CGC Gets it right most of the time...

[originalisbest]

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?

 

I don't know how accurate they were for you, but I remember seeing books getting VF grades that by all rights were much nicer than that, and very likely would be appropriately graded as 9.2s or so today. So, you probably grade very tightly, maybe moreso than CGC's standard, and more power to you, as that probably results in very happy repeat customers.

[jimjum12]

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?

 

I don't know how accurate they were for you, but I remember seeing books getting VF grades that by all rights were much nicer than that, and very likely would be appropriately graded as 9.2s or so today. So, you probably grade very tightly, maybe moreso than CGC's standard, and more power to you, as that probably results in very happy repeat customers.

 

[originalisbest]

CGC was tight out of the gate?

 

Really?

 

I was there before the doors opened and have been submitting since those doors opened. I wouldn't say they started right out of the gate being tight. I believe that they definitely scaled up to the point where they were way too tight.

 

Big dealers complained? Who else had the inventory of CGC books to complain? Wasn't like there was a huge pool of references to draw from.

 

I would definitely say that Steve Borock, Mark Haspel and Paul definitely had a strong idea of what a book should look like in a certain grade. To me when CGC first started spines were probably the most important part of the book. If the book didn't have a solid spine free of most defects you weren't going to pull 9.4/9.6 grades. 9.8's were like winning lotto.

 

I thought they were loose on Golden Age back then and still are.

 

Over the years CGC has fluctuated between being tight and being loose. However, lately the "loose" phase has been a lot longer than in the past. And just because CGC decides to "flap in the wind" doesn't mean I have to loosen my grading standards.

 

 

I like what Bob has to say.