Avengers 1 CGC 9.6 Heritage November 2015 Auction!

[VintageComics]

 

It's just that he and others have gotten used to the change in underlying grading standards over time and so may be sensitive to "tightening" in relative standards even if they are still a far cry from the standards that prevailed in the early days.

 

 

This statement sums it up. Dealers have gotten used to the very loose standards of the 2011ish

timeframe and are now sensitive to current tightening.

Roy, I don't know when you started submitting but 10+ years ago you really had to earn a high grade. Today's 9.8's would have been 9.4's. Even a Matt Nelson press couldn't get you anything higher than 9.4 .

 

It has nothing to do with pressing, who presses your books or how much you press your books.

 

I think I started grading in 2003, and by the way I did get 9.8's circa 2003-2004. My first big book was a Surfer #4 CGC 9.8.

 

But again, I'm not comparing CGC's grading to my own.

 

I'm comparing CGC's grading to their own grading by comparing CGC graded books to CGC grading books.

 

While I'm not a BSD by any means, I've probably handled not just 1000's of CGC graded books but 10,000's of CGC books by now, old label and new from ALL time periods from the last 15 (or is it16) years and seen both loose and tight grading across the board.

 

I'm just waiting for lizards2 to chime in. He cracks ALL of his books out and has for years and he says the same thing as Foolkiller and I, that there has always been loose and tight periods and the myth that 'old labels are stricter' is not actually always true.

 

For the record, I am a big fan of Mark Haspel. The man knows how to grade and was CONSISTENT. When buying books, the Grade Date is your friend. 2011 graded books should all be recalled.

 

I was going to post this exact same thing but ran out because I was short on time. I like Mark's grading because it's consistent. I don't care whether it's loose or tight, I just want consistency.

 

 

 

 

[namisgr]

there has always been loose and tight periods and the myth that 'old labels are stricter' is not actually always true.

 

 

If only that were the 'myth' under discussion.

[VintageComics]

 

The book has a half inch vertical color break near the spine. A cynic would suggest that the reason CGC chose to ignore this obvious blemish on an otherwise NM+ comic is that it is one sometimes caused by pressing.

 

Regardless of how it got there, to ignore the defect as if it weren't there is disingenuous.

 

Are you trying to imply that CGC would ignore defects on a book such as pressing errors in light of the fact that it may possibly have been caused by their sister company down the hall?

 

I am aware that they generally ignore defects if they believe it is part of the production process, but this is the first that I have heard of ignoring defects due to pressing errors. I would find this highly unlikely, but anything is possible since CGC does not disclose their grading standards.

 

They seem to now ignore staple tears. In the past, a staple tear would get hammered. I think this is a flaw that 'can' be a by product of a bad press. I suspect CGC's grading standards is a moving target, probably as it should be. Times change. You have to be flexible.

 

Completely untrue.

 

I've had plenty of recent submissions where grades are limited by staple tears. I know because I've read the notes and discussed it with actual CGC graders.

 

This mindset where pressing causes all these defects and CGC ignores them is just perception.

 

Like I said before, certain FF and JIM, etc issues have always had certain defects from production and we know full well that if CGC considers defects related to printing they don't carry as much weight as if they were made through storage of the book. And this has been their policy since day one as far as I know.

 

Now the fact that some books reappeared in higher grades with new defects introduced to them speaks to how they view those particular defects and how they always have. If the defect looks like a production defect they are going to treat it as such.

 

Everyone's perception changes as their exposure changes - you buy a white minivan because you think it's a rare colour and all of a sudden you start noticing that there are white minivans everywhere all the time.

 

Same thing here.

 

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

there has always been loose and tight periods and the myth that 'old labels are stricter' is not actually always true.

 

 

If only that were the 'myth' under discussion.

 

Maybe you're following a different conversation?

 

This new line of conversation started when I replied to this:

 

Lots of good points. The shifting from tight to loose to in between has been frustrating over the years, and is why old label books in many cases sell for a premium, even in low-mid grades.

 

The post was saying that old label books were tighter and therefore carried a premium. I disagreed that they were necessarily tighter, and here we are.

 

What are you talking about?

[namisgr]

Your viewpoint that 'old label slabs are stricter' is not actually always true.

 

Nobody has said it is. Instead, what's been said many times over, and here again by several board members, is that, overall, old label comics were graded more strictly than new label ones.

 

There have definitely been relatively loose and relatively strict grading periods since CGC launched the new label. To me, the 012 and 015 series comics were graded more like the standards behind the old label than many other series, like those from 2011.

[Bomber-Bob]

Is Mark Haspel still grading for CGC on a contract, part time basis ? I feel better knowing he is there, keeping the newbie graders in line ! As I recall, the 2011ish softening happened about the same time Mark left. I have a hunch the tightening occurred when he came back.

Roy, it's good to hear CGC does take staple tears into account. To me, it's a very unsightly flaw, with a tendency to get worse in a loose slab.

[VintageComics]

Your viewpoint that 'old label slabs are stricter' is not actually always true.

 

Nobody has said it is. Instead, what's been said many times over, and here again by several board members, is that, overall, old label comics were graded more strictly than new label ones.

 

Again, untrue. There were loose and strict periods even when there were only old labels around. Foolkiller has said it. I have said it and others have said it.

 

Come on, we both know Steve was PR person. My guess is that CGC's grading was initially on the light side in order to appease dealers who had no experience with CGC grading so that they would continue to submit books and then they tightened up but they re still human and subjective and their grading did swing back and forth even in those first 4 years.

 

There have definitely been relatively loose and relatively strict grading periods since CGC launched the new label opened it's doors. To me, the 012 and 015 series comics were graded more like the standards behind the old label than many other series, like those from 2011.

 

Again, the label number could have no correlation with grading period as if someone still has some serial number invoices lying round and submits the books today with those invoices then they couldn't have been graded pre 2004, could they?

 

If you want to follow trends, you need to establish dates, not invoice numbers.

[VintageComics]

Is Mark Haspel still grading for CGC on a contract, part time basis ?.

 

He is.

 

[makeminemego]

there has always been loose and tight periods and the myth that 'old labels are stricter' is not actually always true.

 

 

If only that were the 'myth' under discussion.

 

Maybe you're following a different conversation?

 

This new line of conversation started when I replied to this:

 

Lots of good points. The shifting from tight to loose to in between has been frustrating over the years, and is why old label books in many cases sell for a premium, even in low-mid grades.

 

The post was saying that old label books were tighter and therefore carried a premium. I disagreed that they were necessarily tighter, and here we are.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Actually, my post was suggesting that there's a PERCEPTION among some that all old labels are tighter and in turn can create an inflated market for old label books. As suggested a couple of posts later by several people, that isn't necessarily true.

 

I'd agree that CGC has had consistency problems from the get-go, but if someone says out of the blue, "you've won an AF 15 in 8.0, would you like an old label or a new label?", my answer would be "old label". Every time. Might be wrong occasionally, but I'd like my chances.

 

Total BS scenario by the way.

[lou_fine]

Is Mark Haspel still grading for CGC on a contract, part time basis ?.

 

He is.

 

So, if your books are in for grading, you hope it goes through when Mark's not there. And if you are buying, you hope that it's been graded by Haspel.

[VintageComics]

Is Mark Haspel still grading for CGC on a contract, part time basis ?.

 

He is.

 

So, if your books are in for grading, you hope it goes through when Mark's not there. And if you are buying, you hope that it's been graded by Haspel.

 

If you're talking to me, I have no idea who is in the grading room at any given time. I just send books off to get graded whenever they are ready to be graded.

 

Mark is not 'tight', he's consistant. I don't want loose grades. I just want consistency, so I have no problem with Mark grading.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Actually, my post was suggesting that there's a PERCEPTION among some that all old labels are tighter and in turn can create an inflated market for old label books.

 

I'll agree with that.

[LOC Collectibles]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

[makeminemego]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think, as a collector, the numerical value assigned is somewhat arbitrary, in a real world sense.

 

The number doesn't mean much until there's a consistency behind it. I think most people would agree that were still waiting for that on most levels.

[lou_fine]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think, as a collector, the numerical value assigned is somewhat arbitrary, in a real world sense.

 

The number doesn't mean much until there's a consistency behind it. I think most people would agree that were still waiting for that on most levels.

 

I think you are going to be waiting forever then, since what you are looking for is not part of their business model as it would only have a negative impact on both their top line and their bottom line.

[LOC Collectibles]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think, as a collector, the numerical value assigned is somewhat arbitrary, in a real world sense.

 

The number doesn't mean much until there's a consistency behind it. I think most people would agree that were still waiting for that on most levels.

 

I think you are going to be waiting forever then, since what you are looking for is not part of their business model as it would only have a negative impact on both their top line and their bottom line.

 

So that's the world we live in??

[VintageComics]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think, as a collector, the numerical value assigned is somewhat arbitrary, in a real world sense.

 

The number doesn't mean much until there's a consistency behind it. I think most people would agree that were still waiting for that on most levels.

 

I think you are going to be waiting forever then, since what you are looking for is not part of their business model as it would only have a negative impact on both their top line and their bottom line.

 

Lots of people keep saying that the inconsistency is planned but does anyone have any proof?

 

That's a pretty tall allegation that would be akin to fraud or a type of market manipulation.

 

CGC has been falling behind in turaround times for over decade. It's not like they need the extra work. They've been slammed and expanding since they opened doors and getting busier each month.

 

What would the motivation be to manipulate submission volume?

 

 

[Hulksdaddy1]

Simple for me. Hope the books I submit are graded loosely, books I buy are graded tight.

[Hulksdaddy1]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think, as a collector, the numerical value assigned is somewhat arbitrary, in a real world sense.

 

The number doesn't mean much until there's a consistency behind it. I think most people would agree that were still waiting for that on most levels.

 

I think you are going to be waiting forever then, since what you are looking for is not part of their business model as it would only have a negative impact on both their top line and their bottom line.

 

Lots of people keep saying that the inconsistency is planned but does anyone have any proof?

 

That's a pretty tall allegation that would be akin to fraud or a type of market manipulation.

 

CGC has been falling behind in turaround times for over decade. It's not like they need the extra work. They've been slammed and expanding since they opened doors and getting busier each month.

 

What would the motivation be to manipulate submission volume?

 

 

Agreed. Grading is for a large part subjective. No one is perfectly consistent because all book flaws per grade are not consistent. Hence the 'ugly' 5.0 and 'pretty' 5.0 we see on a consistent basis.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

As a collector that's all I want out of a grading company is consistency. I could care less if that consistency is 'tight' or 'loose.' At least its consistent. I know when I buy that slab what I'm getting.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think, as a collector, the numerical value assigned is somewhat arbitrary, in a real world sense.

 

The number doesn't mean much until there's a consistency behind it. I think most people would agree that were still waiting for that on most levels.

 

I think you are going to be waiting forever then, since what you are looking for is not part of their business model as it would only have a negative impact on both their top line and their bottom line.

 

Lots of people keep saying that the inconsistency is planned but does anyone have any proof?

 

That's a pretty tall allegation that would be akin to fraud or a type of market manipulation.

 

CGC has been falling behind in turaround times for over decade. It's not like they need the extra work. They've been slammed and expanding since they opened doors and getting busier each month.

 

What would the motivation be to manipulate submission volume?

 

 

There's not a chance in the world that allegation is correct. Logistically it would be difficult to manage. "Ok, guys, it's time for another slack period." "Um, how do we do that again?"

 

And you would have to assume that at some point a grader would spill the beans, doing great damage to the company.

 

And to what end? This allegation only makes sense if there were periods when they were lacking for business. When exactly was that? If it happened, I missed it, and I've been submitting books almost from the time they opened their doors.