Time to Stir the pot... Overstreet grading vs CGC grading

[WEBHEAD]

I try and follow CGC grading as my personal standard, but I'll take eye appeal any day over technical grade.

 

Ahhh how could your really follow their grading when there is no "written policy"

 

 

 

WEBHEAD

[fantastic_four]

I dunno, I think CGC has deviated somewhat from OPG in the 2.5 - 5.0/6.0 (maybe even up to 7.0) range for SA and BA in that they're a bit rougher on those books. Or so it seems. I haven't owned that many of them and maybe they've gotten nicer over the years.

 

CGC definitely differs from Overstreet on certain defects, just not many. They share 80% or more of the same ideas, but the standards aren't identical.

[fantastic_four]

Another to use a corporate "lingo" is CGC a six sigma business (this means zero defects) if so what sigma might you give to them?

 

CGC isn't a corporation, and back issue comics isn't an industry that will ever land a company in the Fortune 1000, or even the Fortune 5000 if they made the list that long. Your expectations are unrealistic...you're applying large-company lingo and standards to a very tiny company, which doesn't work, tiny companies never have the time or resources to get Six Sigma certified or fully document their processes. I'll be shocked if CGC is even in business in 30 or 40 years, the comics industry is a bit of a ticking time bomb. If there's a significant deflation over the next decade or two like cards or coins have suffered in the past, it's entirely likely CGC wouldn't survive it--we'd have to all cross our fingers.

[Davenport]

I think there's a MAJOR difference in Overstreet and CGC grading systems, or there was before Overstreet and CGC aligned as marketing partners.

 

Overstreet evolved as a system-for-all. A kind of shorthand for communicating condition. While CGC evolved to be selling-centric, using caveats, considerations, and overemphasis/underemphasis.

 

CGC seems to be a scale unto itself, placing a CGC graded book in context of all like-issues CGC has graded to date.

 

Overstreet is (was) a Preservation Scale, CGC seems to be an unpublished Placement Scale. Huge difference, imho.

[fantastic_four]

I think there's a MAJOR difference in Overstreet and CGC grading systems, or there was before Overstreet and CGC aligned as marketing partners.

 

Overstreet evolved as a system-for-all. A kind of shorthand for communicating condition. While CGC evolved to be selling-centric, using caveats, considerations, and overemphasis/underemphasis.

 

CGC seems to be a scale unto itself, placing a CGC graded book in context of all like-issues CGC has graded to date.

 

Overstreet is (was) a Preservation Scale, CGC seems to be an unpublished Placement Scale. Huge difference, imho.

 

Borock was an open guy who liked discussing grading and learning from the opinions of other graders before he joined CGC, and Overstreet wrote his desires for a certification company to rise in comics years before CGC started, so I suspect these two guys were aligned in spirit before CGC started grading books.

 

I don't get your meaning behind the "preservation" versus "placement" observation, nor can I guess what led you to it, particularly given the obvious degree that Borock and Overstreet have influenced each other.

[Boboset]

I try and follow CGC grading as my personal standard, but I'll take eye appeal any day over technical grade.

 

Ahhh how could your really follow their grading when there is no "written policy"

 

 

 

WEBHEAD

By seeing enough examples and interpreting it into a workable system. It's like the PGM section applied to my entire collection.

 

I see where you're going with this and I sympathize. However, it's in CGCs best interests to keep their standards concealed.

 

[Davenport]

 

I don't get your meaning behind the "preservation" versus "placement" observation, nor can I guess what led you to it, particularly given the obvious degree that Borock and Overstreet have influenced each other.

For discussion's sake... Overstreet NM- vs. CGC 9.2

 

First of all, seller's didn't like minus anything, so...gone. Thinking "nearly mint, minus" or "as published, with a minor exception" is irrelevant. Overstreet may describe NM- preservation as "Inks are bright", while a CGC 9.2 might allow for significant color fade. Those kinds of differences.

 

By "Placement" I mean it seems CGC grades an issue, not strictly on preservation, but in relation to every same-issue CGC has previously graded using their own standards.

 

Make sense? Say an Amazing Spider-man #50, it will be placed somewhere within the context of every Amazing Spider-man #50 CGC has already evaluated using their standards. It places any Amazing Spider-man #50 among all it's peers CGC has previously eyeballed. Something you can't do unless (A) you've inspected thousands of ASM 50s and (B) have insider knowledge of CGC standards.

 

 

[DiceX]

In my experiences, a lot of dealers use one set of standards when they're buying, and a totally different set for when they're selling.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

 

I don't get your meaning behind the "preservation" versus "placement" observation, nor can I guess what led you to it, particularly given the obvious degree that Borock and Overstreet have influenced each other.

For discussion's sake... Overstreet NM- vs. CGC 9.2

 

First of all, seller's didn't like minus anything, so...gone. Thinking "nearly mint, minus" or "as published, with a minor exception" is irrelevant. Overstreet may describe NM- preservation as "Inks are bright", while a CGC 9.2 might allow for significant color fade. Those kinds of differences.

 

By "Placement" I mean it seems CGC grades an issue, not strictly on preservation, but in relation to every same-issue CGC has previously graded using their own standards.

 

Make sense? Say an Amazing Spider-man #50, it will be placed somewhere within the context of every Amazing Spider-man #50 CGC has already evaluated using their standards. It places any Amazing Spider-man #50 among all it's peers CGC has previously eyeballed. Something you can't do unless (A) you've inspected thousands of ASM 50s and (B) have insider knowledge of CGC standards.

 

 

Given the limits of human memory, I can't imagine any of the graders could ever remember all the previous Spidey 50s they've graded, but even if they did, I similarly can't imagine why they'd think the grades given to that specific issue and title would matter. When I grade, I just think about defects and where I've seen those similar defects before...it could have been on another Spidey 50, or a Whiz 53, or a Strawberry Shortcake 3. The title and issues likely wouldn't matter as much as the same defects on any other book. They may do this kind of thing on mega-keys, but I doubt they'd do it on a Spidey 50.

 

But if even if they did do this, I don't see it as a "versus" situation. CGC *MIGHT* "place" books as you suggest, but they also grade them on preservation/defects--doing those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Not sure how it would be either/or...if they were "placing," they'd also be grading based upon preservation. And if Overstreet saw as many books as CGC does, he might begin "placing," also.

[JasonNewcomb]

I'll give my small opinion here. I am learning to grade a blend of overstreet and my LCS's way. Basically the only market I trade, buy and sell into happens in my local scene so something that might be a certain grade according to overstreet, CGC or myself might be another one according to my LCS or local collectors. Basically I just try to assess the condition of a book according to if I can buy or sell it around here.

 

Could be problematic if you ever leave your local area though or try to sell your books. One of the LCSs near where I lived is NOTORIOUS for cover grading. I wouldn't swear to it but I think I even remember hearing something to the effect that most of the grade is in the cover itself! I'm not saying your store is grossly negligent like that, but it force you into a more limited POV through adopting the biases of one particular owner/store---even if they are generally good at grading.

 

Good advice guys! From what I can tell the shop guy is pretty fair and reasonable. He opens up the books and takes a little time with each one but he doesn't drop the gavel too quickly.

 

I ordered the overstreet so I can continue educating myself. And I hope to go to some other shops in town and to other shops in the province. Not too many. I wanna take it slow on-line. One step at a time.

 

Any advice you offer will be ravenously read and pondered.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

This is exactly what I mean, I've seen books that according to Overstreet's standard would be a 7.0 or 6.5 show up as a 6.0 which is a significant drop in investment value.

 

How many times do I need to say this? It seems like I repeat this over and over and over again. Well...I guess until everyone gets it through their heads.

 

And this is nothing personal against you, Webby; you're certainly not the only one who does this.

 

You're talking about QUARTER and HALF grade differences in grades. The difference between a 6.5 and 6.0...and even a 6.0 and 7.0....is SUBJECTIVE.

 

No one...not CGC, not the greatest grader in the world, NO ONE...can grade a book exactly the same every single time it appears before them, ESPECIALLY in mid and low grades. What may be a 6.5 on one day could easily be a 6.0 or 7.0 on another day.

 

The REAL problem here is NOT CGC's "grading variances"...it's the utterly irational price differences the market has created between points.

 

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

 

When slab buyers en masse decide that a 7.0 isn't worth multiples of a 6.0, or a 9.2 isn't worth multiples of an 8.5, because the physical differences between these points is subtle AT BEST (if not totally non-existant in some cases!), then the problem will be solved.

 

It's not CGC's "apparent" lack of consistency that's the problem...it's the market's utterly ridicuous response to the number on the label that is. Once that's fixed...problem solved.

[oakman29]

 

 

This is exactly what I mean, I've seen books that according to Overstreet's standard would be a 7.0 or 6.5 show up as a 6.0 which is a significant drop in investment value.

 

How many times do I need to say this? It seems like I repeat this over and over and over again. Well...I guess until everyone gets it through their heads.

 

And this is nothing personal against you, Webby; you're certainly not the only one who does this.

 

You're talking about QUARTER and HALF grade differences in grades. The difference between a 6.5 and 6.0...and even a 6.0 and 7.0....is SUBJECTIVE.

 

No one...not CGC, not the greatest grader in the world, NO ONE...can grade a book exactly the same every single time it appears before them, ESPECIALLY in mid and low grades. What may be a 6.5 on one day could easily be a 6.0 or 7.0 on another day.

 

The REAL problem here is NOT CGC's "grading variances"...it's the utterly irational price differences the market has created between points.

 

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

 

When slab buyers en masses decide that a 7.0 isn't worth multiples of a 6.0, or a 9.2 isn't worth multiples of an 8.5, because the physical differences between these points is subtle AT BEST (if not totally non-existant in some cases!), then the problem will be solved.

 

It's not CGC's "apparent" lack of consistency that's the problem...it's the market's utterly ridicuous response to the number on the label that is. Once that's fixed...problem solved.

 

Amen! I would like to see the graders notes sent with submissions upon their return.

[WEBHEAD]

 

 

This is exactly what I mean, I've seen books that according to Overstreet's standard would be a 7.0 or 6.5 show up as a 6.0 which is a significant drop in investment value.

 

How many times do I need to say this? It seems like I repeat this over and over and over again. Well...I guess until everyone gets it through their heads.

 

And this is nothing personal against you, Webby; you're certainly not the only one who does this.

 

You're talking about QUARTER and HALF grade differences in grades. The difference between a 6.5 and 6.0...and even a 6.0 and 7.0....is SUBJECTIVE.

 

No one...not CGC, not the greatest grader in the world, NO ONE...can grade a book exactly the same every single time it appears before them, ESPECIALLY in mid and low grades. What may be a 6.5 on one day could easily be a 6.0 or 7.0 on another day.

 

The REAL problem here is NOT CGC's "grading variances"...it's the utterly irational price differences the market has created between points.

 

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

 

When slab buyers en masses decide that a 7.0 isn't worth multiples of a 6.0, or a 9.2 isn't worth multiples of an 8.5, because the physical differences between these points is subtle AT BEST (if not totally non-existant in some cases!), then the problem will be solved.

 

It's not CGC's "apparent" lack of consistency that's the problem...it's the market's utterly ridicuous response to the number on the label that is. Once that's fixed...problem solved.

 

Amen! I would like to see the graders notes sent with submissions upon their return.

 

Considering how much we pay to have the book graded this should SOP

 

 

WEBHEAD

 

[jerome34]

One thing that helps (at least for issues I am not familiar with) is to grade the book

before you look at any price guide. That way when you grade two books as VG and

then look them up to find that one is $10 in good and the other is $500 in good, you

price them properly. If you look up the books first, you might be tempted to grade one

of them as VG+. Alas, as you gain experience, the number of books you can grade

without having any idea of their value decreases. This helps the beginner while you are

learning.

 

At times I get asked about how does one become a good grader. I tell them to aim for

consistency first. To do this, I suggest taking about 10 books where some look to be

high grade, some look to be medium grade and some look to be low grade. Grade

them and then shuffle the books and put them away for a week. Repeat the grade and

shuffle several times and keep the lists of books separate.

 

After you have done this several times, get out the stack of lists and build a table of

books versus grades. Then inspect the lasts of grades for each book. Any book have

a unusually high grade? If so, what did you miss the time it got the high grade. Any

book have an unusually low grade? What did you miss most times you looked at the

books.

 

If you do this several times choosing a different set of books each set of grading trials,

you will become consistent. Then, if you try to sell books to your LCS or to an

individual, they can look at a few books and get a general idea as to how your

grades match up with theirs. That makes sales a lot easier. You will also get feedback

to help you adjust your grading to be more in line with the grading of others.

 

I also point out that grading is subjective. You will never be perfect and neither will

anyone else. I use the concept of "engineering accuracy" in that if one accurate grader

calls a book VG, other accurate graders should call it somewhere between VG- (or,

maybe, G/VG) and VG+ (or maybe VG/F). On the CGC selected number values, the

second grader should come in with the first grader's number plus or minus two "ticks."

(In mid range one value of n is close to n+1 or n-1; at the high end, a 9.4 would be

close to anything from 9.0 to 9.8.) Personally, I stay away from the real high grades

and would not attempt to come up with anything above 9.0; with the range of grades I

think of as 'engineering accuracy' I am sure a lot of high end graders are very happy that

I stay away from such numbers.

 

I leave such super high grades to others. If that means that when I sell books, I leave

a lot of money on the table, that is OK with me. I am not here to make a lot of money

-- and have lots of low incomes to prove it.

[The Less Blob]

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

****

 

How often does this happen except on some rare book where 7.0 may make it the highest graded copy?

 

It happens at 9.0 - 9.8, that's for sure. we have a poster here bemoaning getting a 9.4 back on his DD 174 and the book being "worthless". while i don't think it should be worth a whole lot, it's not like the average copy of 174 is a 9.4. hit the long boxes and buy a bunch of raw copies and they're more likely to be 7 - 8.5s.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

****

 

How often does this happen except on some rare book where 7.0 may make it the highest graded copy?

 

It happens at 9.0 - 9.8, that's for sure. we have a poster here bemoaning getting a 9.4 back on his DD 174 and the book being "worthless". while i don't think it should be worth a whole lot, it's not like the average copy of 174 is a 9.4. hit the long boxes and buy a bunch of raw copies and they're more likely to be 7 - 8.5s.

 

 

Work with me, blobby....it's just an example...

 

(thumbs u

[ComicConnoisseur]

 

 

This is exactly what I mean, I've seen books that according to Overstreet's standard would be a 7.0 or 6.5 show up as a 6.0 which is a significant drop in investment value.

 

How many times do I need to say this? It seems like I repeat this over and over and over again. Well...I guess until everyone gets it through their heads.

 

And this is nothing personal against you, Webby; you're certainly not the only one who does this.

 

You're talking about QUARTER and HALF grade differences in grades. The difference between a 6.5 and 6.0...and even a 6.0 and 7.0....is SUBJECTIVE.

 

No one...not CGC, not the greatest grader in the world, NO ONE...can grade a book exactly the same every single time it appears before them, ESPECIALLY in mid and low grades. What may be a 6.5 on one day could easily be a 6.0 or 7.0 on another day.

 

The REAL problem here is NOT CGC's "grading variances"...it's the utterly irational price differences the market has created between points.

 

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

 

When slab buyers en masses decide that a 7.0 isn't worth multiples of a 6.0, or a 9.2 isn't worth multiples of an 8.5, because the physical differences between these points is subtle AT BEST (if not totally non-existant in some cases!), then the problem will be solved.

 

It's not CGC's "apparent" lack of consistency that's the problem...it's the market's utterly ridicuous response to the number on the label that is. Once that's fixed...problem solved.

You are spot on right,that is the first thing I noticed in doing my research 6 months ago. Some people are buying the number on the label and are actually not looking at the book itself, if they did, they would save money. (thumbs u

[The Less Blob]

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

****

 

How often does this happen except on some rare book where 7.0 may make it the highest graded copy?

 

It happens at 9.0 - 9.8, that's for sure. we have a poster here bemoaning getting a 9.4 back on his DD 174 and the book being "worthless". while i don't think it should be worth a whole lot, it's not like the average copy of 174 is a 9.4. hit the long boxes and buy a bunch of raw copies and they're more likely to be 7 - 8.5s.

 

 

Work with me, blobby....it's just an example...

 

(thumbs u

 

It's just that I think there probably is some sort of internal rationale for 9.2 - 9.8 (the only 9.8 copper I've ever owned really did look perfect, whereas the 9.4...not so much, but looked a lot worse than a book i sold to a boardie here I figured was conservatively a 9.2 (which the boardie agreed with) that came back a disappointing 9.0) whereas in the mid-grades I think it's pretty random.

[oakman29]

 

 

This is exactly what I mean, I've seen books that according to Overstreet's standard would be a 7.0 or 6.5 show up as a 6.0 which is a significant drop in investment value.

 

How many times do I need to say this? It seems like I repeat this over and over and over again. Well...I guess until everyone gets it through their heads.

 

And this is nothing personal against you, Webby; you're certainly not the only one who does this.

 

You're talking about QUARTER and HALF grade differences in grades. The difference between a 6.5 and 6.0...and even a 6.0 and 7.0....is SUBJECTIVE.

 

No one...not CGC, not the greatest grader in the world, NO ONE...can grade a book exactly the same every single time it appears before them, ESPECIALLY in mid and low grades. What may be a 6.5 on one day could easily be a 6.0 or 7.0 on another day.

 

The REAL problem here is NOT CGC's "grading variances"...it's the utterly irational price differences the market has created between points.

 

Why on earth would a 7.0 be worth TWICE what a 6.0 is, in some cases? It certainly does not have half the damage of the 6.0.

 

When slab buyers en masses decide that a 7.0 isn't worth multiples of a 6.0, or a 9.2 isn't worth multiples of an 8.5, because the physical differences between these points is subtle AT BEST (if not totally non-existant in some cases!), then the problem will be solved.

 

It's not CGC's "apparent" lack of consistency that's the problem...it's the market's utterly ridicuous response to the number on the label that is. Once that's fixed...problem solved.

You are spot on right,that is the first thing I noticed in doing my research 6 months ago. Some people are buying the number on the label and are actually not looking at the book itself, if they did, they would save money. (thumbs u

 

That took you 6 months to research that!

[rjpb]

Nobody uses the infamous Grass Roots Comics' "nickel grade" system?

 

I eschew OPG and CGC grading for OCD grading.