Please grade my Captain America 100

[FFB]

CGC grades according to the OGG standards. How can you give a numerical grade under the 10 point standard without having seen the standards and category descriptions? The 10 point standard is a new standard, not the old 100 point standard that existed four years ago or the PR-MT letter standard that existed prior to that. What definitions are you using? It may very well be that what you call a "Good" is what Overstreet calls a 4.0 VG or a 3.5 VG-.

 

I don't own a OGG so I can't say I could find a book similar that is graded a 2.5. I know that CGC is not the be all end all when it comes to grading, I of course am only stating in my unexpert opinion.....I don't see a 4.0 as far as my standards or CGC is concerned.

 

I don't know what CGC would grade it. I am giving my opinion of the grade based on the Overstreet Grading Guide. If you can find me one 2.0 or 2.5 in the OGG that has wear similar to this one and no serious "hidden" flaws also listed in the description, then I'll buy a 2.5 or 2.0. While you're looking, take a look at the 2.0s on pages 291 (similar wear, but with tons of writing on the cover and brittle interior pages ), 292 (tons of writing, hundreds of cover creases, and spine roll), 293 (far nastier cover with wrinkled interior pages), 294 (worse spine and thick book-length sub crease), 295 (cover detached), and oh wait, that's just about all of them. Nevermind.

 

This book is not a 2.0 or a 2.5 in my opinion. But if someone gave it a 3.5, I wouldn't argue, especially since I can't see the interior or the back cover.

 

I can't say that I grade for CGC or any large Comic Shop for that mater, but I just can't see that book going a 4.0 in a million years with the level of wear over the entire book and the spine looks like rats gnawed on it.

 

So far the rest of the board members are in line with a 2.0 to 3.0, but we'll see what others think

 

 

Do you think that CGC would grade it a 4.0 or are you grading off personal grading standards using the OGG as part of the equation?

[kryptonitecomics]

Actually I am using my own standards, which are clearly equal to industry standards in 95% of books, and I have read the grade descriptions in OS so I can grade without seeing a picture just like I could grade Cards and Coins without Photograde or Beckett. You should try it some time as It's not too tough.

 

What I can't understand is that everyone else is saying 2.0 maybe 2.5 with an outside shot at a 3.0, and yet this is a challenge between the two of us?

 

It is clear that we disagree on grading and that you feel your mastery of looking at pictures has made you far superior in terms of grading skills then I, but........what about the rest of the folks posting to this thread? Is everyone wrong but you, because thats the way you are coming across.

 

What I do know is that if that book was sent to CGC, it would not come back a 4.0 end of story. Use what ever grading standards you are comfortable with, I have no problems with that, and I will continue to grade my books the way I have for the past 12 years and we will both enjoy our purchases.

[FFB]

Hey kryptonite, don't blow a gasket. I wasn't attacking you. I disagree with everyone in this thread who grades the book differently than I do. That doesn't mean that you or they are wrong. It just means that we disagree.

 

My only point about the Overstreet standards was that you are using the new numerical standards but you say you haven't read them. I'm not saying you don't know how to grade and you're reading a lot more into my posts than I am, because I have not said to anyone that my "mastery at looking at pictures makes me a better grader." My reference to various pictures is done for the sake of clarity. If you had an OGG, you'd be able to flip right to the pages I am citing to see why I am stating that a book should be given a certain grade. As for my question to you in particular, I am just curious about why you're using grading standards that you haven't read yet. It's a fair question. As for what the book would get if sent to CGC, no one knows until the book is sent.

 

Actually I am using my own standards, which are clearly equal to industry standards in 95% of books, and I have read the grade descriptions in OS so I can grade without seeing a picture just like I could grade Cards and Coins without Photograde or Beckett. You should try it some time as It's not too tough.

 

What I can't understand is that everyone else is saying 2.0 maybe 2.5 with an outside shot at a 3.0, and yet this is a challenge between the two of us?

 

It is clear that we disagree on grading and that you feel your mastery of looking at pictures has made you far superior in terms of grading skills then I, but........what about the rest of the folks posting to this thread? Is everyone wrong but you, because thats the way you are coming across.

 

What I do know is that if that book was sent to CGC, it would not come back a 4.0 end of story. Use what ever grading standards you are comfortable with, I have no problems with that, and I will continue to grade my books the way I have for the past 12 years and we will both enjoy our purchases.

[kryptonitecomics]

Fair enough, I apologize to you for blowing a gasket I can't say I am perfectly in tune with the 10 point system, but I still utilize my normal grading standards when looking at a book in say VG, Fine, VF etc so I have an idea of what I feel is acceptable in the range for those grades. When looking at a book that is say a 5.0 on the scale I look for a book that is nicer than most VG, but has enough defects that it can't be considered a fine etc. How many defects I can't say for sure it's just a gut instinct when I look at a book.

 

As for CGC using the OGG......they may be saying that they are, but I find it hard to believe that in looking at the slabbed books I own. By that I mean that most of the VF's that I own I would Consider NM all day long. Sure their could be hidden flaws inside of the books that I can't see, but when a book has no stress lines on the spine, no tears, no stains etc...........from the outside it looks a heck of a lot better than a VF.

 

If I pick up a copy of the OGG do you think I am going to be able to apply what I see to actual grades on CGC holders? If so then I need the darn book, because everytime I submit a book I feel like I am throwing darts and hoping for a bullseye.

 

No hard feelings in reference to our disagreement on the grade. Did you see my All Star Western #10 in this section? If so do you feel it's better than a 2.0 according to the OGG?

 

 

Hey kryptonite, don't blow a gasket. I wasn't attacking you. I disagree with everyone in this thread who grades the book differently than I do. That doesn't mean that you or they are wrong. It just means that we disagree.

 

My only point about the Overstreet standards was that you are using the new numerical standards but you say you haven't read them. I'm not saying you don't know how to grade and you're reading a lot more into my posts than I am, because I have not said to anyone that my "mastery at looking at pictures makes me a better grader." My reference to various pictures is done for the sake of clarity. If you had an OGG, you'd be able to flip right to the pages I am citing to see why I am stating that a book should be given a certain grade. As for my question to you in particular, I am just curious about why you're using grading standards that you haven't read yet. It's a fair question. As for what the book would get if sent to CGC, no one knows until the book is sent.

 

Actually I am using my own standards, which are clearly equal to industry standards in 95% of books, and I have read the grade descriptions in OS so I can grade without seeing a picture just like I could grade Cards and Coins without Photograde or Beckett. You should try it some time as It's not too tough.

 

What I can't understand is that everyone else is saying 2.0 maybe 2.5 with an outside shot at a 3.0, and yet this is a challenge between the two of us?

 

It is clear that we disagree on grading and that you feel your mastery of looking at pictures has made you far superior in terms of grading skills then I, but........what about the rest of the folks posting to this thread? Is everyone wrong but you, because thats the way you are coming across.

 

What I do know is that if that book was sent to CGC, it would not come back a 4.0 end of story. Use what ever grading standards you are comfortable with, I have no problems with that, and I will continue to grade my books the way I have for the past 12 years and we will both enjoy our purchases.

[FFB]

Thanks Shane. I would recommend getting an OGG, simply because CGC helped develop that system and they do state that they use the OGG grading scale, even though they depart from it on a few small areas of disagreement (such as staple replacement, for which CGC gives a qualified grade, when OGG says that it is not a defect at 9.4 or below as long as "vintage" staples are used). Plus, it is just a great book to read. Lots of interesting comic stuff in there in addition to grading, such as restoration, etc. Easily worth the money and it's a great reference.

 

As for CGC's actual grading in practice, I agree that there are inconsistencies. Go back and look at the Daredevil #200 that I posted a month ago or so. It got a 9.8, and it has a 1/16th inch bindery tear and two bent overflash corners. 9.8? Hah! Of course, it's possible that the bent overflash corners were not present when it was graded, and only occurred when the book was being banged around in the mail -- which presents a really important issue -- does CGC need to improve their holder so that the books can't slosh around inside the slab, suffering injury during transit?

 

I did look at your All Star Western and posted on the thread that I think it's a 2.0. Looks like you got it at a good price too!

 

Fair enough, I apologize to you for blowing a gasket I can't say I am perfectly in tune with the 10 point system, but I still utilize my normal grading standards when looking at a book in say VG, Fine, VF etc so I have an idea of what I feel is acceptable in the range for those grades. When looking at a book that is say a 5.0 on the scale I look for a book that is nicer than most VG, but has enough defects that it can't be considered a fine etc. How many defects I can't say for sure it's just a gut instinct when I look at a book.

 

As for CGC using the OGG......they may be saying that they are, but I find it hard to believe that in looking at the slabbed books I own. By that I mean that most of the VF's that I own I would Consider NM all day long. Sure their could be hidden flaws inside of the books that I can't see, but when a book has no stress lines on the spine, no tears, no stains etc...........from the outside it looks a heck of a lot better than a VF.

 

If I pick up a copy of the OGG do you think I am going to be able to apply what I see to actual grades on CGC holders? If so then I need the darn book, because everytime I submit a book I feel like I am throwing darts and hoping for a bullseye.

 

No hard feelings in reference to our disagreement on the grade. Did you see my All Star Western #10 in this section? If so do you feel it's better than a 2.0 according to the OGG?

 

 

Hey kryptonite, don't blow a gasket. I wasn't attacking you. I disagree with everyone in this thread who grades the book differently than I do. That doesn't mean that you or they are wrong. It just means that we disagree.

 

My only point about the Overstreet standards was that you are using the new numerical standards but you say you haven't read them. I'm not saying you don't know how to grade and you're reading a lot more into my posts than I am, because I have not said to anyone that my "mastery at looking at pictures makes me a better grader." My reference to various pictures is done for the sake of clarity. If you had an OGG, you'd be able to flip right to the pages I am citing to see why I am stating that a book should be given a certain grade. As for my question to you in particular, I am just curious about why you're using grading standards that you haven't read yet. It's a fair question. As for what the book would get if sent to CGC, no one knows until the book is sent.

 

Actually I am using my own standards, which are clearly equal to industry standards in 95% of books, and I have read the grade descriptions in OS so I can grade without seeing a picture just like I could grade Cards and Coins without Photograde or Beckett. You should try it some time as It's not too tough.

 

What I can't understand is that everyone else is saying 2.0 maybe 2.5 with an outside shot at a 3.0, and yet this is a challenge between the two of us?

 

It is clear that we disagree on grading and that you feel your mastery of looking at pictures has made you far superior in terms of grading skills then I, but........what about the rest of the folks posting to this thread? Is everyone wrong but you, because thats the way you are coming across.

 

What I do know is that if that book was sent to CGC, it would not come back a 4.0 end of story. Use what ever grading standards you are comfortable with, I have no problems with that, and I will continue to grade my books the way I have for the past 12 years and we will both enjoy our purchases.

[kryptonitecomics]

Hmmmmmmmm, an OGG wouldn't be a bad thing to have around the house so I'll pick up a copy this weekend.

 

Let's hope I get no major surprises back from CGC this time

[davidking623]

Hmmmmmmmm, an OGG wouldn't be a bad thing to have around the house so I'll pick up a copy this weekend.

 

Let's hope I get no major surprises back from CGC this time

 

Oh there will be some I am sure! Hopefully good!

 

Davidking623

[kryptonitecomics]

Hmmmmmmmm, an OGG wouldn't be a bad thing to have around the house so I'll pick up a copy this weekend.

 

Let's hope I get no major surprises back from CGC this time

 

Oh there will be some I am sure! Hopefully good!

 

Davidking623

 

 

I doubt it

[Room 237]

Many thanks folks... right on the money