CGC Gets it right most of the time...

[the blob]

CGC is, of course, the best grading service out there in terms of quality and post-grading liquidity and I suspect they are spot on or undergrade 95-98% of the time. My slabs have been mosly sold, but I do remember some misses like a 9.4 asm 300 with at least 5 color breaking spine stresses and blunted corners. Not meaning to make this a bash cgc thread because for everyone of these there are probably 10 that could be undergrades. I am looking for exemplars and scans, preferably VF or higher and 1966 or later. Getting much earlier than that I know cgc gives more wiggle room, or at least used to.

[faster friends]

I have few, but a crappy scanner.

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC is, of course, the best grading service out there in terms of quality and post-grading liquidity and I suspect they are spot on or undergrade 95-98% of the time.

 

Nothing like.

 

I have not seen a potentially undergraded book from CGC for over 3 years.

 

Not. A. One.

 

However, I have just learned not moments ago that a raw FN/VF (borderline VF-) I recently sold is now residing in a 9.0 slab without a damned thing being done to it.

 

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

And that's sad.

[DrWatson]

CGC is, of course, the best grading service out there in terms of quality and post-grading liquidity and I suspect they are spot on or undergrade 95-98% of the time.

 

Nothing like.

 

I have not seen a potentially undergraded book from CGC for over 3 years.

 

Not. A. One.

 

However, I have just learned not moments ago that a raw FN/VF (borderline VF-) I recently sold is now residing in a 9.0 slab without a damned thing being done to it.

 

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

And that's sad.

When you say loose, do you mean loose in the sense that if the CGC were to do the splits five class rings would fall out?

[mrmyst]

Eew.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

CGC is, of course, the best grading service out there in terms of quality and post-grading liquidity and I suspect they are spot on or undergrade 95-98% of the time.

 

Nothing like.

 

I have not seen a potentially undergraded book from CGC for over 3 years.

 

Not. A. One.

 

However, I have just learned not moments ago that a raw FN/VF (borderline VF-) I recently sold is now residing in a 9.0 slab without a damned thing being done to it.

 

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

And that's sad.

When you say loose, do you mean loose in the sense that if the CGC were to do the splits five class rings would fall out?

5 Classmates would fall out..

[heliosten]

When you say loose, do you mean loose in the sense that if the CGC were to do the splits five class rings would fall out?

 

[mschmidt]

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

Or ... perhaps you just undergrade a lot :shrug:

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

Or ... perhaps you just undergrade a lot :shrug:

 

I'd like to think I'm ruthlessly accurate, but that's not the issue.

 

Remember when CGC opened their doors and their first three months' worth of output?

 

That was tight stuff and I found myself in agreement 95% of the time.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't a sentiment shared by the Big Dealers, who CGC had to appease if the whole idea wasn't going to be still-born.

 

So standards had to be loosened and what could have been a real shake-up of the industry got watered down.

 

And ever since, there has been more and more water added.

[VintageComics]

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

Or ... perhaps you just undergrade a lot :shrug:

 

I'd like to think I'm ruthlessly accurate, but that's not the issue.

 

Remember when CGC opened their doors and their first three months' worth of output?

 

That was tight stuff and I found myself in agreement 95% of the time.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't a sentiment shared by the Big Dealers, who CGC had to appease if the whole idea wasn't going to be still-born.

 

So standards had to be loosened and what could have been a real shake-up of the industry got watered down.

 

And ever since, there has been more and more water added.

 

Or you just undergrade a lot.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Seriously though, the inconsistency needs to be addressed.

 

Maybe it's a product of different people always looking at the books? I don't know what it is but I'd love for the goal posts to remain in the same spot.

 

 

[Jimmy Linguini]

Seriously though, the inconsistency needs to be addressed.

 

Maybe it's a product of different people always looking at the books? I don't know what it is but I'd love for the goal posts to remain in the same spot.

 

 

What's the most times you've resubmitted the same book to cgc?

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

Or ... perhaps you just undergrade a lot :shrug:

 

I'd like to think I'm ruthlessly accurate, but that's not the issue.

 

Remember when CGC opened their doors and their first three months' worth of output?

 

That was tight stuff and I found myself in agreement 95% of the time.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't a sentiment shared by the Big Dealers, who CGC had to appease if the whole idea wasn't going to be still-born.

 

So standards had to be loosened and what could have been a real shake-up of the industry got watered down.

 

And ever since, there has been more and more water added.

 

Or you just undergrade a lot.

 

 

 

Roy, do you remember those first few months out of the gate and how accurate CGC were?

[oakman29]

CGC is, of course, the best grading service out there in terms of quality and post-grading liquidity and I suspect they are spot on or undergrade 95-98% of the time. My slabs have been mosly sold, but I do remember some misses like a 9.4 asm 300 with at least 5 color breaking spine stresses and blunted corners. Not meaning to make this a bash cgc thread because for everyone of these there are probably 10 that could be undergrades. I am looking for exemplars and scans, preferably VF or higher and 1966 or later. Getting much earlier than that I know cgc gives more wiggle room, or at least used to.

I have one that baffles me.This book looks like a 9.4+,and have no idea why it's a 9.0

[VintageComics]

 

Roy, do you remember those first few months out of the gate and how accurate CGC were?

 

I subbed my first book around 2003 or so, so I wasn't here for the start.

 

I have seen a lot of books, though. They do vary, even in the old labels...but then what you say could have been true. They could have changed just after coming out of the gate.

 

They are human, and even if there is not a conscious decision to tighten or loosen I wonder if there could be a subconscious one. They hear a little rumour and then it works away at your perception.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Seriously though, the inconsistency needs to be addressed.

 

Maybe it's a product of different people always looking at the books? I don't know what it is but I'd love for the goal posts to remain in the same spot.

 

 

What's the most times you've resubmitted the same book to cgc?

 

I don't know, about 43?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[thehumantorch]

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

Or ... perhaps you just undergrade a lot :shrug:

 

I'd like to think I'm ruthlessly accurate, but that's not the issue.

 

Remember when CGC opened their doors and their first three months' worth of output?

 

That was tight stuff and I found myself in agreement 95% of the time.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't a sentiment shared by the Big Dealers, who CGC had to appease if the whole idea wasn't going to be still-born.

 

So standards had to be loosened and what could have been a real shake-up of the industry got watered down.

 

And ever since, there has been more and more water added.

 

I've certainly seen books that I consider overgraded but I wanted to ask if you think there's any chance your grading standards have changed?

[Jimmy Linguini]

Seriously though, the inconsistency needs to be addressed.

 

Maybe it's a product of different people always looking at the books? I don't know what it is but I'd love for the goal posts to remain in the same spot.

 

 

What's the most times you've resubmitted the same book to cgc?

 

I don't know, about 43?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

 

You've resubmitted the same book to cgc 43 times hoping to get a higher or "more accurate" grade?

 

I thought this was the prober forum to ask you.

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC are obviously working to standards that (a) aren't made public, (b) change by the month and © are looser than anything I ever learned over 40 years of collecting and dealing.

 

Or ... perhaps you just undergrade a lot :shrug:

 

I'd like to think I'm ruthlessly accurate, but that's not the issue.

 

Remember when CGC opened their doors and their first three months' worth of output?

 

That was tight stuff and I found myself in agreement 95% of the time.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't a sentiment shared by the Big Dealers, who CGC had to appease if the whole idea wasn't going to be still-born.

 

So standards had to be loosened and what could have been a real shake-up of the industry got watered down.

 

And ever since, there has been more and more water added.

 

I've certainly seen books that I consider overgraded but I wanted to ask if you think there's any chance your grading standards have changed?

 

Not to any great degree, no. There was a small change when CGC entered the market and I started following their approach on things like small, light stains and NCB bends/folds, which were not hammered as much under old OS standards. I adopted their approach to ensure further tightness of grading.

[VintageComics]

Seriously though, the inconsistency needs to be addressed.

 

Maybe it's a product of different people always looking at the books? I don't know what it is but I'd love for the goal posts to remain in the same spot.

 

 

What's the most times you've resubmitted the same book to cgc?

 

I don't know, about 43?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

 

You've resubmitted the same book to cgc 43 times hoping to get a higher or "more accurate" grade?

 

I thought this was the prober forum to ask you.

 

I haven't submitted a book 43 times.

 

If I disagree greatly on a grade I'll submit a book a second time but not always.