Thoughts on CGC GRADING (((POLL)))

[Darthdiesel]

A 9.4 modern is something that would upset Darth as being a waste of time.

 

Dang, got me definitely pegged there Joanna. But reasons for this sentiment may be different from what most people perceive. 9.4 moderns are pretty much what comes from freshly opened cases weekly of new books, even taking into account the horrid pack and ship jobs by Daimond and their warehouse sweatshop workers. Once handled brusquely and shelved by the inept underlings (who are hired for their skills at running Mage Knight and Yu-gi-oh tournaments) at local comic specialty shops, they may still get the 9.4, so I find that a 9.4 CGC book, unless a Modern key in high demand or a Hot book without much current representation on the CGC census, is pretty much stuck in the sellers's hands and unmovable. We are talking about books newer than 1993....moderns from the early 80's until the McFarlane Spidey Age can still garner premiums and are worth slabbing ( except for those New Mutants that CI fondly relishes = Cable who? Soldeir X? Agent X? Which one is he now?)

 

A 9.4 Silver Age Spidey or X-Men, on the other hand, (or DC book, as we all know - a DC from the Silver Age has literally a snowball's chance in hell of getting over a 9.0, not b/c of any inherent bias of the CGC graders towards these books, but that DC collectors ust didn't protect their books as well as Marvel collectors back then ) may get as high as over $100 routinely, even for non-keys.

 

If somehow 9.4 moderns (year 2000 thru today) gain some foothold in the market where they are returning some profit, then I may revisit them again. Until that time, any 9.4 non keys are basically giveaways with my 9.8s CGC sales or $1 starting bid auctions...

 

[CosmicBob]

If it turns out that true 9.4NM are almost non-existent and 9.0 - 9.2 is pretty much as high as most GA is going to get, then so be it.

 

And that way, if a Golden Age comic ever does show up as a 9.4NM, it's really something important. Because you know that the 9.4 Action Comics #1 that you have is in the same condition as the 9.4 Action Comics #700, regardless of the fact that one was published in 1938 and the other one sixty or so years later.

[comicinvestor-migration]

That Bob, would be very, very poor marketing, regardless of its overall merit.

 

It's far easier just to grade relative to age, thereby assuring that the NM Collectors will have quite a few books (of all Ages) to fight over.

[Joanna]

All Im saying is that defects are defects any way you look at them. I agree that there are differences in material and that should be taken into account BUT a crease is a crease and a tear is a tear if it happened 60 years ago or 60 days ago. Thats the grading criteria that I was talking about.

 

Creases and tears ARE graded the same on GA, SA and modern. Those are easy. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about things that don't compare, that simply aren't seen on modern books because they're modern.

 

This is what I mean by the sampling is too small. Very few GA above 9.+ added to almost no moderns below 9.+ = where are these comparisons being drawn? Is 9.+ the ONLY grade? That's what it sounds like. That if it isn't a 9.+, it doesn't count.

 

And that is precisely why there have to be GA 9.+ books.

 

Pov, I understand what you mean, but CI is more in line with reality. If there were no 9.+ GA books, and the top level any GA book could ever hope to achieve is, say, 7.0, then collectors would still hold off, waiting for those higher grades. Even if they were told that 7.0 is the top of the scale, would they believe it? "Other eras get 9.'s, why not GA?" And then there'd be all sorts of threads saying that CGC scale is screwed up because there are different top marks for every era. "They should all be a 10 point scale, period."

 

So they have a 10 point scale for every era, and they grade the obvious things the same (tears, folds), but they have to take into account the different materials, and the influence of age. A 9.6 GA book is a 9.6 GA book. That means it meets the criteria for 9.6 modern, but doesnt' have to have shiny paper, can have more pages, be bigger, can have a heavier cover, can have newsprint pages, and so on.

 

If you want to compare defects like foxing, then show me a modern with foxing and we can tell if they're graded differently. Or dust shadows. Or rusted staples. And so on. There are no graded moderns with these defects, so how can we know they're graded differently?

 

-- Joanna

[CosmicBob]

I agree that is what they do. But suppose, by chance, some awesomely beautiful copy of Action #1 shows up. One that should grade 9.4, but they've graded stuff like that Action #25 a 9.6 so they can only go to 9.8, 9.9 or 10.0. How can it be justified?

 

I'm not arguing that they don't grade relatively, or that it's good for business, I'm just saying it's not consistent (to me) and it's not they way I would do it, if I were running CGC.

[comicinvestor-migration]

If you want to compare defects like foxing, then show me a modern with foxing and we can tell if they're graded differently. Or dust shadows. Or rusted staples. And so on. There are no graded moderns with these defects, so how can we know they're graded differently?

 

That's not true, and I know of a collector who sent a few pristine NM/M Bronze Keys into be graded and they came back 5.0-6.0. He almost crapped a brick, called CGC to complain... and was asked to look at the back of the comics.

 

The staples had rusted while in storage, leaving visible stains on the back of each book. That was the only defect on otherwise unread comics.

 

I've also seen comics like this on EBay from time to time.

[Joanna]

CI, I didn't say Bronze, I said Modern, as this was the basis of the complaint.

 

Okay, let's play it differently. I'll give you a list of defects, and you tell me the grade if it were gold, then silver, then bronze, then modern. Ready?

 

1st book: The book has full, rich colors, no folds, everything solidly attached, staples are pristine, but there are 2 stress marks near the top staple (hairline color break), and a minor dust shadow on the back. Off-white pages.

 

2nd book: A 1/8" fold on the bottom left corner, everything else is perfect. White pages.

 

3rd book: blunted left corner, everything else is perfect. Off-white to white pages.

 

4th book: 7 folds, a 1/4" tear, slight foxing, dust shadow, 13 spine ticks, cream pages.

 

These are made-up defects, but judging from what you've observed of the grading differences between eras, what do you think the grades would be?

 

-- Joanna

 

 

[The_Man_Of_Steel]

The [darker] green on the left of Superman along the spine, looks almost identical to the green under the "10 Cent" logo, the green lines in the "wake/ray of light", appear to be part of the downward motion of Superman, the same green lines are on the right side of Superman as well. As far as foxing is concerned, without being able to look at the suface of the book at the right angle under light (especially considering that green/yellow are part of the color scheme), I don't know, you might have better luck asking one of the CGC graders around here that graded the book.

 

I'm surprised that some of you are looking at the book more carefully than I did initially (that's a good thing though). What really impressed me when I first looked at it, were the sharp edges/corners, the spine, and the bright white ray of Superman's downward motion on the cover. Check out other Gold books, many of them have a dust shadow, where this book is bright.

 

Maybe Murph0 could give me a loan?

[murph0]

Personally, I think they SHOULD be harsher on new books..old books have had more time to be damaged..these are coming off the presses and into a slab. Are they actually tougher on new comics? I would hope they are, but I'd guess they wouldn't be. Once the back issue selection dries up, all they'll have left to grade are new books..and if they are too hard on them..that will slow down also.,

 

Brian

[Rickdogg]

If you look at the whole picture...I would say that CGC is currently tougher on modern books compared to other eras for obvious reasons. I am just curious about the reasons why you believe that CGC should be this way. I don't see the reasoning behind victimizing a book with tough grading standards since it is fresh off the press justifies a tough grading standard to be imposed on it.

[murph0]

I believe that the BEST book that is 30 years old..equates to the worst book printed today. So it should be graded more closely. 30 years can do damage to a book even if it's secured in a vault in Antartica.

 

Brian

[drbanner]

Hey drbanner, you essentially wrote what I wrote.

 

Hardly, you're saying that CGC grades differently to make more money:

 

The reason they do this is because it is required to sell CGC comics.

 

I'm saying CGC grades differently out of necessity. This is where your conspiracy bs comes into play....again. I don't believe that's true at all and chalk it up to another CGC-bashing comment ("CGC is looking to make money so they grade golden age more leniently.") The market doesn't drive the grading standards, the grading standards do.

[comicinvestor-migration]

This is a chicken and the egg kind of deal. I'm interested in what altruistic reasons CGC has to grade a Golden Age book more leniently than a Modern?

 

If it's not pure marketing (which was around before CGC), thereby ensuring a supply of NM books in all eras, what is the reason?

[fantastic_four]

30 years can do damage to a book even if it's secured in a vault in Antartica.

Then how do you explain Gold and Silver age comics that are 9.8 or better with white pages? CGC leniency?

 

Please, before this metaphysical discussion about physical fact goes any further...somebody post a scan of a CGC 9.4 or better old comic with these horrendous VF-level defects I keep hearing about! I still haven't seen one yet. And no pointing out those eye appeal features that Overstreet has always allowed in the NM grade, such as slight cover offset, date stamps/writing, translucency, etc. Take that debate to the yearly Overstreet meetings, because arguing that in this forum is mostly an effort in preaching to the choir.

[drbanner]

somebody post a scan of a CGC 9.4 or better old comic with these horrendous VF-level defects I keep hearing about! I still haven't seen one yet.

 

Me either...still waiting for scans of these mystery leniently-graded golden age books as well.

 

However, as you were one of the participants in my "Grading the Golden Age II" thread, I know we've all seen CGC Golden Age 4/5/6's that looked like 6/7/8's (and even 9's to Scottish!). And as I mentioned previously in this thread, I have plenty of examples of silver/bronze age books that also appear to have been graded leniently, like this book - the best known copy of Hulk 122 (9.6, White pages) with a bindery tear at the top of the spine, an off-center cover, distributors ink overspray, and a date stamp. Like the Adventure 431 and Phantom Stranger 1, I submitted this book myself and don't have to rely on second hand information to have an idea of what this book looked like in person.

 

[fantastic_four]

Would you grade that any lower than 9.4? The bindery tear looks tiny from the scan--possibly as small as 1/32". That alone looks consistent with the 9.6 grade.

 

As for the cover offset--take it to the Overstreet meetings; CGC gives grades all the way up to 9.8, possibly even 9.9, with a slight offset. They've been consistent on that.

 

The ink overspray has always made me wonder. We're in uncharted Overstreet territory with overspray, I think; I can't remember any instance where he noted it or showed an example in the grading guide about it. How much do you think it should knock off from a grade? I'm not sure. I'm thinking that as long as it's not prominently placed and doesn't obscure the cover graphics, then it's an extremely minor defect. Should it be allowable in grades above 9.4? Well not on a 9.9 and 10.0, definitely not. 9.6 and 9.8? Not sure...

[Rickdogg]

I don't have a huge collection to show all of these examples. I wish I still had a scan of the Sub-mariner #1 CGC 9.0 that I sold about 6 weeks ago. I couldn't believe my eyes when it arrived in the mail. 9.0 with a horrible miscut, rounded corners, edge wear (don't remember how bad exactly), and spine stress marks that broke color, and cream pages (which was noted off white). I don't remember the book exactly, but I remember thinking..."damn! I would have given this a 7.0-7.5 at best!" So guess what, it went on ebay in a hearbeat. The same day it arrived

[aardvark88]

Here's a GIFT fr Cgc to me. Atomic age Feb/1951 cgc 6.5 that I thought should have been 5.5 at best. Name stamp on 1st pg, ow paper, miscut top right edge length, slight spine roll & 3/8 inch top staple RIP on front cvr ! Sold on eBay 14 days ago for 40% discount off FN condition Ostreet to a gr8ful Cdn collector. She was just happy to fill in her 50s DC sci-fi collection w/ the confidence of the Cgc resto check having been done.

[Bugaboo-migration]

I agree with you. My copy of Action Comics is, at best, a 7.5 but they were WAY lenient and gave me a huge break with an 8.5 VF+. Although they did slam me with the "rusted staples" comment. What would you guys have graded it at?

 

 

 

[drbanner]

I wish I still had a scan of the Sub-mariner #1 CGC 9.0 that I sold about 6 weeks ago. I couldn't believe my eyes when it arrived in the mail. 9.0 with a horrible miscut, rounded corners, edge wear (don't remember how bad exactly), and spine stress marks that broke color, and cream pages (which was noted off white).

 

So does this mean we can put you down in the "CGC doesn't grade silver/bronze any more leniently than gold" camp?