Explaining grade based on Overstreet. vs CGC?

[Glassman10]

I am trying to give realistic grades to the Journey into Mystery section of my collection of raw books. I really get stumped when looking at Overstreet and his qualifications for grade. The issues seem to me to show up more around the 4 thru 6.0 grade criteria.

 

On a 4.0 grade Overstreet says ( and I do edit) ...Cover shows moderate to significant wear and may be loose but not completely detached...corners may be blunted or abraded...discoloration, fading foxing and minor soiling is allowed. A 1/4 triangle may be missing... only minor unobtrusive taping allowed on otherwise high grade copies." Spine roll and a one inch spine split... staple tears are permitted...paper is brown not brittle.:

********

In a 6.0 it says : Minor cover wear apparent with minor to moderate creases, major reduction in reflectivity blunted or abraded corners as is minor staining, soiling discoloration and foxing.. there can also be a 1/4 inch spine split... paper is brown to tan... rust migration

*****

 

At a 7.0, the act kind of cleans up but still, spine roll is still allowable (slight). Staple tears are OK ( slight) Slight rust migration.Corner may be blunted or abraded...

******

 

I'll stop there. I took a bit of liberty with the 7.0 since I have trouble doing that much transcribing BUT it seems to me that the Overstreet vision of grade does not square that well with the CGC grade stuff. I would like opinions on grading standards and is everyone on a level playing field here. Meeting the criteria of a 7.0 seems a lot easier to meet in Overstreet than what I think I see in CGC scans on forty to fifty year old books. Help me out here please.

[rebelpk]

You could always use the PGM section?

[Glassman10]

Jeez, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't get it. Initially I had what I thought to be four hundred books which in reality turned into about 900 books all from at least 45 year back. I'm doing a pre grade before reality kicks in and I'm kind of trying to figure out "who's reality"?

 

The corners are just killers. The spine issues don't make it easier. I have multiples with differing staple placements as the defining issue. It doesn't seem consistent as near as I can see. Grade Matters. It kicks in again around a 9.0

[thehumantorch]

Here on the CGC board it's CGC.

 

Comparing the two is difficult since CGC does not provide their standards. CGC was essentially created thanks to the growth of the internet and online transactions. There was no real standard and people didn't agree on grades.

 

Grading well takes years of practice. Grade a few of your books and then put them up in the grading forum to see how others grade your books. Go to Heritage Auctions and look up some of the books you own

 

here's a Heritage search for Amazing Fantasy, sold items, sorted highest to lowest -note that there are 878 matches

 

https://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?Nty=1&Ntk=SI_Titles-Desc&Ns=Price%7c1&N=0+790+231&Ntt=amazing+fantasy+15&ic4=SortBy-071515

 

Heritage has over 600,000 auctions archived and they provide high quality scans of auctioned books. If you compare some of your books to Heritage it should help you get a ballpark idea of grading standards. Just remember that a scan is just a scan, it doesn't show you interior defects and some cover defects may be difficult to see or seem more magnified.

 

 

[Glassman10]

well, it's not hard to see that it's the company store, nor is it hard to see that CGC dominates the resale market. Initially, I simply did not see the discrepancies between the types of grade evaluations.Apparently, they're quite different. One is in pretty straight forward English, the other is not revealed. I'm simply interested in evaluating my collection and then selling it at a reasonable market value. Universal language can be a help. I can glean those differences from looking at auctions but it would have seemed to me that specifics would have been more understandable.

[rjpb]

One of the problems with just using OSPG descriptions is that the meaning of "minor" is vague, and that that allowable specific defects are not the same as allowing all defects in aggregate for a specific grade. As was mentioned, CGC does not provide their criteria, and has not always been historically consistent in how some defects appear to effect grade, making it tough to figure out what the exact standards might be.

 

Add to that differences of opinion on the role "eye-appeal" should play in grading, and personal deal-breakers, as well as the potential to be influenced by what grades we've seen assigned to other books by graders we respect, and it becomes clear there isn't really an exact grade for any book. Certainly opinion can gravitate towards a specific grade, but for the most part there is a two or three grade range that even the most like minded graders will assign a book to.

 

If you really are having trouble figuring a grade, just go with the middle of the range you are considering, you probably won't be far off from most other people.

[Jordysnordy]

As was suggested by Rebelpk, list maybe a dozen books in the Please Grade Me Section (you are allowed to post 3 a day).

Grade them yourself also and then compare and see how you do.

It's not an exact science and you may be big differences in grades and opinions, but it should let you compare against your grades to see how you are doing grading wise.

Post clear scans and describe all the defects to the best of your ability.

Picking up the Overstreet Grading guide may also be helpful.

There are tons of pictures for each grade.