Silver Age CGC 9.9 and Reality

[Davenport]

On one of the CLink emails this jumped out at me:

 

Iron Man #1 CGC 9.9 (Highest, 1 of 2, 1 of only 27 9.9’s for any title published between 1960 and 1969 out of over 300,000 graded!)

 

That's one hell of a numerical cliff. It makes me wonder if the 27 out of over 300,000 aren't just hiccups in judgment. Or what could possibly be the difference is if they're not.

 

Just curious what others thought of those 9.9 tweener-grade stats.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr 9.8]

I wouldn't have graded that 9.9.

9.8 yes, 9.9? No.

[oakman29]

Sure is a beautiful book,looks like it go either way 9.8/9.9 .

[NewWorldOrder]

I think the book belongs to Prestine Comics.

 

If in fact it is his book I don't think this time he can pull the book before the auction ends.

[DiceX]

Yes. It's a 9.9.

Look on the label at the top.

 

Iron Man #1

MINT 9.9

 

That's the tell.

 

 

[COI]

It's impossible to know without 1) knowing CGCs official grading guidelines and 2) inspecting the books in person. Even with both of these things, I would probably have no clue.

 

That being said, it takes a special breed of collector to buy SA 9.9s. If "the madness begins at 9.6", chasing 9.9s is vacationing in the Congo.

[Underground44]

Either way.... it's a beautiful book and I'd love to own it

[cujobyte]

Old label = pressed to 10 mint

[tth2]

Actually, for what it's worth, the one thing that CGC has been pretty consistent on throughout their existence is being very tight on the number of 9.9s and 10.0s. Whether they arrive at those small numbers by strict adherence to grading criteria, or because they've determined as a matter of policy that no more than X% of all books can ever be graded as 9.9s, I don't know.

 

But whereas their grading of all other grades has fluctuated wildly (and in my opinion generally loosened) over time, they've been remarkably consistent on restricting the number of 9.9s and 10.0s to a very small percentage of the population. I wish they could be as consistent with 9.8s, 9.6s and 9.4s. Most of what I see as 9.4s these days is a joke.

[gcstomp]

Beautiful front cover, deep colors, sharp focus, perfect corners. Someone will hit the pinata hard on that one, end price 90k you think?

[WEBHEAD]

"of those, Iron Man #1 and Captain America #100 are the most important, followed by Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1 and Nick Fury, Agent of Shield #1. "

 

 

This seems very interesting because These were all published within 2 months of each other

[tth2]

"of those, Iron Man #1 and Captain America #100 are the most important, followed by Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1 and Nick Fury, Agent of Shield #1. "

 

 

This seems very interesting because These were all published within 2 months of each other

Not really. It`s common knowledge that these books were all hoarded.

[Davenport]

I wouldn't have graded that 9.9.

9.8 yes, 9.9? No.

What prompted the thread wasn't the Iron Man #1 or any particular book, but those stats quoted.

 

Maybe it's because I'm not a math person, but if you inspect over 300,000 items and 27 fall on one side of a line, the reason why should be glaringly obvious. The numerical cliff is so pronounced. Is that cliff real or imagined? Are those 27 so startlingly unique they cross a line?

 

Or, asked another way... If you gathered the 27 and had them reevaluated, what are the odds of getting 27 9.9s again?

[Davenport]

Maybe what I'm asking is more for someone in the printing industry. Since all books are from "print runs" what could happen during the process to pop out singular perfection oddities?

Or does the evaluation process assume all books were produced as 9.9, and then only 27 (of over 300,000) remain intact?

[Ze-man]

On one of the CLink emails this jumped out at me:

 

Iron Man #1 CGC 9.9 (Highest, 1 of 2, 1 of only 27 9.9’s for any title published between 1960 and 1969 out of over 300,000 graded!)

 

That's one hell of a numerical cliff. It makes me wonder if the 27 out of over 300,000 aren't just hiccups in judgment. Or what could possibly be the difference is if they're not.

 

Just curious what others thought of those 9.9 tweener-grade stats.

 

 

What's funny is I read it the exact opposite as you.

 

Out of 300,000 60's books graded, only 27 received a 9.9

 

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

 

One knows right away when you are holding a NM+ type book in hand. Then upon inspection you filter through the tiny flaws that might bring it down to earth. Then you factor in the book as a whole..and then you have to decide if the book is a 9.8 or 9.9. Judgement call time

 

And among 3 graders at CGC they only pegged 27 60's books as 9.9

 

Sounds to me like CGC doesn't hand it out too often, and realizes it is indeed rare air. Burps and hiccups aside.

 

Obviously owners of 9.8's will make a case why their 9.8 is not sitting in 9.9 holder. And pick apart why those sitting in 9.9's are not worthy. But the fact that only 27 made 9.9 initially seems to speak volumes about CGC's effort to make a separation at that level.

 

One is near perfection, and the other even closer.

 

 

btw, how many 9.8's are there for comparison?

 

[VintageComics]

On one of the CLink emails this jumped out at me:

 

Iron Man #1 CGC 9.9 (Highest, 1 of 2, 1 of only 27 9.9’s for any title published between 1960 and 1969 out of over 300,000 graded!)

 

That's one hell of a numerical cliff. It makes me wonder if the 27 out of over 300,000 aren't just hiccups in judgment. Or what could possibly be the difference is if they're not.

 

Just curious what others thought of those 9.9 tweener-grade stats.

 

 

You are like Stu used to be. Always looking for cracks in CGC's armour.

 

It's no big secret as it's been discussed a zillion times on these boards (and you knew that) that the majority of resubs, whether 9.6/9.8 or 9.9 would come back in the same grades with a little variation on either side.

 

But go ahead and ignore previous conversations on the exact same subject.

[Davenport]

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

We may be seeing it the same, if you're saying it's a man-made controlled statistical cliff. As opposed to reality taking its course, be what may.

 

That's what promoted the thread. I felt like I was reading something that defied reality.

[VintageComics]

 

One is near perfection, and the other even closer.

 

btw, how many 9.8's are there for comparison?

 

I've actually picked apart books with CGC that I thought were 9.9 and CGC graded them 9.8's several times. In every case they could explain to me why there were never going to be a 9.9 and it made sense.

 

Additionally, I've submitted books that I thought were 9.9's and they got graded 9.9's.

 

 

[Ze-man]

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

We may be seeing it the same, if you're saying it's a man-made controlled statistical cliff. As opposed to reality taking its course, be what may.

 

That's what promoted the thread. I felt like I was reading something that defied reality.

 

Who talks like that? statistical cliffs?

 

 

My point was CGC rarely (seems to) hand out 9.9's because they rarely see a book that deserves it. They knowingly reserve it for those few books that deserve it.

 

Not that they willingly decide to control/limit the number.

 

So no, that was not what I was saying at all.

 

Like everyone else, I am just basing this on what I see in front of me over the years. Where you see cliffs, I see trends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

We may be seeing it the same, if you're saying it's a man-made controlled statistical cliff. As opposed to reality taking its course, be what may.

 

That's what promoted the thread. I felt like I was reading something that defied reality.

 

Who talks like that? statistical cliffs?

 

 

My point was CGC rarely hands out 9.9's because they rarely see a book that deserves it. They knowingly reserve it for those few books that deserve it.

 

Not that they willingly decide to control/limit the number.

 

So no, that was not what I was saying at all.

 

 

 

That's the way Dav sees it.

 

He and Beerhbom should be able to bring down CGC if they work closely together.