• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anyone else complain to CGC they are overly tight right now?

232 posts in this topic

I'm not a high grade collector. I buy silver age Marvels, usually from 4.0-7.5, and Bronze age Marvels from 6.0-8.0, or at least somewhere around there, so I'm not that familiar with how they are currently grading high grade books.

 

From what I can tell, I think their grades are all over the place, which would be fine if we were all spending monopoly money, but we're not. Page quality is likely the biggest gamble I take in buying an already slabbed book. When the book is cracked out, whites can look cream to off-white, and vice versa.

 

I think they are off structurally right now, too. I see 6.5's with big color breaking creases, that look 5.0 to me. And there's plenty of 4.5's that look like 6.0's running around too. I've got an ASM 28 that looks like a 7.0 with white pages that came back a 5.0 with cream to off-white. It's all a mixed bag right now.

 

I would recommend that they quit trying to reinvent the wheel. They get too tight to try to make a point, and want to redefine what a VGF book should be. Give a VGF book a 5.0, don't give it a 3.5 to prove a point. Then they get loose, for whatever reason. We all like gifts when it comes time to sell, but for buyers, it sucks. Don't call a VGF a 6.5 arbitrarily, call it the 5.0 that it is.

 

Overstreet grading worked fine before dealers started overgrading books in their possession and undergrading everything else. A lack of honesty in the hobby is one reason why we have CGC now, but there's no checks and balances in place to keep everything uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get too tight to try to make a point, and want to redefine what a VGF book should be. Give a VGF book a 5.0, don't give it a 3.5 to prove a point. Then they get loose, for whatever reason. We all like gifts when it comes time to sell, but for buyers, it sucks. Don't call a VGF a 6.5 arbitrarily, call it the 5.0 that it is.

 

Is that why my fines are coming back vg-? I thought I might have missed something when I sent them in.

 

Overstreet grading worked fine before dealers started overgrading books in their possession and undergrading everything else. A lack of honesty in the hobby ...

 

I remember the days before CGC it was chaos I tell you :preach: overgrading was a standard business practice. In those days, if you didn't overgraded, you were thought a fool for leaving money on the table, or so I've been told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a few books back this week. Some were actually in worse shape than when I sent them in. 1 in particular was missing a chip from the spine side of the cover that was perfectly intact when shipped. May have happened in transit, but who knows? Encapsulation seems to have taken a hit. Lots of dust and other flecks in a couple of the slabs.

 

Grading: Wildly inconsistent, but strangely tight. I had one book with a detached centerfold come back as a blue label 2.5, but another book in the overall condition, with nicer cover gloss and no detachments, only came in at a 2.0. There seems to be some arbitrary stuff going on.

 

I knew none of these books were amazing, but most are 1.5 to 2 grades below what I thought, and I've gotten pretty good at predicting what my subs will get...

 

You all are forgetting the MOST important denominator;

 

it is WHO sends the comics in( hint hint hint) that gets the benefit of doubt grades...

 

CAL who knows...

 

OK - no one responded to this.

 

I am considering getting Sparklecity to submit my books.

 

Good move??

 

CAL who has the answer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too tight is not good either and makes their grading even more inconsistent. I've just stopped submitting altogether. If there were published standards then we could grade CGC on their grading. For now, I'm hearing a lot of people are being slammed, including myself, and I'm not tossing any more money into a burn pit.

 

I know "Learn to grade". Who can tell the difference between a 9.6 and 9.8; I can't. I'll pack a book and submit it and maybe get an 8. Resubmit it and get an 8.5. Then what is the real difference between that .6 and .8 especially when there is a half point swing depending on which phase the moon is in. I really think the standards should be published. It's not like a competitor is going to reinvent their wheel.

 

I don't want tight grades. I don't want loose grades. I want standardized accurate and consistent grades.

 

The difference between an 8.0 and 8.5 can simply be a different day of the week, but 9.6 to a 9.8 is usually pretty straight forward.

 

When CGC grades too tight it is better for the hobby, but can hurt the pockets for some dealers/flippers.

 

It usually works out for most people that are not the fly by night sellers though in the long run.

 

If you can grade you can easily weather any tight grading storm that comes your way.

 

Pre-notions of CGC's looseness or tightness has never hindered my submitting of books. (shrug)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cracked out a 9.8 and subbed it a couple of months ago. I'm just waiting for the grade to come back on it. It's in quality control limbo right now so this is my test for myself to see if I should get back into buying raw. I'm dumping my last batch on EBay for a loss right now and don't want to have to do that again.

 

Most of the high end stuff I'm buying I'm keeping so the tight grading is really affecting CGC's pockets only. I'm not buying raw and subbing it to flip to finance better high end books. If this is the storm I'll just wait it out.

 

I keep looking for that 2nd edition grading book on EBay! I need to really learn how to grade!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind regarding page quality is lighting. A book's PQ is going to look vastly different under direct sunlight than under a fluorsecent lamp, or a drop-grid ceiling with fifty fluorescent lights, or someone sitting at their desk using a standard incandescent lamp.

 

That particular issue is never going to go away. PQ is one of those things I almost wish they didn't include, because of the unreliability inherent in trying to establish a range for brightness between literally a hundred different types of paper of varying qualities used over the years. Also, page colour has this annoying habit of changing from the exterior edges in toward the center.

 

It's the crapshootiest of all the grading crapshoots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind regarding page quality is lighting. A book's PQ is going to look vastly different under direct sunlight than under a fluorsecent lamp, or a drop-grid ceiling with fifty fluorescent lights, or someone sitting at their desk using a standard incandescent lamp.

 

That particular issue is never going to go away. PQ is one of those things I almost wish they didn't include, because of the unreliability inherent in trying to establish a range for brightness between literally a hundred different types of paper of varying qualities used over the years. Also, page colour has this annoying habit of changing from the exterior edges in toward the center.

 

It's the crapshootiest of all the grading crapshoots

 

You are correct about how pages look under different lighting conditions but I am pretty sure CGC grades books under the same lighting conditions. In this area they are all over the board. Page quality designation is their worst inconsistency in my opinion.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everybody new to the boards, have been lurking.

 

Quick question, is there a reference published for page quality examples.

 

Thanks?

 

for what it is worth

and some will say nothing

the owl card has been around for years

 

 

137270.jpg.7735996b4d722f21ed415ac7ba2e96d0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites