• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Big change at CGC

Started by stanley1883,

289 posts in this topic

mschmidt

mschmidt

Posted
Posted
Doesn't this mean that the same group of graders will be grading books off the shelves with books nearly 40 years old. It has to effect their judgement when grading.

 

In what way?

 

If you follow the argument that a VF/NM is a VF/NM is a VF/NM no matter how old, it shouldn't be a factor?

 

 

Agreed but does CGC follow that argument ? The fact that we see 'small amount of glue' or 'small amount of CT' on older books in a blue label shows they don't. The Modern graders probably don't see much resto, stains, dust shadows, etc. They are looking for sharp corners and spine ticks. Maybe they just graded a Modern IDW a 10.0 and along comes a book from 1975 with tanning pages. It's probably going to get hammered.

 

What does the "small amount of glue" allowance they have for GA books to do with grading post-1975 books? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted
Doesn't this mean that the same group of graders will be grading books off the shelves with books nearly 40 years old. It has to effect their judgement when grading.

 

In what way?

 

If you follow the argument that a VF/NM is a VF/NM is a VF/NM no matter how old, it shouldn't be a factor?

 

 

Agreed but does CGC follow that argument ? The fact that we see 'small amount of glue' or 'small amount of CT' on older books in a blue label shows they don't. The Modern graders probably don't see much resto, stains, dust shadows, etc. They are looking for sharp corners and spine ticks. Maybe they just graded a Modern IDW a 10.0 and along comes a book from 1975 with tanning pages. It's probably going to get hammered.

 

What does the "small amount of glue" allowance they have for GA books to do with grading post-1975 books? :confused:

 

Just to counterpoint FT that they don't necessarily grade the same across all ages.

For the record, my comment was not a knock against CGC's grading. I just think it's human nature to look at an off the shelf book differently from a book nearly 40 years old.

Conversely, if you handed Mark Haspel a 10.0 IDW I think he would find something wrong with it ! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted
Doesn't this mean that the same group of graders will be grading books off the shelves with books nearly 40 years old. It has to effect their judgement when grading.

 

In what way?

 

If you follow the argument that a VF/NM is a VF/NM is a VF/NM no matter how old, it shouldn't be a factor?

 

 

Agreed but does CGC follow that argument ? The fact that we see 'small amount of glue' or 'small amount of CT' on older books in a blue label shows they don't. The Modern graders probably don't see much resto, stains, dust shadows, etc. They are looking for sharp corners and spine ticks. Maybe they just graded a Modern IDW a 10.0 and along comes a book from 1975 with tanning pages. It's probably going to get hammered.

 

What does the "small amount of glue" allowance we have for GA books to do with grading post-1975 books? :confused:

 

His comment was that not all grades are equal i think. Citing at least one case where exceptions are made for age. He didnt imply they would use the same thing on post 75 books, just that an apple isnt always an apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Prime 0

Dark Prime 0

Posted
Posted

i'm sorry CGC but your costumers aren't stupid

Is there some way to prove that statement?

well does anyone really belive that CGC made this decision bc they talked to dealers (which they have been doing for meny meny yrs) or bc the other company is doing that and it's seems people are happy about it, imo if your happy a company is doing something your more likely to send your buisness there

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flaming_Telepath

Flaming_Telepath

Posted
Posted
Doesn't this mean that the same group of graders will be grading books off the shelves with books nearly 40 years old. It has to effect their judgement when grading.

 

In what way?

 

If you follow the argument that a VF/NM is a VF/NM is a VF/NM no matter how old, it shouldn't be a factor?

 

 

Agreed but does CGC follow that argument ? The fact that we see 'small amount of glue' or 'small amount of CT' on older books in a blue label shows they don't. The Modern graders probably don't see much resto, stains, dust shadows, etc. They are looking for sharp corners and spine ticks. Maybe they just graded a Modern IDW a 10.0 and along comes a book from 1975 with tanning pages. It's probably going to get hammered.

 

I think the allowances made for GA books with resto is less to do with different grading standards and more to do with political decisions. Can you imagine half the Church collection living in purple labels? :eek:

 

The fact is that if a 'grader' cannot understand the differences in paper stock between 1975 and 2014, or know what a spine roll is, and make the appropriate decisions, they shouldn't be grading their own books, never mind charging somebody else for their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom473

Tom473

Posted
Posted

Why redefine what is modern? I'm glad CGC did this, but why not just name tiers based on years (I.e., Tier 1975-Present). I like defining comics by ages to provide collector focus and a sense of history, and it seems odd to call a comic published in 1975 vs. one in 2014 as "modern". It would make sense for "Modern" age to always apply to the current age with new names being added at key points in comic history that precede it, which means that we are overdue for a name post-Copper, like "Image Age", "Drek Age", or "Tin Age", to cover the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
meshuggah

meshuggah

Posted
Posted
Why redefine what is modern? I'm glad CGC did this, but why not just name tiers based on years (I.e., Tier 1975-Present). I like defining comics by ages to provide collector focus and a sense of history, and it seems odd to call a comic published in 1975 vs. one in 2014 as "modern". It would make sense for "Modern" age to always apply to the current age with new names being added at key points in comic history that precede it, which means that we are overdue for a name post-Copper, like "Image Age", "Drek Age", or "Tin Age", to cover the 90s.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted

This isn't change. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

Change would be to improve turnaround times, stop charging a $5 invoice fee, give back free graders notes...just a start.

 

They are feeling the pressure and need to make some movement to appease some customers.

 

This change doesn't do anything for me to feel better about subbing any books to them yet. Stop nickel and diming your customers and I will be glad to send in a stack of books.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illustrious

Illustrious

Posted
Posted
This isn't change. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

Change would be to improve turnaround times, stop charging a $5 invoice fee, give back free graders notes...just a start.

 

They are feeling the pressure and need to make some movement to appease some customers.

 

This change doesn't do anything for me to feel better about subbing any books to them yet. Stop nickel and diming your customers and I will be glad to send in a stack of books.

 

 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passion4comics

passion4comics

Posted
Posted
This isn't change. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

Change would be to improve turnaround times, stop charging a $5 invoice fee, give back free graders notes...just a start.

 

They are feeling the pressure and need to make some movement to appease some customers.

 

This change doesn't do anything for me to feel better about subbing any books to them yet. Stop nickel and diming your customers and I will be glad to send in a stack of books.

 

 

Well said.

 

X100

 

I sent my last sub to CGC over a month ago. It's still unlogged and sitting in as received. I'm not subbing to CGC anymore until they stop acting like pre-1984 AT&T. Read between the lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaeldubyoo

jaeldubyoo

Posted
Posted
Why redefine what is modern? I'm glad CGC did this, but why not just name tiers based on years (I.e., Tier 1975-Present). I like defining comics by ages to provide collector focus and a sense of history, and it seems odd to call a comic published in 1975 vs. one in 2014 as "modern". It would make sense for "Modern" age to always apply to the current age with new names being added at key points in comic history that precede it, which means that we are overdue for a name post-Copper, like "Image Age", "Drek Age", or "Tin Age", to cover the 90s.

 

Probably marketing. "Wow! I'm submitting an old Bronze Age book and they're only gonna charge me for a Modern Tier. Yippee!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted
This isn't change. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

Change would be to improve turnaround times, stop charging a $5 invoice fee, give back free graders notes...just a start.

 

They are feeling the pressure and need to make some movement to appease some customers.

 

This change doesn't do anything for me to feel better about subbing any books to them yet. Stop nickel and diming your customers and I will be glad to send in a stack of books.

 

 

Well said.

 

X100

 

I sent my last sub to CGC over a month ago. It's still unlogged and sitting in as received. I'm not subbing to CGC anymore until they stop acting like pre-1984 AT&T. Read between the lines.

 

On the other hand, people could stop submitting and send a real message to CGC. It has always amazed me how people complain about TaTs and then keep sending in books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing