X-Men 1 CGC 9.6 listed on ComicLink

[tth2]

Variance in grading over time isn't relevant to the question of whether CGC grading was, overall, more strict during the old label period than a particular new label period, or the new label period as a whole. As for Gators' opinion? It's one to value, but it's worth noting that he also thinks that page quality grades over their entire range are influenced by the feel/suppleness of the paper. Call me skeptical.

 

Sure it is. It speaks to the likelihood that grading was highly consistent across books during any period.

 

It's never been. Still doesn't impact the view held by many that old label comics as a whole were graded more strictly than new label comics. There's no way to settle the question definitively to everyone's satisfaction, so it's all a matter of opinion anyway.

 

For starters, though, one could check out the scans of Barton's remaining collection, or ask his opinion based on the thousands of additional old and new label comics he's either submitted or owned post-encapsulation.

I know I'm not the most unbiased guy since a huge percentage of my books are in old label slabs. For example from AF #15 to ASM #100, 78 of those books are old label. And for X-Men #1-66, 45 are old label slabs. Avengers #1-100, 66 are old label. I could go on, but I’m tired of counting.

 

So of course I’m more likely to say that old label books were graded more strictly. But it also means I have a lot of books to help me form an opinion.

 

And my opinion is that, on the whole, old label books were graded more strictly, And they were far less likely to get gift grades.

 

I do have some old label books with what I think are generous grades. With new label slabs, it’s a much greater number and percentage.

 

That’s the most delicate, reasonable way I could put it. But if I was having a beer with a buddy and he asked me if if old label slabs were graded more strictly, I’d probably say something like, “Of freaking course they were.” And even that’s putting it mildly.

[jimjum12]

Variance in grading over time isn't relevant to the question of whether CGC grading was, overall, more strict during the old label period than a particular new label period, or the new label period as a whole. As for Gators' opinion? It's one to value, but it's worth noting that he also thinks that page quality grades over their entire range are influenced by the feel/suppleness of the paper. Call me skeptical.

 

Sure it is. It speaks to the likelihood that grading was highly consistent across books during any period.

 

It's never been. Still doesn't impact the view held by many that old label comics as a whole were graded more strictly than new label comics. There's no way to settle the question definitively to everyone's satisfaction, so it's all a matter of opinion anyway.

 

For starters, though, one could check out the scans of Barton's remaining collection, or ask his opinion based on the thousands of additional old and new label comics he's either submitted or owned post-encapsulation.

I know I'm not the most unbiased guy since a huge percentage of my books are in old label slabs. For example from AF #15 to ASM #100, 78 of those books are old label. And for X-Men #1-66, 45 are old label slabs. Avengers #1-100, 66 are old label. I could go on, but I’m tired of counting.

 

So of course I’m more likely to say that old label books were graded more strictly. But it also means I have a lot of books to help me form an opinion.

 

And my opinion is that, on the whole, old label books were graded more strictly, And they were far less likely to get gift grades.

 

I do have some old label books with what I think are generous grades. With new label slabs, it’s a much greater number and percentage.

 

That’s the most delicate, reasonable way I could put it. But if I was having a beer with a buddy and he asked me if if old label slabs were graded more strictly, I’d probably say something like, “Of freaking course they were.” And even that’s putting it mildly.

 

.... for people to fully understand why an old label may very well have been "tighter", one has to understand the psychology behind the slab game. For a service to become a viable concern it must attract customers. This is achieved by providing "value" for the expense. In the case of third party grading, the item needs to be able to sell for more than it would without the service.....otherwise, why bother ? An early CGC 9.0 needed to sell for more than a non CGC 9.0 in order for "word of mouth" and sales data to get the ball rolling. The quickest way to do this is to put a 9.2 into that 9.0 slab..... and as long as it sells for more than what the raw "9.0" sold for, the groaning only lasts for a minute...... and then, the game is afoot. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

.... this would all be debatable and of course, anecdotal..... to a degree.....

[Mr. 10%]

Variance in grading over time isn't relevant to the question of whether CGC grading was, overall, more strict during the old label period than a particular new label period, or the new label period as a whole. As for Gators' opinion? It's one to value, but it's worth noting that he also thinks that page quality grades over their entire range are influenced by the feel/suppleness of the paper. Call me skeptical.

 

Sure it is. It speaks to the likelihood that grading was highly consistent across books during any period.

 

It's never been. Still doesn't impact the view held by many that old label comics as a whole were graded more strictly than new label comics. There's no way to settle the question definitively to everyone's satisfaction, so it's all a matter of opinion anyway.

 

 

For starters, though, one could check out the scans of Barton's remaining collection, or ask his opinion based on the thousands of additional old and new label comics he's either submitted or owned post-encapsulation.

I know I'm not the most unbiased guy since a huge percentage of my books are in old label slabs. For example from AF #15 to ASM #100, 78 of those books are old label. And for X-Men #1-66, 45 are old label slabs. Avengers #1-100, 66 are old label. I could go on, but I’m tired of counting.

 

So of course I’m more likely to say that old label books were graded more strictly. But it also means I have a lot of books to help me form an opinion.

 

And my opinion is that, on the whole, old label books were graded more strictly, And they were far less likely to get gift grades.

 

I do have some old label books with what I think are generous grades. With new label slabs, it’s a much greater number and percentage.

 

That’s the most delicate, reasonable way I could put it. But if I was having a beer with a buddy and he asked me if if old label slabs were graded more strictly, I’d probably say something like, “Of freaking course they were.” And even that’s putting it mildly.

 

.... for people to fully understand why an old label may very well have been "tighter", one has to understand the psychology behind the slab game. For a service to become a viable concern it must attract customers. This is achieved by providing "value" for the expense. In the case of third party grading, the item needs to be able to sell for more than it would without the service.....otherwise, why bother ? An early CGC 9.0 needed to sell for more than a non CGC 9.0 in order for "word of mouth" and sales data to get the ball rolling. The quickest way to do this is to put a 9.2 into that 9.0 slab..... and as long as it sells for more than what the raw "9.0" sold for, the groaning only lasts for a minute...... and then, the game is afoot. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

.... this would all be debatable and of course, anecdotal..... to a degree.....

 

This ...

 

[jimjum12]

Variance in grading over time isn't relevant to the question of whether CGC grading was, overall, more strict during the old label period than a particular new label period, or the new label period as a whole. As for Gators' opinion? It's one to value, but it's worth noting that he also thinks that page quality grades over their entire range are influenced by the feel/suppleness of the paper. Call me skeptical.

 

Sure it is. It speaks to the likelihood that grading was highly consistent across books during any period.

 

It's never been. Still doesn't impact the view held by many that old label comics as a whole were graded more strictly than new label comics. There's no way to settle the question definitively to everyone's satisfaction, so it's all a matter of opinion anyway.

 

 

For starters, though, one could check out the scans of Barton's remaining collection, or ask his opinion based on the thousands of additional old and new label comics he's either submitted or owned post-encapsulation.

I know I'm not the most unbiased guy since a huge percentage of my books are in old label slabs. For example from AF #15 to ASM #100, 78 of those books are old label. And for X-Men #1-66, 45 are old label slabs. Avengers #1-100, 66 are old label. I could go on, but I’m tired of counting.

 

So of course I’m more likely to say that old label books were graded more strictly. But it also means I have a lot of books to help me form an opinion.

 

And my opinion is that, on the whole, old label books were graded more strictly, And they were far less likely to get gift grades.

 

I do have some old label books with what I think are generous grades. With new label slabs, it’s a much greater number and percentage.

 

That’s the most delicate, reasonable way I could put it. But if I was having a beer with a buddy and he asked me if if old label slabs were graded more strictly, I’d probably say something like, “Of freaking course they were.” And even that’s putting it mildly.

 

.... for people to fully understand why an old label may very well have been "tighter", one has to understand the psychology behind the slab game. For a service to become a viable concern it must attract customers. This is achieved by providing "value" for the expense. In the case of third party grading, the item needs to be able to sell for more than it would without the service.....otherwise, why bother ? An early CGC 9.0 needed to sell for more than a non CGC 9.0 in order for "word of mouth" and sales data to get the ball rolling. The quickest way to do this is to put a 9.2 into that 9.0 slab..... and as long as it sells for more than what the raw "9.0" sold for, the groaning only lasts for a minute...... and then, the game is afoot. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

.... this would all be debatable and of course, anecdotal..... to a degree.....

 

This ...

 

..... one thing to remember about the beginnings of most slab markets.... they are almost an evolution of necessity, brought about by unscrupulous business practices that are driving customers away. This was certainly true when CGC stepped up to the plate. With the exception of a handful of dealers, undisclosed resto and blatant over-grading had become rampant. CGC was a breath of fresh air.... and honestly, they could have put a 6.5 into a 9.0 slab and the book would have been nicer than 95% of what was being touted as a 9.0. It had become horrible. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Sqeggs]

.... one thing to remember about the beginnings of most slab markets.... they are almost an evolution of necessity, brought about by unscrupulous business practices that are driving customers away. This was certainly true when CGC stepped up to the plate. With the exception of a handful of dealers, undisclosed resto and blatant over-grading had become rampant. CGC was a breath of fresh air.... and honestly, they could have put a 6.5 into a 9.0 slab and the book would have been nicer than 95% of what was being touted as a 9.0. It had become horrible. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

And the dealer would have told the collector he bought the book from that it was VG.

[tth2]

..... one thing to remember about the beginnings of most slab markets.... they are almost an evolution of necessity, brought about by unscrupulous business practices that are driving customers away. This was certainly true when CGC stepped up to the plate. With the exception of a handful of dealers, undisclosed resto and blatant over-grading had become rampant. CGC was a breath of fresh air.... and honestly, they could have put a 6.5 into a 9.0 slab and the book would have been nicer than 95% of what was being touted as a 9.0. It had become horrible. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

No doubt that it was in CGC's interest to come out with a very high standard to establish their credibility from the get go. And they certainly succeeded because lots of people were crying about how tight their grading was, but almost everyone generally respected it (except for Marnin, of course).

 

This created value in CGC's brand and in slabbed books, although even CGC were surprised by the multiples that HG slabbed books commanded. Which really underscored just how much pent-up demand there was in the market for accurate and reliable grading.

 

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

[01TheDude]

very interesting conversation - and it made me contemplate one thing-- when you refer to the grading standards having slipped somewhat, how big a slip are you thinking has occurred? Are we talking one or two grades different (9.4's given 9.8 labels) or is the slip larger and less predictable? Based on what I've read in this thread, it seems the difference also depends on the level (HG versus mid).

 

My reason for asking is it seems that overall-- even if they have gotten looser lately- that overall the grades are still much more reliable and consistent than other grading services.

 

on a separate note- I can see the manipulation of the books prior to grading (or even CRP) via pressing, cleaning etc-- at some point being viewed as a form of restoration. I can only imagine the impact this would have on the hobby as it seems like something some people mention as a slight on some books.

[jimjum12]

One point that I would like to make involves scans and images. I'm only speaking from limited personal experience, but I've purchased quite a few books that I really wanted even though the tightness just looked "OK" in the scan, only to find that the book in hand actually looked much nicer than the scan. In a marketplace ruled by scans, it's kind of unfair to CGC to judge their grading without inspecting the book in person. That being said, I can't really chime in about the 9.4 to 9.8 zone, as I chose the pool hall over college after high school, and my earning power was impacted as a result. I have picked up a few 9.6 and 9.8's from the copper age that have yellow labels that seem to me to be graded VERY tightly..... but in regards to GA and SA, my opinion is limited to the vicarious scan review. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[VintageComics]

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

 

If it means anything, they're as tight as they've ever been, at least in high grade.

 

I've sent in what I thought were 9.6 candidates with a shot at 9.8 and they were getting 9.4's

[tth2]

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

 

If it means anything, they're as tight as they've ever been, at least in high grade.

 

I've sent in what I thought were 9.6 candidates with a shot at 9.8 and they were getting 9.4's

Maybe your standards have slipped because you`d gotten used to CGC`s looser standards.

[lou_fine]

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

 

If it means anything, they're as tight as they've ever been, at least in high grade.

 

I've sent in what I thought were 9.6 candidates with a shot at 9.8 and they were getting 9.4's

 

Is the below link to a Marvel Preview 4 what you mean by a 9.6 candidate with a shot at a 9.8 and only getting a 9.4 in the end:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-preview-4-cgc-9-4-first-appearance-of-Star-lord-/231823067816?hash=item35f9bb4aa8:g:ZZYAAOSw5VFWMUBu

 

Absolutely love the spine ticks on the upper part of the spine for such a tightly graded copy. Adds much needed character and texture to the book!

[VintageComics]

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

 

If it means anything, they're as tight as they've ever been, at least in high grade.

 

I've sent in what I thought were 9.6 candidates with a shot at 9.8 and they were getting 9.4's

 

Is the below link to a Marvel Preview 4 what you mean by a 9.6 candidate with a shot at a 9.8 and only getting a 9.4 in the end:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-preview-4-cgc-9-4-first-appearance-of-Star-lord-/231823067816?hash=item35f9bb4aa8:g:ZZYAAOSw5VFWMUBu

 

Absolutely love the spine ticks on the upper part of the spine for such a tightly graded copy. Adds much needed character and texture to the book!

 

Square bound spines are not always square because the covers are glued on and CGC allows more waviness than they would on a saddle stitched book. So those 'tics' may not actually be color breaking spine stresses like they would be on a comic.

 

But keep in mind that a 9.4 is not a perfect book/

 

Another thing to consider is that magazines are physically larger than comics so CGC does allow for larger defects in the same grade on mags than they do on comics.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hulksdaddy1]

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

 

If it means anything, they're as tight as they've ever been, at least in high grade.

 

I've sent in what I thought were 9.6 candidates with a shot at 9.8 and they were getting 9.4's

 

Is the below link to a Marvel Preview 4 what you mean by a 9.6 candidate with a shot at a 9.8 and only getting a 9.4 in the end:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-preview-4-cgc-9-4-first-appearance-of-Star-lord-/231823067816?hash=item35f9bb4aa8:g:ZZYAAOSw5VFWMUBu

 

Absolutely love the spine ticks on the upper part of the spine for such a tightly graded copy. Adds much needed character and texture to the book!

 

Square bound spines are not always square because the covers are glued on and CGC allows more waviness than they would on a saddle stitched book. So those 'tics' may not actually be color breaking spine stresses like they would be on a comic.

 

But keep in mind that a 9.4 is not a perfect book/

 

Another thing to consider is that magazines are physically larger than comics so CGC does allow for larger defects in the same grade on mags than they do on comics.

 

 

 

 

 

Good post. The bolded is where I find many people these days are making mistakes. A 9.4 is not perfect by a long shot.

[lou_fine]

It's just too bad that CGC then let their grading standards slip.

 

If it means anything, they're as tight as they've ever been, at least in high grade.

 

I've sent in what I thought were 9.6 candidates with a shot at 9.8 and they were getting 9.4's

 

Is the below link to a Marvel Preview 4 what you mean by a 9.6 candidate with a shot at a 9.8 and only getting a 9.4 in the end:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-preview-4-cgc-9-4-first-appearance-of-Star-lord-/231823067816?hash=item35f9bb4aa8:g:ZZYAAOSw5VFWMUBu

 

Absolutely love the spine ticks on the upper part of the spine for such a tightly graded copy. Adds much needed character and texture to the book!

 

Square bound spines are not always square because the covers are glued on and CGC allows more waviness than they would on a saddle stitched book. So those 'tics' may not actually be color breaking spine stresses like they would be on a comic.

 

But keep in mind that a 9.4 is not a perfect book/

 

Another thing to consider is that magazines are physically larger than comics so CGC does allow for larger defects in the same grade on mags than they do on comics.

 

 

 

 

 

Good post. The bolded is where I find many people these days are making mistakes. A 9.4 is not perfect by a long shot.

 

The portion that I highlighted in red is the part of Roy's explanation which I find to be totally unbelievable. CGC is notorious for applying their sledge hammer on non-color breaking spine stresses, especially on blights such as this one which is so obvious and does not even need the book to be held up at a certain angle to see them.

 

If these kinds of non-color breaking spine stresses are normally allowed in 9.0+ graded books, let alone a 9.4 copy, the pressers such as CCS and the like would all be out of business by now.

[VintageComics]

The portion that I highlighted in red is the part of Roy's explanation which I find to be totally unbelievable. CGC is notorious for applying their sledge hammer on non-color breaking spine stresses, especially on blights such as this one which is so obvious and does not even need the book to be held up at a certain angle to see them.

 

That really is a myth that is perpetuated.

 

I once owned a 9.4/9.6 looking book with a 3" NCB crease / bend on the lower right front cover that was visible through the slab. CGC gave the book a 9.0. It was an old label. Did CGC hammer the grade?

 

CGC does not 'hammer' non color breaking creases and bends. They downgrade for them, which is not unreasonable.

 

If you have two books laying side by side that are100% identical except that one book has a non-color breaking bend or crease, would you consider the book with the bend slightly lower grade than the one without the bend? Of course you would. Everyone would because one has a defect that the other doesn't.

 

In the same way, CGC downgrades for a NCB but they don't 'hammer' a book.

 

A NCB might make a book a few increments lower on a very high grade book, so a 9.6 may actually grade a 9.2 or a 9.4, or keep a book at 9.6 and out of 9.8 (it all depends on the size of the defect), but a NCB does not make a 9.8 a 6.5.

 

And since the camera flash is actually accentuating the defect of that glued on cover in that pic it probably doesn't look like that in hand.

 

I'm not defending bad grading. CGC does over grade books at times but I don't think there is enough evidence in that particular pic to judge accurately.

 

 

[jimjum12]

Waviness due to glue on a squarebound has always been treated as production related, which it is. Using a squarebound with a wavy spine as an example for NCB is counterproductive.... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)