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

[VintageComics]

You can't argue the facts.

 

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them.

 

If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them.

 

I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books.

 

CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been.

I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to.

 

I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them.

 

A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes.

 

An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection.

 

An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it.

 

So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded.

 

We are specifically talking about CGC grading then vs. CGC now.

 

Not Garry vs. CGC or Nick vs. CGC.

 

And in regards to your ASM 7.5 - 8.5 move that echoes what others have said - that they are a little more inconsistent on books in the mid range. That is a grade range I very rarely submit books in.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Must be nice to not be at the show "working"

 

My response to you not working as hard as me will now be responded with "I don't work as hard as you do when it comes to posting on the boards".

 

How do you know where I am and what I'm doing?

[blazingbob]

I've tapped into the camera's at C2E2.

 

It keeps me posted on "roy sightings"

[VintageComics]

[bug33fouf]

[gaz973]

You can't argue the facts.

 

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them.

 

If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them.

 

I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books.

 

CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been.

I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to.

 

I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them.

 

A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes.

 

An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection.

 

An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it.

 

So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded.

 

We are specifically talking about CGC grading then vs. CGC now.

 

Not Garry vs. CGC or Nick vs. CGC.

 

And in regards to your ASM 7.5 - 8.5 move that echoes what others have said - that they are a little more inconsistent on books in the mid range. That is a grade range I very rarely submit books in.

 

So basically, all you're saying is that you think that their high end grading is consistent and you're not sure about books that aren't high grade?

[blazingbob]

I've tapped into your smartphone so when you are looking at books with the phone acting like a flashlight I see exactly what you are looking to buy.

[comicwiz]

[VintageComics]

You can't argue the facts.

 

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them.

 

If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them.

 

I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books.

 

CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been.

I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to.

 

I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them.

 

A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes.

 

An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection.

 

An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it.

 

So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded.

 

We are specifically talking about CGC grading then vs. CGC now.

 

Not Garry vs. CGC or Nick vs. CGC.

 

And in regards to your ASM 7.5 - 8.5 move that echoes what others have said - that they are a little more inconsistent on books in the mid range. That is a grade range I very rarely submit books in.

 

So basically, all you're saying is that you think that their high end grading is consistent and you're not sure about books that aren't high grade?

 

A conversation about CGC grading is never just about one thing. It's multi faceted.

 

Whenever I have discussed CGC consistency I have tried to qualified it based on my experiences.

 

What I am specifically saying is that their high grade seems to be more consistent now, but the idea that CGC was being tighter in the old days isn't entirely true. They have had cyclical consistency over the past 15 years, as proven to me by getting CGC to regrade their own books, and that cyclical consistency is never constant.

 

IMO we just came off a 2 year tight, high grade streak. As tight as any other era I can personally remember.

 

[VintageComics]

I've tapped into your smartphone so when you are looking at books with the phone acting like a flashlight I see exactly what you are looking to buy.

 

Que Judas Priest Electric Eye.

 

 

[gaz973]

You can't argue the facts.

 

Good point and that's just poor grammar on my part. Discuss them.

 

If someone is stating that CGC is loose then they should post scans showing how and why they are loose, not try to character assissinate someone who disagrees with them.

 

I've posted tons of scans of books that I thought were tight in previous threads. I've also seen some loose books.

 

CGC has been inconsistent of late but as I qualified in a previous post, in the 8.5-9.8 grade range that I submit books they were tighter than they have been.

I don't have scans but I had a handful of books in Comicana's most recent submission to CGC for the first time in a few years and some of mine are probably what Nick is referring to.

 

I've only heard three grades back so far but all are higher than I would grade them.

 

A Daredevil # 1 that I had for sale as FN/VF and CGC graded as 7.5 Of course when selling, I'll mention the fact that it has a fairly large name written in pen on the splash page whereas the only way to find that out from CGC would be to pay for graders notes.

 

An ASM # 15 which came out of a 7.5 old label holder and has now ended up in an 8.5 holder. I like old labels so I wouldn't have resubmitted it if not for the cracked holder. I've had it in my collection for a couple of years and it's just going back into my collection.

 

An ASM # 9 which Nick sold to me as a FN+ and I completely agree with him due to the significant colour breaking crease on the front cover so no way should that've ended up in the 8.0 holder that it found itself in. CGC did actually find a small piece of colour touch that had not been known before so it actually ended up with a PLOD. Of course, Nick being the sort of dealer with excellent customer service is refunding me the purchase price and grading fees on it.

 

So there we go, all books that I've heard grades for so far have been slightly to greatly overgraded.

 

We are specifically talking about CGC grading then vs. CGC now.

 

Not Garry vs. CGC or Nick vs. CGC.

 

And in regards to your ASM 7.5 - 8.5 move that echoes what others have said - that they are a little more inconsistent on books in the mid range. That is a grade range I very rarely submit books in.

 

So basically, all you're saying is that you think that their high end grading is consistent and you're not sure about books that aren't high grade?

 

A conversation about CGC grading is never just about one thing. It's multi faceted.

 

Whenever I have discussed CGC consistency I have tried to qualified it based on my experiences.

 

What I am specifically saying is that their high grade seems to be more consistent now, but the idea that CGC was being tighter in the old days isn't entirely true. They have had cyclical consistency over the past 15 years, as proven to me by getting CGC to regrade their own books, and that cyclical consistency is never constant.

 

IMO we just came off a 2 year tight, high grade streak. As tight as any other era I can personally remember.

I strongly disagree about the 2 year tight period though my experience is more in the 6.0 to 9.4 range books.

 

I'd agree to an extent with the cyclical grading consistency but over the last three or so years, I'd describe their grading as generally loose. While I haven't been submitting much recently, I've certainly been handling recently submitted books, discussing with people who have recently submitted books and had books that I've sold, submitted by customers.

[Jaydogrules]

I found cgc grading to be far too tight when they first started, then they did have a looser period that basically compensated for that earliest era. Like any new company it took time to find their bearings and I have generally found their grading to be consistent for the last five years or so with little mini tight/loose cycles here and there. The only thing that has really changed since then is their acquisition of CCS and the acceptance of pressing as being "not restorative"

 

-J.

[CBT]

SHAME on all the people who try to attack the buyer for resubbing it as if there is something unusual or untoward with taking an obvious and logical action

 

Shame my backside! That's precisely what it was, nothing but a business decision

 

That was a comment refering to the people claiming it was all some sort of setup or scam of entrapment aimed to make CGC look bad. You took it out of context and went in a completely different direction. I was bumping my quote from way back, dozens of pages ago, when people were still making those claims.

 

 

But that wasnt my point in quoting it. I was pointing out that it seems highly likely Spider-Dan was "told a tale" in the claim, "everyone in the building looked at it, and they all agree its trimmed".

 

 

Except, now they have posted a long post showing how it wasnt trimmed. The apparent version of what happened is:

 

1.) CGC incorrectly labeled it trimmed, purple

2.) OP who had handled the book disagreed, called to ask what's up

3.) CGC forced a VERY UNLIKELY story on him because he has no recourse

4.) Someone else who also didnt think it was purple, bought it and resubbed it.

5.) It came back blue as it should have (again)

6.) CGC responds to the controversy, without seeing the book again, saying, DEFINITELY PURPLE

7.) time passes, they get a hold of the book, make post showing WHOOPS, our bad, it is Blue

8.) lots of people post, GREAT, GLAD THATS SORTED OUT

 

 

But....wait a second...its not that a mistake that was made that is the problem. No accountability, and customer's at the mercy of a monopoly that can just "feed them stories" to hide errors, thats the real problem.

Edited April 28, 2014 by CBT

[Hepcat]

 

Don't you think its a little crass to say "If you're going to play the crack and resubmit game, you better be prepared to lose some of the time. And don't you come crying to this board to get sympathy. Most of us will just snicker" (I did leave that part out)

 

No it's not "crass". You had the book. It was a nice book. But you resubmitted the book, not because it would make the book any nicer but because you wanted a higher number on the label. If you think many/most of us are going to sympathize with anyone who takes a loss on such outright shenanigans, you're not living in the real world.

 

 

 

[slym2none]

you're not living in the real world.

 

Says the guy who acts like he is a cat.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Spider-Dan]

 

Don't you think its a little crass to say "If you're going to play the crack and resubmit game, you better be prepared to lose some of the time. And don't you come crying to this board to get sympathy. Most of us will just snicker" (I did leave that part out)

 

No it's not "crass". You had the book. It was a nice book. But you resubmitted the book, not because it would make the book any nicer but because you wanted a higher number on the label. If you think many/most of us are going to sympathize with anyone who takes a loss on such outright shenanigans, you're not living in the real world.

 

 

 

Again for those that haven't read the entire thread....

 

IM NOT LOOKING FOR SYMPATHY

[slym2none]

He's a mod here, EB - he knows full and well what board he's on.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Flaming_Telepath]

I'll explain precisely why I consider CGC's grading to be loose in comparison to their early years...

 

I started submitting books on behalf of customers in 2001. My ratios for those early years were 60% right on the money, 30% slightly over-graded by CGC (the books came back a point or two higher than I had graded them), 10% slightly overgraded by me (the books came back a point or two lower than I had graded them).

 

Fast forward to now and I can say, hand on heart, that I am not aware of one single, solitary book that I have sold coming back lower than my grade in three whole years. Indeed, what I am fully aware of is that books that I have sold raw and submitted on behalf of customers now come back as 50% right on the money and 50% over-graded by CGC, some of them substantially so.

 

Now, I'm the same guy doing the grading over the past 13 years.

 

With CGC...not so much. Actually, not at all.

[sl4ppy]

I

Now, I'm the same guy doing the grading over the past 13 years.

 

With CGC...not so much. Actually, not at all.

 

Perhaps you became a better grader or learned to grade differently in those 13 years so as to align with CGC and make your customers happier (never over-grading)?

 

Subconsciously or otherwise...

Edited April 29, 2014 by sl4ppy

[batman_fan]

I

Now, I'm the same guy doing the grading over the past 13 years.

 

With CGC...not so much. Actually, not at all.

 

Perhaps you became a better grader or learned to grade differently in those 13 years so as to align with CGC and make your customers happier (never over-grading)?

 

Subconsciously or otherwise...

 

I blame NOD for it !