Grader Notes

[VintageComics]

No, the cover paper quality is far more important than the interior pages.

 

It doesn't make sense that they would be talking about the interior pages, and we are supposed to assume that the cover PQ is similar. That PQ label description should apply to the whole book, the overall PQ.

 

Please look at the ASM 60 again. That book is not an OW/W book, the interior of the covers are tanning. Anyone looking at that will assume that the covers are in excellent condition, "like the interior pages" (as you point out). Obviously the overall paper quality is not good, because the cover paper quality is not good. That should be conveyed very clearly on the label, in some manner. I would suggest a PQ designation, not one which describes all but the covers, nor an odd grade that leaves you guessing as to why the grade is odd.

 

I didn't say that the PQ for the cover is less important than the interior pages. As far as the PQ designation, I think it's relatively well known that they are talking about interior pages and not the cover.

 

 

All I said was that this is the way that CGC has decided to do it.

 

For what it's worth if I saw an 8.0 book that looked like a 9.6 I would automatically assume there was either tanning inside the covers or a stain of some sort keeping the grade down.

 

Everyone is going to have something they want notated on the label compared to the next person because we all have different things that bother us in comics...we're all different...one person wants interior cover tanning notated, another wants rusty staples or a stain notated. In the end, a company can only please so many people so they make a decision as to how to provide a service and what to put on the label and people can either take it or leave it.

 

 

[Boba]

It's quite simple, Richard is absolutely right about this, IMO. As the owner of submitted book, you have already paid for the notes.

 

 

When you send a book to CGC, you're paying for 1. the resto check, 2. the encapsulation and holder and 3. their opinion of the grade.

 

CGC's service never included a laundry list of the various defects.

 

True, but said laundry lists are created using MY books I paid to have services 1, 2 and 3, and is a by-product of the process of grading my books.

Is it fair said notes are not provided to me and can bought by anyone and CGC profits from the sale?

[MrBedrock]

For what it's worth if I saw an 8.0 book that looked like a 9.6 I would automatically assume there was either tanning inside the covers or a stain or a non-color breaking crease or a chip or a spine split or small tear or some other defect of some sort keeping the grade down, but really hoping it is a non-color breaking crease so I could press the snot out of it.

Fixed (thumbs u

 

And +1

[Timmay]

For what it's worth if I saw an 8.0 book that looked like a 9.6 I would automatically assume there was either tanning inside the covers or a stain or a non-color breaking crease or a chip or a spine split or small tear or some other defect of some sort keeping the grade down, but really hoping it is a non-color breaking crease so I could press the snot out of it.

Fixed (thumbs u

 

And +1

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Thanks. That basically means that all of the books have to come out of the cases, just to see what the PQ is really like.

 

Grader's notes might help.

 

Well, in a literal sense, Page Quality (PQ) does not relate to the cover. That would be CQ.

 

And they are made of different quality paper, so could not/should not be judged together.

 

However, lack of detail on how grades are arrived at is the issue...but it's not something CGC wish to fill the blanks in without you paying more money, as they have determined that they give good value with what they do give for the current price you pay.

 

Again, this is the problem with a monopoly.

[Marty Mann]

"Slightly brittle pages???"

 

mm

[Peter Loves Gwen]

....

 

I didn't say that the PQ for the cover is less important than the interior pages. As far as the PQ designation, I think it's relatively well known that they are talking about interior pages and not the cover.

 

...

 

I honestly thought that the description of PQ on the label applied to the whole book, an overall judgement.

 

I wasn't ranting at you Roy, this is just bad news to me. I just began buying comics again in 2010, I kind of scoffed at CGC in the early 2000's. I thought, where were they 25 years ago when I was a teenager buying an ASM 1 from some individual_without_enough_empathy in Canada, Bob Crestohl(Robert D.).

 

I have always deemed paper quality to be one of the most critical factors of collecting comics. We can't expect to be able to handle these things much when they are 75 years old. They are becoming more and more fragile. It's a slow process thankfully, but it is massively important how fragile the paper of the cover is. The interior pages are important too, but they are protected by the covers unless you open the book. You can handle a comic 1000 times and will probably never hurt an interior page, but you will cause new defects to the covers, every once in a while.

 

Sorry for being so stern, I get passionate about basic truths or very obvious cases of right versus wrong. If it's a vague subject, I'll avoid saying things, if it's clear to me what the answer is, I'll probably say something if someone else doesn't. Regards,

[burntboy]

Well, here's another puzzling issue for me;

 

It would appear to me from going through the entirety of these 100+ pages, that there are to be NO notes on the labels anymore (just not sure when that started).

 

And that fact coupled with the lack of free graders notes has raised the ire of the boards, in general.

 

But I just got My JIM #83 resubbed and it came back again with a label note; "Small piece out of margin of last page".

 

To look at the exterior, you might well think the book should grade around an 8.0, but the note basically conveys the reason that your eyes seem to be deceiving you.

 

So my question is now; What types of defects are still going to be noted on the Label?? Popped Staples? Tanning? Rust? Interior Stains?

 

Thoughts??

[fantastic_four]

It would appear to me from going through the entirety of these 100+ pages, that there are to be NO notes on the labels anymore (just not sure when that started).

 

Started in 2003--they only note interior defects on the label not possible to see through the slab.

[comicwiz]

It would appear to me from going through the entirety of these 100+ pages, that there are to be NO notes on the labels anymore (just not sure when that started).

 

Started in 2003--they only note interior defects on the label not possible to see through the slab.

 

They don't note rusting staples - had a GS X-Men 1 that at one time noted the rusty staples on the old label. It was reholdered with no mention on the new label. No way possible to see the defect through the slab.

[fantastic_four]

They don't note rusting staples - had a GS X-Men 1 that at one time noted the rusty staples on the old label. It was reholdered with no mention on the new label. No way possible to see the defect through the slab.

 

I believe there's a whole range of interior defects they don't note--the Spidey 60 with tanning PeterLovesGwen posted is another example. Sometimes they'll note interior defects, sometimes they won't. I suspect they don't note the ones that they think customers will rule a book out over--rusty staples and tanning used to be the kiss of death for books. One of the copies of Amazing Fantasy 15 in 9.4 condition used to have an interior tanning note on the label until they stopped doing that and bounced around on the market for years presumably due to the unfavorable note...it's the same copy that sold for around $225K in 2007 and helped ignite the big jump in prices for Silver keys around that time.

[VintageComics]

It's not that they don't like the notes, it's that it makes books without the notes look inferior reducing corporate consistancy.

 

It's common in corporate policy to try to make all corporate products be perceived as equal in quality.

 

Giving out 3 separate grades by graders (when the differ) and putting notations on only some of the books diminishes the book's appeal in some people's eyes and makes the company look inconsistant.

 

I understand as a collector that we want that information but as a corporation, they want all their products (or say a specific grade in this case) on equal footing.

 

It's just standard corporate perception 101.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

It's not that they don't like the notes, it's that it makes books without the notes look inferior reducing corporate consistancy.

 

It's common in corporate policy to try to make all corporate products be perceived as equal in quality.

 

Giving out 3 separate grades by graders (when the differ) and putting notations on only some of the books diminishes the book's appeal in some people's eyes and makes the company look inconsistant.

 

I understand as a collector that we want that information but as a corporation, they want all their products (or say a specific grade in this case) on equal footing.

 

It's just standard corporate perception 101.

 

 

It's standard bollocks, is what it is.

 

So you have two books. One has general wear and grades a VF. One has little wear, but the paper is deteriorating to the point that it's heavily browned.

 

But that information should be withheld to maintain 'corporate consistancy'?

 

I call it market manipulation, actually, and it should not be within CGC's purview to become involved.

[Davenport]

It's not that they don't like the notes, it's that it makes books without the notes look inferior reducing corporate consistancy.

 

It's common in corporate policy to try to make all corporate products be perceived as equal in quality.

 

Giving out 3 separate grades by graders (when the differ) and putting notations on only some of the books diminishes the book's appeal in some people's eyes and makes the company look inconsistant.

 

I understand as a collector that we want that information but as a corporation, they want all their products (or say a specific grade in this case) on equal footing.

 

It's just standard corporate perception 101.

 

"Professional comic book grading eliminates concerns about grade misrepresentations..."

 

Confidence games rely heavily on controlling perception. Perception vs. reality.

[VintageComics]

From a collectors point of view, it's disheartening to have less information.

 

From a corporate point of view, it's a very common position to take. It happens in all corporations.

 

I'm not taking sides, just point out what I think it is.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Confidence games rely heavily on controlling perception. Perception vs. reality.

 

Every endeavour from politics to corporate business to personal relationships and dating sites (and everything in between) is going to try to win people over using some form of perception...we're better, faster, cheaper, stronger, more efficient, more accurate, etc.

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

From a collectors point of view, it's disheartening to have less information.

 

From a corporate point of view, it's a very common position to take. It happens in all corporations.

 

I'm not taking sides, just point out what I think it is.

 

 

 

Which is understandable if CGC were in the business of producing a tangible product.

 

But they're not. What they're actually selling (or supposed to be) is market confidence.

 

And the deliberate witholding of information that they know potential buyers would want is market manipulation and entirely contrary to their alleged goal.

[comicwiz]

It's not that they don't like the notes, it's that it makes books without the notes look inferior reducing corporate consistancy.

 

It's common in corporate policy to try to make all corporate products be perceived as equal in quality.

 

Giving out 3 separate grades by graders (when the differ) and putting notations on only some of the books diminishes the book's appeal in some people's eyes and makes the company look inconsistant.

 

I understand as a collector that we want that information but as a corporation, they want all their products (or say a specific grade in this case) on equal footing.

 

It's just standard corporate perception 101.

 

 

It's standard bollocks, is what it is.

 

So you have two books. One has general wear and grades a VF. One has little wear, but the paper is deteriorating to the point that it's heavily browned.

 

But that information should be withheld to maintain 'corporate consistancy'?

 

I call it market manipulation, actually, and it should not be within CGC's purview to become involved.

 

This opens the floodgates to massive controversy. Further to Nick's point, the omission and suppression of information is something that anyone would have a hard time defending. Never mind the notion of publishing standards, what gives CGC the right to decide how it presents and/or hold back the disclosure of any defects?

 

If the "roominess" of the label places restrictions on reporting the extent of information CGC deems as "not being important enough to put on the label" then get rid of the fine print on the back and put that to better use with full house-cleaning reports on what's wrong with the book.

 

I don't need to read the fine print on the back of the label to know CGC is fallible and there is no warranty offered through their grading opinion. Piecing out their opinion first through a slab that carries no value on its own when defects are kept hidden in notes, and now charging to get the fee-based graders notes, is enough of a glaring reminder of CGC service deficiencies.

[Davenport]

Confidence games rely heavily on controlling perception. Perception vs. reality.

Every endeavour from politics to corporate business to personal relationships and dating sites (and everything in between) is going to try to win people over using some form of perception...we're better, faster, cheaper, stronger, more efficient, more accurate, etc.

Except "Certification" is an examination service. They're being hired to observe the cold hard reality before them. Hired to eliminate errors in judgment, perception and assumptions. A third party cold-eye, with no skin in the outcome whatsoever.

 

At least that's how the service is presented.

[fantastic_four]

It's standard bollocks, is what it is.

 

So you have two books. One has general wear and grades a VF. One has little wear, but the paper is deteriorating to the point that it's heavily browned.

 

But that information should be withheld to maintain 'corporate consistancy'?

 

I call it market manipulation, actually, and it should not be within CGC's purview to become involved.

 

They took the notes off because dealers complained they made books hard to sell because customers kept thinking the notes were separate from the grade. Dealers had a point--if you don't list all defects and just pick and choose some, it's confusing, people won't really intuitively know if the notes are included or separate, it's a coin toss. It was a weekly occurrence here on the boards in 2002/2003 that people would refer to notes as if they were separate from the overall grade. People continue to make that same coin toss about the page quality being included in the grade, but it rarely comes up since there are so few brittle or tan books that happen to be very high grade. The only real solution is to list all defects on the label. Obviously there's not enough real estate there for them, but as someone suggested earlier in the thread and as we've suggested dozens of times over the years, you could have a little pocket built into the slab that a detailed set of printed could slide into. Your other solution to avoid customer confusion is to provide no notes at all. I suspect CGC would love to do complete note inventories, but there are two problems--when they miss defects, which is inevitable given human error, customers would hold them to the fire on it even more than they do now. It also increases the required grading time and therefore cost to do those kinds of complete inventories. Complete defect inventories and descriptions are overly idealistic, so they went with the opposite extreme that is far cheaper--no notes at all.

 

So what would your solution to customer confusion on partial notes be?