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

[Comicopolis]

On a side note, how much would it cost to start a grading company? 1 million? 2 millions?

Honest question, since I have no clue.

 

That information is secret.

 

But we can try to come up with an estimation....

 

I'm more interested in how much annual profit CGC make.

[rjpb]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly.

 

There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time.

 

I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books.

 

You make a good point when you say the hobby doesn't have a set in stone standard. However, I'd argue it's not just an unreasonable expectation that the company whose sole job is to grade books has a concrete grading system, I'd say it's inexcusable that they don't.

 

I'd also agree with you that most people don't sit down with a calculator and ruler to add up each individual flaw as it would get complicated. However, CGC isn't most people. They are a company being paid for a service so there is no excuse to why they can't do this. If I really wanted to, I could sit down and figure out tax code and go step by step through my returns and do them myself but I'd rather pay an accountant to do it.

 

Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce.

 

I'm not sure there are too many accountants who will come up with the same numbers twice on a schedule C.

 

[techtre2003]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly.

 

There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time.

 

I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books.

 

You make a good point when you say the hobby doesn't have a set in stone standard. However, I'd argue it's not just an unreasonable expectation that the company whose sole job is to grade books has a concrete grading system, I'd say it's inexcusable that they don't.

 

I'd also agree with you that most people don't sit down with a calculator and ruler to add up each individual flaw as it would get complicated. However, CGC isn't most people. They are a company being paid for a service so there is no excuse to why they can't do this. If I really wanted to, I could sit down and figure out tax code and go step by step through my returns and do them myself but I'd rather pay an accountant to do it.

 

Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce.

 

I'm not sure there are too many accountants who will come up with the same numbers twice on a schedule C.

 

probably not.

[LordRahl]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

 

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

+1

 

Blue. Purple. Blue. Purple.

 

That's going to be my new screen name...

 

I think CGC is going dark on this and will wait for it to go away. And by the vigorous defenders of CGCs grading who see this as an isolated, one-in-a-million-what's-the-big-deal kind of thing...it's obvious there are dealers who don't want change. They profit from playing the resub game.

For them, CGC is purr-fect-o.

 

Most people buy the number (eBay), while they buy the book, resub, and voila, the number changes.

 

 

That statement is funny to me as IMO most of the people playing that game aren't dealers. They're the average Joe collector like Dan (the OP). I know anti-CGC people keep harping about how dealers profit so much from CGC etc and miss the fact that it's really the average guy that profits the most from CGC.

[Rip]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly.

 

There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time.

 

I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books.

 

 

Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce.

 

I wouldn't go that far at all. I still see a much higher rate of error come from some of the "best" dealers. In my last 6 purchases I had only 1 correctly graded.

I had one book with both a detached cover and a little bit of glue missed. If CGC was roughly as good as the "best" dealers I'm guessing most wouldn't pay for the service.

[techtre2003]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

 

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

+1

 

Blue. Purple. Blue. Purple.

 

That's going to be my new screen name...

 

I think CGC is going dark on this and will wait for it to go away. And by the vigorous defenders of CGCs grading who see this as an isolated, one-in-a-million-what's-the-big-deal kind of thing...it's obvious there are dealers who don't want change. They profit from playing the resub game.

For them, CGC is purr-fect-o.

 

Most people buy the number (eBay), while they buy the book, resub, and voila, the number changes.

 

 

That statement is funny to me as IMO most of the people playing that game aren't dealers. They're the average Joe collector like Dan (the OP). I know anti-CGC people keep harping about how dealers profit so much from CGC etc and miss the fact that it's really the average guy that profits the most from CGC.

 

I don't know Dan, but just from reading this thread I'd have to say he isn't just the average joe collector. While he may not be an actual dealer it sounds like it's a pretty good side job for him. I have no problem with Dan or anyone else doing that; I wish I had the means to do it myself.

 

And as an aside, for me and my collection I am anti-cgc. However, I don't want them to go away because I've benefited from the stigma that PLODs carry with them. I've gotten a few awesome deals on books with slight color touch that I would have paid a decent amount more for in raw format!

[VintageComics]

And by the vigorous defenders of CGCs grading who see this as an isolated, one-in-a-million-what's-the-big-deal kind of thing...it's obvious there are dealers who don't want change. They profit from playing the resub game.

For them, CGC is purr-fect-o.

 

Most people buy the number (eBay), while they buy the book, resub, and voila, the number changes.

 

 

Nobody said it's a one-in-a-million-what's-the-big-deal kind of thing.

 

It is isolated, relatively speaking. It's in the minority. Nobody has produced concrete numbers but there is no reason to believe it's commonplace. From my own experiences I've placed it at less than 1-2%.

 

And LordRahl as correct, everybody benefits from CGC. Not just dealers.

 

Making this incident look like the sky is falling (because some "people in tight with CGC" said that CGC are not perfect) is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually happening because it removes the perspective that CGC has over all done more for detecting restoration and setting some sort of a grading standard than any other single entity.

 

How can I say that?

 

Because even when Overstreet guidelines were in print:

 

a) anybody buying books on eBay pre CGC or buying books leading up to CGC at shows, mail order, etc knows full well how often what you got in the mail was a crapshoot. You'd be lucky to get the correct issue number or title sometimes, let alone grade, resto, etc.

 

b) you picked up that large collection from HE a while back if I'm not mistaken and I assume the majority came back with Blue labels. Imagine picking up the collection and not knowing if the books were restored or not and finding out 20 years later?

 

c) for every improperly graded CGC book, we can't calculate how many times CGC has saved a buyer's bacon because the majority of books that are accurately graded and resto checked is unaccounted for. Rest assured it's a large percentage of anyone's graded collection (well more than 85% in my opinion )

 

That statement is funny to me as IMO most of the people playing that game aren't dealers. They're the average Joe collector like Dan (the OP). I know anti-CGC people keep harping about how dealers profit so much from CGC etc and miss the fact that it's really the average guy that profits the most from CGC.

 

Just imagine out of 3 Million comics graded how many would be sitting with unknown resto and unknown grades in people's collections.

[techtre2003]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly.

 

There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time.

 

I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books.

 

 

Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce.

 

I wouldn't go that far at all. I still see a much higher rate of error come from some of the "best" dealers. In my last 6 purchases I had only 1 correctly graded.

I had one book with both a detached cover and a little bit of glue missed. If CGC was roughly as good as the "best" dealers I'm guessing most wouldn't pay for the service.

 

Correctly graded by who though? I wouldn't call a dealer who missed a detached cover one of the best! If you feel CGC has been accurate and consistent with your books than I can't argue with you and wouldn't try to; you're happy with the service that's great. I'm just looking at this example with Spider-Dan and shaking my head. And let's not forget it wasn't just the JIM 83 he sent in that went from blue 6.0 to purple 7.0 but on the same submission had the Avengers #1 go from blue 7.0 to purple 6.0.

 

I'm guessing a lot of people don't use the service because they think the grading is as good as the best dealers. I'd say they are using the service because they get a crazy premium on books because they are graded by CGC.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I have gone to the top of a high mountain, meditated on the problem, and discovered the reason why this has happened:

 

The top edge was only trimmed halfway.

 

The first graders only saw the untrimmed half, the second graders only saw the trimmed half, and the third graders the same as the first.

 

Clearly, that's the answer.

 

Which half....?

 

The top one. Obviously.

[techtre2003]

 

"Just imagine out of 3 Million comics graded how many would be sitting with unknown resto and unknown grades in people's collections."

 

Would those people be any less happy with those books though?

[VintageComics]

I'm guessing a lot of people don't use the service because they think the grading is as good as the best dealers. I'd say they are using the service because they get a crazy premium on books because they are graded by CGC.

 

There are plenty of people who use 3rd party grading so that the book they buy doesn't have to be a crapshoot.

 

Not all books fetch crazy premiums and many collectors on this very forum actually avoid collecting books that fetch crazy premiums but still buy and collect CGC graded books.

 

There's obviously more than one type of collector and some collectors have more than one type of collecting style. I collect raw and graded books.

[Rip]

I keep reading that grading is subjective, grading is subjective, grading is subjective, okay, no argument grading is subjective. But in this case, it's one book, with one major flaw. Now, either CGC has a standard for that flaw or they don't. Different graders gave this flaw a different grade. Doesn't sound like a standard. No standards scares me.

Go ahead guys, ignore my comment yet again. I can't even get a response from Kav on this ?!?

This.

 

+1

 

+1 from me. This is the root of the issue. This issue flopped back and forth between blue and purple so much that any claim to having set standards in detection is absolutely unbelievable. How can one trust any universal grade that isn't a modern book now?

 

Granted the notable flaw on this particular JIM 83 would preclude it from being a 7.0 for many here, but not everyone judging by some of the raw grades I've seen posted in the sales forum. Early in this thread bomber-bob mentions when the book was his, he didn't resubmit, as he was told by Matt (Nelson?) that it could as easily come back a 5.5 as a 6.5. That's a three grade range. So is 6.0-7.0. Neither range is any more or less indicative of a standard, it's just that Matt and CGC's mid-point differs slightly.

 

There seems to be an expectation that a company that uses multiple shifting graders, in a hobby where grading criteria has never been set in stone, should have sharply defined grading standards that would narrow the potential grade range further. Not an unreasonable expectation for a company whose reputation is built on their ability to grade, but repeated examples of grade changes shown on these boards indicate that will not be the case 100% of the time.

 

I don't believe anyone routinely grades based on a deductive point system to arrive at a number, The variety, size and compound nature of individual flaws would make this make this increasingly complicated as one goes down the grading ladder. Even if CGCs graders are given a grading "bible" to memorize and follow, gut feel is going to be a determining factor at arriving at a specific grade, as it is for just about all of us (whether we admit it or not). I qualify this, as there is possibly at least one OCD boardie who sits down with a graphing calculator when grading books.

 

 

Bottom line is the quality and consistency coming out of CGC right now seems to be on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector could produce.

 

I wouldn't go that far at all. I still see a much higher rate of error come from some of the "best" dealers. In my last 6 purchases I had only 1 correctly graded.

I had one book with both a detached cover and a little bit of glue missed. If CGC was roughly as good as the "best" dealers I'm guessing most wouldn't pay for the service.

 

Correctly graded by who though? I wouldn't call a dealer who missed a detached cover one of the best! If you feel CGC has been accurate and consistent with your books than I can't argue with you and wouldn't try to; you're happy with the service that's great. I'm just looking at this example with Spider-Dan and shaking my head. And let's not forget it wasn't just the JIM 83 he sent in that went from blue 6.0 to purple 7.0 but on the same submission had the Avengers #1 go from blue 7.0 to purple 6.0.

 

I'm guessing a lot of people don't use the service because they think the grading is as good as the best dealers. I'd say they are using the service because they get a crazy premium on books because they are graded by CGC.

 

When I state the "Best" I mean some of the best rated dealers from Cheetahs list.

These were mostly books with clear errors and missed damage like a large vertical front crease along the spine on a NM book. And I would say the boardie grading here is even worse.

 

Another point is the middle grades tend to be the hardest to correctly grade.

 

No I don't think CGC are always "accurate and consistent" but the point I am making is if you think they are "on par with what a somewhat knowledgeable collector" grading is then you are likely not buying enough books. Or any books with a larger dollar amount attached. If so I would love to know your sources.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Rip

[VintageComics]

 

"Just imagine out of 3 Million comics graded how many would be sitting with unknown resto and unknown grades in people's collections."

 

Would those people be any less happy with those books though?

 

That would be up to them to answer. Everyone finds enjoyment in a different way but happiness wasn't really the point of my post.

 

It's important to keep the discussion in perspective. We are talking about getting what you pay for when buying a comic and fact is that you are getting that to a much greater (almost 100%) degree post CGC than you would be pre CGC.

 

Like I said, I remember older back issues from catalogs and often getting entirely the wrong book, let alone the wrong grade or with resto.

 

And if you don't like CGC, no problem. You can either crack your graded books out (something many people who enjoy touching their comics do) or simply buy raw based on your own skill set.

 

[CBT]

On a side note, how much would it cost to start a grading company? 1 million? 2 millions?

Honest question, since I have no clue.

 

fair bit more than that.

 

The "business" is trivial. Paying enough in salaries to get all the skilled people to uproot and move to your location, not trivial.

 

You'd be doing it with no guarantee of income as well. You'd have to find a way for the slabbed books to sell for a premium on ebay, equivalent to CGCs, which is essentially what they sell.

 

Pressure on the margins of CGCs customers leading to a massive decline in books being subbed, would be the easiest way for a competitor to gain ground, (by lowering the CGC profit premium for the comic sellers). The slabbed comic "bubble" bursting would be the biggest threat to the monopoly in my eyes.

[Chip Cataldo]

On a side note, how much would it cost to start a grading company? 1 million? 2 millions?

Honest question, since I have no clue.

 

I've heard you can save money by printing a blue label with the book's info on it and then only have to change the color to purple for the subsequent label printing.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[Prince Namor]

It would a long slow expensive process.

Unless you solicited/undermined a great number of CGC's big submitters and got them to sign on board with you day one...

 

And how would you get them to do that? Without promising something that might compromise what you're trying to do in the first place.

 

Are people REALLY that unhappy with CGC?

 

Or are there just too many people clinging to the cash cow now?

[mysterio]

Making this incident look like the sky is falling (because some "people in tight with CGC" said that CGC are not perfect) is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually happening because it removes the perspective that CGC has over all done more for detecting restoration and setting some sort of a grading standard than any other single entity.

 

How can I say that?

 

Because even when Overstreet guidelines were in print:

 

a) anybody buying books on eBay pre CGC or buying books leading up to CGC at shows, mail order, etc knows full well how often what you got in the mail was a crapshoot. You'd be lucky to get the correct issue number or title sometimes, let alone grade, resto, etc.

 

b) you picked up that large collection from HE a while back if I'm not mistaken and I assume the majority came back with Blue labels. Imagine picking up the collection and not knowing if the books were restored or not and finding out 20 years later?

 

c) for every improperly graded CGC book, we can't calculate how many times CGC has saved a buyer's bacon because the majority of books that are accurately graded and resto checked is unaccounted for. Rest assured it's a large percentage of anyone's graded collection (well more than 85% in my opinion )

 

That statement is funny to me as IMO most of the people playing that game aren't dealers. They're the average Joe collector like Dan (the OP). I know anti-CGC people keep harping about how dealers profit so much from CGC etc and miss the fact that it's really the average guy that profits the most from CGC.

 

Just imagine out of 3 Million comics graded how many would be sitting with unknown resto and unknown grades in people's collections.

 

Roy, you make it sound like CGC is the only authority on grades and resto. Every book in my collection has been graded, by me. Of course, my grading differs from everyone elses, at least on some level, and what CGC was supposed to do was provide a standard for the hobby. This is why CGC graded books command the premium they often do, for that safety that the label is correct about both the grade and the level of restoration.

 

I'm not going to claim, as others have, that the flop from 6 to 7 to 6 is equally as worrying to me as the resto flip, because for me most of the value in a slab is in that resto check and this incident (along with the others I know about like namisgr's similar issue) have dinged (but not destroyed) my confidence in their ability. But the flop from 6 to 7 to 6 does concern me a lot, just as I'm concerned every time I pay 9.8 money for a 9.8 label that sits over a 9.4-9.6 book with visible spine stress. I get that there can be some play on allowable defects in a grade, but I don't think many boardies have a nearly book length crease along the spine allowable in F/VF. And, like others have said, it is troubling that there could be that much variation on the one book with the one obvious defect. Grading is subjective, and I expect variation within a certain parameter (for me, about 0.5, like between whether a book is Fine or Fine+). This book illustrates that even within a very short time frame that CGC can't stay within those parameters, and highlights the somewhat capricious nature of their system.

[Bomber-Bob]

And if you don't like CGC, no problem. You can either crack your graded books out (something many people who enjoy touching their comics do) or simply buy raw based on your own skill set.

 

Roy, you make a lot of references to the pre CGC days and you are correct.

However, I find myself now making a distinction between the 'old' (early) CGC to today's CGC. I had most of my collection graded in the 2007,2008 timeframe and they graded tight They didn't call it the Haspel hammer for nothing. They were more consistent because they graded tight. I don't see it with the books graded today. Too many examples of overgraded books. Consistent, tight grading may not make the dealers happy but it would give the buyers of CGC graded books more confidence.

 

Edited April 3, 2014 by bomber-bob

[revat]

On a side note, how much would it cost to start a grading company? 1 million? 2 millions?

Honest question, since I have no clue.

 

fair bit more than that.

 

The "business" is trivial. Paying enough in salaries to get all the skilled people to uproot and move to your location, not trivial.

 

You'd be doing it with no guarantee of income as well. You'd have to find a way for the slabbed books to sell for a premium on ebay, equivalent to CGCs, which is essentially what they sell.

 

Pressure on the margins of CGCs customers leading to a massive decline in books being subbed, would be the easiest way for a competitor to gain ground, (by lowering the CGC profit premium for the comic sellers). The slabbed comic "bubble" bursting would be the biggest threat to the monopoly in my eyes.

 

Not only this amount of startup, but the ability to keep running the company for YEARS before turning a profit while still continuing to pay ALL the fees of employees, legal, insurance, equipment and upkeep, administrative, utilities, management, rent, advertising, travel, computer stuff (software, internet stuff, hardware, etc), taxes, employee benefits, and business fees.

 

AND what happens when CGC counters buy lowering their prices a bit and then you might be forced to change your pricing model, or you get one big submitter early on (before you're ready) and it destroys your turnaround times.

 

Unfortunately, many of the employees you need with proper experience probably work for CGC, so you'd have to hire them away, which means most likely paying them more, AND I think Florida has no state income tax.

 

Soooo....it'd be tough.

 

It's a proper monopoly, and not one easily ended.

[Rip]

And if you don't like CGC, no problem. You can either crack your graded books out (something many people who enjoy touching their comics do) or simply buy raw based on your own skill set.

 

Roy, you make a lot of references to the pre CGC days and you are correct.

However, I find myself now making a distinction between the 'old' (early) CGC to today's CGC. I had most of my collection graded in the 2007,2008 timeframe and they graded tight They didn't call it the Haspel hammer for nothing. They were more consistent because they graded tight. I don't see it with the books graded today. Too many examples of overgraded books. Consistent, tight grading may not make the dealers happy but it would give the buyers of CGC graded books more confidence.

 

I agree here. I think CGC's grading isn't as good as it once was. Although I think they have gotten a hair tighter more recently. (Maybe last 6+ months or so)

 

I also think they should drop on site grading.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Rip