Avengers 1 CGC 9.6 Heritage November 2015 Auction!

[namisgr]

Agreed. Inconsistency is the result of the difficulty of maintaining constant standards over 15 years (that's a long time), coupled with turnover in the graders. There are now graders who learned from other graders who learned from Borock. It wouldn't be surprising if Matt has had some influence on recent standards, too.

[pickycollector]

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.

 

In reality, most old labels were graded tighter but not all indeed.

 

Problem now is that the tight ones have been either cracked/pressed/resubbed or are going to stay for a long time in a personal collection (like mine). Nobody has cracked the loose ones so that now the proportion of tight old labels still available for sale has been reduced dramatically.

 

When I see a dealer selling a old label book and if that seller is well known as pressing most of his books, well, I know for sure that the book is one of the loose ones..

 

Also, most old labels are considered unpressed which is a plus for both collectors whom don't like pressing and pressers

[Ghost Town]

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.

Yup, what Bob said. Or wrote. Either way, I agree with that statement completely.

[batman_fan]

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.

Yup, what Bob said. Or wrote. Either way, I agree with that statement completely.

 

What I find interesting is some people on this very board huckster books as "old label goodness" even they don't believe old labels were graded tighter. Wonder why that is?

[tth2]

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.

Just the opposite. CGC came out with guns blazing to establish their credibility. 9.4s and the very few 9.6s and 9.8s that appeared in those early years were seriously solid books.

 

Then the dealers started screaming because many of the books that they thought were NM or better were getting lower grades from CGC. Hence the relaxing of standards as time went by.

 

I submitted a run of Western Penn DDs during that period, including the WP DD 2, which was flat out one of the nicest SA books I had ever seen. I thought for sure it would get at least a 9.6, and had a chance at 9.8. It only got a 9.4, which just astounded me. It now resides in a 9.8 (new label) slab.

 

Fast forward a few years to the new label era, and I submitted a run of Golden State Sgt Furys, which I figured had a decent shot at 9.6s, with maybe 1 or 2 with a decent shot at 9.8. They all came back as 9.8s, except for one 9.6.

[tth2]

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 want a grading company to be consistently tight.

 

Consistently loose doesn`t do anything for me.

[tth2]

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.

Yup, what Bob said. Or wrote. Either way, I agree with that statement completely.

 

What I find interesting is some people on this very board huckster books as "old label goodness" even they don't believe old labels were graded tighter. Wonder why that is?

Because they would never let principles or morals get in the way of maximizing a buck?

[Bomber-Bob]

I can't understand why anyone would want CGC to be consistently loose. This benefits no one but the submitter while the hobby and the marketplace has to absorb these things. Eventually, buyers won't desire the product. Dealers with inventory will be stuck or forced to lower prices. Tight grading benefits the hobby long term. It drives up demand and prices. CGC needs the buyer of it's product to be happy, not necessarily the submitter.

[batman_fan]

I can't understand why anyone would want CGC to be consistently loose. This benefits no one but the submitter while the hobby and the marketplace has to absorb these things. Eventually, buyers won't desire the product. Dealers with inventory will be stuck or forced to lower prices. Tight grading benefits the hobby long term. It drives up demand and prices. CGC needs the buyer of it's product to be happy, not necessarily the submitter.

 

I think there are enough "buy the label" folks out there to absorb the loosely graded books.

[tth2]

I can't understand why anyone would want CGC to be consistently loose.

I don`t either, but Roy and others were saying that they just care about consistency. So in their world, books that have massive creases and wear and receive 9.8s are okay so long as all books that have massive creases and wear receive 9.8s.

 

[Ghost Town]

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.

This statement is pretty much the opposite of being true. CGC's grading was incredibly strict when they first opened their doors. Sure, there were the occasional head-scratchers. But as someone who submitted around 700 books in CGC's first year, I can tell you from first-hand, bloody, bruising experience that you're way off base here. Not even in the ballpark. Or universe.

 

Or maybe you're talking about CGC on Earth 2?

[Silver Surfer]

Barton that was brilliant.

[Icculus308win]

Pretty fricken funny!!!

 

Man - I'm just still in awe of all the books you submitted that first year!

The scary part is, the quality probably trumped the staggering quantity!!

 

[Gotham Kid]

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.

This statement is pretty much the opposite of being true. CGC's grading was incredibly strict when they first opened their doors. Sure, there were the occasional head-scratchers. But as someone who submitted around 700 books in CGC's first year, I can tell you from first-hand, bloody, bruising experience that you're way off base here. Not even in the ballpark. Or universe.

 

Or maybe you're talking about CGC on Earth 2?

 

Barton

 

Wow ! 700 books. Guessing you received a X-mas card from them that year !

[Gotham Kid]

CGC needs the buyer of it's product to be happy, not necessarily the submitter.

 

Agree with you Bob. But of course all others ( 99.9% of whom are counting on selling ) will disagree with you.

[Icculus308win]

Maybe a Jelly Of The Month Club Membership

[Gotham Kid]

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 want a grading company to be consistently tight.

 

Consistently loose doesn`t do anything for me.

 

This times infinity times infinity again .... plus another infinity for good measure.

[Hulksdaddy1]

My real problem is that what some are referring to as being 'tight' is really undergraded IMO. What used to be a VG book, for decades, is now a G/G-.

 

It reminds me of baseball pitchers.

 

1970:

 

Starter

Reliever

 

2015:

 

Starter

middle relief

long relief

left handed specialist

set-up man

closer

 

[Bomber-Bob]

My real problem is that what some are referring to as being 'tight' is really undergraded IMO. What used to be a VG book, for decades, is now a G/G-.

 

 

Remember CGC recently changed their stance on Tape, explaining some downgrades in this area.

[namisgr]

My real problem is that what some are referring to as being 'tight' is really undergraded IMO. What used to be a VG book, for decades, is now a G/G-.

 

That ship sailed when CGC opened its doors, and out came grades that had some of the dealers both complaining, and scrambling to catch up to the tight standards.

 

Also, I don't think there ever was a VG book in the decades before CGC. Dealer grading standards varied so much that the same comic could receive a wide variety of grades and restoration checks, depending on the seller.