I recently purchased a CGG graded comic....and guess what?

[BassGMan]

Darth, I wasn't talking to you specifically, but re-read many posts before this update. I do believe there are some people that went overboard in their "dissing" of CGG. I agree with the fact that we cannot accurately grade with just a scan. But that did not stop many from critisizing CGG's grade of 9.4 and bad-mouthing them because of it. Hey, people can say what ever they want to and I have no problem with that. But when they are wrong I think they should fess up to it and admit it. -----Sid

[Darthdiesel]

where's my apology?

 

SORRY DARTH

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Darth, I wasn't talking to you specifically, but re-read many posts before this update. I do believe there are some people that went overboard in their "dissing" of CGG. I agree with the fact that we cannot accurately grade with just a scan. But that did not stop many from critisizing CGG's grade of 9.4 and bad-mouthing them because of it. Hey, people can say what ever they want to and I have no problem with that. But when they are wrong I think they should fess up to it and admit it. -----Sid

 

I agree

[Darthdiesel]

I do believe there are some people that went overboard in their "dissing" of CGG.

 

I avoided CGG threads until now...but they all still have an opinion and a right to express it, regardless of motives behind those opinions. I'll just leave this at that...

 

besides, "overboard" is just the norm on this forum and I love it because it is this way!

[FFB]

It is tough to give an accurate grade from a scan, but if you can clearly see certain wear in the scan, then I think it's not too tough to say that a book cannot be at or above a certain grade. If I can see a soft corner and visible edge wear in a scan, I can be sure that it'll be there if I have the book in hand.

 

Darth, I wasn't talking to you specifically, but re-read many posts before this update. I do believe there are some people that went overboard in their "dissing" of CGG. I agree with the fact that we cannot accurately grade with just a scan. But that did not stop many from critisizing CGG's grade of 9.4 and bad-mouthing them because of it. Hey, people can say what ever they want to and I have no problem with that. But when they are wrong I think they should fess up to it and admit it. -----Sid

[FlyingDonut]

Congrats to MW1, who just made $1000. I think you should sell the book and donate whatever profit over your cost to the CBLDF or ACTOR.

 

The question I have, and I'm not trying to be a here - everybody was SO SURE the book was trimmed - why are we suddenly satisfied with CGCs grading?

[FFB]

I never said it was trimmed. I just said that if he thought it was, he should get it checked by Matt Nelson or CGC. Several other people also said that it is too hard to tell from a scan whether it is trimmed. I think that only a couple of people were screaming that it was trimmed.

 

I think CGC's grade on the book is wrong too. I like the charitable donation idea. Of course, it isn't MY money we're talking about here.

 

Congrats to MW1, who just made $1000. I think you should sell the book and donate whatever profit over your cost to the CBLDF or ACTOR.

 

The question I have, and I'm not trying to be a here - everybody was SO SURE the book was trimmed - why are we suddenly satisfied with CGCs grading?

[BassGMan]

 

The question I have, and I'm not trying to be a here - everybody was SO SURE the book was trimmed - why are we suddenly satisfied with CGCs grading?

 

I think that there are sometimes that you just have to leave it to the professionals. Alot of people often tell me what they think about certain times where they are ripped off, or if they can sue, or if they have done something wrong or are accusing somebody else of doing something wrong. Everybody has an opinion. But I'd rather take the opinion of an attorney like Fantasy over just some dude that sued somebody before and thinks he knows how the law works. Even if we all held the book in question in our own hands, I would still rather take the word of a trained professional that may see dozens of restored books everyday and knows how to spot them with ease, rather than somebody that sees something funny in a scan. C'mon guys. No one is perfect, not even CGC or CGG, but that is the best we've got. Until a computer is designed that can accurately grade and detect restoration with 100% accuracy I'll just take the word of CGC, CGG and other similar professionals. 'nuff said, -----Sid

[MW1]

To be perfectly fair, I DID begin this thread with a rather strong opinion and I specifically asked for opinions from others. For the most part, I think the viewpoints expressed were as objective as one could hope for without holding the comic in one's own hands. Also, I think it's important to mention that a fair amount of this thread included discussions of other, tangentially related topics including the responsibility of sellers vs. the grading companies to the buyers of graded books.

 

I like Flyingdonut's idea about auctioning the comic and donating the money to charity. I already mentioned that in a PM to someone and I think that's probably what I'll do. The only question is, how do I describe the comic when I list it? I don't think the grade is accurate, but perhaps my understanding of comic grading nuances is too limited to know any better. Opinions?

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

I don't think the grade is accurate, but perhaps my understanding of comic grading nuances is too limited to know any better.

 

I've been waiting for an honest man to come along and say..."CGC really overgraded this puppy" in an auction listing.

 

Somehow, I doubt it will matter.

[ArAich]

The question I have, and I'm not trying to be a here - everybody was SO SURE the book was trimmed - why are we suddenly satisfied with CGCs grading?

 

 

I think we can be assured that the book was not trimmed....it has passed the rigors of 2 grading companies...I would take that opinion over the assesment of a scan on a message board any day....

 

BTW....it does seem odd that you admit that you are not "trying to be a "...when your avatar runs completly contrary to that statement...

[blowout]

Looks like I lost the bet. I never thought that CGC would slab it, much less give it a grade of 9.6....an interesting CGG/CGC experiment!

 

And certainly could prove to be a profitable one for you...if you choose to exploit the current 'market' for what, to me, appears to be an over-graded book...twice.

[blowout]

The question I have, and I'm not trying to be a here - everybody was SO SURE the book was trimmed - why are we suddenly satisfied with CGCs grading?

 

Not all of us are.

[Rip]

I agree, I think its overgraded as a 9.6

[MW1]

I agree, I think its overgraded as a 9.6

Just playing devil's advocate here.... If we're willing to accept the expert opinion from two different grading services that the comic is not altered, then why should we have a problem with the grade? Why would they be right in one instance but wrong in the other?

[blowout]

If we're willing to accept the expert opinion from two different grading services that the comic is not altered, then why should we have a problem with the grade?

 

Because they are not downgrading the book for production defects. Its back to THE_BEYONDER's whole QP argument again.

These defects are something that I think will change CGC's grading in the future, when only the 'true' HG books will be getting 9.6 labels.

[Aces]

The results:

 

ASM #122 - CGG 9.4

 

ASM #122 - CGC 9.6

 

Looks like I lost the bet. I never thought that CGC would slab it, much less give it a grade of 9.6....an interesting CGG/CGC experiment!

 

All is well that ends well!

[blowout]

All is well that ends well!

 

How do you see this as ending well? other than in $$$ terms which is not really what this is all about.

[Aces]

For many it ends well.

 

The buyer doesn't lose his shirt (got a comic that was worth the bid and then some).

 

The seller keeps his good name (not a scammer).

 

CGG keeps their honor (didn't miss restro).

 

CGC still trusted as the final authority.

 

I guess that was a production defect and they don't down-grade for them. I guess you can argue that they should, but they don't.

[MW1]

If we're willing to accept the expert opinion from two different grading services that the comic is not altered, then why should we have a problem with the grade?

Because they are not downgrading the book for production defects.

Right. But who is such an authority to say that this grading method is wrong? In the world of sports cards, for instance, many collectors once held the view that a "rough cut" devalued some issues such as 1956 Topps. With the advent of third party grading, however, that type of "production defect" is no longer seen as a negative quality. In fact, some collectors would rather have certain baseball cards with a rough cut than without a rough cut because it provides a strong argument that the cards are original and have not been tampered with. Might not the same be true for comics? If various production defects are summarily categorized as "negatives" then wouldn't the temptation be greater for alteration experts to eliminate these types of defects prior to grading?