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

[wasonff]

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...

 

That was my thought as well (minus the align with CGC part).

 

Nick's raw books have always been tighter than CGC for as long as I can remember.

The most noteworthy example of that was when Nick sold the Mildenhall collection and his raw 8.5's were coming back as slabbed 9.2/9.4's

 

When was that? Circa 2006/2007?

 

 

 

 

Not all of the raw books were coming back higher Roy. I bought several of the Mildenhall books and subbed a number of them a few years later. There was at least one (if not more iirc) that came back lower than what Nick graded them at. Not significantly lower mind you (9.0 instead of a 9.2 for example) and I just chalked it up to slightly different grading.

 

I think I must have been the only one to receive lower grades. Just my luck

[VintageComics]

I can't speak to Gold or Silver; I don't deal with those. But for 1970-up, I just don't see the tightness of the early years.

Of course you don't see them, that's the whole point of the Peter Principle of Comics. Tightly graded books have a propensity for being resubbed (with or without additional manipulations), whereas 9.6 books with 1/4" creases remain in stasis. Who's going to resub that X-men 113? No one, that's who. (thumbs u

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

 

I believe what RMA said was that he doesn't see [only] tightness in the early years (only being mine and added for clarification). He sees both.

 

Is that correct?

 

[VintageComics]

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...

 

That was my thought as well (minus the align with CGC part).

 

Nick's raw books have always been tighter than CGC for as long as I can remember.

The most noteworthy example of that was when Nick sold the Mildenhall collection and his raw 8.5's were coming back as slabbed 9.2/9.4's

 

When was that? Circa 2006/2007?

 

 

 

 

Not all of the raw books were coming back higher Roy. I bought several of the Mildenhall books and subbed a number of them a few years later. There was at least one (if not more iirc) that came back lower than what Nick graded them at. Not significantly lower mind you (9.0 instead of a 9.2 for example) and I just chalked it up to slightly different grading.

 

Just like not all books are overgraded by CGC, not all books are undergraded by Nick.

 

But many were, and the reason I stated it was to show that Nick has historically (by my observation) been a tighter grader than CGC in many, and possibly even most cases.

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I can't speak to Gold or Silver; I don't deal with those. But for 1970-up, I just don't see the tightness of the early years.

Of course you don't see them, that's the whole point of the Peter Principle of Comics. Tightly graded books have a propensity for being resubbed (with or without additional manipulations), whereas 9.6 books with 1/4" creases remain in stasis. Who's going to resub that X-men 113? No one, that's who. (thumbs u

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

 

I believe what RMA said was that he doesn't see [only] tightness in the early years (only being mine and added for clarification). He sees both.

 

Is that correct?

 

One needs a good eye in identifying SCS to evaluate what they see in old label slabs.

[VintageComics]

 

One needs a good eye in identifying SCS to evaluate what they see in old label slabs.

 

 

If ever a dead horse was beaten, it's this one by you.

 

We're talking about how CGC grades then vs. now.

 

I'm pretty sure not every overgraded book that is in an old label is only overgraded because of SCS.

 

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

One needs a good eye in identifying SCS to evaluate what they see in old label slabs.

 

 

If ever a dead horse was beaten, it's this one by you.

 

We're talking about how CGC grades then vs. now.

 

I'm pretty sure not every overgraded book that is in an old label is only overgraded because of SCS.

 

 

 

 

Why does my mention of SCS bother you so much? Seriously?

 

I bet a large number of members here don't even recognize post-slabbing damage for what it is.

 

I've seen a ton of books posted for sale in our marketplace with obvious SCS damage.... but no mention of it. I also see those books sell.

 

Old label books are more prone to post-slabbing damage. If you're unable to identify it....you have no clue what you're looking at.

[VintageComics]

 

Why does my mention of SCS bother you so much? Seriously?

 

I bet a large number of members here don't even recognize post-slabbing damage for what it is.

 

I've seen a ton of books posted for sale in our marketplace with obvious SCS damage.... but no mention of it. I also see those books sell.

 

Old label books are more prone to post-slabbing damage. If you're unable to identify it....you have no clue what you're looking at.

 

We're discussing old and new grading styles. I understand that some books might have SCS disguised as defects but those are going to be in the minority and a different discussion altogether.

 

If it means anything, I heard from a source that CGC is redesigning their holders. I don't know how true it is or why (if it is true) but I'm interested to see what they come up with.

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

Why does my mention of SCS bother you so much? Seriously?

 

I bet a large number of members here don't even recognize post-slabbing damage for what it is.

 

I've seen a ton of books posted for sale in our marketplace with obvious SCS damage.... but no mention of it. I also see those books sell.

 

Old label books are more prone to post-slabbing damage. If you're unable to identify it....you have no clue what you're looking at.

 

We're discussing old and new grading styles. I understand that some books might have SCS disguised as defects but those are going to be in the minority and a different discussion altogether.

 

If it means anything, I heard from a source that CGC is redesigning their holders. I don't know how true it is or why (if it is true) but I'm interested to see what they come up with.

 

 

I think you're just blind to them because those type of defects are usually pressable.

 

 

It's foolish to discount the 'impact' of post-slabbing damage.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I have been finding plenty of old label books (I seek these out) from 1970-2000 that are overgraded. One example does not a pattern make, nor two, nor a hundred, true...but they DO exist.

 

I just picked up a 9.6 X-Men #113...has a 1/4" light color breaking crease in the bottom right corner, along with some NCB chatter along the top edge...it was graded 3/10/2003. This is a book I wouldn't grade higher than 9.2, specifically because of the CB crease.

 

I can't speak to Gold or Silver; I don't deal with those. But for 1970-up, I just don't see the tightness of the early years.

Of course you don't see them, that's the whole point of the Peter Principle of Comics. Tightly graded books have a propensity for being resubbed (with or without additional manipulations), whereas 9.6 books with 1/4" creases remain in stasis. Who's going to resub that X-men 113? No one, that's who. (thumbs u

 

You realize, of course, there's no way to prove that anymore....? If all the tightly graded books have all been cracked out, pressed, and resubbed, leaving only the loose grades behind...the evidence no longer exists to prove one way or the other.

 

I suppose "lack of evidence" is evidence of a sort...

 

[VintageComics]

I think you're just blind to them because those type of defects are usually pressable.

 

Yeah, and maybe I also forgot how to grade.

 

It's foolish to discount the 'impact' of post-slabbing damage.

 

Nobody is discounting SCS it just barely applies to this conversion...but you get a big * star for mentioning it.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I can't speak to Gold or Silver; I don't deal with those. But for 1970-up, I just don't see the tightness of the early years.

Of course you don't see them, that's the whole point of the Peter Principle of Comics. Tightly graded books have a propensity for being resubbed (with or without additional manipulations), whereas 9.6 books with 1/4" creases remain in stasis. Who's going to resub that X-men 113? No one, that's who. (thumbs u

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

 

I believe what RMA said was that he doesn't see [only] tightness in the early years (only being mine and added for clarification). He sees both.

 

Is that correct?

 

Correct!

 

I don't see the "era of tightness" overall; I see tightness and looseness just as in every other time period under consideration (and keeping in mind that I, too, have been buying slabs for well over a decade myself, long before the CPR game kicked into high gear.)

 

I have cracked plenty of books that had *potential* (but were not obviously undergraded as is, for the most part)...but I have not seen acres of tightly graded books, and...again, by the aforementioned Peter Principle of Comics...or "PPC" for short...the only ones that remain from the era, at least that enter the channels of commerce, are the loose grades.

 

A forensic analysis of all remaining slabs from the era will skew, now, to actually being a LOOSELY graded era, not a tight one.

 

The point remains: there ARE loosely graded books from the era, as evidenced by the remaining "no one will crack that 9.6 X-Men #113" slabs.

[Sqeggs]

I would trade the word true for maximal, because aren't we essentially talking about giving a book it's truest grade within a grade range. We may be disappointed that the grading system pushes toward the top of a grade range instead of the bottom or middle, but that is exactly what we all knew would happen when the system was introduced. It is the natural progression. So within this system any book graded at the top of a grade range is probably most correctly graded. Any book obviously graded outside of a grade range is mis-graded. I tend to think that what some folks are calling mis-grades are really grades at the top of a grade range. I've certainly seen some books where the graders totally air-balled it. But those instances are very rare in the grand scheme of things.

 

Did you guys ever argue whether a book was a Good or a Fine back in the day?

 

All my FNs were NM!

 

Mine were all "strict mint"

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

One needs a good eye in identifying SCS to evaluate what they see in old label slabs.

 

 

If ever a dead horse was beaten, it's this one by you.

 

We're talking about how CGC grades then vs. now.

 

I'm pretty sure not every overgraded book that is in an old label is only overgraded because of SCS.

 

 

+

 

[Sqeggs]

I have been finding plenty of old label books (I seek these out) from 1970-2000 that are overgraded. One example does not a pattern make, nor two, nor a hundred, true...but they DO exist.

 

I just picked up a 9.6 X-Men #113...has a 1/4" light color breaking crease in the bottom right corner, along with some NCB chatter along the top edge...it was graded 3/10/2003. This is a book I wouldn't grade higher than 9.2, specifically because of the CB crease.

 

I can't speak to Gold or Silver; I don't deal with those. But for 1970-up, I just don't see the tightness of the early years.

Of course you don't see them, that's the whole point of the Peter Principle of Comics. Tightly graded books have a propensity for being resubbed (with or without additional manipulations), whereas 9.6 books with 1/4" creases remain in stasis. Who's going to resub that X-men 113? No one, that's who. (thumbs u

 

This point is exactly right (has to be true because I've made it myself many times ) Over time, grades will drift higher as tightly graded books are resubmitted.

 

If you believe that CGC graders are human and sometimes they overgrade books and sometimes they undergrade them, over time the population of overgraded books is bound to rise relative to the population of undergraded (and accurately graded) books.

 

In the limit, the whole census of key books will consist of overgraded books. I know, I know -- there are a number of reasons why we won't ever get there. But the movement is bound to be in that direction.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And something that always needs to be mentioned...

 

CGC has graded 2+ million books...maybe approaching 3 million.

 

Whatever it is, it is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what exists. It's not even the print run of Superman #75.

 

Yes, attrition has claimed most books from the 30's, 40's, and 50's. But this was also an era in which 1 billion comic books a year were being sold!

 

It's not only the tip of the iceberg, it's literally just the first couple of inches.

 

Most of those books will never see CGC. Most of them are not worth it. But there are still plenty, plenty of books....millions...that can, and probably will, make their way to wherever CGC is.

[gaz973]

I think that there are very few people who will argue against loosely graded books being left in slabs and tightly graded books mostly getting cracked out over time.cthis just seems completely obvious to me.

 

I do tend to think that this trend of loosely graded books being the ones that stay in the slabs and therefore represent CGC's grading to the general comic buying public will over time influence the perception of how grading should be to the purchasers of slabs. If the majority of slabs hitting the market are loosely graded ones then the less educated (in the ways of comic grading) buyers will think that is what CGC's grading standards are.

[drbanner]

I have been finding plenty of old label books (I seek these out) from 1970-2000 that are overgraded. One example does not a pattern make, nor two, nor a hundred, true...but they DO exist.

 

I just picked up a 9.6 X-Men #113...has a 1/4" light color breaking crease in the bottom right corner, along with some NCB chatter along the top edge...it was graded 3/10/2003. This is a book I wouldn't grade higher than 9.2, specifically because of the CB crease.

 

I can't speak to Gold or Silver; I don't deal with those. But for 1970-up, I just don't see the tightness of the early years.

Of course you don't see them, that's the whole point of the Peter Principle of Comics. Tightly graded books have a propensity for being resubbed (with or without additional manipulations), whereas 9.6 books with 1/4" creases remain in stasis. Who's going to resub that X-men 113? No one, that's who. (thumbs u

 

This point is exactly right (has to be true because I've made it myself many times ) Over time, grades will drift higher as tightly graded books are resubmitted.

Exactly, some truths are self-evident.

 

Add to this skewing the additional books that were graded accurately but have subsequently been damaged within the slab due to improper handling, and the situation is exacerbated.

[slym2none]

I just wish I had a 221st page.

 

Only 117 for me...

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

Maybe we could compare CGC's published grading standards from 2001 to 2014?

 

That is bloody brilliant and funny!

 

::

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

I would trade the word true for maximal, because aren't we essentially talking about giving a book it's truest grade within a grade range. We may be disappointed that the grading system pushes toward the top of a grade range instead of the bottom or middle, but that is exactly what we all knew would happen when the system was introduced. It is the natural progression. So within this system any book graded at the top of a grade range is probably most correctly graded. Any book obviously graded outside of a grade range is mis-graded. I tend to think that what some folks are calling mis-grades are really grades at the top of a grade range. I've certainly seen some books where the graders totally air-balled it. But those instances are very rare in the grand scheme of things.

 

Did you guys ever argue whether a book was a Good or a Fine back in the day?

 

All my FNs were NM!

 

If only you used to work for Mile High Comics...

 

 

 

 

-slym