of 9.9s and such

[CBT]

 

Last word. Love it.

 

Yes, 9.9 can have the ink.

 

really that is VERY exciting, I was not aware of that. That gives me false hope for more of my books

[jreezy]

I don't care how you all find them, just as long as everyone keeps selling them to me.

 

There. I said it.

 

[carter3175]

I think I am going to cut a deal with my LCS to get pick of the litter. If they agree I will start to keep track of what I submit and run my own poll. I would have MY grade and then the actual. This was a damn good thread and it has me thinking of some ideas.

 

you dont have that already?

 

Yes and No

 

No I do not have a deal with my LCS but I am sure they will let me get the pick of the litter if I asked them.

 

Every book that I think is a 9.8 and send off to CGC comes back as the grade that I expected with the Valiant exception, Harbinger killed me.

 

After reading these posts I am going to take more time in selecting my purchases.

 

 

[divad]

Actually, it's quite easy to pick out a 9.9 from a 9.8, and it is a skill. A 9.9 screams, "I DARE YOU TO FIND A SINGLE DEFECT ON ME!!!!" All you have to do is listen . . .

 

 

But it's like trying to look for a four-leaf clover - there just might not be any in the patch you're looking at.

[CBT]

Actually, it's quite easy to pick out a 9.9 from a 9.8, and it is a skill. A 9.9 screams, "I DARE YOU TO FIND A SINGLE DEFECT ON ME!!!!" All you have to do is listen . . .

i love your avatar, just saying

[RockMyAmadeus]

As has been said many times by many voices, flaws that prevent a 9.9 or 10 grade are almost always of the "pressing-won't-fix-that" kind.

 

Yup, I believe I said it first in my OP actually....

 

MY question wasnt about the ontological nature of a 9.9, but about peoples opinions on what THEY would actually do, right or wrong....

 

I know I shouldn't....but what the hell, it's Turkey Week...

 

Your premise is a bit flawed. When you're talking about 9.9s and 10s, you're dealing with measurements in 1/64" and less. 99.9999724% of all books ever made have flaws that automatically exclude them from a CGC 9.9 or 10 the very day they are printed.

 

CGC actively protects their 9.9 and 10 grades by NOT giving them out if there's even a hint of question. This is not mere conjecture, the statistics bear this out. What should be a fairly predictable curve dramatically drops right through the floor when it comes to 9.9s and 10s.

 

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/stats.asp

 

I have probably 3-4 dozen books (keep in mind, this is in an inventory of over 100,000) that are 10s, that I will not submit until CGC's "unofficial stance" changes. I have a couple of hundred books that are 9.9s. I have about 6-7 books sitting in 9.8 slabs that are demonstrably equivalent in condition to 9.9s. I will also not be submitting any more of those.

 

I deal mostly in 1975-2000 books. I have never personally subbed a book younger than 2001 (though I have pressed and subbed books printed up to today for others.) And I have personally subbed six 10s and one 9.9...every single one printed before the advent of CGC. I actively scoured all new books from 1990-1993, picking the finest condition books available. Since that time, my focus shifted almost entirely to back issues. As I have said before, based on my own experience and objective observation (as well as common sense), it is easier to pull "9.8 or better" quality copies out of a stack of 50-100-300 that were just printed last week, than it is to find those same quality copies as back issues that have had time, and thus attrition at varying rates, to deal with.

 

Since I do not deal in brand new books, my task becomes that much harder. As an example of what I can do...at WonderCon, I submitted 39 Sig Series books, all printed from 1988-1991. Of those, I received 32 9.8s. Three of those 9.8s had already failed a 9.8 pre-screen (New Mutants #98, for those wondering). That's a 9.8 rate of 82%, on books that are 20-25 years old, most of which I did not buy brand new.

 

All those books were pressed by me.

 

The remaining 7 were all graded 9.6. On 3 of them, I expected that grade. The other four are marginal, and will probably be resubbed. I have resubbed (and documented on these boards) multiple 9.6s (and even 9.4s), many of which were not pressed, which were then graded 9.8.

 

But only a single copy...a New Mutants #97, whose only discernible flaw is a pinprick indentation on the back cover...I felt had a shot at a 9.9. And it got a 9.8. I still have it, and would be happy to share it with anyone at a local con. But the book is perfect in terms of wear. So why did it fail to make the cut? Let's discuss that a little later.

 

All the rest had what I consider a "typical 9.8" condition, look, and feel. Like I said....9.9 and 10 quality books are being held back, if I encounter them at all, with very few exceptions (the #97 was just because it was the only one handy, and I wanted to get the bulk of the Liefeld run done. Yeah, yeah, I know.)

 

I made one other exception at San Diego, and that was with a MCP #87 that was absolutely flawless...I felt it had a solid shot at a 9.9. It got a 9.8.

 

And just because I don't deal in modern books myself does not mean I don't have a very good feel for what is and is not a 9.9 or 10. I spent four years combing through the stacks every week to pick out the top copies of nearly everything, especially Marvel and DC, and that at the very beginning of my collecting days. I have since applied that same eye to just about everything I purchase. I still occasionally and randomly pull out brand new stacks and pull the very best (I just did that with the Harley Quinn #0 sketch cover this week.)

 

Many of those 1990's books, especially Image when it really started going, were exceptionally well produced, like IDW of the mid-2000s. Had CGC been around, no doubt we would have seen many more 9.9s and 10s from the era.

 

Don't get me wrong...it's not as if they give "10s" a 9.8...they don't, usually.

 

But those books that might otherwise get a 10 from an average of very experienced graders frequently gets a 9.9, and literally thousands of books that are worthy of a 9.9 are defaulted to 9.8.

 

How do I know this...?

 

Because the average 9.8 is demonstrably inferior to the average 9.9. I have seen 9.8s with multiple thumb dents, other indentations, spine ticks, color breaking spine ticks, 1/4" color breaking corner creases...you name it. The average 9.8...and I CANNOT stress enough the word "average"...is, again, demonstrably inferior to the average 9.9, even when examined in a slab.

 

Still don't believe me? There are more 9.8s than 9.6 and 9.4 COMBINED. How can that possibly be? 9.8 is not even the average "right off the newsstand" grade! (Yes, there ARE various valid reasons for why this is so, but the numbers are still quite overwhelming, even when considering those reasons, which is a totally different discussion.)

 

And even CGC doesn't *really* know why they feel a book grades a 9.9 or 10. "It's flawless." Well, yes, but how does that specific wrap appeal...consciously or not...to that finalizer? How about the staple tine indentations? On a particular skinny book (say, Todd TUKITW #1)...it's almost impossible to find a copy that doesn't have staple tine indentations on the cover. After all, they are pieces of metal imbedded into the interior of the paper. Fine for newsprint pulp, but ultra thin 20 lb test paper? Even bagging and boarding will produce tine indentations all the way to the front cover. I have seen tine indentations on 9.9s. I have seen tine indentations on 10s.

 

How about cutting "defects"? I have seen 9.9s and 10s with tiny corner flecks (think 1/128th"), which makes those corners not perfectly, razor square, and obviously from the cutting process. What about those?

 

What about feathering on the spine? There are 9.9s and 10s that have ultra-light feathering...but it DOES exist, because the vast majority of comics produced since 1993 are not newsprint, and exhibit this feathering to one degree or another (except the very high quality books like the aforementioned IDWs) How does CGC make that determination? What about printer roller tears, if any? What about the staple tine HOLES? How big can they be before they are knocked down to 9.8? What about how the staples sit on the spine? Are they perfectly square to the book? Are they perfectly vertical? What allowance do they have for off-center, off-square, off-vertical staples? Is it even discussed? Or is it only subconscious, depending on the personal impressions of the finalizer? I have seen 9.9s with off-center staples. I have seen 10s with off-center staples.

 

And how is all of this affected by what a finalizer likes and doesn't like, even if only completely subconsciously? I don't mind miswraps. Many people hate them. If I totally ignore a miswrap, but it bothers the finalizer...even if only subconsciously...and the book is otherwise absolutely flawless...are they going to grade it a 9.8 without even being able to verbalize why they did...?

 

And therein lies the true subjective nature of grading at these ultra high grades. There are all sorts of considerations to make, and we haven't even addressed ANY aspect of wear, only production! That's because these are the issues which separate the 9.8s and below from the 9.9s and above. Wear? Any evidence of handling? Forget it. At BEST it's a 9.8, no matter how miniscule.

 

You don't know, and the graders don't even know.

 

And that's not even addressing the issue of age bias in the graders. What is age bias? Allow me to explain:

 

Steve Borock once famously said that a 10 of any given book wasn't necessarily a PERFECT book...just simply the finest copy of that particular book that they were ever going to see.

 

But is that really true?

 

Comic book production quality improved dramatically in the 80's and 90's. It has become possible, because we have seen it, to produce a paper product that is, at least at a normal visual level, perfect, without a single flaw observable to the naked eye. IDW did this, and so have a number of others.

 

But what about the books from before this time period? When the "new format" became standardized in the early 90's, and the newsprint that had been the standard since the 30's was finally abandoned, quality was all over the place. It is unlikely that even the finest copy of Green Lantern (1987 series) #37 will ever meet the standards of "higher than 9.8." Same with, say, Justice League Europe #48, or Incredible Hulk #410.

 

Do graders, though, give more 9.9s and 10s to younger books because they EXPECT said books to naturally be higher quality than older books? In other words, is there confirmation bias going on? And, because they are not only aware of the higher quality books, and more importantly, see them more often, are they therefore more willing to award these lofty grades to further examples of these books, and depress grades for older books simply because of their subconscious expectation that a book from 1991 is not anywhere near as *likely* to be in perfect condition, so when they see one, or one that is near perfect, do they default to 9.8 simply because they don't *expect* there to be many, if at all, such books?

 

So is what Steve Borock said really true...?

 

Understand, this is all on the subconscious level, but it is very real, because subconscious impressions, expectations, and notions absolutely affect the conscious.

 

In other words, if a grader has a Justice League #1 (1987) in front of him or her, and a Locke & Key #1 (2008) and they are both flawless, or nearly flawless...is the grader going to be more likely to give the Locke & Key #1 the 9.9 or 10 because he/she expects such a book to be relatively common in this grade (and thus not a "rock the boat, let's scrutinize this verrrry closely on the secondary market" type grade) and a 9.8 to the Justice League #1 because he/she expects that such a book is extremely rare, and would be subject to far greater scrutiny on the market, so he/she will then subconsciously look for reasons to NOT give it a 9.9 or 10, reasons that wouldn't be applied to L&K #1? Even if both books are as identical as possible? Reason and human psychology says yes.

 

Again, all of this is on the subconscious level. No one could (or should) admit to any of this on a conscious level, because that would call their objectivity into question, but grading does not exist in a vacuum, and all of these aspects DO come into play, however minutely (and minutely is what we're dealing with, at these grades), however subconsciously.

 

It's impossible to remove bias in a human process. It cannot be done. And I haven't even brought up things like personality, mood, diet, circumstance....also things which exert a tiny, but not insignificant, influence on grading at these levels.

 

And so, 9.8 is the default grade for ultra high grade books from 1980-today, and, again, the statistics bear this out. Whether it is a conscious decision by CGC to protect the brand and NOT give out what might be perceived as frivolous grades at the high end, or unconscious, it is very, very real.

 

So...to answer your question: if I had a flawless book that had a tiny pinprick indentation...but the staples were perfect, the holes were perfect, the spine was perfect, the paper was completely unblemished and unbroken at the spine, the tops and bottoms were perfectly round, with no smudge, scuff, fleck of any kind...perfectly unbroken, front to back....and it wasn't mine (because I won't submit my flawless books), would I press it? It depends.

 

Because even the best pressers can't perform magic. They may take every precaution known, and still encounter something that is WORSE than that little tiny pinprick indentation...after all, you're applying heat, pressure, and/or humidity, and despite every precaution, paper is still a fairly delicate, organic material. Just a couple of pounds too much pressure can open an otherwise flawless spine along its ridge. Just a couple degrees too much heat can activate inks and remove a tiny dot. Not all cover stock reacts the same way. What works to eliminate flare or waviness on one type could cause it on another. One procedure to reduce tine indentation could adversely affect something else. Spot pressing carries its own risks. And all it takes in this stratosphere of condition is 1/64". That 1/64" is the difference between 9.9 and 9.8.

 

And once that happens, you can never go back.

 

Pressing, despite what the pundits say, is a very delicate art that must be mastered by experience. Any fool with a press can make a waffle.

 

But it takes time, patience, and a lot of experience to finesse paper to dance for you, precisely the way you want it to...and, just like a beautiful woman, that paper is delicate, fragile, and very, very unforgiving if you try to force it to do something against its nature.

 

And that is why no one can ever predict, with any sort of real accuracy, when a book will get a 9.9 instead of a 10, or a 9.8 instead of a 9.9. With practice, NOT 9.9 and NOT 10 can be fairly easily weeded out...but actual 9.9s and 10s? Can't happen. Depends entirely on conditions that not even CGC is totally aware of, much less able to address.

[CBT]

God DANG, that's the longest post i have ever seen. I am about to play a basketball game (last of the fall season), then go out for food with the team, then go watch PVR'd marvel - Agents of Shield.

 

When I am done, I will definitely read this and reply. It will be around 10, 10:30 EST, Cheers

[darkstar]

We have to come up with the parameters of the bet. Specifically for grading fees I would say whoever loses pays grading.

 

We would need

1) Timeline

2) rules on which books

 

Just to start.

 

so now we're making "rules" - you're starting to catch up with the flaws in your original bet

 

"A fool and his money are easily parted"

 

 

It would take me ten minutes to get over to storage to grab 30 CGC 10.0s in my collection (all Marvels and Image to boot)

 

I'd crack all 30 thirty out and bring them to the show and submit them.

 

Easy win - Branget's bet was flawed from the start.

 

Which is exactly one of the scenarios which necessitates some parameters.

 

We are testing your ability to call a 9.9/10.0 and not your abili to crack one out. I guess I'm not a fool since I still have my money?? And the idea that you suggested this makes me want to ensure there are quite a few rules and witnesses. (thumbs u

 

You claim you can tell. Why not put it to the test?

 

From my understanding your argument is that it is impossible for someone to pick 9.9s or above consistently because the differences between the grades are so minute that if submitted once a book might receive a 9.9, submitted a 2nd time it might receive a 9.8, submitted a third time it might receive a 10. Basically the CGC graders themselves cannot be that accurate/consistent on a case by case basis all the time.

 

If this is the case you should be perfectly fine with him resubmitting already graded 9.9s and 10s. If they don't all come back graded 9.9 or 10 then you know that 9.9s and 10s are the result of an "any given day scenario" - a crapshoot that is not the result of the submitter being able to discern a 9.9 from a 9.8.

 

[BeachBum]

We have to come up with the parameters of the bet. Specifically for grading fees I would say whoever loses pays grading.

 

We would need

1) Timeline

2) rules on which books

 

Just to start.

 

so now we're making "rules" - you're starting to catch up with the flaws in your original bet

 

"A fool and his money are easily parted"

 

 

It would take me ten minutes to get over to storage to grab 30 CGC 10.0s in my collection (all Marvels and Image to boot)

 

I'd crack all 30 thirty out and bring them to the show and submit them.

 

Easy win - Branget's bet was flawed from the start.

 

Which is exactly one of the scenarios which necessitates some parameters.

 

We are testing your ability to call a 9.9/10.0 and not your abili to crack one out. I guess I'm not a fool since I still have my money?? And the idea that you suggested this makes me want to ensure there are quite a few rules and witnesses. (thumbs u

 

You claim you can tell. Why not put it to the test?

 

From my understanding your argument is that it is impossible for someone to pick 9.9s or above consistently because the differences between the grades are so minute that if submitted once a book might receive a 9.9, submitted a 2nd time it might receive a 9.8, submitted a third time it might receive a 10. Basically the CGC graders themselves cannot be that accurate/consistent on a case by case basis all the time.

 

If this is the case you should be perfectly fine with him resubmitting already graded 9.9s and 10s. If they don't all come back graded 9.9 or 10 then you know that 9.9s and 10s are the result of an "any given day scenario" - a crapshoot that is not the result of the submitter being able to discern a 9.9 from a 9.8.

 

[TXReplicant]

I posted a white cover 9.9 on the bottom of page 13!

[N/A]

We have to come up with the parameters of the bet. Specifically for grading fees I would say whoever loses pays grading.

 

We would need

1) Timeline

2) rules on which books

 

Just to start.

 

so now we're making "rules" - you're starting to catch up with the flaws in your original bet

 

"A fool and his money are easily parted"

 

 

It would take me ten minutes to get over to storage to grab 30 CGC 10.0s in my collection (all Marvels and Image to boot)

 

I'd crack all 30 thirty out and bring them to the show and submit them.

 

Easy win - Branget's bet was flawed from the start.

 

Which is exactly one of the scenarios which necessitates some parameters.

 

We are testing your ability to call a 9.9/10.0 and not your abili to crack one out. I guess I'm not a fool since I still have my money?? And the idea that you suggested this makes me want to ensure there are quite a few rules and witnesses. (thumbs u

 

You claim you can tell. Why not put it to the test?

 

From my understanding your argument is that it is impossible for someone to pick 9.9s or above consistently because the differences between the grades are so minute that if submitted once a book might receive a 9.9, submitted a 2nd time it might receive a 9.8, submitted a third time it might receive a 10. Basically the CGC graders themselves cannot be that accurate/consistent on a case by case basis all the time.

 

If this is the case you should be perfectly fine with him resubmitting already graded 9.9s and 10s. If they don't all come back graded 9.9 or 10 then you know that 9.9s and 10s are the result of an "any given day scenario" - a crapshoot that is not the result of the submitter being able to discern a 9.9 from a 9.8.

 

 

 

So many attempts to make a simple bet complicated. Cracking 9.9/10.0's for resubmission is perfectly fine if I were testing CGC. This is a bet on whether Dre can call a 9.9/10.0.

[BeachBum]

The funny thing is why would I even bother Jeff? - Even though you argue that I can't spot 9.9s and 10.0s I still do it on a weekly basis.

 

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

[ItsJustRyan]

My God RMA

 

what a post

[N/A]

The funny thing is why would I even bother Jeff? - Even though you argue that I can't spot 9.9s and 10.0s I still do it on a weekly basis.

 

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

 

You are completely missing the point. Read RMA's post for a very detailed explanation. You submit 9.9/10.0's all the time. You do not call 9.9/10.0's with any degree of accuracy. What is your claim? 100% of the time? 50%?

 

I don't care if you prove anything. It's an impossibility.

[ZaCrew]

Question for BeachBum: Do you get first crack at all the GFT con edtions when you go to the conventions?

 

 

[GOTHAMCENTRAL]

Its easy getting a blue label 9.9, its hard to get 9.9 / 10 yellow labels....

[ThoseBackPages]

CBT, you have to read RMA's threads in the Copper section!

 

 

[BeachBum]

Question for BeachBum: Do you get first crack at all the GFT con edtions when you go to the conventions?

 

 

I pick them off the displays already bagged and boared like everyone else and go through them. If you were at Austin you would have seen me standing there patiently going through the books.

[darkstar]

 

So many attempts to make a simple bet complicated. Cracking 9.9/10.0's for resubmission is perfectly fine if I were testing CGC. This is a bet on whether Dre can call a 9.9/10.0.

 

but isn't your argument that possessing the ability to cherrypick 9.9s is impossible because ultimately you are at the mercy of CGC graders? Graders who have an impossible task of grading the same book consistently at that same high grade because the flaw(s) that are present are so minute that one day they may knock the book down to a 9.8 and on other days the flaw(s) may be ignored or deemed acceptable for a 9.9?

 

 

[N/A]

 

So many attempts to make a simple bet complicated. Cracking 9.9/10.0's for resubmission is perfectly fine if I were testing CGC. This is a bet on whether Dre can call a 9.9/10.0.

 

but isn't your argument that possessing the ability to cherrypick 9.9s is impossible because ultimately you are at the mercy of CGC graders? Graders who have an impossible task of grading the same book consistently at that same high grade because the flaw(s) that are present are so minute that one day they may knock the book down to a 9.8 and on other days the flaw(s) may be ignored or deemed acceptable for a 9.9?

 

 

You are referring to part of the argument yes but your example takes any grading talent that Dre possesses completely out of the equation. The idea is to isolate the claim that anyone can "Call a CGC 9.9/10.0"