CGC Gets it right most of the time...

[lizards2]

You can't really gauge CGC accuracy unless you crack the books out. The slab hides flaws really well. My opinion is that lately they're about 50% on and 40% over and maybe 10% under. I haven't opened up a "good" surprise in a long time.

[Mark 1]

I gauge CGC accuracy by my pre and post grading test.

 

I'm sure most do it here before subbing their books. 95% of the time CGC is spot on with my grade or within .5 of the grade.

 

I've had a small percentage come back much lower and a few much higher.

 

I'd like to think i'm fairly good at grading after doing this for many years.

 

With all this said, even the best graders in the business waver on grading on any given day. It's a human inspection so there will be errors.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if a computer program could be developed to inspect all the flaws of a book and provide a mathematical grade?

 

 

[youfoundjake]

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.

 

 

Reading comprehension fail.

 

I think oh oh oh was asking if you have submitted the same book multiple times and if so, what was the variance between all the grades?

[blazingbob]

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.

 

 

[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.

 

 

Reading comprehension fail.

 

I think oh oh oh was asking if you have submitted the same book multiple times and if so, what was the variance between all the grades?

 

No, I understood him. I was just being snarky with him because he was taunting me yesterday.

 

I don't base my opinion on resubmits, I asses it on how their grading compares to mine.

 

What I find is that when CGC is "where I think they should be" I'm about 75-80% correct in my guesses on my submissions.

 

 

[youfoundjake]

Point of snarkiness taken.

Its good to give oh oh oh a hard time every once in awhile.

 

I have a punisher ls that came back as a 7.5 and some could not see the defects to cause that.

I also have an xmen 94 8.5 which some say was generous. Plus the lack of notation of sigs on the first page, but not listed on the blue label.

 

Im scared to submit right now.

[Brian48]

I have a few 9.4s and 9.0s that should have been graded much lower.

 

On the flip side, I have a few 8.0-9.0s that should have been graded higher in my opinion.

[goldust40]

I didn't think CGC graded that tightly when they began. I thought they were better than expected, but I could see from those early slabs that they were soft on defects I had considered important.

[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?

 

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.

:thumbsup:

[mrmyst]

[Flaming_Telepath]

I didn't think CGC graded that tightly when they began. I thought they were better than expected, but I could see from those early slabs that they were soft on defects I had considered important.

 

They were a hell of a lot tighter than they are today.

[joecgcmaniac]

I didn't think CGC graded that tightly when they began. I thought they were better than expected, but I could see from those early slabs that they were soft on defects I had considered important.

 

They were a hell of a lot tighter than they are today.

 

So, you're saying they've been "worn out", and no longer grade as tightly as they once did?

 

Looser with age and use

[lizards2]

I didn't think CGC graded that tightly when they began. I thought they were better than expected, but I could see from those early slabs that they were soft on defects I had considered important.

 

They were a hell of a lot tighter than they are today.

 

So, you're saying they've been "worn out", and no longer grade as tightly as they once did?

 

Looser with age and use

I'd post a really good graemlin right now if I hadn't be nadded by Mod0

[oakman29]

I didn't think CGC graded that tightly when they began. I thought they were better than expected, but I could see from those early slabs that they were soft on defects I had considered important.

 

They were a hell of a lot tighter than they are today.

 

So, you're saying they've been "worn out", and no longer grade as tightly as they once did?

 

Looser with age and use

I'd post a really good graemlin right now if I hadn't be nadded by Mod0

Damn that Mod0.

[Logan510]

Every time I get a book back 9.8 I think they're just right, anything else and they're too tight.

[HarveySwick]

I didn't think CGC graded that tightly when they began. I thought they were better than expected, but I could see from those early slabs that they were soft on defects I had considered important.

 

They were a hell of a lot tighter than they are today.

 

So, you're saying they've been "worn out", and no longer grade as tightly as they once did?

 

Looser with age and use

 

[lizards2]

Every time I get a book back 9.8 I think they're just right, anything else and they're too tight.

Every time I crack open a 9.4 and find a 9.0 due to slab-hidden flaws, I think they're too tight due to their access to good weed.

[jimjum12]

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?

 

....actually, only three rings, the other two were dropouts GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[tinynascarfan-migration]

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

 

I see the reason!

[oakman29]

Puleease