Should CGC consider eye appeal more strongly in their grading ?

[Jeffro.]

Production defects are unfortunate. However, they are still defects.

Don't get me started on distributor ink. I've seen some pretty fugly books with dist ink get very high grades.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

Basically any comic book that does not meet perfection standards for the printing capabilities of the time, should be downgraded, based on ANY defects present. This would ding any physical defect, such as:

bindery chips

staple tears

Printer's creases

exposed newsprint

miscuts

gripper holes

Marvel chipping

sun or dust shadows

edge tanning

foxing

 

Allowing physical defects a pass, because "a lot of books were made that way" allows for the gaming of the system.

 

I don't see miswraps as a physical defect with the structure of the books, so don't think they should be included.

[jimjum12]

I'd rather see some other classification that takes in account of miswraps, printing defects, etc that affect the eye appeal, but should not affect the grade. A miswrapped cover or bindery issue should not be part of the grade, but some other notation would be pretty cool.

 

I disagree. It should affect the grade. It did prior to the inception of CGC.

 

 

Good point. Eye appeal was part grading before CGC. That is probably why the early submissions

to CGC 'seemed' to get hammered. But the book LOOKED so nice, how can it only be a FN, etc.

 

I'm not sure where youse guys were shopping pre-CGC, but my experiences were quite the opposite, in that early eBay and mail order acquisitions were profoundly lackluster ..... seemingly graded without even looking at the book at all. If I wanted a Fine I had to order at least a Very Fine.......for a Very Fine a NM was what they called it..... there were some exceptions but they were few. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[rjpb]

I'd rather see some other classification that takes in account of miswraps, printing defects, etc that affect the eye appeal, but should not affect the grade. A miswrapped cover or bindery issue should not be part of the grade, but some other notation would be pretty cool.

 

I disagree. It should affect the grade. It did prior to the inception of CGC.

 

 

Good point. Eye appeal was part grading before CGC. That is probably why the early submissions

to CGC 'seemed' to get hammered. But the book LOOKED so nice, how can it only be a FN, etc.

 

I'm not sure where youse guys were shopping pre-CGC, but my experiences were quite the opposite, in that early eBay and mail order acquisitions were profoundly lackluster ..... seemingly graded without even looking at the book at all. If I wanted a Fine I had to order at least a Very Fine.......for a Very Fine a NM was what they called it..... there were some exceptions but they were few. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

It was always a risk buying blind, but there were plenty of dealers with better reputations. I haven't submitted that many books, but most of what I bought raw in the 90s has come back within a grade or two increment of what they were given raw by the seller ( meaning that the VFs have come at at least a 7.0 if not higher). I've submitted a few books I purchased from Harley in the early 90s, and they came back the same or higher as he graded them 20 years earlier.

 

Still, I bought my share of mail order Fines that were no better than a VG when they got to me. Some I sent back, some I kept, depending on the price. It is still the case with ebay, the difference being there are usually enough images to judge before purchase.

[Jaydogrules]

As others have already stated, "eye appeal" through the slab is too subjective to be "graded", and people should "buy the book and not the grade" regardless. Some people like some things, some people like other things. I have seen BA books with mis-cut wraps go for comparable prices as a book that looked "perfectly centered" with no white stripe on the front (even though most of those usually are not "perfectly centered" either, as oftentimes some of the colour from the front cover is wrapped around on the back cover). There is not, nor should be a Star Chamber to decide for all which book is "better". That decision is up to the individual collector and their respective budget. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[rjpb]

As others have already stated, "eye appeal" through the slab is too subjective to be "graded", and people should "buy the book and not the grade" regardless. Some people like some things, some people like other things. I have seen BA books with mis-cut wraps go for comparable prices as a book that looked "perfectly centered" with no white stripe on the front (even though most of those usually are not "perfectly centered" either, as oftentimes some of the colour from the front cover is wrapped around on the back cover). There is not, nor should be a Star Chamber to decide for all which book is "better". That decision is up to the individual collector and their respective budget. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Evaluating eye-appeal through the slab is not the same as taking it into consideration when grading in a raw state prior to slabbing. As for a "Star Chamber" making decisions about which book is better based on subjective criteria, that pretty much describes CGC now.

[Jaydogrules]

As others have already stated, "eye appeal" through the slab is too subjective to be "graded", and people should "buy the book and not the grade" regardless. Some people like some things, some people like other things. I have seen BA books with mis-cut wraps go for comparable prices as a book that looked "perfectly centered" with no white stripe on the front (even though most of those usually are not "perfectly centered" either, as oftentimes some of the colour from the front cover is wrapped around on the back cover). There is not, nor should be a Star Chamber to decide for all which book is "better". That decision is up to the individual collector and their respective budget. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Evaluating eye-appeal through the slab is not the same as taking it into consideration when grading in a raw state prior to slabbing.[b/] As for a "Star Chamber" making decisions about which book is better based on subjective criteria, that pretty much describes CGC now.

 

This is true, but I stopped buying expensive SA or even BA books raw quite some time ago now. Got burned one too many times by dealers and their restoration disclosure.

 

And yes, we pay CGC to provide an overall subjective grade based on a book's overall structural condition and cumulative defects.

 

That is not akin to have an "aesthetics only" grading criteria, as each individual collector has their own "thing" that they like and don't like about a book's "looks" that may have nothing to do with the book's actual structural grade. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[Bomber-Bob]

As others have already stated, "eye appeal" through the slab is too subjective to be "graded", and people should "buy the book and not the grade" regardless. Some people like some things, some people like other things. I have seen BA books with mis-cut wraps go for comparable prices as a book that looked "perfectly centered" with no white stripe on the front (even though most of those usually are not "perfectly centered" either, as oftentimes some of the colour from the front cover is wrapped around on the back cover). There is not, nor should be a Star Chamber to decide for all which book is "better". That decision is up to the individual collector and their respective budget. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Well, now I really surrender. If Jaydog's disagrees with you, you have lost, the thread is lost, give up and go home. The only worse situation is if Roy sees Jaydog posting and joins the discussion. In that case it's a matter of in before the lockout. I think I am joking ?

[LordRahl]

I'd rather see some other classification that takes in account of miswraps, printing defects, etc that affect the eye appeal, but should not affect the grade. A miswrapped cover or bindery issue should not be part of the grade, but some other notation would be pretty cool.

 

I disagree. It should affect the grade. It did prior to the inception of CGC.

 

 

Good point. Eye appeal was part grading before CGC. That is probably why the early submissions

to CGC 'seemed' to get hammered. But the book LOOKED so nice, how can it only be a FN, etc.

 

I'm not sure where youse guys were shopping pre-CGC, but my experiences were quite the opposite, in that early eBay and mail order acquisitions were profoundly lackluster ..... seemingly graded without even looking at the book at all. If I wanted a Fine I had to order at least a Very Fine.......for a Very Fine a NM was what they called it..... there were some exceptions but they were few. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

It was always a risk buying blind, but there were plenty of dealers with better reputations. I haven't submitted that many books, but most of what I bought raw in the 90s has come back within a grade or two increment of what they were given raw by the seller ( meaning that the VFs have come at at least a 7.0 if not higher). I've submitted a few books I purchased from Harley in the early 90s, and they came back the same or higher as he graded them 20 years earlier.

 

Still, I bought my share of mail order Fines that were no better than a VG when they got to me. Some I sent back, some I kept, depending on the price. It is still the case with ebay, the difference being there are usually enough images to judge before purchase.

 

It's funny that you think that books that were overgraded by 2 grades are acceptable because they were bought 20 years ago. If someone like Metro or Storms or whoever was regularly selling 7.0 and 7.5s as VFs today, they would catch all kinds of hell.

 

 

[revat]

I'd rather see some other classification that takes in account of miswraps, printing defects, etc that affect the eye appeal, but should not affect the grade. A miswrapped cover or bindery issue should not be part of the grade, but some other notation would be pretty cool.

 

I disagree. It should affect the grade. It did prior to the inception of CGC.

 

 

Good point. Eye appeal was part grading before CGC. That is probably why the early submissions

to CGC 'seemed' to get hammered. But the book LOOKED so nice, how can it only be a FN, etc.

 

I'm not sure where youse guys were shopping pre-CGC, but my experiences were quite the opposite, in that early eBay and mail order acquisitions were profoundly lackluster ..... seemingly graded without even looking at the book at all. If I wanted a Fine I had to order at least a Very Fine.......for a Very Fine a NM was what they called it..... there were some exceptions but they were few. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

It was always a risk buying blind, but there were plenty of dealers with better reputations. I haven't submitted that many books, but most of what I bought raw in the 90s has come back within a grade or two increment of what they were given raw by the seller ( meaning that the VFs have come at at least a 7.0 if not higher). I've submitted a few books I purchased from Harley in the early 90s, and they came back the same or higher as he graded them 20 years earlier.

 

Still, I bought my share of mail order Fines that were no better than a VG when they got to me. Some I sent back, some I kept, depending on the price. It is still the case with ebay, the difference being there are usually enough images to judge before purchase.

 

It's funny that you think that books that were overgraded by 2 grades are acceptable because they were bought 20 years ago. If someone like Metro or Storms or whoever was regularly selling 7.0 and 7.5s as VFs today, they would catch all kinds of hell.

 

 

I expect a certain percentage of the VF's I buy raw to grade at 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, and even 9.0, from anyone and everyone I buy from, with most obviously hopefully falling 7.5-8.5. And with anyone (even the best) who moves a LOT of volume, that's going to happen, from time to time. I don't think anyone one would 'catch hell' unless every book was overgraded significantly. and even at a .5-1.0 difference, I think its less of a 'catch hell' and more of a "I'll take their overgrading into account when considering my purchase price" or a "I probably won't by from them too much anymore" situation.

[LordRahl]

I'd rather see some other classification that takes in account of miswraps, printing defects, etc that affect the eye appeal, but should not affect the grade. A miswrapped cover or bindery issue should not be part of the grade, but some other notation would be pretty cool.

 

I disagree. It should affect the grade. It did prior to the inception of CGC.

 

 

Good point. Eye appeal was part grading before CGC. That is probably why the early submissions

to CGC 'seemed' to get hammered. But the book LOOKED so nice, how can it only be a FN, etc.

 

I'm not sure where youse guys were shopping pre-CGC, but my experiences were quite the opposite, in that early eBay and mail order acquisitions were profoundly lackluster ..... seemingly graded without even looking at the book at all. If I wanted a Fine I had to order at least a Very Fine.......for a Very Fine a NM was what they called it..... there were some exceptions but they were few. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

It was always a risk buying blind, but there were plenty of dealers with better reputations. I haven't submitted that many books, but most of what I bought raw in the 90s has come back within a grade or two increment of what they were given raw by the seller ( meaning that the VFs have come at at least a 7.0 if not higher). I've submitted a few books I purchased from Harley in the early 90s, and they came back the same or higher as he graded them 20 years earlier.

 

Still, I bought my share of mail order Fines that were no better than a VG when they got to me. Some I sent back, some I kept, depending on the price. It is still the case with ebay, the difference being there are usually enough images to judge before purchase.

 

It's funny that you think that books that were overgraded by 2 grades are acceptable because they were bought 20 years ago. If someone like Metro or Storms or whoever was regularly selling 7.0 and 7.5s as VFs today, they would catch all kinds of hell.

 

 

I expect a certain percentage of the VF's I buy raw to grade at 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, and even 9.0, from anyone and everyone I buy from, with most obviously hopefully falling 7.5-8.5. And with anyone (even the best) who moves a LOT of volume, that's going to happen, from time to time. I don't think anyone one would 'catch hell' unless every book was overgraded significantly. and even at a .5-1.0 difference, I think its less of a 'catch hell' and more of a "I'll take their overgrading into account when considering my purchase price" or a "I probably won't by from them too much anymore" situation.

 

Hence why I said "regularly sells". If a large percentage fall 1-2 grades under and a small percentage fall in line and over, yes they would catch hell. See some of the Metro threads on these boards. Of course there are going to be some misses. But there is a difference between missing a few here and there and habitually overgrading.

[rjpb]

I'd rather see some other classification that takes in account of miswraps, printing defects, etc that affect the eye appeal, but should not affect the grade. A miswrapped cover or bindery issue should not be part of the grade, but some other notation would be pretty cool.

 

I disagree. It should affect the grade. It did prior to the inception of CGC.

 

 

Good point. Eye appeal was part grading before CGC. That is probably why the early submissions

to CGC 'seemed' to get hammered. But the book LOOKED so nice, how can it only be a FN, etc.

 

I'm not sure where youse guys were shopping pre-CGC, but my experiences were quite the opposite, in that early eBay and mail order acquisitions were profoundly lackluster ..... seemingly graded without even looking at the book at all. If I wanted a Fine I had to order at least a Very Fine.......for a Very Fine a NM was what they called it..... there were some exceptions but they were few. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

It was always a risk buying blind, but there were plenty of dealers with better reputations. I haven't submitted that many books, but most of what I bought raw in the 90s has come back within a grade or two increment of what they were given raw by the seller ( meaning that the VFs have come at at least a 7.0 if not higher). I've submitted a few books I purchased from Harley in the early 90s, and they came back the same or higher as he graded them 20 years earlier.

 

Still, I bought my share of mail order Fines that were no better than a VG when they got to me. Some I sent back, some I kept, depending on the price. It is still the case with ebay, the difference being there are usually enough images to judge before purchase.

 

It's funny that you think that books that were overgraded by 2 grades are acceptable because they were bought 20 years ago. If someone like Metro or Storms or whoever was regularly selling 7.0 and 7.5s as VFs today, they would catch all kinds of hell.

 

 

That was a difference that illustrates the outside of acceptability, if a seller routinely seemed to overgrade by 2 grades in my estimation I wouldn't be happy with them, but given the subjectivity of grading it's going to happen now and then. Besides, CGC from time to time puts books in holders that are 2 grades overgraded in the opinion of many, but they don't catch much hell for it either.

[fantastic_four]

I've always been a little puzzled by how much CGC downgrades books for small or nearly imperceptible stains while being pretty generous to books with tanning, dust shadows, and halos. I've seen some books in 9.4 holders with heavy tanning that's evident right through the covers. Same thing for dust shadows. But then I've seen gorgeous books hammered for a tiny water mark that you can only see when you hold the book at just the right angle under a high-powered halogen lamp.

 

This has interested me greatly over the years as well, and I'm not sure of it, but my current thinking is that if a defect seriously impacts the paper through and through, they downgrade much more for it. The paper structure is compromised by tanning (when it goes straight through to the other side--I'm unclear about whether or not tanning that is only visible on one side is really "tanning" or just a dark dust or sun shadow), water stains, and foxing. For dust shadows, sun shadows (where it's just discoloration without structural compromise), or soiling that's just on the surface, they barely downgrade.

[rjpb]

I've always been a little puzzled by how much CGC downgrades books for small or nearly imperceptible stains while being pretty generous to books with tanning, dust shadows, and halos. I've seen some books in 9.4 holders with heavy tanning that's evident right through the covers. Same thing for dust shadows. But then I've seen gorgeous books hammered for a tiny water mark that you can only see when you hold the book at just the right angle under a high-powered halogen lamp.

 

This has interested me greatly over the years as well, and I'm not sure of it, but my current thinking is that if a defect seriously impacts the paper through and through, they downgrade much more for it. The paper structure is compromised by tanning (when it goes straight through to the other side--I'm unclear about whether or not tanning that is only visible on one side is really "tanning" or just a dark dust or sun shadow), water stains, and foxing. For dust shadows, sun shadows (where it's just discoloration without structural compromise), or soiling that's just on the surface, they barely downgrade.

 

My feeling is it's just sloppy grading that unfortunately due to CGCs position in the collecting community has influenced the way others grade as well.

[fantastic_four]

I've always been a little puzzled by how much CGC downgrades books for small or nearly imperceptible stains while being pretty generous to books with tanning, dust shadows, and halos. I've seen some books in 9.4 holders with heavy tanning that's evident right through the covers. Same thing for dust shadows. But then I've seen gorgeous books hammered for a tiny water mark that you can only see when you hold the book at just the right angle under a high-powered halogen lamp.

 

This has interested me greatly over the years as well, and I'm not sure of it, but my current thinking is that if a defect seriously impacts the paper through and through, they downgrade much more for it. The paper structure is compromised by tanning (when it goes straight through to the other side--I'm unclear about whether or not tanning that is only visible on one side is really "tanning" or just a dark dust or sun shadow), water stains, and foxing. For dust shadows, sun shadows (where it's just discoloration without structural compromise), or soiling that's just on the surface, they barely downgrade.

 

My feeling is it's just sloppy grading that unfortunately due to CGCs position in the collecting community has influenced the way others grade as well.

 

Not sure why you'd assume they don't have a defensible line of thinking behind it--or what the flaw in the one I just outlined is. Whatever their reasoning is, it seems to make sense to them because as far as I've been able to tell, they're consistent with how they downgrade for these defects.

[VintageComics]

This has interested me greatly over the years as well, and I'm not sure of it, but my current thinking is that if a defect seriously impacts the paper through and through, they downgrade much more for it.

 

That's how I see it as well. They seem to take paper quality into account. (thumbs u

[lizards2]

they're consistent

 

 

Funniest thing I've seen you post

[fantastic_four]

they're consistent

 

 

Funniest thing I've seen you post

 

You've got examples, then, of inconsistent grading with regards to water stains, tanning, soiling, or shadows? Or are you just trolling as usual?

[Loki]

It's been a few years since this discussion last came up...

 

I'm still of the opinion that books should have separate structural and aesthetic grades. Give the numerical grade for structure and a letter grade for aesthetics (A+ all the way down to F for fugly).

 

But as it is right now, I can judge pretty much everything I need to know about aesthetic appeal except for page quality just by looking at the scans. And fortunately CGC provides page quality information. So, while it could be better, the current system works in my opinion.

[lizards2]

they're consistent

 

 

Funniest thing I've seen you post

 

You've got examples, then, of inconsistent grading with regards to water stains, tanning, soiling, or shadows? Or are you just trolling as usual?

 

I crack a lot of books out, but no, I keep no log to enter these conversations with an evidentiary record. And you're probably right, it is a troll with regard to those particular flaws, since I avoid books with defects like that like the plague.

 

I would never accuse them of being consistent in just about any category.

 

However, if you've got examples, then, of consistent grading with regards to water stains, tanning, soiling, or shadows, I am all ears, eyes and whatever.