Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[MrBedrock]

If the "Chinese Wall" stands and an investor has no "voting rights" and can not affect the grade outcome of a book, if the Senior consignment director at Heritage who used to be President of CGC can not have any more effect on the grade outcome of a book than his current employer and if the resto expert can not have any more or less affect on the grade of a book than he did when he pressed and removed restoration in Texas, then is it a conflict of interest in reality?

 

I am concerned about the integrity of the system because I have a vested interest in it.

 

I guess that all depends on how secure that wall is.

Take a look at what you wrote and really think about it.

 

The Senior Consignment Director at Heritage developed the methodology CGC uses. And their (newly acquired) Restoration Expert knows Heritage intimately, having worked for and with them for years.

 

You see no advantages for a consignment to reach its top possible CGC grade, getting the most bang for Heritage, and have that final hammer amount fed to dataminers for mass consumption?

 

Take a moment and just let it percolate a bit. A potential "conflict of interest" may present itself. Step back from it, tilt your head, squint your eyes, and look again.

The only way it would be a conflict of interest would be if Steve Borock, while working simultaneously at CGC and Heritage, was personally grading Heritage's books.

[Dick Pontoon]

I went to a bar last Friday; haven't been out in a while. My tolerance is down and the hooch hit me like a ton of bricks. Met this girl who was straight up 3267 and 10097 as hell, but come Saturday morning I realized she was 72 at best.

[nearmint]

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

 

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices.

 

BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected.

 

 

I've been at this for 40 years, so I'm not a child of the CGC era, and despite my screen name, I own comics at every grade level.

 

Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today?

 

It's the same thing. It seems fairly obvious why Fishler used .2 increments above 9.0 when he developed the scale that Borock adopted--people love to split hairs at the top end of the scale. Having said that, I generally agree with Speedy-D that CGC and the industry's level of precision is too rough for a 25-point scale, but it's better than the overly optimistic 100 point scale Overstreet had been pushing that Fishler was trying to simplify. A 25-point scale isn't far off from reality and can be thought of as a laudable goal to push the standard towards, but something like a 15-point scale is probably closer to the reality of how consistently tight the top end of the hobby is able to grade.

 

Which 10 would you eliminate?

[blazingbob]

I've been around since 1973. I've gone through a number of dealers using their own grading "standards", Overstreet's and CGC's as well.

 

I was not a fan of CGC going to a straight numerical grade. With many of their changes they very rarely consult anybody who sells their product on what they are planning on doing. Frankly I get VERY few people asking me what the alpha grade translates into numerically.

 

 

[chunkybutt]

Surfing ebay I see lots of raw books advertised with numerical grades.

 

If I am not mistaken, doesn't the majority of raw collectors use OSPG as a reference for value?

 

If so, OSPG uses a alpha/numerical grading system now. I would bet money in a couple of years it will be a numerical grading scale only.

[MCMiles]

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

 

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices.

 

BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected.

 

 

I've been at this for 40 years, so I'm not a child of the CGC era, and despite my screen name, I own comics at every grade level.

 

Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today?

 

..And while new blood might not get it immediately, is it really difficult to apply "9.0 - same thing as VFNM" " 5.5 = fine minus"? After a couple of times you pretty much have it memorized. Easier than multiplication tables.

 

As far as an "opinion" on defects. Well in many cases a 9.0 (or VFNM for many) can have a light crescent crease from an impact in considerable length. The fact is a 9.4 (NM) absolutely will not. That's just one example out of thousands of possible spine ticks or color flecks that differentiate between 9.0 and 9.2 and 9.4 and so on.

Edited November 20, 2012 by MCMiles

[mackenzie999]

I think the CGC scale is great in theory, I just wish they'd share their criteria. I'd love to know the difference between 9.4 and 9.6, but since that seems like experience-only knowledge, and I only buy mid-low silver keys, I will never develop that skill.

[nearmint]

I've been around since 1973. I've gone through a number of dealers using their own grading "standards", Overstreet's and CGC's as well.

 

I was not a fan of CGC going to a straight numerical grade. With many of their changes they very rarely consult anybody who sells their product on what they are planning on doing. Frankly I get VERY few people asking me what the alpha grade translates into numerically.

 

 

Bob, I have the raw books on my site graded on the numerical scale. Granted, I sell a tiny fraction of the books that you do, but I've never had a customer ask me to translate my numerical grade into an alpha grade.

[Bookery]

Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today?

 

Well, I personally prefer a numerical system to the old days... if for no other reason than it takes up less room on my labels. I just think the hobby went a bit too far on the number of breakdown points, that's all. For me, it's just simple logic. If a system, any system, cannot be largely consistent with its own standards, than to me, those standards are not valid.

 

I think many arguing with me simply make my point... as it's been stated that thousands of dollars can ride on a .2 difference. Exactly! And if that .2 difference cannot be applied with any consistency, due to the difficulties in detecting said differences, than a lot of money is in a constant state of risk due to such inconsistencies, which over time, is unhealthy for collectors or investors. Which is why there is such panic over pressing (which, more often than not, is about aiming for a .2 upgrade) and multiple resubmissions (same thing) and other anxieties often expressed here.

 

I simply posit a less-stressful collecting environment... which seems to inspire stress-filled threads!

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Surfing ebay I see lots of raw books advertised with numerical grades.

 

If I am not mistaken, doesn't the majority of raw collectors use OSPG as a reference for value?

 

If so, OSPG uses a alpha/numerical grading system now. I would bet money in a couple of years it will be a numerical grading scale only.

 

I'll take that bet any day of the week.

 

I've just searched through 200 Fantastic Four books on eBay...not one of them had solely a numeric grade.

 

A percentage (around 25%) had a numeric grade in parenthesis, with the alpha grade leading.

 

CGC have been using a numeric grade since inception, and solely a numeric grade since what, 2005?

 

Not exactly catching on in the overall market, is it?

[Flaming_Telepath]

I've been around since 1973. I've gone through a number of dealers using their own grading "standards", Overstreet's and CGC's as well.

 

I was not a fan of CGC going to a straight numerical grade. With many of their changes they very rarely consult anybody who sells their product on what they are planning on doing. Frankly I get VERY few people asking me what the alpha grade translates into numerically.

 

 

Bob, I have the raw books on my site graded on the numerical scale. Granted, I sell a tiny fraction of the books that you do, but I've never had a customer ask me to translate my numerical grade into an alpha grade.

 

I've had quite a few.

 

Not a truck-load, but enough to make me realise that not everybody understands the system.

 

And they were the ones who asked. What about the ones who don't ask and just wander off?

[mackenzie999]

thousands of dollars can ride on a .2 difference. Exactly! And if that .2 difference cannot be applied with any consistency, due to the difficulties in detecting said differences, than a lot of money is in a constant state of risk due to such inconsistencies, which over time, is unhealthy for collectors or investors.

 

Very well put.

[october]

Well, I personally prefer a numerical system to the old days... if for no other reason than it takes up less room on my labels.

 

Not to mention the fact that the alpha scale makes zero intuitive sense to an outsider/newbie. 2.0 out of 10.0? Yep, easy to see why that grade sucks from an objective standpoint. Explaining why "good" actually means bad, or getting the casual seller to not use "good" to describe a book in decent condition is much tougher.

 

I am all for CGC only using the numerical value.

[Bookery]

As far as an "opinion" on defects. Well in many cases a 9.0 (or VFNM for many) can have a light crescent crease from an impact in considerable length. The fact is a 9.4 (NM) absolutely will not. That's just one example out of thousands of possible spine ticks or color flecks that differentiate between 9.0 and 9.2 and 9.4 and so on.

 

But no one's arguing that a 9.0 is the same as a 9.4 (the 9.4 would simply be a 9.5 in my scenario). Can you give me an absolutist example, instead, of the unarguable difference between a 9.0 and a 9.2, or a 9.4 and a 9.6? That's what I'm talking about.

 

 

[drbanner]

Basically, you are talking about an individual and it DOES matter "who". You say "the position at CGC is the point" but that position is held by a person, who you ignored and apparently denigrated by turning them from a person with real values to some kind of "corporate entity".

I always thought Steve was a great advocate for the collector while he was the Face of CGC and would stand up against the types of changes that didn't balance the company's need for revenue and what was best for the hobby. Steve was great in that role!

 

Then he left...then Mark left...then West left...then customer service left...then they started charging for graders notes...then their fees went up...then their wait times increased dramatically...then PQ standards were loosened...then grading standards were loosened...then the mother company bought a company with a direct conflict of interest...and now their graders are "...working 10 hour days and have been working six days a week..." Sound like a barrel full of monkeys at CGC since Steve left.

Yeah but keep in mind that the first 1 million books took almost 10 years...didn't they double that second million in a year or two? That would probably add to the barrel of fun...

Actually, Roy said it took CGC 8 years to knock out the 1st million, and then 4 years to knock out the 2nd million. Steve left CGC in July of 2008, and Mark left in March of 2011, about the same time the turn times took a sharp turn for the worse and business decisions were made to increase corporate profit at the expense of the service provided to the collector.

 

Remember when you could get a post-1975 book graded for 12 bucks? I suspect that submissions for most late BA runs (like you're trying to complete) have dwindled substantially, to say the least! With census numbers up, selling prices down, and submission costs doubled what they were...might be a while before some of those runs get filled.

[Transplant]

I think it's hilarious that the King of Equivocation and Seeing Both Sides of the Argument can't, for a moment, fathom that there might exist a conflict of interest having CI inhouse. Hilarious or sadly self-preserving, I can't figure out which. Or both.

[fantastic_four]

It's the same thing. It seems fairly obvious why Fishler used .2 increments above 9.0 when he developed the scale that Borock adopted--people love to split hairs at the top end of the scale. Having said that, I generally agree with Speedy-D that CGC and the industry's level of precision is too rough for a 25-point scale, but it's better than the overly optimistic 100 point scale Overstreet had been pushing that Fishler was trying to simplify. A 25-point scale isn't far off from reality and can be thought of as a laudable goal to push the standard towards, but something like a 15-point scale is probably closer to the reality of how consistently tight the top end of the hobby is able to grade.

 

Which 10 would you eliminate?

 

I hadn't thought about it before, but mulling it over a bit I can only think of nine that I'd remove--all of the .5 grades above 1.0 as well as 9.2, so I'd get rid of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and 9.2. Would I rather keep them? Absolutely I would. For that matter, I'd love for us all to have thought grading out enough to use a full 100-point scale, but that's pie in the sky and simply not realistic. In reality, I haven't to date seen anyone at any level of grading--including CGC--be consistent enough with the 25-scale to merit keeping that many assignable grades.

 

Having said that, I would still tend to keep the 25-point scale and instead of simplifying it go into greater depth with a better-defined grading standard. There's a lot of useful work still to be done there that nobody has had enough financial incentive to work on yet. Lacking all of that, we're all working with a scale that virtually nobody can use to its designed level of precision, and it tends to cause a lot of arguments, butthurt, and grudges.

 

[MCMiles]

Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today?

 

Well, I personally prefer a numerical system to the old days... if for no other reason than it takes up less room on my labels. I just think the hobby went a bit too far on the number of breakdown points, that's all. For me, it's just simple logic. If a system, any system, cannot be largely consistent with its own standards, than to me, those standards are not valid.

 

I think many arguing with me simply make my point... as it's been stated that thousands of dollars can ride on a .2 difference. Exactly! And if that .2 difference cannot be applied with any consistency, due to the difficulties in detecting said differences, than a lot of money is in a constant state of risk due to such inconsistencies, which over time, is unhealthy for collectors or investors. Which is why there is such panic over pressing (which, more often than not, is about aiming for a .2 upgrade) and multiple resubmissions (same thing) and other anxieties often expressed here.

 

I simply posit a less-stressful collecting environment... which seems to inspire stress-filled threads!

 

I don't disagree with you about consistency. In fact I hate inconsistency at CGC, but I also know it's difficult for the very best to be consistent. In fact, getting this thread back on track a little, I'd prefer CGC spend the money invested in acquiring Classic Inc. hiring more graders, instead of over working the ones they have, and training them to be consistent.

 

Throwing out a perfectly good grading system, which in my opinion and many others, does work and is needed because there are quantifiable differences in the higher end grades is not the answer. Maybe it would be more quiet around here, but doubtful. There would just be more posts comparing and complaining about completely different 9.5s.

 

The answer is for people to buy the books and not the label, which IMO is becoming more and more of a trend. Most experienced collectors know grading is subjective and inconsistent no matter who it is. That brings me to this point, I don't think the money would change that much. A fugly 9.5 might sell for a tenth of what a sharp copy sells for. High end collectors would track books better with serial numbers, scans etc. That's already proven by the fact that people pay a premium for white pages. Something they can't even see and we all know is inconsistent at a CGC. Yep that proves people want what the label says, but it also proves they want the best, and it may take more research, more hi-res scans and back cover scans, but people are still going to pay more for the best. So which brings it back full circle.

[Davenport]

If the "Chinese Wall" stands and an investor has no "voting rights" and can not affect the grade outcome of a book, if the Senior consignment director at Heritage who used to be President of CGC can not have any more effect on the grade outcome of a book than his current employer and if the resto expert can not have any more or less affect on the grade of a book than he did when he pressed and removed restoration in Texas, then is it a conflict of interest in reality?

 

I am concerned about the integrity of the system because I have a vested interest in it.

 

I guess that all depends on how secure that wall is.

Take a look at what you wrote and really think about it.

 

The Senior Consignment Director at Heritage developed the methodology CGC uses. And their (newly acquired) Restoration Expert knows Heritage intimately, having worked for and with them for years.

 

You see no advantages for a consignment to reach its top possible CGC grade, getting the most bang for Heritage, and have that final hammer amount fed to dataminers for mass consumption?

 

Take a moment and just let it percolate a bit. A potential "conflict of interest" may present itself. Step back from it, tilt your head, squint your eyes, and look again.

 

Did Steve develop the methodology or help develop it? My understanding is that a lot of people were involved in it including most major dealers.

 

I don't understand how Matt's professional relationship with Heritage affects CGC graders. I might be missing something obvious.

 

There are plenty of people that know how to grade well and detect resto well (plenty relatively speaking, within the hobby). I think I am one of them, after learning about it for years through conversations, the chat forum, etc.

 

Does that mean that the system is slanted in my favour?

 

I suppose if you're good at what you do they would be.

 

I'm going to need you to spell it out for me, Dav.

Read this (emphasis mine):

 

I've been around since 1973. I've gone through a number of dealers using their own grading "standards", Overstreet's and CGC's as well.

 

I was not a fan of CGC going to a straight numerical grade. With many of their changes they very rarely consult anybody who sells their product on what they are planning on doing. Frankly I get VERY few people asking me what the alpha grade translates into numerically.

 

Got it?

 

Think of it as a Game you want to import and compete in. You design the playing field, you invest in the refs, develop an unpublished book of rules, own your own stadium and team.

 

See any advantage to that scenario?

 

[chunkybutt]

Surfing ebay I see lots of raw books advertised with numerical grades.

 

If I am not mistaken, doesn't the majority of raw collectors use OSPG as a reference for value?

 

If so, OSPG uses a alpha/numerical grading system now. I would bet money in a couple of years it will be a numerical grading scale only.

 

I'll take that bet any day of the week.

 

I've just searched through 200 Fantastic Four books on eBay...not one of them had solely a numeric grade.

 

A percentage (around 25%) had a numeric grade in parenthesis, with the alpha grade leading.

 

CGC have been using a numeric grade since inception, and solely a numeric grade since what, 2005?

 

Not exactly catching on in the overall market, is it?

 

I stand corrected, the books I mentioned were alpha/numerical not just numerical.

Non the less, OSPG sometime in the last 15 years has changed their standards to include a numerical scale.

That being said, don't most raw collectors base the value of their books according to OSPG?

And if so, then they all should be familiar by now with the numerical grading system.