X-Men 1 CGC 9.6 listed on ComicLink

[Bomber-Bob]

 

I really do personally believe CGC has had various loose and tight periods through the seasons, regardless of label.

 

For what it's worth, they are pretty tight recently just as they were last year around this time on high grade.

 

 

Roy, I think you mostly submit high grade and I concur, they have been tighter. However, I have also seen a lot of questionable grading in mid grade. It seems like 5.5's get the nod to 6.0. I have also seen a lot of loose 8.0's that would have been 7.5 in the 'old' days.

[VintageComics]

 

I really do personally believe CGC has had various loose and tight periods through the seasons, regardless of label.

 

For what it's worth, they are pretty tight recently just as they were last year around this time on high grade.

 

 

Roy, I think you mostly submit high grade and I concur, they have been tighter. However, I have also seen a lot of questionable grading in mid grade. It seems like 5.5's get the nod to 6.0. I have also seen a lot of loose 8.0's that would have been 7.5 in the 'old' days.

 

Fair points.

[jimjum12]

 

I really do personally believe CGC has had various loose and tight periods through the seasons, regardless of label.

 

For what it's worth, they are pretty tight recently just as they were last year around this time on high grade.

 

 

Roy, I think you mostly submit high grade and I concur, they have been tighter. However, I have also seen a lot of questionable grading in mid grade. It seems like 5.5's get the nod to 6.0. I have also seen a lot of loose 8.0's that would have been 7.5 in the 'old' days.

 

.... and don't get me started on the "2.5's" that are missing 2 inch square hunks off the front cover ..... but in all fairness, I understand what they're having to do. First, a little story about a coin grading outfit called NGC..... they became king of the hill and one day were dethroned from #1 by a new upstart company who came out like gangbusters and were undergrading everything. Guess what ?.....the upstart's slab started selling for more and was perceived as "better", and NGC never fully recovered. For the uninitiated, NGC is CGC's Sister/Parent company....... and they (CGC...) learned from NGC's mistake. Once that rep and credibility is lost, it's nearly impossible to regain..... and let's face it, with only a few exceptions, the comics market is a buyer's market..... and it is the buyer who must be impressed. With all of that considered, it would have been suicide for CGC to proceed in any other fashion than exactly how they did in regards to "tightness", when West and Borock stepped into the ring. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[tth2]

.... I could agree with this on 9.0 and above.....

Is there anything else?

[jimjum12]

.... I could agree with this on 9.0 and above.....

Is there anything else?

 

...... 9.0 and up is certainly where all the headlines are at

[tth2]

And how do we reconcile the 'old labels are tigher' theory with periods like the well known instance where dealers were outraged at how tight CGC was out of the gate, forcing them to loosen up a bit?

Simple, the initial batches were insanely tight, and CGC did loosen up a bit.

 

It doesn't mean that those subsequent old labels aren't generally tighter than new labels.

[thecopperagekids]

I also think that the notion of "old label goodness" is a flat out myth.

 

There are a great many people who received grade (and PQ) bumps on straight re-subs, myself included. Granted that this is not for all old label books.

 

Yes, I know.

 

The same could be said of other old label books, that either were downgraded on straight resubs or likely would be downgraded, if resubbed.

 

Some of the reason is that some production defects were not originally counted sgainst the grade....and so on.

 

There have been numerous back n forth discussions on this topic, as I am sure you are aware of.

 

[paperheart]

And how do we reconcile the 'old labels are tigher' theory with periods like the well known instance where dealers were outraged at how tight CGC was out of the gate, forcing them to loosen up a bit?

Simple, the initial batches were insanely tight, and CGC did loosen up a bit.

 

It doesn't mean that those subsequent old labels aren't generally tighter than new labels.

 

another argument that hasn't been mentioned (in this thread) is that the old label books are less likely to have been stomped on by a 2000 pound gorilla

[lou_fine]

In my opinion, storage climate has a lot to do with oil transfer that causes that trasulscence.

 

In a warm climate oil is more likely to migrate than in a cool one because of the way viscocity changes.

 

Although CGC probably does not take this translucent effect into account when they grade a book since it is not a structural defect, do collectors normally apply a slight discount to the price of a book when it does have it. Thinking more in terms of a visual defect such as an off-center cover which CGC apparently also does not really ding a book on.

 

Just asking since I have an Fox book from the latter part of the 1940's and if I remember correctly, the insides of the front cover has a pinkish translucence effect to it. Of course, I would prefer it much more if the book did not have it, but heard that it does not really negatively impact the grade of the book.

[Waylander]

And how do we reconcile the 'old labels are tigher' theory with periods like the well known instance where dealers were outraged at how tight CGC was out of the gate, forcing them to loosen up a bit?

Simple, the initial batches were insanely tight, and CGC did loosen up a bit.

 

It doesn't mean that those subsequent old labels aren't generally tighter than new labels.

 

another argument that hasn't been mentioned (in this thread) is that the old label books are less likely to have been stomped on by a 2000 pound gorilla

 

 

[tth2]

And how do we reconcile the 'old labels are tigher' theory with periods like the well known instance where dealers were outraged at how tight CGC was out of the gate, forcing them to loosen up a bit?

Simple, the initial batches were insanely tight, and CGC did loosen up a bit.

 

It doesn't mean that those subsequent old labels aren't generally tighter than new labels.

 

another argument that hasn't been mentioned (in this thread) is that the old label books are less likely to have been stomped on by a 2000 pound gorilla

That goes without saying.

 

I`m simply saying that I submitted books in the old label era and was impressed by how tight CGC`s grading was. Books came back pretty much as I graded them, and in some cases a grade lower.

 

Then I submitted books in the new label era and was impressed again. But this time I was impressed by how much money I made from all the books that came back as 9.8s and 9.6s, almost all a grade higher than I had graded them.

[Ghost Town]

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.

[comicdonna]

Old label goodness.

[Icculus308win]

Some great posts and posters throughout this thread.

A lot of knowledge, facts and trying not to be bias opinions.

I'll keep saying it, it is threads like this that make this forum such an asset to the hobby.

 

From the handfuls of old labeled Bronze n Silver I have owned, to ones I have seen at shows, or posted on here - many have so much more "curb appeal" if you will. Compared to another copy in a New Label.

[VintageComics]

another argument that hasn't been mentioned (in this thread) is that the old label books are less likely to have been stomped on by a 2000 pound gorilla

 

I agree less old labels are likely to be pressed.

 

I just disagree that there are 4 years worth of books that are over all tighter than anything after the label changed based on books I've seen. Again, just anecdotal.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

I had a realization as I thought about it over the weekend.

 

The way I look at it is like a + / - sine wave with zero being bang on.

 

+ would be tight

- would be loose

 

In my experience, the sine wave went in both directions over the last 15 years but because the old label period is so short (was it 1999-2003?) you don't have as much frequency of variation as you would in the following 11-12 years.

 

For example, you may have a tight period, a loose period and then possibly a tight period over 4 years (not enough time for many cycles unless you factor in onsite variances - did they do onsite back then?). So half or more than half the books are tight with a loose period in between (after the CGC adjustment). Who knows? Maybe the majority of books I've seen are the loose period books.

 

This is all theoretical of course as I haven't done an analysis.

 

Again, I'm just speaking on my experience of handling 1000's of books. I didn't submit until 2003 or so.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Barton, is there a specific time period you did most of your submitting through?

[Ghost Town]

Barton, is there a specific time period you did most of your submitting through?

In 2000 - 2001, I subbed 676 books.

2002: 461 books

2003: 324 books.

2004: around 350-400

2005: around 250

2006: not much

2007: 350-400

2008: not much

2009: not much

 

 

 

[namisgr]

 

Again, I'm just speaking on my experience of handling 1000's of books. I didn't submit until 2003 or so.

 

 

Unless you were buying and submitting slabbed comics during the old label period, your view of old label grading suffers from selection bias. As time has gone on, more and more old label comics that were graded strictly have been resubmitted and regraded, going into new labels. The pool of comics left residing in old label slabs are those graded the most softly (the least likely to benefit from a regrading). That's what one sees today with many old labels, and is why it's worthwhile to take the time to go through Barton's registry sets, filled with old label books that weren't preselected to rule out their upgrade potential.

[SilverAgeGuy]

Unless you were buying and submitting slabbed comics during the old label period, your view of old label grading suffers from selection bias. As time has gone on, more and more old label comics that were graded strictly have been resubmitted and regraded, going into new labels. The pool of comics left residing in old label slabs are those graded the most softly (the least likely to benefit from a regrading). That's what one sees today with many old labels, and is why it's worthwhile to take the time to go through Barton's registry sets, filled with old label books that weren't preselected to rule out their upgrade potential.

 

I think you are spot on with your analysis here. I'll just say I have some 9.2's I picked up in 2003 that I would expect to regrade no less than 9.4 today (and I'm not talking about after pressing or other shenanigans). If you find some old label books that have been sitting in a collection since the label change, odds are pretty good they will regrade higher by today's standards.