Should the 2004 Overstreet Price Guide factor in prices paid for CGC comics?

[joe_collector]

I thought the whole point of CGC was to bring some kind of grading standard to the industry that everyone accepts.

 

Do you even have a clue what a standard is?

 

Hint, it's got to be widely employed and visible, and I don't think you'll find too many "industry standards" that make up less than 1% of the market.

 

Another hint, Overstreet is THE standard in comics, for both grading and valuation.

[Marvelous]

I thought the whole point of CGC was to bring some kind of grading standard to the industry that everyone accepts.

 

Do you even have a clue what a standard is?

 

Hint, it's got to be widely employed and visible, and I don't think you'll find too many "industry standards" that make up less than 1% of the market.

 

Another hint, Overstreet is THE standard in comics, for both grading and valuation.

 

If Overstreet's standard is based on sales of raw books graded by people whose grading standards can't be verified what good is that? That is a standard based only on subjective data which nobody can verify which to me means it is flawed to begin with.

[drbanner]

If Overstreet's standard is based on sales of raw books graded by people whose grading standards can't be verified what good is that? That is a standard based only on subjective data which nobody can verify which to me means it is flawed to begin with.

 

The basic flaw in creating a "guide" with CGC only data is that there isn't CGC data for the majority of comic books out there. Having a database of actual CGC sales is ten times better than trying to average out all the information and come up with a single number, not to mention the ancilliary benefits of the ability to track trends, identify outliers, etc.,. Another thing to consider (IMHO) is that for low-cost books, the $15/25 cost of slabbing needs to be considered in the "value" of the item as that book now has the advantage over a raw book of a professional resto check and independent grading, as well as the value of the holder.

 

In theory, OS presents averaged data for raw sales, with helps compensate for the over and under-graders. While I don't know squat about collecting coins/sportscards, I do believe that what evolved after years of certified sales was a "certified" price guide (database?), and a non-certified price guide (raw). Prior to the 'net (and the ease at which data can be assimilated and presented), an "average" certified price may have been a better option, but these days it's easy to track every single transaction and have that information a few clicks of the keyboard away.

[Marvelous]

If Overstreet's standard is based on sales of raw books graded by people whose grading standards can't be verified what good is that? That is a standard based only on subjective data which nobody can verify which to me means it is flawed to begin with.

 

The basic flaw in creating a "guide" with CGC only data is that there isn't CGC data for the majority of comic books out there. Having a database of actual CGC sales is ten times better than trying to average out all the information and come up with a single number, not to mention the ancilliary benefits of the ability to track trends, identify outliers, etc.,. Another thing to consider (IMHO) is that for low-cost books, the $15/25 cost of slabbing needs to be considered in the "value" of the item as that book now has the advantage over a raw book of a professional resto check and independent grading, as well as the value of the holder.

 

In theory, OS presents averaged data for raw sales, with helps compensate for the over and under-graders. While I don't know squat about collecting coins/sportscards, I do believe that what evolved after years of certified sales was a "certified" price guide (database?), and a non-certified price guide (raw). Prior to the 'net (and the ease at which data can be assimilated and presented), an "average" certified price may have been a better option, but these days it's easy to track every single transaction and have that information a few clicks of the keyboard away.

 

Very good points! I am split about 51% to 49% between a single guide which incorporates both CGC and raw (when CGC value isn't available) and 2 separate guides. I still lean a little towards a single price guide.

[valiantman]

The real problem is that Overstreet lists prices (as reported to them) for NM94,

when in actuality, those raw books are often closer to VFNM90.

 

The reality that a true CGC 9.4 sells for more than raw 9.4

means that buyers are not completely satisfied with "raw 9.4" quality.

Reporting those VFNM90 sales as if they were true NM94 keeps

the price guide "just a bit off" on values for most issues.

It also explains the "premiums" paid vs. guide for CGC 9.4s.

 

"Raw" is becoming a synonym for "worse than stated",

which keeps prices down and "throws off" price guide NM94 numbers.

[blowout]

The real problem is that Overstreet lists prices (as reported to them) for NM94,

when in actuality, those raw books are often closer to VFNM90.

 

The reality that a true CGC 9.4 sells for more than raw 9.4

means that buyers are not completely satisfied with "raw 9.4" quality.

Reporting those VFNM90 sales as if they were true NM94 keeps

the price guide "just a bit off" on values for most issues.

It also explains the "premiums" paid vs. guide for CGC 9.4s.

 

"Raw" is becoming a synonym for "worse than stated",

which keeps prices down and "throws off" price guide NM94 numbers.

 

You may be right in general, but consider this: Overstreet does publish a grading guide which lists their grading standards for a NM9.4, whereas CGC does not. So how can you state for sure that they should be the same?

[sterlingcomics]

We need two OS guides--one for collectors and one for speculators....

[valiantman]

You may be right in general, but consider this: Overstreet does publish a grading guide which lists their grading standards for a NM9.4, whereas CGC does not. So how can you state for sure that they should be the same?

It would really shake up the hobby to say that Overstreet's 9.4 is CGC's 9.0,

don't you think?

(Obviously, they're not... but since USERS of Overstreet consistently overgrade,

you might as well just ignore the NM94 column for raw books... unless you're

looking to find out what the book WON'T sell for.)

[PovertyRow]

Overstreet does publish a grading guide which lists their grading standards for a NM9.4, whereas CGC does not. So how can you state for sure that they should be the same?

 

Yep. CGC cannot be a "standard" until they reveal their criteria. Otherwise, their criteria may change form year to year and how would anyone know unless they started breaking out book after book and comparing? And how many folks are gonna do that?

 

CGC offers absolutely NO standard. To offer a standard the criteria for that standard must be available, and CGC's is not - hence and thus, no standard can exist.

 

"Standard" is just the wrong concept to apply to CGC. Am I knockling CGC? Nope - I don't recall them saying they are the industry standard for grading. But I AM knocking the idea that a hidden criteria comprises a standard. (not the ifrst time I have expressed this).

[Marvelous]

Having 2 different guides would mean there are two different standards in the industry. Do we really want 2 different standards? Do we want Overstreet's NM 9.4 to be different from CGC's NM 9.4? I don't think so. That is why I think there should be 1 standard and CGC should be incorporated into the Overstreet guide. Otherwise, we will continue to have chaos.

[fantastic_four]

CGC offers absolutely NO standard. To offer a standard the criteria for that standard must be available, and CGC's is not - hence and thus, no standard can exist.

 

What makes you disbelieve CGC's explicit claim that they follow Overstreet's standard? Are they really all that different other than a handful of minor points that even the OGG doesn't define with absolute strictness?

[joe_collector]

What makes you disbelieve CGC's explicit claim that they follow Overstreet's standard? Are they really all that different other than a handful of minor points that even the OGG doesn't define with absolute strictness?

 

Well, other than noted differences in the Universal area, what about the criteria for the Qualified and Restored grades?

 

In conversations on here and the inconsistencies others have brought up, I doubt even CGC knows the EXACT system for giving a Qualified grade.

[fantastic_four]

What makes you disbelieve CGC's explicit claim that they follow Overstreet's standard? Are they really all that different other than a handful of minor points that even the OGG doesn't define with absolute strictness?

 

Well, other than noted differences in the Universal area, what about the criteria for the Qualified and Restored grades?

 

A lot of the defects CGC gives a "Qualified" grade to I believe is because Overstreet has NOT defined how to downgrade for them with absolute strictness; not accounting for "Qualified"-type defects is what I have found to be the biggest hole in the 2002 OGG. A prime example of this is a clipped coupon. Going strictly by OGG standards, this would knock an otherwise-NM book straight down to a 1.0 Fair. So...a NM-appearing book and a beat-to-hell, stained, torn, ragged reader copy deserve the same grade for a cut coupon? I don't find that to be an accurate way to describe condition...just going by the single number, they sound like they're in the same condition, but they're not even close. Every time we ask Arnold Blumberg about this kind of issue, he gives his standard answer--the OGG standards weren't meant to be taken so literally on books with one or two defects on an otherwise-higher-grade books (a fact they explicitly state in the first paragraph on page 126 in the latest edition).

 

How do they differ on restoration? I don't remember what the latest OGG says about this, although I do recall the older one actually allowing restoration as acceptable in some of the lower grades.

[Clark Khaos-migration]

A lot of the defects CGC gives a "Qualified" grade to I believe is because Overstreet has NOT defined how to downgrade for them with absolute strictness; not accounting for "Qualified"-type defects is what I have found to be the biggest hole in the 2002 OGG.

 

So you respond to the issue of CGC's inconsistent application of the Qualified label by blaming Overstreet's grading system? CGC has a not inconspicuous flaw in their "system" and it's someone ELSE'S fault?

 

Learn from this. Maybe you can start to understand why no one takes the CGC shills seriously? I brought up the issue of "blind fealty" (and its corrosive, poisonous nature) a number of times in the now-defunct political forum... but it sure seems applicable in this situation, too.

[fantastic_four]

So you respond to the issue of CGC's inconsistent application of the Qualified label by blaming Overstreet's grading system? CGC has a not inconspicuous flaw in their "system" and it's someone ELSE'S fault?

 

Can you be specific here? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

And I'm not "blaming" the Overstreet standards for anything. They are what they are, and they have shown continuous improvement over the years. They're a work in progress, like everything else is in the back issue industry.

[Clark Khaos-migration]

So you respond to the issue of CGC's inconsistent application of the Qualified label by blaming Overstreet's grading system? CGC has a not inconspicuous flaw in their "system" and it's someone ELSE'S fault?

 

Can you be specific here? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

And I'm not "blaming" the Overstreet standards for anything. They are what they are, and they have shown continuous improvement over the years. They're a work in progress, like everything else is in the back issue industry.

 

There have been a number of different threads in the Grading forum about the misuse of the green label. Run a search. It's informative and distressing.

 

And fine, you're not "blaming" Overstreet? Then whose fault is it?

[fantastic_four]

There have been a number of different threads in the Grading forum about the misuse of the green label. Run a search. It's informative and distressing.

 

I've read every thread ever posted in that forum that wasn't related to grading somebody's individual copy of a comic...just tell me which misuse of the Qualified grade you mean. Keep in mind I posted several there myself explaining that the Qualified grade isn't the right long-term solution, but that given the current grading standard, it makes some sense--or at least it points out a problem with that standard.

 

 

And fine, you're not "blaming" Overstreet? Then whose fault is it?

 

There is no "fault." The industry is still young...do you "blame" a child for being underdeveloped?

[Clark Khaos-migration]

I've read every thread ever posted in that forum that wasn't related to grading somebody's individual copy of a comic...just tell me which misuse of the Qualified grade you mean. Keep in mind I posted several there myself explaining that the Qualified grade isn't the right long-term solution, but that given the current grading standard, it makes some sense--or at least it points out a problem with that standard.

 

I mean EVERY "misuse" of that idiotic concept. The "Qualified" idea is flawed in itself. And what "grading standard" are you referring to, CGC's or Overstreet's?

 

(I ask because obviously CGC's "standard" is NOT a "standard" as it cannot be recognized industry-wide as they are keeping it a Big Secret. And don't bother saying that they aren't. Until they come forth and say DEFINITIVELY "Yes, we follow Overstreet's Grading Guide standards", you're just speculating and they're still misleading you.)

 

There is no "fault." The industry is still young...do you "blame" a child for being underdeveloped?

 

That's INCREDIBLY naive, FF. I hope you're kidding. These are not "children", these are grown men looking to make a buck. Do I really need to tell you this?

[fantastic_four]

Until they come forth and say DEFINITIVELY "Yes, we follow Overstreet's Grading Guide standards", you're just speculating and they're still misleading you.)

 

You know about the interview they did with Scoop and the Comics Buyer's Guide where they said this, right? Need a link?

 

 

There is no "fault." The industry is still young...do you "blame" a child for being underdeveloped?

 

That's INCREDIBLY naive, FF. I hope you're kidding. These are not "children", these are grown men looking to make a buck. Do I really need to tell you this?

 

I don't even know how to respond to that...there's no way I could in a reasonable amount of time. Comic industry figures being adults has nothing to do with how well the grading standards have progressed. It'll take you years to build your understanding of how human knowledge of complex subjects is built...we can't get it done in a single thread, no use in trying with someone as adversarial as yourself. I can only recommend you try going spending more time at a university or trying to become a teacher yourself. Perhaps we can revisit the topic in another 5-10 years...but obviously not now!

[Clark Khaos-migration]

FF, you're just not keeping up. At the beginning of this discussion, before you decided to start down the Road of Veiled Insults, I said:

 

"So you respond to the issue of CGC's inconsistent application of the Qualified label by blaming Overstreet's grading system? CGC has a not inconspicuous flaw in their "system" and it's someone ELSE'S fault?"

 

Now, let me clarify this for you: We're not talking about the ACTUAL grading system here. We are discussing an INCONSISTENT APPLICATION of a grading system by a COMPANY that is PAID to NOT to be inconsistent.

 

Please, try to keep up. Now, go back, apologize for your moronic outburst, and start over.