Is CGC Grading Laxer?

[DrWatson]

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

What's a bowl movement? Do you have poltergeists?

[Mike's Rack]

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

How quickly we sink to the least common denominator.

[Anfield Fox]

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

What's a bowl movement? Do you have poltergeists?

 

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

[Aces]

 

#1) Black covers always make tiny 1/8" transverse stress marks look much worse.

#2) Large scans make everything look worse.

#3) Certain books are prone to production defects and CGC is more lenient on those books (Think of the puncture holes at the bottom of ASM 121).

 

A book that is flat and tight with good corners and has about a dozen tiny spine ticks is right around the FVF mark to me.

 

[Anfield Fox]

A book that is flat and tight with good corners and has about a dozen tiny spine ticks is right around the FVF mark to me.

 

I respectfully disagree Aces

 

I count about a dozen color breaking spine ticks, one of them above the top staple is especially big and even more highlighted on the back cover. Two non color breaking spine ticks.

 

The back cover also has a CB lower left corner crease. A NCB crease on the top left back corner. A small bump on the front left corner and bottom right corner. Then there is that wavy line on the bottom left corner on the cover. Not sure what that is, could be on the slab or from the scanner but could be on the book.

 

If i put that book raw on the market place as a 7.5 i would be laughed off the forums. Black cover or not, large scan or not. It's only because it's been backed by CGC that some people think the grade is accurate.

 

Regardless though, my point was general rather than this one example. I've seen 9.4's with 2 or 3 color breaking spine ticks. Regular books, non black covers. IMHO no book with even one color breaking spine tick can ever get more than a 9.2. Two or three color breaking spine ticks? That's an 8.5/9.0 even if the rest of the book is perfect.

 

A couple of longtime and respected members of the community here have messaged me and told me i'm not imagining things. Look, i love CGC and the service they provide, i think they have been great for the hobby and have spent thousands on slabs. I'm just wondering what the deal is. Most agree that grading was a lot tighter in the first few years with the old labels. I'm just wondering if they loosened it up again. If that's the case and the collecting community has accepted that then i need to relearn how to grade

[DrWatson]

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

What's a bowl movement? Do you have poltergeists?

 

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

That doesn't work with misspellings.

[joeypost]

A book that is flat and tight with good corners and has about a dozen tiny spine ticks is right around the FVF mark to me.

 

I respectfully disagree Aces

 

I count about a dozen color breaking spine ticks, one of them above the top staple is especially big and even more highlighted on the back cover. Two non color breaking spine ticks.

 

The back cover also has a CB lower left corner crease. A NCB crease on the top left back corner. A small bump on the front left corner and bottom right corner. Then there is that wavy line on the bottom left corner on the cover. Not sure what that is, could be on the slab or from the scanner but could be on the book.

 

If i put that book raw on the market place as a 7.5 i would be laughed off the forums. Black cover or not, large scan or not. It's only because it's been backed by CGC that some people think the grade is accurate.

 

Regardless though, my point was general rather than this one example. I've seen 9.4's with 2 or 3 color breaking spine ticks. Regular books, non black covers. IMHO no book with even one color breaking spine tick can ever get more than a 9.2. Two or three color breaking spine ticks? That's an 8.5/9.0 even if the rest of the book is perfect.

 

A couple of longtime and respected members of the community here have messaged me and told me i'm not imagining things. Look, i love CGC and the service they provide, i think they have been great for the hobby and have spent thousands on slabs. I'm just wondering what the deal is. Most agree that grading was a lot tighter in the first few years with the old labels. I'm just wondering if they loosened it up again. If that's the case and the collecting community has accepted that then i need to relearn how to grade

 

CGC treats books like Cerebus 1 and TMNT #1 as they would magazines. I am not sure if they have a different standard for mags, but the same defect on a regular sized comic gets hammered a lot harder than on a magazine.

[Anfield Fox]

A book that is flat and tight with good corners and has about a dozen tiny spine ticks is right around the FVF mark to me.

 

I respectfully disagree Aces

 

I count about a dozen color breaking spine ticks, one of them above the top staple is especially big and even more highlighted on the back cover. Two non color breaking spine ticks.

 

The back cover also has a CB lower left corner crease. A NCB crease on the top left back corner. A small bump on the front left corner and bottom right corner. Then there is that wavy line on the bottom left corner on the cover. Not sure what that is, could be on the slab or from the scanner but could be on the book.

 

If i put that book raw on the market place as a 7.5 i would be laughed off the forums. Black cover or not, large scan or not. It's only because it's been backed by CGC that some people think the grade is accurate.

 

Regardless though, my point was general rather than this one example. I've seen 9.4's with 2 or 3 color breaking spine ticks. Regular books, non black covers. IMHO no book with even one color breaking spine tick can ever get more than a 9.2. Two or three color breaking spine ticks? That's an 8.5/9.0 even if the rest of the book is perfect.

 

A couple of longtime and respected members of the community here have messaged me and told me i'm not imagining things. Look, i love CGC and the service they provide, i think they have been great for the hobby and have spent thousands on slabs. I'm just wondering what the deal is. Most agree that grading was a lot tighter in the first few years with the old labels. I'm just wondering if they loosened it up again. If that's the case and the collecting community has accepted that then i need to relearn how to grade

 

CGC treats books like Cerebus 1 and TMNT #1 as they would magazines. I am not sure if they have a different standard for mags, but the same defect on a regular sized comic gets hammered a lot harder than on a magazine.

 

I see. Well i'm not going to argue with that, you're one of the best and tightest graders i know. And the last thing i want to do is make you ... angry

 

[VintageComics]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

[DiceX]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

 

That said, 7.5 is still not out of line with what I'm seeing in the scan.

 

 

[xsmr2-migration]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

 

 

 

That said, 7.5 is still not out of line with what I'm seeing in the scan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

7.0 at worst, but 7.5 looks right to me.

 

I think some people on the boards just have a hard time grading in the 6.0 - 8.0 range.

 

[VintageComics]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

 

That said, 7.5 is still not out of line with what I'm seeing in the scan.

 

 

I agree, it's not too far out of line if at all.

 

That might be a long scratch on the lower left corner, or maybe it's just on the slab.

 

 

[Anfield Fox]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

 

 

 

That said, 7.5 is still not out of line with what I'm seeing in the scan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

7.0 at worst, but 7.5 looks right to me.

 

I think some people on the boards just have a hard time grading in the 6.0 - 8.0 range.

 

Wow. You've been a member for 10 years... and you've only had 10 posts? That's actually astounding... kinda lends a sense of gravity to anything you put on here. Like "if THIS guy is speaking out... you better believe he's got something to say!!!!"

[FFB]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

 

 

 

That said, 7.5 is still not out of line with what I'm seeing in the scan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

7.0 at worst, but 7.5 looks right to me.

 

I think some people on the boards just have a hard time grading in the 6.0 - 8.0 range.

 

Wow. You've been a member for 10 years... and you've only had 10 posts? That's actually astounding... kinda lends a sense of gravity to anything you put on here. Like "if THIS guy is speaking out... you better believe he's got something to say!!!!"

 

It also helps that he's right. I have no problem calling that a 7.5 based on what I can see in the scan and what I assume to be true as to the book's state of preservation, brightness of inks and gloss, etc. It's a 9.0 VF/NM comic with about 15 1/8" spine ticks. Would you drop a book from 9.0 to 6.0 because of a series of evenly spaced spine ticks on an otherwise VF/NM book, in terms of gloss, freshness, etc.?

 

Grading isn't just about edge wear. A FN 6.0 usually has had the bloom come off the rose a bit, so to speak. In addition to a smattering of 1/4" or smaller edge wear, the inks generally aren't as quite as bright as on a NM book and the gloss isn't quite as shiny. On a black cover, I'd except to see some minor ink scuffing where the layer of black isn't quite as thick.

 

When you've got a book that is still essentially brand new with some substantial, but fairly minor edge wear (or perfect structure with somewhat faded inks and gloss), that's when you are in the FN/VF to VF grade range. That's what this book is, so VF- is a perfectly reasonable grade. I have seen plenty of head-scratchers from CGC, but this isn't one of them.

[Anfield Fox]

You really can't grade a book from a scan. Defects look different in hand than they do in a scan.

 

Also, the larger the book, the larger the defect allowable in the same grade.

 

For example, a 1/8" spine tick on a regular size comic reduced the grade more than it does on a magazine size comic where it has less impact on the over all book.

 

Finally, it's a black cover and those defects will stand out more than on any other cover.

 

This book might be slightly over graded or it may not be but the above are a few things to consider.

 

Whew, that feels better now that I let all that out.

 

 

 

 

That said, 7.5 is still not out of line with what I'm seeing in the scan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

7.0 at worst, but 7.5 looks right to me.

 

I think some people on the boards just have a hard time grading in the 6.0 - 8.0 range.

 

Wow. You've been a member for 10 years... and you've only had 10 posts? That's actually astounding... kinda lends a sense of gravity to anything you put on here. Like "if THIS guy is speaking out... you better believe he's got something to say!!!!"

 

It also helps that he's right. I have no problem calling that a 7.5 based on what I can see in the scan and what I assume to be true as to the book's state of preservation, brightness of inks and gloss, etc. It's a 9.0 VF/NM comic with about 15 1/8" spine ticks. Would you drop a book from 9.0 to 6.0 because of a series of evenly spaced spine ticks on an otherwise VF/NM book, in terms of gloss, freshness, etc.?

 

Grading isn't just about edge wear. A FN 6.0 usually has had the bloom come off the rose a bit, so to speak. In addition to a smattering of 1/4" or smaller edge wear, the inks generally aren't as quite as bright as on a NM book and the gloss isn't quite as shiny. On a black cover, I'd except to see some minor ink scuffing where the layer of black isn't quite as thick.

 

When you've got a book that is still essentially brand new with some substantial, but fairly minor edge wear (or perfect structure with somewhat faded inks and gloss), that's when you are in the FN/VF to VF grade range. That's what this book is, so VF- is a perfectly reasonable grade. I have seen plenty of head-scratchers from CGC, but this isn't one of them.

 

My post to him was a joke. I respectfully disagree with you, i said why. I accepted i might have been wrong on this particular book because people have told me CGC doesn't hammer magazines as hard as standard comics. Otherwise that book is not a VF-. I'll leave it at that because this is going round in circles.

[Warren Oates]

6.5

[Topnotchman]

Its hard to see how glossy a book is from a scan, a clean glossy book will get a grade bump by itself. So if spine tick wise this is a 7.0, clean gloss to the cover will move it to a 7.5.

[mysterio]

The alternative question would be if you would be happy to pay the going 7.5 price for that particular copy.

[rodan57]

Its hard to see how glossy a book is from a scan, a clean glossy book will get a grade bump by itself. So if spine tick wise this is a 7.0, clean gloss to the cover will move it to a 7.5.

 

Is gloss structure or QP? CGC grades structure.

[VintageComics]

Its hard to see how glossy a book is from a scan, a clean glossy book will get a grade bump by itself. So if spine tick wise this is a 7.0, clean gloss to the cover will move it to a 7.5.

 

Is gloss structure or QP? CGC grades structure.

 

I believe that they take into consideration the entire appeal of the book...smell, feel, bounce, gloss.

 

I think what most people call a "pedigree bump" is usually just intangible qualities that can't be seen or felt through a slab that might give the book an edge if it's a "tweener" book where the grade is borderline between two grades.

 

You can't tell gloss in a 2 dimensional scan, you need a 3 dimensional angle to notice gloss, so that is another factor.

 

Books all smell, look and feel different and a book that smells and feels like a brand new book with a wonderful bounce/suppleness to it, or has blinding gloss even though it is structurally the same as another comparable book that doesn't feel as good might actually grade higher simply because of those invisible but positive characteristics.

 

If you've ever felt a Church book and compared it to a San Fran you'd know what I'm talking about. Both are structurally awesome books that are well preserved but the San Fran books have a certain stiffness to them for some reason that the Church books (that I have felt) do not.

 

The two books, even if they are the same issues from the same time period may feel and handle distinctly differently.