Ive lost ALL confidence in CGC - UPDATE on page 221 2 2

[comicwiz]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

The reason why Nick's quote isn't absolutely true to me is because a single dealer can have good and bad days as well.

 

I had a very long winded conversation with a long time dealer and he said something along these lines: "Dealers buy and profit from other dealer's mistakes."

 

He's absolutely right.

 

You buy some dealer's SA books because he grades them as VF's and you can sell them as proper NM-'s.

 

Or a dealer under prices his books not realizing that prices have changed.

 

Or a dealer doesn't realize what he has in his inventory.

 

Dealers get busy, tired and distracted the way a grader might. I can't even remember how many dealers have told me they'll grade a box of books sitting at their feet while watching a ball game or a TV show. And these are well respected, tight graders on the con circuit.

 

At least with more than one set of eyes looking at a book, there is more than one opportunity to catch something that the first person misses.

 

The bottom line is that you can't remove humanity from the equation. You can only try to.

 

Fair point. And the dealer fatigue issue traverses and applies categorically to a hypothetical skeleton crew scenario just as well.

 

Can you not see the same issue (buyer profiting from Dan) due to CGC's mistake?

 

You can have twenty people in a room, but if only one person has the ability to precisely and accurately detect restoration, it significantly reduces the merits/advantages of making the claim "the entire building" checked it, especially when the claim is weighed against a single dealer with the acumen of spotting resto.

[lb jefferies]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

Surely not more ridiculous than the asinine "the book should be destroyed" comment

[cheetah]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

Name names. WHO is more consistent? Not nebulous philosophical truisms. Exactly WHO am I supposed to trust to be more consistent?

[cheetah]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

Surely not more ridiculous than the asinine "the book should be destroyed" comment

 

'one of the more'

 

But, please, go ahead and rank the ridiculous statements in order from most to least. It would be funny.

[comicwiz]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

Name names. WHO is more consistent? Not nebulous philosophical truisms. Exactly WHO am I supposed to trust to be more consistent?

 

I have a go-to list of people I buy from. A few locally who grade consistently. From these boards, Nick (Flaming Telepath). Steve Borock. FK (Brian). Outside of these boards, well known dealer, Doug Sulipa. When I did shows, I'd hit the tables of certain dealers first, but I'd hope you can appreciate me being guarded about sharing my entire list as I feel it gives me an advantage when I'm pursuing certain books. It isn't rocket science or anything unfathomable for people to develop a "trusted list" of sources for material. I've had a longer go at it for comics, but have developed the same list for coins and toys. What's so "nebulous" about making this statement without needing to throw out a CV and source material to make it believable?

[VintageComics]

You're right, you can't remove humanity (yet), but you are still removing a variable by having a constant grader. Anytime you can remove a variable you are going to get more consistent results.

 

I agree

 

The difference is in how large the variable is, and is it worth their time and effort to

 

a) prevent graders from attending shows (I'm sure that CGC didn't pay for their head graders to fly off to Seattle without good reason)

b) hire and train more graders

c) pay them more

d) have them spend more time grading each separate book

3) charge more per book

 

The flip side of the coin is that you can ask the consumer the question: "Would you be willing to pay more for a better product?" The answer is usually a consistent "No." It's the way of the modern world. We want it all and we want it cheap and we want it now.

 

This can be shown by the outrage when CGC did change there prices a few years ago for the first time in nearly a decade.

 

I personally would pay more for a better service if it meant better service but then I'm usually in the minority.

[gaz973]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

The reason why Nick's quote isn't absolutely true to me is because a single dealer can have good and bad days as well.

 

I had a very long winded conversation with a long time dealer and he said something along these lines: "Dealers buy and profit from other dealer's mistakes."

 

He's absolutely right.

 

You buy some dealer's SA books because he grades them as VF's and you can sell them as proper NM-'s.

 

Or a dealer under prices his books not realizing that prices have changed.

 

Or a dealer doesn't realize what he has in his inventory.

 

Dealers get busy, tired and distracted the way a grader might. I can't even remember how many dealers have told me they'll grade a box of books sitting at their feet while watching a ball game or a TV show. And these are well respected, tight graders on the con circuit.

 

At least with more than one set of eyes looking at a book, there is more than one opportunity to catch something that the first person misses.

 

The bottom line is that you can't remove humanity from the equation. You can only try to.

Of course no grader can be 100% consistent for 100% if the time, the same as any CGC grader but they can be very consistent if they take it seriously.

 

However CGC grading can also vary between the different graders employed by them as well as being under pressure from trying to keep up with TAT's. Obviously a single experienced grader is going to be more consistent than a company employing a pool of graders.

 

I can say in all honesty and not because I'm a friend of Nick that having examined hundreds of books that have been graded by Nick and hundreds graded by CGC that without doubt, Nicks grading has been a lot more consistent. Like Nick said, accuracy is another discussion so I won't even go there.

[CBT]

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

True. But in reality doesn't change anything.

 

Maybe, but in the past year, I've been asked more times in all the years I've been collecting if any of my slabs were submitted at a show. I'd imagine the next check point question from buyers will be walk-thru's timed around major shows.

 

That's an unforeseen barrier to trade and impediment to what I expect from CGC as a selling tool.

 

Things take time to evolve and unfold, but it would be naive to think for a moment this situation won't have some negative trickle effect on their reputation.

 

Spine adjustments are the most ridiculous thing in this regard. So easily detected, should automatically get a book a multi-point drop in grading, but its blind-eyed.

 

As more and more consumers become educated, the Chiropractors will eventually get their due.

[Quicksilver Signs]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

Name names. WHO is more consistent? Not nebulous philosophical truisms. Exactly WHO am I supposed to trust to be more consistent?

 

trust yourself, don't rely on other companies or dealers to tell you what a grade is. If a book grades the way you feel comfortable with, pay the appropriate price.

[cheetah]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

Name names. WHO is more consistent? Not nebulous philosophical truisms. Exactly WHO am I supposed to trust to be more consistent?

 

I have a go-to list of people I buy from. A few locally who grade consistently. From these boards, Nick (Flaming Telepath). Steve Borock. FK (Brian). Outside of these boards, well known dealer, Doug Sulipa. When I did shows, I'd hit the tables of certain dealers first, but I'd hope you can appreciate me being guarded about sharing my entire list as I feel it gives me an advantage when I'm pursuing certain books. It isn't rocket science or anything unfathomable for people to develop a "trusted list" of sources for material. I've had a longer go at it for comics, but have developed the same list for coins and comics. What's so "nebulous" about making this statement without needing to throw out a CV and source material to make it believable?

 

Because unsupported claims are the fuel for the anti-intellectual. FWIW, I buy a lot of raw books from a lot of dealers and they all show clear trends - I even had a thread about it in the GA forum. But I find in any order of more than a dozen books, there are obvious mistakes. If CGC blows one in a thousand or even one in a hundred, it puts them light years ahead of folks who get one out of ten.

[VintageComics]

Of course no grader can be 100% consistent for 100% if the time, the same as any CGC grader but they can be very consistent if they take it seriously.

 

However CGC grading can also vary between the different graders employed by them as well as being under pressure from trying to keep up with TAT's. Obviously a single experienced grader is going to be more consistent than a company employing a pool of graders.

 

I can say in all honesty and not because I'm a friend of Nick that having examined hundreds of books that have been graded by Nick and hundreds graded by CGC that without doubt, Nicks grading has been a lot more consistent. Like Nick said, accuracy is another discussion so I won't even go there.

 

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much. We're just fleshing out the discussion.

 

Both systems have their pluses and minuses. Can one person catch resto better than 2 or 3 sets of eyes?

 

And Nick's consistency is not a mystery to me. I've been dealing with (or at least known about) Nick for about 12 years now between eBay and here.

 

The bottom line though is that no matter how consistent Bob Storms, or Nick Beckett or anyone else is (and I'd say I'm a pretty consistent grader myself although I wouldn't put myself in their league), nobody is going to put a 7.5 grade on a raw AF #15 or an Action #1 if they think CGC will give it an 8.0.

 

I personally think it's an unrealistic expectation to have that we can only 'win' with a graded book and never lose. Life is not that perfect.

[Magneto]

I have a go-to list of people I buy from. A few locally who grade consistently. From these boards, Nick (Flaming Telepath). Steve Borock. FK (Brian). Outside of these boards, well known dealer, Doug Sulipa. When I did shows, I'd hit the tables of certain dealers first, but I'd hope you can appreciate me being guarded about sharing my entire list as I feel it gives me an advantage when I'm pursuing certain books. It isn't rocket science or anything unfathomable for people to develop a "trusted list" of sources for material. I've had a longer go at it for comics, but have developed the same list for coins and toys. What's so "nebulous" about making this statement without needing to throw out a CV and source material to make it believable?

 

Can I get your list of local guys you recommend as consistent graders?

[comicwiz]

I have a go-to list of people I buy from. A few locally who grade consistently. From these boards, Nick (Flaming Telepath). Steve Borock. FK (Brian). Outside of these boards, well known dealer, Doug Sulipa. When I did shows, I'd hit the tables of certain dealers first, but I'd hope you can appreciate me being guarded about sharing my entire list as I feel it gives me an advantage when I'm pursuing certain books. It isn't rocket science or anything unfathomable for people to develop a "trusted list" of sources for material. I've had a longer go at it for comics, but have developed the same list for coins and toys. What's so "nebulous" about making this statement without needing to throw out a CV and source material to make it believable?

 

Can I get your list of local guys you recommend as consistent graders?

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

[maloney414]

I'm still curious if the owner will sell it to CGC.

 

The book is a great looking copy, and I doubt I would sell it back for $3500. Especially, if it's for his personal collection to keep for the long haul. It is a really nice looking copy. Gonna, be tough to replace for that amount.

[comicwiz]

IThe book is a great looking copy, and I doubt I would sell it back for $3500.

 

If that's what they intend to pay, they're dreaming. For them to have any success in taking the book off the market, they either pluck an existing blue 6.0 out of the wild, and swap it for the chameleon blue/purple/blue copy or pay the replacement value for a blue 6.0.

 

Still no guarantees, but at least we understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

[cheetah]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

[marmat]

They looked at the book-said it wasnt trimmed

Looked at it again-said it was trimmed

Looked at it again, said not trimmed

Looked at it AGAIN-showed it to everyone-said it was trimmed

HAVEN'T looked at it again but confirm it is trimmed....

Yeah-nonsense...

 

People are giving Kav a hard time, but this post is a pretty good recap of this situation.

IMO, the problem is not that CGC made a mistake, or that CGC is sometimes inconsistent in his grading. The big problem is that he made the same mistake 3 times on the same book. This is no longer a mistake, it's unability to detect a given defect (in this case, trimming). If they can not detect trimming (unless it's obvious), they should rethink his policy about trimming.

They graded almost 3 millions comics, how many books out there sit in the wrong slab?

If the error rate (not only trimming, but all possible defects combined) is only 1%, there are 30000 wrong slabs out there. In my book, 30000 is a huge number, even more if we consider that most of the books would be GA-SA comics.

[Flaming_Telepath]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not talking about agreement with CGC, I'm talking about internal consistency.

 

This book (one of thousands we've seen here before) was a 6.0, then a 7.0, then a 6.0 again. It's not a one-off...it's part of a historical trend.

 

If I had graded that book on three separate occasions, I can guarantee you that it would not have shifted two points and then back again two points. Whether I had graded it a 6.0 or a 13.2 doesn't matter...it's whether I would have come up with the same results...or within a point...on three separate occasions.

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

And I do put my grades on every book I sell...and I guarantee them to one point of variance if submitted to CGC.

 

Yes, guarantee.

 

Which is more of a guarantee than CGC's.