Is CGC Grading Laxer?

[Anfield Fox]

I've been out of the hobby for a few years with the odd purchase here and there but since coming back i keep seeing slabbed books that in my humble opinion are over graded, at least compared to the CGC books i was buying from 01-07.

 

Is this something that has been discussed? Is it just me that's out of the loop? But really i have seen tons of books that if i was grading i would drop an entire grade from the CGC assigned grade. That said i have always been hard on spine damage, but still. Perhaps people who have been here day in, day out would not have noticed a gradual change?

 

You're probably going to ask for examples but many of these books are owned by board members and i don't want to upset or step on toes here. One example i did see recently on eBay though is this Cerebus below. I really hope it's not now owned by a board member and if it is i apologise, i'm just using it as an example

 

VF-? If i was selling this raw i would struggle to give it a FN.

 

There are many more as i said, especially in my collecting area of 8.5-9.4 that i felt were over graded.

 

 

 

[xsmr2-migration]

The fact that it's in an oversized holder makes it appear worse than it is.

 

If you can mentally remove the holder from your mind, 7.5-7 looks pretty spot on.

[DrWatson]

Is CGC Grading Laxer?

ExLaxer might be the more appropriate term.

[Anfield Fox]

Is CGC Grading Laxer?

ExLaxer might be the more appropriate term.

 

I had difficulty understanding you at the best of times, after 5 minutes trying to comprehend your line i give up. You're too smart for me

[Guardian Comics]

Matt:

 

I agree, I'd be hard pressed to call that book a fine myself. Now I don't know anything about that book so I don't know how they grade that book. It really is the same as usual though, some books tend to appear undergraded and some appear overgraded hence we try and buy the book not the label. Something we all should have been doing since 2001

 

Jim

[mschmidt]

I've been out of the hobby for a few years with the odd purchase here and there but since coming back i keep seeing slabbed books that in my humble opinion are over graded, at least compared to the CGC books i was buying from 01-07.

 

Is this something that has been discussed? Is it just me that's out of the loop? But really i have seen tons of books that if i was grading i would drop an entire grade from the CGC assigned grade. That said i have always been hard on spine damage, but still. Perhaps people who have been here day in, day out would not have noticed a gradual change?

 

You're probably going to ask for examples but many of these books are owned by board members and i don't want to upset or step on toes here. One example i did see recently on eBay though is this Cerebus below. I really hope it's not now owned by a board member and if it is i apologise, i'm just using it as an example

 

VF-? If i was selling this raw i would struggle to give it a FN.

 

There are many more as i said, especially in my collecting area of 8.5-9.4 that i felt were over graded.

 

 

 

CGC has always been a bit soft on odd- & over-sized books that were printed on crappy paper - Cerebus #1, Primer #2 and Primer #5 all spring to mind.

 

With that said, calling this book a 6.0 seems a bit crazy as well.

[seanfingh]

 

Don't forget that sometimes scanners will emphasize spine tics in a way that is not representative of the book. Not saying that happened in this case, but it does happen from time to time.

[DrWatson]

Is CGC Grading Laxer?

ExLaxer might be the more appropriate term.

 

I had difficulty understanding you at the best of times, after 5 minutes trying to comprehend your line i give up. You're too smart for me

 

[Anfield Fox]

Is CGC Grading Laxer?

ExLaxer might be the more appropriate term.

 

I had difficulty understanding you at the best of times, after 5 minutes trying to comprehend your line i give up. You're too smart for me

 

 

They never sold those here. Good thing too, they look tasty

[rjpb]

Due to volume of books, as well as multiple and changing graders, it does appear that CGCs grading is less consistent than with some smaller dealers who grade everything personally. There are regular sellers on these boards who would probably give that book raw a 7.5 nine times out of ten, and others like yourself who would call it a 6.0 almost every time. I suspect most would fall somewhere in between, but almost all would be pretty consistent. Even then a given flaw just feels either worse or less of a problem to a given grader than we might expect.

 

It seems like there has been a constant cycle of CGC is tightening or loosening their grading standard threads since I joined the boards. There may well be an ebb and flow to the strictness of GCG grading, who knows, perhaps effected by the seasons, but my guess is most of this comes to comparing a random book to what one believes is the norm for CGC, and some books are just going to fall outside that perception, one way or another. It's the difficulty of second guessing third party grades, especially through plastic, let alone from just a scan.

 

My estimation, given the flaws that are evident in the pictures, is the book looks like a 6.5, maybe a 7.0.

 

6.0-7.5 is a somewhat amorphous grade range where the only real agreement is that they are generally decent looking copies with too many obvious flaws to be VF or better. Unless your talking to modern collectors who tend to think everything short of VF is a VG at best.

[rodan57]

Don't forget that sometimes scanners will emphasize spine tics in a way that is not representative of the book. Not saying that happened in this case, but it does happen from time to time.

 

This is a very good point but I do feel that the grading is looser.

[Bomber-Bob]

'Is CGC grading laxer', is this proper English ? Not sounding correct I looked it up and here is a definition 'Loose and not easily retained or controlled. Used of bowel movements.'

[DrWatson]

It's British English, so it's automatically acceptable worldwide, wanker.

[Timmay]

Used of bowel movements.

 

Describes a couple or turds I've received from CGC.

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

FYI, the Cerebus example was graded in Sept 2011. I think the grading for the bulk of 2011 was terribly loose. However, they have tightened up in 2012. In general, I feel tighter grading is best for the hobby.

[Bomber-Bob]

It's British English, so it's automatically acceptable worldwide, wanker.

 

I looked up wanker...

' Wanker literally means "one who wanks (masturbates)". In modern usage it is usually a general insult. It conveys contempt, not commentary on sexual habits. Wanker has similar meanings and overtones to American pejoratives like jerk(-off).'

 

I used to think the British were polite but calling me a jerk-off ?

[DrWatson]

It's British English, so it's automatically acceptable worldwide, wanker.

 

I looked up wanker...

' Wanker literally means "one who wanks (masturbates)". In modern usage it is usually a general insult. It conveys contempt, not commentary on sexual habits. Wanker has similar meanings and overtones to American pejoratives like jerk(-off).'

 

I used to think the British were polite but calling me a jerk-off ?

I looked up bomber...

"Bomber literally means 'a person who plants, detonates, or throws bombs in a public place, esp. as a terrorist.' In modern usage it is usually preceded by the adjective, mad. It conveys the idea that someone is mentally ill; insane, and not commentary on someone who may experience excessive gas and flatulates while walking in order to spread the smell as far as possible."

 

[Bomber-Bob]

It's British English, so it's automatically acceptable worldwide, wanker.

 

I looked up wanker...

' Wanker literally means "one who wanks (masturbates)". In modern usage it is usually a general insult. It conveys contempt, not commentary on sexual habits. Wanker has similar meanings and overtones to American pejoratives like jerk(-off).'

 

I used to think the British were polite but calling me a jerk-off ?

I looked up bomber...

"Bomber literally means 'a person who plants, detonates, or throws bombs in a public place, esp. as a terrorist.' In modern usage it is usually a preceded by the adjective, mad. It conveys the idea that someone is mentally ill; insane, and not commentary on someone who may experience excessive gas and flatulates while walking in order to spread the smell as far as possible."

 

Why do I feel like George Castanza looking for the perfect reply ?

Jerk store anyone ?

[Anfield Fox]

Only on the CGC forum does a discussion about grading turn into a discussion about bowl movements and masterbation

[WEBHEAD]

I've been out of the hobby for a few years with the odd purchase here and there but since coming back i keep seeing slabbed books that in my humble opinion are over graded, at least compared to the CGC books i was buying from 01-07.

 

Is this something that has been discussed? Is it just me that's out of the loop? But really i have seen tons of books that if i was grading i would drop an entire grade from the CGC assigned grade. That said i have always been hard on spine damage, but still. Perhaps people who have been here day in, day out would not have noticed a gradual change?

 

You're probably going to ask for examples but many of these books are owned by board members and i don't want to upset or step on toes here. One example i did see recently on eBay though is this Cerebus below. I really hope it's not now owned by a board member and if it is i apologise, i'm just using it as an example

 

VF-? If i was selling this raw i would struggle to give it a FN.

 

There are many more as i said, especially in my collecting area of 8.5-9.4 that i felt were over graded.

 

 

 

 

I think even in hand this books would not be better then a 5.5-6 anyone got the "balls" to ask for the notes