Cgc grading standards based on book age?

[mschmidt]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

[VintageComics]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

I have a hard time believing there are downgrades for printer creases. The would mean half the BA and SA would be downgraded and there is no way they will do that, especially 15 years in.

 

Those lower grade books have to have other defects.

 

I do think CGC is documenting defects more consistently and that probably has something to do with the way they are ticking off defects with the software they use (just a guess on my part, I don't know for sure).

[Bomber-Bob]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

I have a hard time believing there are downgrades for printer creases. The would mean half the BA and SA would be downgraded and there is no way they will do that, especially 15 years in.

 

Those lower grade books have to have other defects.

 

I do think CGC is documenting defects more consistently and that probably has something to do with the way they are ticking off defects with the software they use (just a guess on my part, I don't know for sure).

 

While I think your comment that half the BA and SA have printer creases is a gross exaggeration I think your point about the graders documenting the defects is interesting. Perhaps they are now being more analytic rather than going with a gut feel, resulting in tighter grading.

[joeypost]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

 

I agree. Think of the nightmare this would cause with 9.8's floating around that have multiple creases. No one will want them and if they are ever sent in to be re-holdered, t might get downgraded.

[Bomber-Bob]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

 

I agree. Think of the nightmare this would cause with 9.8's floating around that have multiple creases. No one will want them and if they are ever sent in to be re-holdered, t might get downgraded.

 

While I'm not arguing for downgrading bindery creases, I just said it would be fine with me. Personally, I avoid books with bindery creases as I don't like them. However, the concept of implementing a grading change for a particular flaw has already happened. Tape. If you were 'stuck' holding a book slabbed with tape you probably can't reholder and you probably took a financial hit. Oh well.

[mschmidt]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

 

I agree. Think of the nightmare this would cause with 9.8's floating around that have multiple creases. No one will want them and if they are ever sent in to be re-holdered, t might get downgraded.

 

While I'm not arguing for downgrading bindery creases, I just said it would be fine with me. Personally, I avoid books with bindery creases as I don't like them. However, the concept of implementing a grading change for a particular flaw has already happened. Tape. If you were 'stuck' holding a book slabbed with tape you probably can't reholder and you probably took a financial hit. Oh well.

 

Tape has never been a production defect :shrug:

 

I know you're huge on eye appeal when it comes to the books you personally collect - that's all fine & well, but eye appeal isn't the same as a technical grade and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Jaydogrules]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

 

I agree. Think of the nightmare this would cause with 9.8's floating around that have multiple creases. No one will want them and if they are ever sent in to be re-holdered, t might get downgraded.

 

While I'm not arguing for downgrading bindery creases, I just said it would be fine with me. Personally, I avoid books with bindery creases as I don't like them. However, the concept of implementing a grading change for a particular flaw has already happened. Tape. If you were 'stuck' holding a book slabbed with tape you probably can't reholder and you probably took a financial hit. Oh well.

 

Tape has never been a production defect :shrug:

 

I know you're huge on eye appeal when it comes to the books you personally collect - that's all fine & well, but eye appeal isn't the same as a technical grade and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

That, and a book isn't re-graded when it is re-holdered. Unless you ask for it to be and pay for it. Or the case (and the book inside) appears to have been compromised (eg, more than one corner post popped, etc.).

 

Additionally, not all tape was placed on a book to "improve the grade" in the CGC era. I would hazard a guess that most books with tape received no grade bump at all from it and already have the defect reflected in their technical grades.

 

-J.

[joeypost]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

 

I agree. Think of the nightmare this would cause with 9.8's floating around that have multiple creases. No one will want them and if they are ever sent in to be re-holdered, t might get downgraded.

 

While I'm not arguing for downgrading bindery creases, I just said it would be fine with me. Personally, I avoid books with bindery creases as I don't like them. However, the concept of implementing a grading change for a particular flaw has already happened. Tape. If you were 'stuck' holding a book slabbed with tape you probably can't reholder and you probably took a financial hit. Oh well.

 

Tape has never been a production defect :shrug:

 

I know you're huge on eye appeal when it comes to the books you personally collect - that's all fine & well, but eye appeal isn't the same as a technical grade and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

Again, I agree with Mike based on what constitutes a production defect versus doctoring a book to gain a higher grade by adding additional materials to the book. That being said, I am sure there are many more books out there with production issues compared to books that were "fixed" with a little tape.

[Bomber-Bob]

I have noticed that CGC's new trend is to be harsh towards printer's creases.

Books that used to be 9.4 - 9.6 just came back 8.5 and 9.0 with grader's notes stating printer's creases.

These were bronze age books.

I don't recall CGC ever hitting books so harshly for printer's creases.

 

Printer/roller creases are a production defect and have never really been factored into the grade, even on NM & above books.

 

If this has suddenly changed, it's a major shift in the grading process - are you 100% sure this is the case?

 

'If' CGC has changed their stance on Printer's creases, I am for it. Subtle, back cover printer's creases are fine but those front cover ones, often nearly the full length of the cover, ruin the eye appeal for me. Production or not, IMO, they should downgrade.

 

I don't agree at all. What's next? Downgrading for the bindery tears that pretty much all 1980s books suffer from?

 

I agree. Think of the nightmare this would cause with 9.8's floating around that have multiple creases. No one will want them and if they are ever sent in to be re-holdered, t might get downgraded.

 

While I'm not arguing for downgrading bindery creases, I just said it would be fine with me. Personally, I avoid books with bindery creases as I don't like them. However, the concept of implementing a grading change for a particular flaw has already happened. Tape. If you were 'stuck' holding a book slabbed with tape you probably can't reholder and you probably took a financial hit. Oh well.

 

Tape has never been a production defect :shrug:

 

I know you're huge on eye appeal when it comes to the books you personally collect - that's all fine & well, but eye appeal isn't the same as a technical grade and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

I never said Tape was a production default ? I said 'the concept of implementing a grading change for a particular flaw has already happened. Tape. '. BTW, I don't know why everybody is jumping on me, I'm not arguing for or against anything on this topic. I just said 'If' they implemented a change, it was fine by me. It's all good. Life is good.