Avengers 1 CGC 9.6 Heritage November 2015 Auction!

[makeminemego]

If CGC is softening up reflexively in response to CBCS, I think it's a mistake.

 

In the long run, the company that's the most consistent will be the one I use the most, but that's just personal preference. My fairly recent experience (about 20 midgrade books to each party), made me think that CGC was @.5 tighter in the 4.0-7.0 range, which I thought was a good thing.

 

 

Well, if consistency in grading is what you are looking for, then CGC is probably not the company to go for since most board members seem to feel that they are historically notorious for inconsistency as they tend to go from tight grading periods to loose grading periods on a regular basis.

 

They are probably tighter than the other company based upon your recent experience as it sounds like they are going through a tight grading period right now after just coming out from a much looser grading period not too long ago.

 

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.

 

Just to clarify, the above reasons are why I said that the company with the most consistency would be the one I prefer. I'm in agreement that we haven't seen it over a large enough sample size to this point in time to make a declaration. CGC has had too many periods of inconsistency, while the book is still out on the other guys.

 

As a mid grade collector, that's really all I can make any judgement on. That's where I estimated CGC being @.5 tighter than the competition from books I've submitted over the past year to both companies.

[VintageComics]

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,

 

It's just a rumor that old label books were tighter. There are just as many over graded old label books as there are new label books. Anybody that cracks their slabs can verify that.

 

 

[makeminemego]

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,

 

It's just a rumor that old label books were tighter. There are just as many over graded old label books as there are new label books. Anybody that cracks their slabs can verify that.

 

 

Totally agree. The 091-097 was the tightest period, at least to my eye, which was a new label timeframe. But, lots of folks do think that way (across the board) about old labels (which did have some tight sequences), hence the comment about a slight premium.

[VintageComics]

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,

 

It's just a rumor that old label books were tighter. There are just as many over graded old label books as there are new label books. Anybody that cracks their slabs can verify that.

 

 

Totally agree. The 091-097 was the tightest period, at least to my eye, which was a new label timeframe. But, lots of folks do think that way (across the board) about old labels (which did have some tight sequences), hence the comment about a slight premium.

 

I agree that old labels are preferred but I just wanted to point out the myth.

 

As far as cert numbers go, they are all over the board. There really is no pattern as some people are still submitting under old cert numbers if they have not used them up.

 

Translation? If you want to recognize a loose or tight period you need to go by submission date and not cert number.

[delekkerste]

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,

 

It's just a rumor that old label books were tighter. There are just as many over graded old label books as there are new label books. Anybody that cracks their slabs can verify that.

 

Roy, I stopped collecting slabs and submitting books to CGC in 2004 (moving on to original art, as you well know). As such, my grading standards are permanently frozen in 2004, and, to me, it is nothing less than shocking when I see how books have been graded since the mid-to-late 2000s. I have to strongly disagree with your statement - it's not just a rumor that the old standards were tighter. They were.

 

Were there some periods of grading softness in the first 5 years of CGC? Sure, especially very early on you can see a fair bit of inconsistency in their grading. But, on the whole, grading standards were unequivocally tighter back in the old label days. 99% of the slabs I own are old label, and, looking at the grades on my books vs. their more recent counterparts in grade...sorry, but it's no contest, not even close. As I'm not selling them, I don't care to upgrade them, but I know and have been advised that I could easily do so (even without pressing) if I cracked and re-subbed them.

[VintageComics]

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,

 

It's just a rumor that old label books were tighter. There are just as many over graded old label books as there are new label books. Anybody that cracks their slabs can verify that.

 

Roy, I stopped collecting slabs and submitting books to CGC in 2004 (moving on to original art, as you well know). As such, my grading standards are permanently frozen in 2004, and, to me, it is nothing less than shocking when I see how books have been graded since the mid-to-late 2000s. I have to strongly disagree with your statement - it's not just a rumor that the old standards were tighter. They were.

 

Were there some periods of grading softness in the first 5 years of CGC? Sure, especially very early on you can see a fair bit of inconsistency in their grading. But, on the whole, grading standards were unequivocally tighter back in the old label days. 99% of the slabs I own are old label, and, looking at the grades on my books vs. their more recent counterparts in grade...sorry, but it's no contest, not even close. As I'm not selling them, I don't care to upgrade them, but I know and have been advised that I could easily do so (even without pressing) if I cracked and re-subbed them.

 

In 2004 CGC graded how many books? 200,000? 300,000 maybe?

 

They hit their first million in 2008. They hit their second MIL roughly 2012 or so. Now they're onto their 3rd MIL if they hven't exceeded it already.

 

So you're comparing a sample size of 300K to 3MIL. There's going to be a lot more of everything, both loose and tight in everyone's faces simply because of volume.

 

I'm not comparing my notes to my own grading standards. I'm comparing them to CGC books from various eras. Resubs, cracked out books for my personal collection, whatever. Believe me, they were tight as a dry tube this summer. There was an uproar among dealers who both know how to grade and submit a lot of books.

 

And ask anyone who cracks a LOT of books, like Mike/lizards2 and he'll tell you the same thing. There are plenty of overgraded old label books, especially when the company was new and still finding it's way.

 

Sorry, going to have to disagree.

 

 

[passion4comics]

I've heard old labels were loose. Then someone posts they were tighter. Then we're in a tight periods now and a few days later we're in a loose period because of competition. I just think it's CGC and what day of the week you sub.

[namisgr]

The fact that entire business models were created on selling comics that were purchased in old label slabs, cracked and resubmitted without being pressed adds tangible evidence to the notion that, as a whole, old label books were graded more strictly than recent standards.

 

As for my own experience, I couldn't get a 9.8 for a pre-1985 comic from CGC in the early days even when the books had been bought off the rack, read once, and stored in their original state of perfection since. It was only after the change in label style that submissions of my original copies came back with 9.8 grades.

[tth2]

The fact that entire business models were created on selling comics that were purchased in old label slabs, cracked and resubmitted without being pressed adds tangible evidence to the notion that, as a whole, old label books were graded more strictly than recent standards.

 

As for my own experience, I couldn't get a 9.8 for a pre-1985 comic from CGC in the early days even when the books had been bought off the rack, read once, and stored in their original state of perfection since. It was only after the change in label style that submissions of my original copies came back with 9.8 grades.

[Foolkiller]

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,

 

It's just a rumor that old label books were tighter. There are just as many over graded old label books as there are new label books. Anybody that cracks their slabs can verify that.

 

 

Totally agree. The 091-097 was the tightest period, at least to my eye, which was a new label timeframe. But, lots of folks do think that way (across the board) about old labels (which did have some tight sequences), hence the comment about a slight premium.

 

091s are not tight, they are mostly pressed by Matt Nelson pre his days with CCS and many are not graded all that tight. Many of the 091s are books sold by Heritage as well. 093 and 097 are generally a fairly tight series. There are sequence #s that tend to be good for upgrades as well if you're observant on the sequencing.

 

But I generally agree, old labels are not necessarily tighter.

 

And I generally agree, tight is a relative comparison.

[delekkerste]

The fact that entire business models were created on selling comics that were purchased in old label slabs, cracked and resubmitted without being pressed adds tangible evidence to the notion that, as a whole, old label books were graded more strictly than recent standards.

 

As for my own experience, I couldn't get a 9.8 for a pre-1985 comic from CGC in the early days even when the books had been bought off the rack, read once, and stored in their original state of perfection since. It was only after the change in label style that submissions of my original copies came back with 9.8 grades.

 

^^

 

I'm not saying that Roy or others can't grade today. 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.

 

I, on the other hand, am like Captain America. My grading standards have been frozen in ice since 2004 and I can tell everyone unequivocally that grading standards as a whole are looser now than they were then.

[Foolkiller]

You're like Captain America? Dude. C'mon.

[delekkerste]

You're like Captain America? Dude. C'mon.

 

...in that my grading standards have been frozen in ice for the past 11 years (obviously Cap was on ice for longer than that, but that is the analogy I'm making).

 

If you want to know how a book would have graded back in 2004, I'm the guy to talk to.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* But, please nobody waste my time asking me to do this.

[Bomber-Bob]

 

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 . Those were the Mark Haspel hammer days. 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.

[Foolkiller]

You're like Captain America? Dude. C'mon.

 

...in that my grading standards have been frozen in ice for the past 11 years (obviously Cap was on ice for longer than that, but that is the analogy I'm making).

 

If you want to know how a book would have graded back in 2004, I'm the guy to talk to.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* But, please nobody waste my time asking me to do this.

 

Oh, start digging in your closet and grading those raws. I'll be by to check up on you.

[october]

 

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 . Those were the Mark Haspel hammer days. 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.

 

2011. Man, what a banner year that was.

[Brian48]

Pretty book. I don't think I'd grade it a 9.6 either, however I've seen a lot of recent 9.6s of late and some of them had binder creases such as this. Maybe not huge ones, but they had them. I think the graders are probably more forgiving about this type of defect so long as the corners are nice and sharp.

[lou_fine]

 

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.

[Bomber-Bob]

 

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.

[namisgr]

 

But I generally agree, old labels are not necessarily tighter.

 

With so many of them having been regraded and now residing with the new style label, you wouldn't know it from the ones that have been left behind.

 

As for times when new label grading was strict, my favorites are 012 and 015 comics.