CGC Gets it right most of the time...

[Anfield Fox]

golly, i was hoping for a few scans of overgraded books (undergrades too, but those are hard to judge over the interweb) and got a lot of "there are plenty of overgrades" but no scans. folks used to post scans all the time. if they're over 10-50% of the time, where are the scans?

 

It's usually considered rude to do so. Most of examples come from current for sale threads, this week in your collection thread or this week back from CGC thread. Hopefully, no one here is that big of a Richard, but people never cease to amaze me.

 

When I posted this several of the more uncouth boardies commented it was over graded.

 

Sorry no post slabbing bc scan.

 

Unfortunately, I'd say it is ...it's a 9.0, tops.

 

Sorry.

 

...and that is why I think you should sell your raw AF #15's and X-men #1's to me all day long.

 

 

I love you Nick, I really do. Whatever happened to us?

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Diggler]

Under grades or actually grades spot-on?

 

UNDERGRADES! Famous for it, and his auctions became a feeding frenzy, with Fine and better books selling for much higher than guide.

I was disagreeing, Anything on either end of the sliding CGC spectrum is over or under graded. I consider Nicks grading to be on point and tend to grade tight myself. Sorry, I might be a chronic under grader.

[Bosco685]

Under grades or actually grades spot-on?

 

UNDERGRADES! Famous for it, and his auctions became a feeding frenzy, with Fine and better books selling for much higher than guide.

I was disagreeing, Anything on either end of the sliding CGC spectrum is over or under graded. I consider Nicks grading to be on point and tend to grade tight myself. Sorry, I might be a chronic under grader.

 

Oh, I get ya now Jason.

 

Todd's auctions (zillaf4) involve very tight grading. I lucked out and won a few books, and was surprised how much better they were than described.

[VintageComics]

 

Two awesome pictures in a row.

 

On a graph, you'd be a meteor!

 

 

[Anfield Fox]

 

Two awesome pictures in a row.

 

On a graph, you'd be a meteor!

 

 

Thanks

 

I made this one yesterday of Garry and Nick. Obviously joking, hope they don't mind

 

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t9ufb/

[miraclemet]

Are older books being graded along side newer books?

 

I bet that if they streamed the two grading groups separately by separate grading teams we'd see more accurate grading.

[mschmidt]

Are older books being graded along side newer books?

 

I bet that if they streamed the two grading groups separately by separate grading teams we'd see more accurate grading.

 

They are not - modern books are only handled by the modern graders.

[miraclemet]

Are older books being graded along side newer books?

 

I bet that if they streamed the two grading groups separately by separate grading teams we'd see more accurate grading.

 

They are not - modern books are only handled by the modern graders.

 

good to know!

 

 

[gaz973]

Under grades or actually grades spot-on?

 

UNDERGRADES! Famous for it, and his auctions became a feeding frenzy, with Fine and better books selling for much higher than guide.

I was disagreeing, Anything on either end of the sliding CGC spectrum is over or under graded. I consider Nicks grading to be on point and tend to grade tight myself. Sorry, I might be a chronic under grader.

 

Oh, I get ya now Jason.

 

Todd's auctions (zillaf4) involve very tight grading. I lucked out and won a few books, and was surprised how much better they were than described.

Actually, Jason is one of the very few graders on the boards who I find grades tightly and I wouldn't hesitate to buy raw from. I'm sure a lot of people here would say that he undergrades like they say it about Nick.

 

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

[VintageComics]

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

 

I don't know if downward trend is the right way of saying it. I'm not the only one, but I handle a lot of CGC graded books. 1000's in a year.

 

I wouldn't say that it's been downhill over the years - it's been varied and as much up as it's been down.

 

There is a fairly steady "middle path" if you were to plot it on a graph.

[gaz973]

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

 

I don't know if downward trend is the right way of saying it. I'm not the only one, but I handle a lot of CGC graded books. 1000's in a year.

 

I wouldn't say that it's been downhill over the years - it's been varied and as much up as it's been down.

 

There is a fairly steady "middle path" if you were to plot it on a graph.

Personally I disagree.

 

Certainly there have been ups and downs but I think that generally the trend over years has been downwards.

[Mr.Diggler]

Under grades or actually grades spot-on?

 

UNDERGRADES! Famous for it, and his auctions became a feeding frenzy, with Fine and better books selling for much higher than guide.

I was disagreeing, Anything on either end of the sliding CGC spectrum is over or under graded. I consider Nicks grading to be on point and tend to grade tight myself. Sorry, I might be a chronic under grader.

 

Oh, I get ya now Jason.

 

Todd's auctions (zillaf4) involve very tight grading. I lucked out and won a few books, and was surprised how much better they were than described.

Actually, Jason is one of the very few graders on the boards who I find grades tightly and I wouldn't hesitate to buy raw from. I'm sure a lot of people here would say that he undergrades like they say it about Nick.

 

[bane]

 

Two awesome pictures in a row.

 

On a graph, you'd be a meteor!

 

 

Thanks

 

I made this one yesterday of Garry and Nick. Obviously joking, hope they don't mind

 

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t9ufb/

 

[DrWatson]

Andrew's going to be pissed.

[The-Collector]

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

 

I don't know if downward trend is the right way of saying it. I'm not the only one, but I handle a lot of CGC graded books. 1000's in a year.

 

I wouldn't say that it's been downhill over the years - it's been varied and as much up as it's been down.

 

There is a fairly steady "middle path" if you were to plot it on a graph.

 

I think this is true also.

[Comicopolis]

Maybe if everybody published the standards that they use to grade we could then have an accurate assessment as to who grades 'tightly' and who 'undergrades'.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

 

I don't know if downward trend is the right way of saying it. I'm not the only one, but I handle a lot of CGC graded books. 1000's in a year.

 

I wouldn't say that it's been downhill over the years - it's been varied and as much up as it's been down.

 

There is a fairly steady "middle path" if you were to plot it on a graph.

 

Bollocks.

 

Honestly, bollocks.

 

And if you resort to the 'I never get along with Ares people' turdspeak, I'll finally classify you as unstable.

 

You're looking after your own arse, no more, no less.

[lizards2]

No need to say sorry. To each their own. But I think I will stick with the assigned grade.

 

Interesting to note it was graded in Jan of this year.

 

To be fair, it's impossible grade accurately from a scan.

 

You can get into a range relatively accurately but you can never really fine tune it without having the book in hand.

 

I've repeated this many times: scanners use digital tech to capture colour, so they make "yes/no" decisions on choices that your eye might not see that way and that will affect and change the way a book looks in a scan.

 

Stuff can appear lighter or darker than on the actual book, misrepresenting the book.

 

Pieces missing? Yeah, you can see those. Creases and bumps? Most of the time.

 

Once you start getting into colour relationships, it becomes guesswork. Tanning, shadows, dirt, even thin stress lines may or may not be accurately represented.

 

You also can't gauge gloss, smell, feel from a scan.

 

Just

 

You can usually see pubic hairs if they are in the scans too.

[VintageComics]

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

 

I don't know if downward trend is the right way of saying it. I'm not the only one, but I handle a lot of CGC graded books. 1000's in a year.

 

I wouldn't say that it's been downhill over the years - it's been varied and as much up as it's been down.

 

There is a fairly steady "middle path" if you were to plot it on a graph.

 

Bollocks.

 

Honestly, bollocks.

 

And if you resort to the 'I never get along with Ares people' turdspeak, I'll finally classify you as unstable.

 

You're looking after your own arse, no more, no less.

 

Did I touch a nerve? Goodness, you'd think we were discussing abuse of human rights and not comics.

 

I do believe there is something to astrology. Not everything, but there is something there.

 

You don't have to agree with me on the astrology part, but you do have to agree that two people can see the same issue 2 completely different ways and disagree even though they are saying exactly the same thing. It's not even a right/wrong thing, it's just that we are two different people.

 

If you don't agree to that then you must always be right.

 

And if anyone is telling me that CGC is tighter 12 years ago than they are today, well that's just bollocks as I can probably pull off dozens of pics of overgraded books on Heritage sitting in old labels.

 

Interesting story: the first time I was introduced to grading inconsistency, before I even knew it existed saI was a noob to CGC at the time (circa 2003/2004) was from a guy who was explaining how overgraded some of his books were. So if we had overgraded books 10 years ago (and we do, they are sitting in old labels, which they did away with in 2003 I think) then where does that leave us today?

 

It's not even a discussion. We had over graded and under graded books in 2001, 2002, 2003 and we have them today.

 

It's cyclical. There has not been a steady decline in grade.

 

 

[mrmyst]

I think it's more of a case that CGC's standards have slipped so much and for so long that other people's grading has matched it's downward trend.

 

I don't know if downward trend is the right way of saying it. I'm not the only one, but I handle a lot of CGC graded books. 1000's in a year.

 

I wouldn't say that it's been downhill over the years - it's been varied and as much up as it's been down.

 

There is a fairly steady "middle path" if you were to plot it on a graph.

 

Bollocks.

 

Honestly, bollocks.

 

And if you resort to the 'I never get along with Ares people' turdspeak, I'll finally classify you as unstable.

 

You're looking after your own arse, no more, no less.