Big change at CGC

[telerites]

My prediction for this thread is

 

 

or this:

 

 

Posts have already poofed but I think a thread lock but it could be thread poof. We'll see...

[jsilverjanet]

I wonder why it would get locked?

[jsilverjanet]

Or poofed?

[Illustrious]

[Tom473]

I thought I was being fairly critical of Voldemort but I guess that's not allowed either.

 

Better shut my trap before I get spanked.

 

Did it get cleansed? You were so negative I went out and bought my first Voldermort slab last night though…

 

 

Ok, well I'm not trying to talk anybody in or out of anything. There's supposed to be an alternative, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what that alternative is.

 

Free grader notes are fine but if I can clearly see the books are over-graded with my own eyes, the notes don't mean much.

 

I am starting to feel like I'm in that story Emperor's New Clothes though.

 

Since you now have a place to safely post your links of comparisons please do so, it would be good to see what you are talking about, especially since most who have switched a CGC over and used both services are saying the opposite. Pics to back up your '95%' assertion would be great to see.

 

So everybody who has switched can say they're perfectly happy with what they're getting and everybody just has to except that as gospel? But when I say I'm happier with the majority of the CGC 9.6 slabs I own than what I'm seeing on eBay I have to PROVE why I'm happy?

 

The book in question is on eBay. It's easy enough to search.

 

 

How did I know you would back out of this when actually challenged?

[Tom473]

I didn't say CGC has never over-graded a book.

 

What I DID say is that after looking at about 5 pages of Voldemort slabs on eBay - which is about 200+ listings - I haven't seen any examples - particularly on the 9.6/9.8 end - that especially impress in terms of grading. Just my initial impression.

 

If you want to excuse it because it's not a 'big enough sample size' that's fine.

 

It is not just 'a book' in question. To refresh your memory, you claimed that you compared the other guy's grading to CGCs in your personal collection. So let's see some side by side comparisons of those many books you have that are better and led to your '95%' claim. You have a place to post your careful analysis of the other guys grading compared to your collection, let's see it.

[Number 6]

Here's the few 9.6s I currently have in my photo-bucket but they're representative of the rest in my collection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of the "other" 9.6s can easily be found on eBay.

 

In my opinion, the above present better than most of the others in comparable 9.6 and, in some cases 9.8. In my opinion.

 

While I would be able to post side-by-side someplace else, this discussion didn't start there, it started here.

 

And there wouldn't be anything decisive about a side-by-side comparison either. There's already been the excuse of "too small a sample size". I'd probably get accused of cherry-pecking the best CGC examples. It's also already been thrown in my face that CGC also has over-graded examples, but I've never claimed otherwise.

 

And really, this "challenge" is rooted in personal opinion. I can't force you to see something you don't want to see. If you think the other is as good or better at grading, bully for you.

[Tom473]

Here's the few 9.6s I currently have in my photo-bucket but they're representative of the rest in my collection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of the "other" 9.6s can easily be found on eBay.

 

In my opinion, the above present better than most of the others in comparable 9.6 and, in some cases 9.8. In my opinion.

 

While I would be able to post side-by-side someplace else, this discussion didn't start there, it started here.

 

And there wouldn't be anything decisive about a side-by-side comparison either. There's already been the excuse of "too small a sample size". I'd probably get accused of cherry-pecking the best CGC examples. It's also already been thrown in my face that CGC also has over-graded examples, but I've never claimed otherwise.

 

And really, this "challenge" is rooted in personal opinion. I can't force you to see something you don't want to see. If you think the other is as good or better at grading, bully for you.

 

Challenge moved to the other forum. I am still not buying your claims. To be clear, you stated that 95% of your CGC 9.6s are the same or better than their 9.8s. While that statement is laughable, you have an opportunity to prove it with pictures and specific examples. The other forum is waiting.

[passion4comics]

I have some 9.8s that don't look as good as those 9.6s so it works on both sides of the street for that .2 coin toss.

[Illustrious]

I'm sure the back cover scans would show why they are 9.6's and not 9.8's.

[Mark 1]

Sometimes it's inside the cover.

[jaeldubyoo]

Here's the few 9.6s I currently have in my photo-bucket but they're representative of the rest in my collection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of the "other" 9.6s can easily be found on eBay.

 

In my opinion, the above present better than most of the others in comparable 9.6 and, in some cases 9.8. In my opinion.

 

While I would be able to post side-by-side someplace else, this discussion didn't start there, it started here.

 

And there wouldn't be anything decisive about a side-by-side comparison either. There's already been the excuse of "too small a sample size". I'd probably get accused of cherry-pecking the best CGC examples. It's also already been thrown in my face that CGC also has over-graded examples, but I've never claimed otherwise.

 

And really, this "challenge" is rooted in personal opinion. I can't force you to see something you don't want to see. If you think the other is as good or better at grading, bully for you.

 

And all this is based on pictures and scans? Have you looked at any in hand to make a comparison?

[mysterio]

Here's the few 9.6s I currently have in my photo-bucket but they're representative of the rest in my collection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of the "other" 9.6s can easily be found on eBay.

 

In my opinion, the above present better than most of the others in comparable 9.6 and, in some cases 9.8. In my opinion.

 

While I would be able to post side-by-side someplace else, this discussion didn't start there, it started here.

 

And there wouldn't be anything decisive about a side-by-side comparison either. There's already been the excuse of "too small a sample size". I'd probably get accused of cherry-pecking the best CGC examples. It's also already been thrown in my face that CGC also has over-graded examples, but I've never claimed otherwise.

 

And really, this "challenge" is rooted in personal opinion. I can't force you to see something you don't want to see. If you think the other is as good or better at grading, bully for you.

 

And all this is based on pictures and scans? Have you looked at any in hand to make a comparison?

 

If you can see visible flaws in a scan or photo, would you need to see a book in hand to confirm that you can in fact see them?

[Ryan.]

Not every flaw is on the cover.

[Tom473]

I really don't think it is possible to do a defining assessment of a company's grading quality standards through pictures alone, there are other factors besides front and back covers that go into the grade. However, if you are going to claim that one company grades "sloppy" as a rule, not an exception and claim that their 9.8s look worse than your 9.6s based on pictures alone, you should at least be willing to back such a sweeping claim. The question has been asked and is being addressed by Number 6 on the other forum, but to date, he has been unable to provide any examples of "sloppy" 9.8s that led to his "rule" accusation against Voldermort.

[passion4comics]

Not every flaw is on the cover.

 

A 51 year old comic I have is a 9.0 and not a 9.2 because of a hamburger (from the original owner) thumb grease print visible under UV on the inside rear cover.

[Tom473]

Not every flaw is on the cover.

 

A 51 year old comic I have is a 9.0 and not a 9.2 because of a hamburger (from the original owner) thumb grease print visible under UV on the inside rear cover.

 

Mmmmm...Hamburger...

 

 

[mysterio]

Not every flaw is on the cover.

 

A 51 year old comic I have is a 9.0 and not a 9.2 because of a hamburger (from the original owner) thumb grease print visible under UV on the inside rear cover.

 

Did they do a spectral analysis of the grease to determine the source, and is that in the grader notes? I'd be interested to see that.

[paperheart]

Not every flaw is on the cover.

 

A 51 year old comic I have is a 9.0 and not a 9.2 because of a hamburger (from the original owner) thumb grease print visible under UV on the inside rear cover.

 

Did they do a spectral analysis of the grease to determine the source, and is that in the grader notes? I'd be interested to see that.

 

from the Wimpy pedigree collection?

[comicsnyc22]

Prayers to the PR rep for CGC.