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

[Aces]

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?

 

Exactly!

 

A little bit of overhang on early Marvel Silver comics is proof that The Trimmer hasn't gotten at your books!

[blowout]

A little bit of overhang on early Marvel Silver comics is proof that The Trimmer hasn't gotten at your books!

 

But BA books DON'T suffer from this defect and on these books we are mainly looking at mis-wraps, mis-cuts etc, which in some cases badly affect the asthetics of the books (eye appeal) which puts a lot of collectors off. Especially those chasing the best of the best.

 

Just ask BronzeBruce what he looks for in a HG book and I'm sure he won't say "A CGC 9.6 or above label".

[Rip]

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?

Just my humble opinion based on what I've seen in the past.

[FlyingDonut]

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?

 

You describe it thusly:

 

"Amazing Spider-Man 122, CGC 9.6 OW/W pages. Blue Label Unrestored. Death of the Green Goblin. All proceeds above $400 go directly to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund."

 

Again, I start to giggle when I hear people saying "I'm not buying the label". [!@#%^&^]. You are. That's what you're paying the premium for.

[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?

 

You describe it thusly:

 

"Amazing Spider-Man 122, CGC 9.6 OW/W pages. Blue Label Unrestored. Death of the Green Goblin. All proceeds above $400 go directly to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund."

 

Again, I start to giggle when I hear people saying "I'm not buying the label". [!@#%^&^]. You are. That's what you're paying the premium for.

I still don't think I'm selling a label; I'm selling a comic. To be fair, I'd have to mention something about the cover alignment. If there's a specific point to this thread, I think that's it.

[supapimp]

i never said the book was trimmed, but still, proceeds going to CBLDF or ACTOR is awesome!

[Rickdogg]

I think they both overgraded the book. With that soft URC, the tiny chips/edge tears on the right and lower edges of the front cover, and the wear on the ULC of the back cover, I wouldn't have given the book a 9.4. I am really surprised that CGC gave it a 9.6.

 

Easy! It was a gift!

[Rickdogg]

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.

 

A seller from Canada does it. I forget who He was the person that sold me the 9.6 Spidey #300 and received a 9.8 when resubmitted

[greggy]

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.

 

A seller from Canada does it. I forget who He was the person that sold me the 9.6 Spidey #300 and received a 9.8 when resubmitted

Neal from London, Ontario!

[wrcomics]

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?

 

An interesting paralell. While I don't have the exacting knowledge necessary to be an expert in the coin market, I can tell you from assisting a fairly prominent coin dealer on the east coast that production defects have to be overlooked by the GSs, especially when assessing early type coins from the 1700s and 1800s when many of the production processes were flawed and inexact. That certainly doesn't mean that collectors have to accept these production errors when determining whether a coin would fit in their collection or not. In fact many of the collectors I've dealt with over the past few years identify what they're looking for by telling us the grading service, grade, AND specific physical attributes they are looking for in the specimen (or attributes that would disqualify the example).

 

What I think is more important here isn't the issue of allowing production errors or flaws, but rather consistancy in grading. As long as CGG or CGC could take another example of this issue given the same flaws and give it the same grade again- that is what is truly important to me. Just like many managers in baseball aren't too concerned with the umpire that calls the high strike versus the low strike. What drives them crazy are umpires that don't consistantly call the strike zone.

[AtomicPaul-migration]

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.

 

I agree with you 100%. When it was graded 9.4 by CGG, the defects you note were mentioned by many as not being consistant with grading standards known for NM books. The book has a back cover top edge that looks like it was cut with a sewing needle. The page ends and corners don't match up anywhere and there is wear that made us feel that CGG's finding of NM was very generous, restored ot not. We all questioned the book's value based on if restored and general appearance.

 

Now that its in a CGC holder (the company of our preferred choice), graded 9.6, do these defects that we noted not exist?

 

From my perspective, the one currently on Comiclink at $700, grade CGC 9.4 looks to be a far more attractive and less defective copy of 122 than the 9.6 .

 

http://comiclink.com/./itemdetail.asp?back=%2FCGC%2Easp%3Ff1%3Di%2ELastUpdate%26ODire1%3DDESC&id=581475

[awe4one]

This situation makes me wonder what defects that aren't apparent in the slabs may be wondering around in 9.4 and above. Really can't tell unless you break them out.....

 

This is another instance that illustrates CGC need to publish their grading criteria. Maybe the defects MW1 showed are perfectly acceptable in 9.6? Would clear up alot of confusion and misinformation about slabbed comics. Frankly, recent thread are starting to make slabbed comics seem like a crapshoot as far as consistency is concerned.....

 

Jim

[lighthouse]

Okay... I miss 67 replies in this thread today, and I come back to find that no one has stated the obvious...

 

I mean, I know it's usually my job... and you guys count on me to do it... but if I am not here, someone needs to fill in...

 

Here's what we learned from this:

 

CGG and CGC agree that the book was not trimmed.

The seller was not a scammer.

CGG graded this book tougher than CGC did.

 

Okay, the rest of you covered those points, over and over and over...

 

But where is the voice in the wilderness shouting the obvious??

 

The real thing we learned from this is that the original seller was a insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending the book to CGG in the first place!!!!

 

That seller left over $1000 on the table because he picked the wrong grading company to send his book to for grading. MW1 makes out like a bandit for being willing to buy the book, but the seller comes out looking like a grade-A insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending his book to Eugene in the first place.

 

C'mon people... Somebody needs to step up here. I don't want to see any more repeats of this. 67 replies is way too many for no one to have pointed this out...

[awe4one]

The real thing we learned from this is that the original seller was a insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending the book to CGG in the first place!!!!

 

That seller left over $1000 on the table because he picked the wrong grading company to send his book to for grading. MW1 makes out like a bandit for being willing to buy the book, but the seller comes out looking like a grade-A insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending his book to Eugene in the first place.

 

I'm not following.....if anything this provides an example that CGG grading is stricter than CGC and helps towards squashing the perception that CGG isn't worthy of being in the grading arena.

 

So if I was a disinterested collector knowing this information and looking at identical comics, which one would I rather spend $100 bucks on? A CGC or CGG 9.4? That's the matter that has to be asked here. Not trying to slam the original seller.

 

Jim

[FFB]

Well 'House, the way I was brought up, it is considered uncouth to pick on retarded people. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop you from doing it....

 

Okay... I miss 67 replies in this thread today, and I come back to find that no one has stated the obvious...

 

I mean, I know it's usually my job... and you guys count on me to do it... but if I am not here, someone needs to fill in...

 

Here's what we learned from this:

 

CGG and CGC agree that the book was not trimmed.

The seller was not a scammer.

CGG graded this book tougher than CGC did.

 

Okay, the rest of you covered those points, over and over and over...

 

But where is the voice in the wilderness shouting the obvious??

 

The real thing we learned from this is that the original seller was a insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending the book to CGG in the first place!!!!

 

That seller left over $1000 on the table because he picked the wrong grading company to send his book to for grading. MW1 makes out like a bandit for being willing to buy the book, but the seller comes out looking like a grade-A insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending his book to Eugene in the first place.

 

C'mon people... Somebody needs to step up here. I don't want to see any more repeats of this. 67 replies is way too many for no one to have pointed this out...

[lighthouse]

The real thing we learned from this is that the original seller was a insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending the book to CGG in the first place!!!!

 

That seller left over $1000 on the table because he picked the wrong grading company to send his book to for grading. MW1 makes out like a bandit for being willing to buy the book, but the seller comes out looking like a grade-A insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending his book to Eugene in the first place.

 

I'm not following.....if anything this provides an example that CGG grading is stricter than CGC and helps towards squashing the perception that CGG isn't worthy of being in the grading arena.

 

So if I was a disinterested collector knowing this information and looking at identical comics, which one would I rather spend $100 bucks on? A CGC or CGG 9.4? That's the matter that has to be asked here. Not trying to slam the original seller.

 

Jim

 

If you are talking about buying books that have already been graded, there is a case to be made...

 

But the only way those books get graded is if sellers think that putting their books in a CGG slab is the way to go. Most guys won't leave $1000 on the table by sending a book to CGG, but this guy did! And I don't see anything out of this story that suggests it is a good idea to submit high dollar books to CGG...

 

Gee, I have a real nice copy of Tomb of Dracula 1... I can put it in a CGG holder and sell it for $220, or I can put it in a CGC holder and sell it for $625.... Hmmm... Whatever shall I do...

[awe4one]

Gee, I have a real nice copy of Tomb of Dracula 1... I can put it in a CGG holder and sell it for $220, or I can put it in a CGC holder and sell it for $625.... Hmmm... Whatever shall I do...

 

Agreed....for the time being.

 

But if the perception of a harsher CGG grading standard become common among collectors then the prices of those slabbed comics will rise and technically should pass CGC in time. Then CGG would be the way to go for submitters.

 

It has to start somewhere....

 

Jim

[blowout]

That seller left over $1000 on the table because he picked the wrong grading company to send his book to for grading. MW1 makes out like a bandit for being willing to buy the book, but the seller comes out looking like a grade-A insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending his book to Eugene in the first place.

 

This statement assumes the book would come back from EITHER company with the same grade every time. I think there is enough evidence out there of successful and unsuccessful re-subs to asume that this would NOT be the case.

[Zanarkand]

The real thing we learned from this is that the original seller was a insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending the book to CGG in the first place!!!!

 

That seller left over $1000 on the table because he picked the wrong grading company to send his book to for grading. MW1 makes out like a bandit for being willing to buy the book, but the seller comes out looking like a grade-A insufficiently_thoughtful_person for sending his book to Eugene in the first place.

 

So...

 

We should submit to CGC because we can profit more from their overgrading than from CGG's?

 

[Smokinghawk]

I'm going to add two posts in a row, and the second one will be controversial because it's not MY words, it's an input message sent to us all by Daniel about a related matter on different books.

 

My own comments:

 

It's very significant that we still regard CGC as the argument-ending authority on this controversy. That says a lot about CGC's reputation, and I uphold them as the default standard in the industry, too. CGC does not have "egg on its face" precisely BECAUSE they had one this test before the results even came back: the fact that we agreed that CGC would be the final arbitor reinforces their credibility, which I think is well-deserved.

 

Second, I've been favorable to CGG's work on moderns since I've been a happy customer and said so. But let's also be honest here, friends: a lot of people among us WANTED CGG to fail the test. That's as significant a statement about our assumptions of CGG as my first observation is about our support for CGC.

 

Third: nothing insightful here, but I did want to pat myself on the back for calling this one early in the thread when I stated my doubt that the book was trimmed, and referred to similar cases on this same book where the cover edges vary.

 

Okay, now on to the controvery. Get ready for post #2.