, or to note an unauthenticated signature (one which was not witnessed by CGC). For example, it would be a disservice to the seller and buyer to call a VF/NM book with a 4-inch back cover tear a VG, so CGC will give this book a Qualified grade of "VF/NM 9.0, back cover 4-inch tear." Or, if the book is signed on the cover it may be noted as "Name Written on Cover."

___________

conclusion, how did this book get 9.4?

please tell me.

What is the justification?

I believe MOST collectors THINK the CGC goes by Overstreet. I did until today. I thought sure, graders make mistakes but didn't realize they have their own book. I'd like to see a copy. But it doesn't exist! How can they be consistent if they don't?

When someone is paying $50,000 extra for a book, I hope they go by the book. But there isn't one.

I'd almost bet if people knew they didn't use overstreet, they wouldn't pay overstreet +.

What is really odd here is no one has given ANY comments disputing the grade. No 9.2's and no 9.6's. :whatev:

Archived

Guess the grade game!

310 posts in this topic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites