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

[MatterEaterLad]

I'm showing my age (and my geekiness) but this reminds me of the old online service, Prodigy. Whenever anyone posted how bad Prodigy was and how much better AOL was...Prodigy began deleting those posts. Instead of improving their service they just deleted the criticism.

[techtre2003]

The solution to this thread, Give it a blue and make a note like this....

Yep

 

Not really a fair solution if the book isn't actually trimmed though.

[slym2none]

I am not the kind of person you necessarily want to see riled up. And leave it at that.

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

CGC is not a coporation, but a bunch of guys posing as a corporation.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[MetalPSI]

LLC....

 

Well, its slightly better than a LLP.

 

Not much though

 

But you good Americans must remember... Corporations are people too! Thank your lawyers

 

Now I gotta run and patent my genes before someone else does....

[Moondog]

 

Someone buys a book that was graded, EXPECTING it to grade higher...expecting the SAME company to grade it higher. He said he thought it would be a 6.5.

There is a risk factor there, Dan has said that...sometimes he "wins" sometimes he loses...but isn't his whole business model based on the fact that he does NOT expect CGC to be consistent?

If he kept the book slabbed as a 6.0, he wouldn't have lost a thing.

The book could have come back a 5.5, would he have been damaged then?

When something is slightly inconsistent, it doesn't always mean it's going to be a higher grade.

Risk/Reward...it's a gambling term.

People who actually buy things based on the expected inconsistencies in grading are gambling.

I'm sure it's a small percentage, but there are people who scour slabs for the gamble. You don't always win when you gamble...this time it was just a little odder than the normal risks because of the color label change.

There are always going to be inconsistencies where humans are involved.

More risk for the potential reward.

[/color]

 

Sharon speaks the truth here. The resub game exists soley because of CGC's propensity for inconsistency. The game isn't necessarily rigged when it goes against you. It's just gambling, period.

If you want a more regulated playing field try stocks, more specifically stock options. You don't need a big bankroll to play options. I'd rather make my money there and spend it on comics.

 

I don't entirely agree with this assessment. Yes, CPR exists because of CGC's inconsistency, but also because CGC grading is not as strict as it was in the past.

 

Gary, I totally agree with you. CGC does not grade as strictly as in the past. I actually attribute this to Haspel and I mean this as a compliment to him. I think consistent, tight grading is good for the industry. It adds more value for the buyer in the open marketplace, giving the CGC product a good name. Seeing an overgraded, fugly book in a CGC slab makes them look bad.

 

The fugly books for the most part are mistakes. Some are laughable like the example you've made. But I believe that overall grading is not as strict as it was when CGC first started. This seems to be a recurring situation by grading companies in all fields - sports cards, coins, currency. In comics I don't believe it's been done on purpose. It's just a natural evolution - a corporate understanding if you will - that the perception of being too strict is bad for business. So they give tweeners the benefit of the doubt, and suddenly a NM 98 is given a 10.

 

In sports cards it was done on purpose. They went from 8, 9, 10 to 8, 8.5, 9, 10. This 8.5 grade was huge for PSA. Just think of the thousands of resubmits they got with collectors who had "strong 8's"! The same for coins when they lowered the MS grades of what is considered high grade and added new higher MS numbers.

 

This is not a criticism of CGC's grading practices. But we all need to understand what's happening so we can deal with it properly.

 

 

[Moondog]

 

Someone buys a book that was graded, EXPECTING it to grade higher...expecting the SAME company to grade it higher. He said he thought it would be a 6.5.

There is a risk factor there, Dan has said that...sometimes he "wins" sometimes he loses...but isn't his whole business model based on the fact that he does NOT expect CGC to be consistent?

If he kept the book slabbed as a 6.0, he wouldn't have lost a thing.

The book could have come back a 5.5, would he have been damaged then?

When something is slightly inconsistent, it doesn't always mean it's going to be a higher grade.

Risk/Reward...it's a gambling term.

People who actually buy things based on the expected inconsistencies in grading are gambling.

I'm sure it's a small percentage, but there are people who scour slabs for the gamble. You don't always win when you gamble...this time it was just a little odder than the normal risks because of the color label change.

There are always going to be inconsistencies where humans are involved.

More risk for the potential reward.

[/color]

 

Sharon speaks the truth here. The resub game exists soley because of CGC's propensity for inconsistency. The game isn't necessarily rigged when it goes against you. It's just gambling, period.

If you want a more regulated playing field try stocks, more specifically stock options. You don't need a big bankroll to play options. I'd rather make my money there and spend it on comics.

 

I don't entirely agree with this assessment. Yes, CPR exists because of CGC's inconsistency, but also because CGC grading is not as strict as it was in the past.

That's called inconsistency.

 

Normally I don't respond to posts like this because you clearly didn't read my entire post or the parts of this thread leading up to it. Inconsistency in grading and the overall lowering of grading standards (even if we don't know what they are) are entirely two different things.

[VintageComics]

But I believe that overall grading is not as strict as it was when CGC first started.

 

I don't know. I seem to disagree with this.

 

We'd have to talk about which grade ranges.

 

They might have loosened up on the bottom or middle ranges but on the top range they are still not bad.

 

I probably see 1000's of CGC books each year and while there are many loose books and many tight books I don't see that CGC was 'stricter' back in the day. I think that's a myth.

 

I've seen many horrifically over graded books in old labels.

 

You'll always have misses or mistakes and outliers but for the most part I think over the last 2 years since their loose period a few years ago that everyone talks about they've tightened up substantially.

 

Of course, again I'm mostly looking at and looking for higher grades.

[Flaming_Telepath]

But I believe that overall grading is not as strict as it was when CGC first started.

 

100% correct.

 

I have the latest in a long line of submissions in my hands to prove the point. Not a single book came back lower than called. Almost every book came back higher than called, a number of them ridiculously so.

 

This was never the case in the early 00s.

 

Anybody who tells you different has skin in the game.

[VintageComics]

But I believe that overall grading is not as strict as it was when CGC first started.

 

100% correct.

 

I have the latest in a long line of submissions in my hands to prove the point. Not a single book came back lower than called. Almost every book came back higher than called, a number of them ridiculously so.

 

This was never the case in the early 00s.

 

Anybody who tells you different has skin in the game.

 

 

This is your polite way of saying Roy has skin in the game.

 

Whose call? Yours? Your books have always been tighter than CGC's.

 

I don't want to poke the dragon if he's 16 Coronas in on a Saturday night but I'll tell you what skin I have in the game: Kicking and screaming and firing off emails to CGC over why their books are so tight.

 

I resubmit a fair number of books over the years and the number of books going down in grade (not even staying the same grade) over the last 2 years is staggering to me. I wouldn't be surprised if my incoming phone number was labeled as 'the complainer' in Sarasota.

 

Why would they go down in grade if they were tighter then? Sorry but I'm not protecting skin here, just real life experience.

 

The litmus test for me is having CGC regrade their own books and they were not tighter back in the day in my experience. They had loose and tight periods then as they do now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jaylam]

I have only had one old label book I've re-subbed come back at a lower grade and boy did I ever take a pretty bad hit on that one. It was an Avengers #53 that was a Universal 9.4 that looked about as sweet as it could be, but had something that looked like fuzz in the holder. I thought about just sending it in for reholder service, but it looked so nice, I thought it might have an outside chance at a 9.6. I cracked it out and sure enough there was some kind of fuzz, (looked like a little patch of pocket lint) that was inside the inner well, next to the book itself. It easily brushed off. I inspected the book for anything else. I was convinced I found no flaws with this book, not even anything worth pressing, (it was one of those books with no grader notes). So I went ahead and sent it in, thinking no way this book comes back with anything worse that what it already was, but boy was I about to be surprised. Much to shock and horror, it come back at 9.2 with a "Qualified" label: "cover detached from top staple". Needless to say I had a "WTF" moment as soon as I saw that, knowing darn good and well this book did not have a detached staple when I sent it in. I talked to CGC about it, trying to figure out what could have happened, but what can you do as they pretty much said "We just grade 'em as we see 'em". All I can figure is something happened when I packed the book, or something happened during shipping or maybe just handling the book one more time at CGC caused that staple to "pop". So, it just goes to show you, anytime you roll the dice, (and subject your book to additional handling) you risk the chance of getting burned.

[DEATHLOK9147]

I have only had one old label book I've re-subbed come back at a lower grade and boy did I ever take a pretty bad hit on that one. It was an Avengers #53 that was a Universal 9.4 that looked about as sweet as it could be, but had something that looked like fuzz in the holder. I thought about just sending it in for reholder service, but it looked so nice, I thought it might have an outside chance at a 9.6. I cracked it out and sure enough there was some kind of fuzz, (looked like a little patch of pocket lint) that was inside the inner well, next to the book itself. It easily brushed off. I inspected the book for anything else. I was convinced I found no flaws with this book, not even anything worth pressing, (it was one of those books with no grader notes). So I went ahead and sent it in, thinking no way this book comes back with anything worse that what it already was, but boy was I about to be surprised. Much to shock and horror, it come back at 9.2 with a "Qualified" label: "cover detached from top staple". Needless to say I had a "WTF" moment as soon as I saw that, knowing darn good and well this book did not have a detached staple when I sent it in. I talked to CGC about it, trying to figure out what could have happened, but what can you do as they pretty much said "We just grade 'em as we see 'em". All I can figure is something happened when I packed the book, or something happened during shipping or maybe just handling the book one more time at CGC caused that staple to "pop". So, it just goes to show you, anytime you roll the dice, (and subject your book to additional handling) you risk the chance of getting burned.

Geez whatthe heck is going on out there with allof this grading mis happenings lately? Makes me never want to grade a book..

[RockMyAmadeus]

The same for coins when they lowered the MS grades of what is considered high grade and added new higher MS numbers.

 

The MS grades were fairly well established before slabbing came along. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Clarify?

[RockMyAmadeus]

For what it's worth:

 

The books I see the most are high grade 1970-2005.

 

I have seen many, many "small letter" labels with books that were, in my opinion, quite overgraded (that's 2000-2003.)

 

A 9.6 book shouldn't have a 1" bend in the spine, even if it is NCB. That's a VF/NM book. I wonder how many books I essentially gave away in the time period because that's how I graded books.

 

However, I do not see any sort of "loose" or "tight" grading *periods* for any of these books, in the niches that I deal in. I am aware that people say "avoid 2011!" and "2002 was TIGHT!"

 

I don't deal (much) in slabbed 9.0 or less Silver, and I deal in almost NO Gold.

 

So I have little experience in mid-grades of much, and mid-grades have always been harder for everyone to grade.

 

But in the 9.0+ grades, I see looseness and tightness, even within books of the same submission. It all comes down to what bothers the grader. To this day, I cannot point to you why a grader onsight at WWLA in 2008 thought a Wolverine #1 was a 9.4, when it was an all day long 9.8 (and, indeed, ended up IN that 9.8 slab, having nothing done to it in between...and me having to pay the grading fee twice.)

 

I do have a problem with that. I have called on pre-screen subs, and asked for the subs to be looked over again. Another "pass" was "found", which irritated me to no end. It says either they didn't do their job correctly in the first place, or they "passed" a book that shouldn't have been passed, just to mollify a customer. Both are wrong.

 

 

 

[Davenport]

I have only had one old label book I've re-subbed come back at a lower grade and boy did I ever take a pretty bad hit on that one. It was an Avengers #53 that was a Universal 9.4 that looked about as sweet as it could be, but had something that looked like fuzz in the holder. I thought about just sending it in for reholder service, but it looked so nice, I thought it might have an outside chance at a 9.6. I cracked it out and sure enough there was some kind of fuzz, (looked like a little patch of pocket lint) that was inside the inner well, next to the book itself. It easily brushed off. I inspected the book for anything else. I was convinced I found no flaws with this book, not even anything worth pressing, (it was one of those books with no grader notes). So I went ahead and sent it in, thinking no way this book comes back with anything worse that what it already was, but boy was I about to be surprised. Much to shock and horror, it come back at 9.2 with a "Qualified" label: "cover detached from top staple". Needless to say I had a "WTF" moment as soon as I saw that, knowing darn good and well this book did not have a detached staple when I sent it in. I talked to CGC about it, trying to figure out what could have happened, but what can you do as they pretty much said "We just grade 'em as we see 'em". All I can figure is something happened when I packed the book, or something happened during shipping or maybe just handling the book one more time at CGC caused that staple to "pop". So, it just goes to show you, anytime you roll the dice, (and subject your book to additional handling) you risk the chance of getting burned.

Geez whatthe heck is going on out there with allof this grading mis happenings lately? Makes me never want to grade a book..

Damn. That's a horrible story.

[thunderstick]

COVER TRIMMED

 

CGC UNIVERSAL GRADE

 

[MrBedrock]

Anybody who tells you different has skin in the game.

Anyone who says CGC's grades are looser now obviously has skin in the game. How else would you know they are looser? It's plain from your comments that you have been taking advantage of CGC's services. And if they are giving you looser grades there is obviously some shenanigans going on on your part. What have you done to grease the wheels and get looser grades?

 

(Isn't it amazing how all of that irrelevant wildly_fanciful_statement could be gleaned from one stupid post? )

 

Here is my counter overblown, hyperbolic, pompous windbag statement - Anyone who thinks that having "skin in the game" negates your comments obviously has either 1) more "skin in the game" than you, or 2) an inability to have a reasonable adult conversation. Yep, I just called the Telepath a bunch of mean names. But I have "skin in the game" so they shouldn't mean anything to him.

[Gotham Kid]

COVER TRIMMED

 

CGC UNIVERSAL GRADE

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Anybody who tells you different has skin in the game.

Anyone who says CGC's grades are looser now obviously has skin in the game. How else would you know they are looser? It's plain from your comments that you have been taking advantage of CGC's services. And if they are giving you looser grades there is obviously some shenanigans going on on your part. What have you done to grease the wheels and get looser grades?

 

(Isn't it amazing how all of that irrelevant wildly_fanciful_statement could be gleaned from one stupid post? )

 

Here is my counter overblown, hyperbolic, pompous windbag statement - Anyone who thinks that having "skin in the game" negates your comments obviously has either 1) more "skin in the game" than you, or 2) an inability to have a reasonable adult conversation. Yep, I just called the Telepath a bunch of mean names. But I have "skin in the game" so they shouldn't mean anything to him.

 

My skin packed up, left the game, and went home, where it is now being gently moisturized.

[Bomber-Bob]

COVER TRIMMED

 

CGC UNIVERSAL GRADE

 

 

Graded 2/10/2014. No Grader Notes available. Why would there not be Grader's notes ?