Doug Schmell cashing in his vaulted massive collecion. Poll: Is this the top?

[Gotham Kid]

9.8 doesnt't imply perfection--10.0 does.

 

(thumbs u

[VintageComics]

 

Fact is, CGC does not hammer or decimate grades or severely downgrade for NCB wear.

 

It's just a myth that is often used by those who dislike pressing to gain some traction in a discussion against pressing.

 

Roy, for the record, what is your definition of "hammer". are you saying it is less than one grade level, one grade level, two grade levels?

If upgrades are given for reflattened paper then by default there's a downgrade for non-flat. Right? Can't have it both ways.

 

Relative thread: Best bump one has got from pressing??

 

Nobody is saying that books do not go up when pressed. You're exaggerating my argument to support yours now. Of course they can go up in grade when pressed. What I am saying is that people are perpetuating the myth that CGC downgrades severely for NCB wear. They down grade severely only when there is a LOT of NCB wear. If there is a little NCB wear the book is downgraded slightly if at all. That is a reality.

 

It's the differences in price for a small grade increment that people fuss over (the large price swing from 9.6 to 9.8 for example) but people are confusing that for a large grade increase which it is not.

 

A small indent or bend may or may not cause a downgrade. Consequently, there are many books that people press NCB wear out of that do not go up in grade.

 

It's just that nobody ever talks about those because they are either not newsworthy, do not support their beliefs or they are not noticed the way upgrades are noticed...it's more newsworthy if a book goes from 9.0 - 9.4 or 9.6 to 9.8 than it is if a book stays the same grade but books that are pressed and do not go up in grade are out there in ample numbers.

[VintageComics]

I just checked it out on the heritage site. It looks worse than the image here. That is damage on the top left hand corner and the bottom left hand corner. Looks like minor blunting on the top which you can see from the back. And the color IS missing above his wing. Hadn't notice how bad the "Marvel chipping" is down the right hand side of the book from the scan here.

 

Again, I understand for a SA book this is as good as it gets for a SA or older book. It is a terrific book by all accounts. But a 9.8 terrific? Which is why I wonder if CGC has a different grading standard for BA and up books versus SA and older. There is no way that is a 9.8 on a BA or newer book!

 

You're looking at a scan that is 2 or 3 times the size of a regular book and looking at magnified images. Minus the very slight darkening of the outer edge of the cover on the JIM #112, you'd have a difficult time finding a nicer copy on the newsstand even if you went through all copies and tried to choose the nicest one.

 

As rahal, FF and PiP have all attested to, a 9.8 is not a flawless book and never has been. A 9.8 is a book with a few minimal flaws that don't' accumulate over a certain criteria.

 

This is a post I made with a detailed explanation about grade small defects in higher grades. We were talking about miswraps but you can substitute any defect into the discussion. It's just my opinion/experience on how CGC grades although it does not take into account factors such as gloss and feel of a book which are intangible on a 2D scan - so keep in mind that there is more to a grade than just 2D defects.

 

 

PS-Is there anywhere in print that states the CGC criteria for grading? Is see alot of opinions but nothing stated as fact. Thanks in advance.

 

CGC has not printed their grading criteria anywhere but this is the closest thing I have seen to it. I've posted this chart many times. It comes from the Overstreet Grading Guide. I find it invaluable in learning how to grade comics.

 

Where'd you get that info from Roy? I've never heard that before. And really, that TKJ has 99% of the spine on the front cover at the bottom, I wouldn't have thought that would be allowed in 9.8 if they took miswrap into consideration.

 

Part of it is from me reverse engineering CGC's grading standards through 1000's of submissions, some of it from conversations with CGC employees and some of it from reading the Overstreet grading guide (2nd edition).

 

In the grading guide there is a chart and a graph that shows how many defects and what size of defects are allowed in grade.

 

If you look at the graph, it shows that you are allowed 1 "larger" or 2 "smaller" defects in NM/M grade of 1/16" - 1/8" in size. I took that to mean that you can have two 1/16" or one 1/8" defect on an otherwise perfect book and the book will grade a 9.8.

 

That would include a miswrap of up to roughly 1/8"

 

A miswrap larger than 1/8" to 1/4" would drop it to the 9.6 range.

 

If you look at 9.9, you'll note that only one defect of 1/16" in size is allowed on an otherwise perfect book...so a perfect book with a 1/16" miswrap would drop the book into a 9.9 grade.

 

A perfect book with no miswrap would not drop the grade.

 

 

[jimjum12]

People who press are not going to stop......people who buy pressed are NOT going to stop......people who don't buy pressed will continue to buy pressed and be mad about it. It doesn't seem complicated at all to me. A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking). A CGC 10.0 is a VERY nice book. Haters are never happy. Lovers are never satisfied. Anything else before I take my nap ? GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

People who press are not going to stop......people who buy pressed are NOT going to stop......people who don't buy pressed will continue to buy pressed and be mad about it. It doesn't seem complicated at all to me. A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking). A CGC 10.0 is a VERY nice book. Haters are never happy. Lovers are never satisfied. Anything else before I take my nap ? GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I'm in the process of typing out a detailed reply to MasterChief but you said it well in a few short sentences so I'll just snip mine.

 

People are taking a relatively benign process which is for the most part not detectable unless done poorly, and not harmful (or at least any more harmful than printing a comic book as all newsprint is heated and pressed during the printing process) and taking an emotional stance against it by using words like greed, ethics, manipulation and dirtbag and labelling people.

 

It's become an emotional "us vs. them" argument every time now where people become "good guys and bad guys" and rather than have a balanced discussion of the process or present a balanced view of what is actually going on, people are becoming entrenched and doing anything they can to support "their side".

 

Personally, I hate participating in any sort of pressing debate because it's such a minefield of emotion and people do make emotional decisions about dealing with people during the course of these discussions but It's just difficult sometimes to sit on the sidelines and read things that are either untrue or unbalanced in the way they are portrayed.

 

 

[jimjum12]

People who press are not going to stop......people who buy pressed are NOT going to stop......people who don't buy pressed will continue to buy pressed and be mad about it. It doesn't seem complicated at all to me. A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking). A CGC 10.0 is a VERY nice book. Haters are never happy. Lovers are never satisfied. Anything else before I take my nap ? GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I'm in the process of typing out a detailed reply to MasterChief but you said it well in a few short sentences so I'll just snip mine.

 

People are taking a relatively benign process which is for the most part not detectable unless done poorly, and not harmful (or at least any more harmful than printing a comic book as all newsprint is heated and pressed during the printing process) and taking an emotional stance against it by using words like greed, ethics, manipulation and dirtbag and labelling people.

 

It's become an emotional "us vs. them" argument every time now where people become "good guys and bad guys" and rather than have a balanced discussion of the process or present a balanced view of what is actually going on, people are becoming entrenched and doing anything they can to support "their side".

 

Personally, I hate participating in any sort of pressing debate because it's such a minefield of emotion and people do make emotional decisions about dealing with people during the course of these discussions but It's just difficult sometimes to sit on the sidelines and read things that are either untrue or unbalanced in the way they are portrayed.

 

 

......I'm feisty before I take my nap GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

P.S. For the record, I like ALL of you guys and gals, the pressers, depressers, and pressees.....except for one. As far as he's concerned, I just avoid looking in the mirror

[bluechip]

People who press are not going to stop......people who buy pressed are NOT going to stop......people who don't buy pressed will continue to buy pressed and be mad about it. It doesn't seem complicated at all to me. A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking). A CGC 10.0 is a VERY nice book. Haters are never happy. Lovers are never satisfied. Anything else before I take my nap ? GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I'm in the process of typing out a detailed reply to MasterChief but you said it well in a few short sentences so I'll just snip mine.

 

People are taking a relatively benign process which is for the most part not detectable unless done poorly, and not harmful (or at least any more harmful than printing a comic book as all newsprint is heated and pressed during the printing process) and taking an emotional stance against it by using words like greed, ethics, manipulation and dirtbag and labelling people.

 

It's become an emotional "us vs. them" argument every time now where people become "good guys and bad guys" and rather than have a balanced discussion of the process or present a balanced view of what is actually going on, people are becoming entrenched and doing anything they can to support "their side".

 

Personally, I hate participating in any sort of pressing debate because it's such a minefield of emotion and people do make emotional decisions about dealing with people during the course of these discussions but It's just difficult sometimes to sit on the sidelines and read things that are either untrue or unbalanced in the way they are portrayed.

 

 

It's somewhat understandable that people judge CGC grades emotionally because it's impossible not to inject some emotions into grading due to the fact that it aims to quantify some defects versus others, and that will vary from person to person based on their emotions. CGC reinforces and exacerbates that by injecting emotions into the quantitative number process,judging defects differently based on how they perceive it to have occured

[VintageComics]

Roy [or anybody] is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

That is one of the most ridiculous equations regularly made on these boards.

It just as ridiculous as the statement -

So-and-so [tth2] is a collector. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

Both statements are meaningless.

But I DO rock the boat (as you well know, since you and your buddies are always trying to tell me to sit down and shut up). You and the other dealers don't.

 

I totally understand why you guys don't, and can't say I blame you. If my living was also dependent on the comic book hobby being nothing but sunshine and roses, I wouldn't point out the negative aspects of the hobby either. I'm just trying to point out to folks on the boards that they shouldn't expect objective opinions from the guys on the boards who are professional dealers (or amateur dealers, for that matter).

 

Your initial post to (or at) me was unfair, mainly because I had said that there are 9.8 examples out there that looked worse than this one [the TTA #36] to base an argument on but you ignored that comment and just went ahead and posted something that could be considered derogatory.

 

 

[VintageComics]

It's somewhat understandable that people judge CGC grades emotionally because it's impossible not to inject some emotions into grading due to the fact that it aims to quantify some defects versus others, and that will vary from person to person based on their emotions.

 

And because CGC has made a concerted effort to inject emotions into the process by judging defects differently based on how they perceive it to have occured

 

It's totally understandable. Grading is subjective based on the person who is doing the grading. We're not robots, we all have difference preferences and programming.

 

People just need to realize that everyone will see something differently.

 

One person will say "OMG, I can't believe they allowed that spine stress on a 9.8" while another will say "I don't have a problem with the spine stress but look at that page quality - I can't believe it got a 9.8!"

 

The bottom line is that CGC is using their own grading criteria, not ours, and if a book has a grade on the label (providing it's not a clerical or internal mistake) they thought that it looked like the assigned grade on the day it was graded.

 

We can discuss that grade until the cows come home but let's not make it into a personal attack of "us vs. them" which serves no purpose except to divide us. It's certainly not going to make any progress. It never does.

[fantastic_four]

A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking).

 

I disagree...what makes you say that? My past study of examples from the Overstreet Grading Guides hasn't suggested that's the case.

[VintageComics]

A CGC 9.8 is the equivalent of an OSPG 9.4 (strictly speaking).

 

I disagree...what makes you say that? My past study of examples from the Overstreet Grading Guides hasn't suggested that's the case.

 

What is really confusing is that I don't know if he's an "us" or a "them" by this statement.

 

[jimjum12]

.....to clarify, a CGC 9.8 is approximately what I envisioned when trying to grade 9.4's by OSPG definition before CGC or grading guides came into being. Personally, I like it better now, pressing and all. Before CGC, I'd gotten so tired of getting boned by 98% of all dealers that I had virtually stopped collecting. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

[fantastic_four]

.....to clarify, a CGC 9.8 is approximately what I envisioned when trying to grade 9.4's by OSPG definition before CGC or grading guides came into being.

 

It's far closer to what Overstreet and the hobby used to (mostly erroneously) call "Mint," i.e. a book that that is almost entirely free of defects. Overstreet attempted to become more precise with this by introducing his 100-point "ONE" scale in his 1992 Grading Guide, but it was too vague and overly ambitious, something that Fishler successfully convinced Borock of by coming up with the 25-notch scale that both CGC and Overstreet use now. As far as I can tell, Overstreet's concept of Near Mint has always allowed more defects than CGC allows today in a 9.8.

[jimjum12]

.....to clarify, a CGC 9.8 is approximately what I envisioned when trying to grade 9.4's by OSPG definition before CGC or grading guides came into being.

 

It's far closer to what Overstreet and the hobby used to (mostly erroneously) call "Mint," i.e. a book that that is almost entirely free of defects. Overstreet attempted to become more precise with this by introducing his 100-point "ONE" scale in his 1992 Grading Guide, but it was too vague and overly ambitious, something that Fishler successfully convinced Borock of by coming up with the 25-notch scale that both CGC and Overstreet use now. As far as I can tell, Overstreet's concept of Near Mint has always allowed more defects than CGC allows today in a 9.8.

 

......My memories of 1992 seem to feature "mint" books that were what CGC calls an 8.0 nowadays . Maybe you were treated better. The 9.8's I've seen usually have a spine dimple and a soft corner......GORGEOUS books, don't get me wrong.....just closer to what I'd call NM. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

......My memories of 1992 seem to feature "mint" books that were what CGC calls an 8.0 nowadays . Maybe you were treated better. The 9.8's I've seen usually have a spine dimple and a soft corner......GORGEOUS books, don't get me wrong.....just closer to what I'd call NM

 

No I agree, only a very small handful of people were accurately using the "Mint" designation when Overstreet created is first grading guide, and the same was true for many years afterwards. Where I disagree is that what CGC is calling 9.8 is what Overstreet has ever called Near Mint 9.4...CGC's 9.8s are better than most books Overstreet called 9.4.

 

Having said that, where I--and to a limited extent Overstreet--diverge with CGC's standard is the way they downgrade for production-caused defects. I agree--and Overstreet sometimes agrees as well, but he does it inconsistently with his examples in the grading guides--with some of the sentiments expressed earlier relative to that TTA 9.8 book--that CGC should downgrade more for production defects. I'm fine with those dimples on the top edge that most people are reacting to--they're exaggerated by the scanner glare. I can't make any call on the URC so I have to ignore it because the scan is inconclusive as to what we're seeing there. But the right edge seems to rule that book out from 9.8 for me--I see one or two little pre-Marvel tears. If I am indeed seeing those--and I very well might not be, scans can often be misleading--the book shouldn't be a 9.8. It seems consistent with what I've seen from CGC in the past...they do seem to frequently downgrade less for production tears, and I disagree mightily with that standard.

[jimjum12]

The grading guides were neat books, but very inconsistent. Around here, we thought they seemed to be biased toward D.C. books. CGC is still the best thing going....their success proves that. I guess my problem is that my outlook has always refused to accept the notion of a "mint" book before a certain point in time. More people will likely agree with your view. But I'm probably too set in my notions to change my mind. I still feel that I don't need CGC to grade for me, I know what I want. I need CGC to grade for the OTHER guys, so I don't get ripped off too soundly GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[delekkerste]

I had said that there are 9.8 examples out there that looked worse than this one [the TTA #36]

 

I was an active slab collector between 2000 and 2004 and, as such, my grading perspective is stuck in that 2000-2004 timeframe. Back then, CGC had far less tolerance for even these accumulated defects you speak of. I am confident that, back in that period, the TTA #36 would have had precisely a 0% chance of attaining a 9.8 and, while a 9.6 might have been possible, it would have been a gift grade. The fact that you can point to worse looking examples in grade nowadays just speaks to the fact that CGC's grading has become ridiculously lax and sloppy since I stopped collecting. In fact, I'll occasionally still look for certain slabbed books online and I regularly see 9.8s that would have been 9.6s at best back in the first half of the 2000s, and 9.6s with so much wear they might even have been 9.2s.

 

9.8s are not perfect, but, in the first half of the 2000s, you could be pretty sure that they wouldn't be far off. Most of you who have bought and sold continuously since then have probably lost a lot of that perspective as you adapted to the changes in CGC's strictness (or lack thereof) over time. Me, I'm stuck in 2004 and so many of these alleged 9.6s and 9.8s just look grossly overgraded to me.

[Flaming_Telepath]

.....to clarify, a CGC 9.8 is approximately what I envisioned when trying to grade 9.4's by OSPG definition before CGC or grading guides came into being.

 

It's far closer to what Overstreet and the hobby used to (mostly erroneously) call "Mint," i.e. a book that that is almost entirely free of defects. Overstreet attempted to become more precise with this by introducing his 100-point "ONE" scale in his 1992 Grading Guide, but it was too vague and overly ambitious, something that Fishler successfully convinced Borock of by coming up with the 25-notch scale that both CGC and Overstreet use now. As far as I can tell, Overstreet's concept of Near Mint has always allowed more defects than CGC allows today in a 9.8.

 

True.

 

But Overstreet's definition of NM is much tighter than a CGC NM (9.4)

[rjrjr]

9.8 doesnt't imply perfection--10.0 does.

 

(thumbs u

 

I understand that. The way I see a 9.8 is it looks perfect at first glance and upon closer inspection, you can see a defect or two. It might just be me, but the defects on that JIM stand out without me having to inspect closely for them. I saw the defects on the scans provided on this discussion (scans that are not that sharp), not from the pictures on the Heritage site. I didn't look over the book to see if there are any other defects like spine ticks, although the Marvel chipping is pretty easy to see once you look at the Heritage pictures.

 

In either case, it seems clear to me there are 2 CGC standards. BA and newer books and SA and older books. I've seen a 9.8 modern and if the modern book had those defects, there is no way the modern would have received a 9.8.

 

Regardless, it is a beautiful book. And CGC does provide a wonderful service.

[MrBedrock]

Roy [or anybody] is a dealer. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

That is one of the most ridiculous equations regularly made on these boards.

It just as ridiculous as the statement -

So-and-so [tth2] is a collector. It's not good for him to acknowledge things that might rock the boat.

 

Both statements are meaningless.

But I DO rock the boat (as you well know, since you and your buddies are always trying to tell me to sit down and shut up). You and the other dealers don't.

 

I totally understand why you guys don't, and can't say I blame you. If my living was also dependent on the comic book hobby being nothing but sunshine and roses, I wouldn't point out the negative aspects of the hobby either. I'm just trying to point out to folks on the boards that they shouldn't expect objective opinions from the guys on the boards who are professional dealers (or amateur dealers, for that matter).

I guess this is where I have to prove that I, too, rock the boat. I won't.

 

And I do not think that your opinion is any more objective than a dealer's just because you are a collector. You have your own set of biases.