Guide for differences between CGC 9.6 and CGC 9.8, pictures included

[seanfingh]

Actually, most CGC 9.6s and 9.8s are interchangeable. If they were out of the CGC holder and sans label, one would have a 50/50 shot at guessing which was which.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Maybe you two would. Not me. If that were the case, my SS subs should be coming back 50% 9.6 and 50% 9.8 (on books that I have assessed as potential 9.8s.) That is not even remotely the case. I am way over 90% and others are better than I am. (JJ, Beachbum, probably Michael Schmidt etc.) pirate is quite a bit worse than average.

[DrWatson]

On a tangent, nothing should ever be a 9.9 or a 10.0 (even though I own a few). Those grades are manufactured like holidays to sell greeting cards.

[DrWatson]

Actually, most CGC 9.6s and 9.8s are interchangeable. If they were out of the CGC holder and sans label, one would have a 50/50 shot at guessing which was which.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Maybe you two would. Not me. If that were the case, my SS subs should be coming back 50% 9.6 and 50% 9.8 (on books that I have assessed as potential 9.8s.) That is not even remotely the case. I am way over 90% and others are better than I am. (JJ, Beachbum, probably Michael Schmidt etc.) pirate is quite a bit worse than average.

You are missing the point. It isn't about being able to distinguish between what should be a 9.6 and what should be a 9.8. It's about many of the books graded as 9.6s and 9.8s by CGC can often be interchanged.

[seanfingh]

Actually, most CGC 9.6s and 9.8s are interchangeable. If they were out of the CGC holder and sans label, one would have a 50/50 shot at guessing which was which.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Maybe you two would. Not me. If that were the case, my SS subs should be coming back 50% 9.6 and 50% 9.8 (on books that I have assessed as potential 9.8s.) That is not even remotely the case. I am way over 90% and others are better than I am. (JJ, Beachbum, probably Michael Schmidt etc.) pirate is quite a bit worse than average.

You are missing the point. It isn't about being able to distinguish between what should be a 9.6 and what should be a 9.8. It's about many of the books graded as 9.6s and 9.8s by CGC can often be interchanged.

 

I don't see a distinction or a difference so I guess I am

[DrWatson]

I'm not trying to intentionally vague. I don't know how else to say it. Perhaps some one can lend an assist?

 

I can pick out books that CGC will grade as 9.8s. Grading for perfection is not difficult. There are graded 9.6s and 9.8s that if they weren't sitting in labelled holders, you wouldn't be able to tell the books apart.

[seanfingh]

I'm not trying to intentionally vague. I don't know how else to say it. Perhaps some one can lend an assist?

 

I can pick out books that CGC will grade as 9.8s. Grading for perfection is not difficult. There are graded 9.6s and 9.8s that if they weren't sitting in labelled holders, you wouldn't be able to tell the books apart.

 

Is that because of damage in the holders or something like that? Because I would still think that you count up the flaws and if it is two or less, 9.8 if not 9.6 or worse.

[DrWatson]

Is that because of damage in the holders or something like that? Because I would still think that you count up the flaws and if it is two or less, 9.8 if not 9.6 or worse.

No.

 

That's what I'm talking about, conventional wisdom didn't apply to the grade the books received.

[seanfingh]

Is that because of damage in the holders or something like that? Because I would still think that you count up the flaws and if it is two or less, 9.8 if not 9.6 or worse.

No.

 

That's what I'm talking about, conventional wisdom didn't apply to the grade the books received.

 

Yeah, I could agree with that. But I see a lot more harsh grading than I do soft grading, at least with my own subs. I had 2 out of 8 WD Tony Moore's come back 9.6 and two out of 10 Sam Kieths as well, including a cracked out 9.8.

[DrWatson]

Well, I can see the logic behind the Walking Deads.

[Boozad]

Yeah, I could agree with that. But I see a lot more harsh grading than I do soft grading

 

I've had quite the opposite. I don't have scans for them anymore except for the one below, but I've had surprising grades on SA, BA and MA books.

 

 

 

[Marvelfangirl]

But are they SS?

 

Had to decide between SS and 9.9s. Went with the 9.9s.

 

game....

 

set....

 

 

match

 

 

i was going to include a joke about shortstacks, erm, short stature but lebowski is 1 foot shorter than shortstack is so i guess i have no idea where i am going with this. psychotropic drugs are fun!

You won this match Jason,but not the war

[seanfingh]

Yeah, I could agree with that. But I see a lot more harsh grading than I do soft grading

 

I've had quite the opposite. I don't have scans for them anymore except for the one below, but I've had surprising grades on SA, BA and MA books.

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related, like the 2000-2001 Marvel gatefold books, or like the flaking is on Sandman (sometimes ) .

[Boozad]

Yeah, I could agree with that. But I see a lot more harsh grading than I do soft grading

 

I've had quite the opposite. I don't have scans for them anymore except for the one below, but I've had surprising grades on SA, BA and MA books.

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related, like the 2000-2001 Marvel gatefold books, or like the flaking is on Sandman (sometimes ) .

 

The spine wear maybe, but what about the two soft-as- corners?

[seanfingh]

Yeah, I could agree with that. But I see a lot more harsh grading than I do soft grading

 

I've had quite the opposite. I don't have scans for them anymore except for the one below, but I've had surprising grades on SA, BA and MA books.

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related, like the 2000-2001 Marvel gatefold books, or like the flaking is on Sandman (sometimes ) .

 

The spine wear maybe, but what about the two soft-as- corners?

 

That's your two defects?

[DrWatson]

What about the color breaking spine stress visible on the back cover?

[seanfingh]

What about the color breaking spine stress visible on the back cover?

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related

[shortstack comics]

Yeah, I could agree with that. But I see a lot more harsh grading than I do soft grading

 

I've had quite the opposite. I don't have scans for them anymore except for the one below, but I've had surprising grades on SA, BA and MA books.

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related, like the 2000-2001 Marvel gatefold books, or like the flaking is on Sandman (sometimes ) .

 

That's what throws me so many times is trying to to determine what will and what won't be looked at as a "production flaw"

[DrWatson]

What about the color breaking spine stress visible on the back cover?

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related

If so, that's bananas. It's a horizontal spine crack. It's not like the MP sketch covers. You can even see it on the front cover in the black of one of the buildings almost dead center.

[seanfingh]

What about the color breaking spine stress visible on the back cover?

 

 

I bet the spine wear on that particular book is being treated as production related

If so, that's bananas. It's a horizontal spine crack. It's not like the MP sketch covers. You can even see it on the front cover in the black of one of the buildings almost dead center.

 

Yeah, but if virtually every one that rolled off the line had the same damage, then it sort of makes sense.

[DrWatson]

They won't do the Wolverine 35 that way. Plus, if there are some that don't have it, it's not production.