Does This Look Like a CGC 9.4?

[BachelorOfComix]

Have you tried CGG or 3PG? Maybe they might be more to your liking.

[blowout]

Well judging by some of the examples we have seen lately, now may be the time to give them another shot.

[joe_collector]

Have you tried CGG or 3PG? Maybe they might be more to your liking.

 

It's not that CGC is not to my liking, but I try and get a gauge on how the CGC grading criteria is going, but it seems to change like the wind.

 

I've talked to some serious CGC submitters, and essentially they have no clue whether a book will get between CGC 9.4 and 9.8, and are often wrong when the collate their submissions.

 

I once bought a CGC 9.4 X-Men 129 off a big seller/submitter, and when I got the book, I was blown away. It was perfect; 10.0 QP, blazing color, cut-your-fingers sharp corners and just a beauty. So I emailed him and asked what was up, and he said he pre-graded it a 9.8 or higher, and it somehow got a 9.4, while some of his other X-Men 9.4 pre-grades got 9.8's.

 

This wasn't sour grapes, as the guy produces CGC 9.8 copies out of his butt, and I own some "coulda been 9.6, shoulda been 9.2" tweener copies, but this book is quite a bit different.

 

Basically, his advice was to just send in a pile of NM or higher pre-graded copies and let the chips fall where they may.

[drbanner]

I've talked to some serious CGC submitters, and essentially they have no clue whether a book will get between CGC 9.4 and 9.8, and are often wrong when the collate their submissions.

 

Then I'd say it's pretty obvious they don't know how to grade!! Who was it?

[greggy]

[joe_collector]

Then I'd say it's pretty obvious they don't know how to grade!!

 

Are you saying that you predict, with utmost certainty, which grade you will get from CGC? You've never sent in what you feel is a 9.4 and got a 9.6, or think you'll get a 9.8 and receive a 9.6 in return?

 

If you can predict with 100% accuracy, down to .2 of every CGC grade, then you are on the cusp of fame and fortune. And I want to be your agent!!

[drbanner]

Then I'd say it's pretty obvious they don't know how to grade!!

 

Are you saying that you predict, with utmost certainty, which grade you will get from CGC? You've never sent in what you feel is a 9.4 and got a 9.6, or think you'll get a 9.8 and receive a 9.6 in return?

 

If you can predict with 100% accuracy, down to .2 of every CGC grade, then you are on the cusp of fame and fortune. And I want to be your agent!!

 

No...but del did make that bold statement here, as have others that have sent in lots of books. While I don't typically pre-grade my books before sending them in (other than simply deciding if they're NM or better copies), Ricky did send in quite a few MTU's (from that run with those sweet NM book you got from me ) and the grades came back consistent with both of our grades +/- 0.2, with a couple outliers. In those cases where I do put pen to paper I'd guess that's typical - 90% of my submissions end up within 0.2 of the final grade I give them.

 

Perhaps I should dig thru my records and come up with some more concrete comparisons...but I can tell you that either CGC is very consistent, or both CGC and myself are consistently inconsistent!

[rob_react]

C'mon doc, are you seriously trying to bring up hundreds of actual submissions as evidence that you know what CGC's grading is like? We all know that the surest way to find rock solid evidence of CGC's inconsistency is to look for one scan of one book on the Internet that may or may not be .2 or .4 overgraded and make a big deal out of it.

 

Rob, you've made it clear in the past that you have no time for JC, so why even bother posting on his threads?

 

If he'd do me the same courtesy, I'd gladly oblige

 

Despite what you have said on this thread, people on the boards ARE interested in CGC's grading inconsistencies, and though one example doesn't illustrate the issue it has sparked some interesting debate.

 

Lets try and keep the personal digs out of a thread just for once.

 

There were no personal digs (although I am going to keep that quote handy for the next time JC goes off his rocker.) There were only digs at the situation, which I think is ridiculous. If someone who actually has real experience with CGC grading either as a buyer or a submitter wants to bring up a point about CGC's inconsistency based on books they've actually seen in hand then it's one thing. But to set this off based on a possible .2 or .4 error based solely on conjecture? I just think that's goofy. Since no one owns the book we can't tell if there's blunting or if the overflash has just bent over without creasing or damage- which CGC doesn't really downgrade for... How are we supposed to learn anything about CGC's inconsistency if we can't even figure out if they're actually being inconsistent in the first place? It just seems like a typical JC "let's find something to tear down" witch-hunt; which, I'll be the first to admit, annoyed me. I'm human. I make mistakes. Posting in this thread was probably one of them.

 

While we're on the subject, I'm not saying CGC is a model of consistency. I've pointed out books that were obviously overgraded on a number of occasions- the Western Penn DD #7 with its half dozen color breaking spine creases and that horrific Action #1 2.5 are two noteworthy examples. I just think pointing to this book that none of us can offer real insight into as evidence of anything is pointless and since the pointless thread came from JC I posted.

[drbanner]

JC have you ever submitted any books to CGC?

 

A long time ago when the world was green. That was also during the time of the Modernis Labelis Rex, and where submitting NM+ books that I collect had a glass ceiling called the CGC 9.4 Grade.

 

Then my book must really be a 9.8, 'cause that's a Red Label 9.6 fan-boys!!

 

So I guess we can throw the "Red Labels were graded stricter" theory out the window...or can we? Wanna see the other half-dozen Byrne X-men from that same submittal??

[joe_collector]

[Ricky did send in quite a few MTU's (from that run with those sweet NM book you got from me ) and the grades came back consistent with both of our grades +/- 0.2, with a couple outliers. In those cases where I do put pen to paper I'd guess that's typical - 90% of my submissions end up within 0.2 of the final grade I give them.

 

That's pretty well what these guys were saying as well, they hit within 0.2 most of the time, but there are always anomalies within each submission. Sometimes there is a reason, other times, the CGC staff may have been stuck in traffic (with no AC) that day.

 

My comments were never meant to say it's a total crapshoot, only that humans on both sides of the equation are fallible within the 9.4 to 9.8 range, especially as time goes by and grading criteria continues to evolve.

[joe_collector]

So I guess we can throw the "Red Labels were graded stricter" theory out the window...or can we?

 

For the most part, 1977-79 comics in the 9.2 to 9.4 range were graded tougher in the Modern Label days, and that's pretty well without question. I personally know of multiple copies of Modern Label Iron Fist 14's that have jumped a number or two upon re-sub for a Blue Label.

 

Other eras and higher grades are a little more sketchy, and although some have had success, I'd be hesitant to resub something like a Red Label CGC 9.6 or 9.8, especially the newer the issue is.

[joe_collector]

Wanna see the other half-dozen Byrne X-men from that same submittal??

 

Sure.

[plitch]

The only thing I can think of in relation to this comic, is that one or more corners have what CGC has determined as production flaws. The upper-right corner does look like a production issue, with possibly a small piece missing, which could make the 9.4 grade easier to understand.

 

True, at least for the right corners (top & bottom). The Bottom Right corner looks like it has a small overhang that led to the cover having a slight bend that does not break color and does not affect the interior or the back cover.

 

I looked up the notes (which only had the general "Light Stress Marks Spine"), but all 3 graders gave it a 9.4 and it was finalized on 2/04/04 (if that matters to you).

 

If we gave this book a 9.2, it would be doing a disservice to the rest of the book, which seems to exhibit some of the characteristics of a 9.6 (tight staples & spine, books lays flat, nice colors, etc.).

 

Perhaps you have seen strong 9.4's (more like 9.5's) and weak 9.4's (more like 9.3's). With our scale, they all will receive a 9.4 grade. Well, unless they are strong enough to get the 9.6 or too weak and get the 9.2. Does that make sense?

 

Vince, it seems to me that your 9.4's are our 9.6's. Congrads, looks like your going to have to spend more $$ to be happy.

 

On another note, you should make the trip to the Paradise Comics Toronto Comicon in June. I can answer more questions for you then, in person.

[drbanner]

That's pretty well what these guys were saying as well, they hit within 0.2 most of the time, but there are always anomalies within each submission. Sometimes there is a reason, other times, the CGC staff may have been stuck in traffic (with no AC) that day.

 

Allright, I did a little more digging and on my 31 most recent submittals for books I graded before submitting, 2 were off by 0.4, 20 were off by 0.2, and 9 were dead on. Combining the data with the books Rocketeer bought from me and submitted, and the data set gets more significant. Of 43 total books:

 

3 were off by 0.4

24 were off by 0.2

13 were dead on

 

I'd like to know who the serious submitters were that have no clue whether a book will get between a 9.4 and a 9.8, RJ??

[joe_collector]

I'd like to know who the serious submitters were that have no clue whether a book will get between a 9.4 and a 9.8, RJ??

 

With your recent 29% hit rate (assuming it wasn't even lower), I wouldn't be changing meanings and pointing fingers if I were you.

[drbanner]

I'd like to know who the serious submitters were that have no clue whether a book will get between a 9.4 and a 9.8, RJ??

 

With your recent 29% hit rate (assuming it wasn't even lower), I wouldn't be changing meanings and pointing fingers if I were you.

 

What are you talking about?

 

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, and I'm pretty sure anyone here would be more than happy with my success rate at predicting the final CGC grade...with their unpublished grading standards and all!!

 

Anyhow, please let me know who these serious submitters were as I have a few questions for them...thanks!

[OldGuy]

Anyhow, please let me know who these serious submitters were........

 

 

Riiiight. That'll happen.

[joe_collector]

Riiiight. That'll happen.

 

Gee, I wonder, as anything I give banner is automatically used against me with extreme prejudice.

 

So yeah, I'll be posting contact info sometime next century.

[OldGuy]

Riiiight. That'll happen.

 

Gee, I wonder, as anything I give banner is automatically used against me with extreme prejudice.

 

So yeah, I'll be posting contact info sometime next century.

 

I forget, is that before or after the crash?

[JohnBull]