Heritage's Next Event Auction has started posting books ! 31 31

[lou_fine]

On 4/18/2022 at 10:33 PM, tth2 said:

Yes, but Dean isn’t talking about selling old label slabs.  He’s saying that current grading is tighter than early grading.

Definitely NOT as you are over generalizing since it's not a case of one size fits all.  

I believe you really need to read my post a bit more carefully or maybe I should have qualified it a bit more since it really depends on the kinds of defects which we are talking about, because it is quite clear to me that the undisclosed grading system under the current regime is starkly different than what it was when CGC first opened their doors.  

The additional revenue or money generating defects and we all know which ones we are talking about here are clearly being graded much tighter now while everything else on a comparative relative scale is being graded a lot looser.  The reason why we think that grading is much looser now as compared to the old days is that the former types of defects are hard to see from just looking at scans while the latter with all of their clearly visual defects can be readily seen.  As a result, grading would certainly appear to be looser now as compared to before if you are simply looking at scans, because it is always easy to see an obviously overgraded book, but pretty much impossible to see an undergraded book unless you actually have it in hand, or at least access to the Graders Notes.  

It's really a case of to each their own, but I guess I am the type of collector that simply prefers the old school grading more than where it SEEMS the current grading system is.  As such, I prefer books that still has that natural full body feel and curve  or bend to it, as opposed to the now seemingly technically superior flattened pancake look and feel to it.  In addition, I guess tiny near invisible defects which I can't see from a scan but probably need a magnifying loupe to really see tends to bother me a lot less than books with more clearly visible defects and off-center covers.  

Although it might seem strange to most boardies here who tends to focus on the label, I personally would much rather have a lower graded book that presents nicely relative to its assigned CGC grade, as opposed to a technically higher graded book that doesn't appear quite as nice relative to its assigned CGC grade.  To me, it's always really been much more about the "look" or appearance of the book, and as such, I don't really need a numerical label that's been determined by somebody else to tell me if the book is nice or not as I can simply use my own eyes to do that.  

Anyways, time to hit the sack, but will post a few scans tomorrow night since a picture is worth a thousand words sometimes.  

Edited April 19, 2022 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

On 4/18/2022 at 10:22 AM, Cat-Man_America said:

But hypothetically, if you sent in enough books at one time, claimed those magnificent books all originated from your grand-pappy’s collection, then you might’ve been able to swing one of those spiffy pedigree labels ...the Grandpa Fine Collection, for instance... and perhaps they’d all have come back 9.6 to 9.8! ...Who knows? 

 

On 4/18/2022 at 1:14 PM, MrBedrock said:

6.0 brittle most likely, given the name.

Come on guys.......................9.8's are so yesterday and just so common, but looks like Richard's starting on the right path here.  

You gotta be ahead of the crowd and go for 0.5 Brittle and Incomplete so that you can have the single lowest graded copies for all the entry level buyers paying insane monies for these books because that'll give you the highest ROI on your purchases.  

 

On 4/18/2022 at 8:58 PM, tth2 said:

The only possible name for Lou's collection would be "The Vault (The Greatest Night in History) Collection".

No, it's much better as the "He's So Fine" collection:  

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by lou_fine

[jimbo_7071]

On 4/19/2022 at 1:33 AM, tth2 said:

Yes, but Dean isn’t talking about selling old label slabs.  He’s saying that current grading is tighter than early grading.

I think the point he's making is that current grading is targeting defects that could be pressed out, which appears to be true to some extent. If he has books that have finger bends and NCB spine ticks, those might grade lower. Books like that would get their original grades or higher if they were pressed, though, which is the whole point. CGC wants people to get their books pressed. It's a significant revenue stream. Even if they're pressed by a third party and then re-submitted to CGC, that's still extra revenue.

Having looked at innumerable slabbed books over the past 22 years, I certainly wouldn't say that grading is tighter overall—quite the opposite, in fact. Grading was a little inconsistent from day one, which is to be expected when you have different teams of graders, but overall, grading has gotten looser.

They changed the way they treat tape, and they might penalize tanning more, so I guess they're tighter on those particular defects. And like I said, there's more of a focus on hammering pressable defects so that books get pressed and resubmitted. However, on almost any other defect you could mention—edge tears, spine wear, color-breaking creases, writing on the cover—CGC has gotten looser. Every other book in my collection would probably get a higher grade today on a straight resubmission (without pressing).

Edited April 19, 2022 by jimbo_7071

[tth2]

On 4/19/2022 at 7:27 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

On 4/19/2022 at 1:33 PM, tth2 said:

Yes, but Dean isn’t talking about selling old label slabs.  He’s saying that current grading is tighter than early grading.

I think the point he's making is that current grading is targeting defects that could be pressed out, which appears to be true to some extent. If he has books that have finger bends and NCB spine ticks, those might grade lower.

But CGC has always been hard on NCB creases from Day 1, which was apparently a real shock to old school guys like Dean who I guess never used to hold covers up to the light to see if the cover and spine were mirror smooth. 

The only thing that has changed in this respect has been that people realized that CGC wouldn't penalize the pressing out of those creases to artificially achieve a smooth cover and spine.   

[buttock]

I've got 14 boxes of CGC graded gold/atom age, mostly all high grade.  CGC is waaaaay tougher on new books than they were in the old label days.  Not even close.  I would also venture to say that they are more consistent on mid-grade stuff than they were until 2013-14 or so (IIRC).  Given the choice sight unseen I would pick a newly graded book 10 times out of 10 over an old label if I wanted the grade to be accurate.  

[Gotham Kid]

On 4/19/2022 at 3:48 PM, buttock said:

I've got 14 boxes of CGC graded gold/atom age, mostly all high grade.  CGC is waaaaay tougher on new books than they were in the old label days.  Not even close.  I would also venture to say that they are more consistent on mid-grade stuff than they were until 2013-14 or so (IIRC).  Given the choice sight unseen I would pick a newly graded book 10 times out of 10 over an old label if I wanted the grade to be accurate.  

Interesting and thanks !

[jimbo_7071]

On 4/19/2022 at 10:48 AM, buttock said:

I've got 14 boxes of CGC graded gold/atom age, mostly all high grade.  CGC is waaaaay tougher on new books than they were in the old label days.  Not even close.  I would also venture to say that they are more consistent on mid-grade stuff than they were until 2013-14 or so (IIRC).  Given the choice sight unseen I would pick a newly graded book 10 times out of 10 over an old label if I wanted the grade to be accurate.  

So is it safe to say that they grade newer books more harshly than GA books? I only collect GA and the occasional early SA book, so I wouldn't know.

[RareHighGrade]

On 4/19/2022 at 1:13 AM, lou_fine said:

It's really a case of to each their own, but I guess I am the type of collector that simply prefers the old school grading more than where it SEEMS the current grading system is.  As such, I prefer books that still has that natural full body feel and curve  or bend to it, as opposed to the now seemingly technically superior flattened pancake look and feel to it. 

+1

[buttock]

On 4/19/2022 at 9:59 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

So is it safe to say that they grade newer books more harshly than GA books? I only collect GA and the occasional early SA book, so I wouldn't know.

I don't know, by "new books" I meant recently graded.  

[jimjum12]

On 4/19/2022 at 1:45 PM, RareHighGrade said:

On 4/19/2022 at 4:13 AM, lou_fine said:

It's really a case of to each their own, but I guess I am the type of collector that simply prefers the old school grading more than where it SEEMS the current grading system is.  As such, I prefer books that still has that natural full body feel and curve  or bend to it, as opposed to the now seemingly technically superior flattened pancake look and feel to it. 

+1

Youse guys are making me want to hit IHOP in the morning  Nice tasty buttermilk flap jacks/ pancakes with some sausage and bacon to assure I get fingerprints on my books ... GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

 .... I prefer a puffy spine too... I had an ASM 13 once where you could see from one end through to the other.

Edited April 20, 2022 by jimjum12

[jimjum12]

On 4/19/2022 at 10:48 AM, buttock said:

I would pick a newly graded book 10 times out of 10 over an old label if I wanted the grade to be accurate.  

Not trying to be a smart arse, but I'm looking at the book and not the label no matter when it came down the pike. There are too many defects that are deal breakers for me that get green lighted above 8.0 by the certification peeps, both sides of the street. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... thank you again for the opportunity to present my unsolicited opinion. 

[lou_fine]

On 4/19/2022 at 4:27 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

I think the point he's making is that current grading is targeting defects that could be pressed out, which appears to be true to some extent. If he has books that have finger bends and NCB spine ticks, those might grade lower. Books like that would get their original grades or higher if they were pressed, though, which is the whole point. CGC wants people to get their books pressed. It's a significant revenue stream. Even if they're pressed by a third party and then re-submitted to CGC, that's still extra revenue.

EXACTLY, as it's now (and has been for awhile) all about maximizing both the top and bottom lines for the CCG ownership group.  

Needless to say, it pretty much came at the expense of the old school grading standards with the additional revenue generating defects moving right to the top of CGC's hit parade chart when it came to their undisclosed grading standards.  

 

On 4/19/2022 at 4:27 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

However, on almost any other defect you could mention—edge tears, spine wear, color-breaking creases, writing on the cover—CGC has gotten looser.

Totally agree, and especially when it comes to defects caused by bad pressing which they try their best not to see because they certainly wouldn't want to scare potential customers away from that huge pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.    

 

[lou_fine]

On 4/19/2022 at 7:30 AM, tth2 said:

But CGC has always been hard on NCB creases from Day 1, which was apparently a real shock to old school guys like Dean who I guess never used to hold covers up to the light to see if the cover and spine were mirror smooth. 

Will wonders never cease as I clearly remember holding each of the books up to the light at just the correct angle for that first submission to Greg Manning because I most certainly didn't want him to get my best books from both a value and condition POV since it was just geared as a first run test of the new CGC grading system back then for me in 2000.  

Since I had over a dozen of the File Copies from the late 30's and early 40's in my collection at the time and which I still do, I ended up picking out a few of them for this first submission (not the worse, but certainly also not the best) including a CGC 9.6 Crackajack Funnies 21 which I remember because it sold for what I thought was rather silly money at the time.  Little did I know what would eventually come. 

Anyways, being a File Copy from not only the same time period, but also the same title, my bet is that my copy of Crackajack 21 which graded out as a CGC 9.6 copy at the time back then most likely had the same types of defects as this one here which we were discussing back on Page 241, especially since I kept the better ones for myself after I held them up to the light:  

 

Interesting to see the Graders Notes for this book as detailed below, courtesy of a fellow boardie since I don't have access to them:  

Grader Notes

light finger bends front cover
light wear all corners breaks color
light wear right center of front cover breaks color
light writing indent center of front cover

As expected with a File Copy from the late 30's, all of the nasty fugly defects are right on the front cover and clearly visible and must be post production defects as evident from the assigned CGC 8.5 grade, while that "gorgeous" Promise Collection copy of Gangsters Can't Win 2 with the exact same equivalent 8.5 grade must have all been production related defects to be ignored upon grading.    

Boy, do I ever wish you are right that books are graded much looser nowadays as compared to before because that would mean all of those CGC 9.2's to 9.6's that I got on my first run would grade higher now.  But I somehow highly doubt that as it is really based much more upon the specific defects on a book now and whether they can be monetized for Mother Corp or not.  

Edited April 21, 2022 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

On 4/17/2022 at 7:51 PM, tth2 said:

I for one believe that they were much tighter in the early years, as they were trying to establish their credibility in the market. 

Actually, if this was true wouldn't we expect that most of the early key Marvel SA first appearance books should have the highest graded copies coming from the more recent time periods if grading was becoming much looser as compared to the very early years.  Especially with most collectors being Marvel collectors and who would end up submitting these keys for grading due simply to their high demand and subsequent huge value in the marketplace.   And yet pretty much nada after some 2 plus long decades.  

And yet rather surprisingly, but very interesting is that after some 22 years of grading now, virtually every single one of the highest graded copies of those key Marvel SA first appearance books were the ones that were graded pretty much right when CGC first opened their doors back in 2000.  From the CGC census, it would appear that the only exceptions to this were CGC 9.8 graded copies of Daredevil 1 and Tales of Suspense 39 that were graded in the latter half of 2010 and 2016 respectively that finally surpassed the prior 9.6 highest graded copies of both these books which were slabbed when CGC first started up.  

If grading is indeed becoming looser in the more recent years, shouldn't we be seeing these early tightly highest graded copies be resubmitted back in for potentially even higher grades.  Somehow, I highly doubt we will see this happening after all these long years, but I guess only time will tell.      

Edited April 21, 2022 by lou_fine

[EastEnd1]

Personally I think it's pretty hard to recall and compare CGC grading standards from 22 years ago to today... it's not an exacting science and memories fade and what's left from that long ago are today's impressions of that time.  I remember the grading standards that accompanied CGC's introduction as being a real shock to the system... much stricter than what most collectors and dealers were applying before CGC.  And so what we're left with today is the impression that early on, CGC's grading standards were very strict.  And I guess that can lead one to believe that today's standards are looser.  Maybe the only real way to tell is to take a reasonably large sample of old label books and current label books and pop them open and compare.

[tth2]

On 4/21/2022 at 2:17 PM, lou_fine said:

that "gorgeous" Promise Collection copy of Gangsters Can't Win 2 with the exact same equivalent 8.5 grade must have all been production related defects to be ignored upon grading.    

Boy, do I ever wish you are right that books are graded much looser nowadays as compared to before because that would mean all of those CGC 9.2's to 9.6's that I got on my first run would grade higher now. 

Make up your mind!  In the space of two consecutive sentences, you have completely contradicted yourself!

[tth2]

On 4/21/2022 at 12:44 PM, lou_fine said:

On 4/19/2022 at 7:27 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

on almost any other defect you could mention—edge tears, spine wear, color-breaking creases, writing on the cover—CGC has gotten looser.

Totally agree

The prosecution rests.

[lou_fine]

On 4/19/2022 at 7:30 AM, tth2 said:

The only thing that has changed in this respect has been that people realized that CGC wouldn't penalize the pressing out of those creases to artificially achieve a smooth cover and spine. 

Of course people didn't realize this because up until this practice was outed on these very boards here by Dupchak, Masterchief, Redhook, etc. back in 2005 or thereabouts, the "pressing out of wrinkles" as per the Overstreet Guide had always fallen under the restoration umbrella and acknowledged as such by everybody within the hobby and marketplace at that time.  

Little did we know though that Borock and CGC had changed the definition of restoration somewhere along the line to exclude this procedure which actually had no conservation value at all, but sadly failed to inform the rest of the collecting base about this key change in their definition.  With the exception being a cabal of insiders or people in the know who knew about CGC turning a blind eye to this manipulative procedure and needless to say, ended up rolling in the dough and making huge bank by laundering what was then still restored books into an unsuspecting marketplace.    

But then, this is a history lesson that all of us here pretty much know about anyways and certainly represented a very controversial time for CGC as their integrity was brought into question and for good reason. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

On 4/20/2022 at 11:17 PM, lou_fine said:

that "gorgeous" Promise Collection copy of Gangsters Can't Win 2 with the exact same equivalent 8.5 grade must have all been production related defects to be ignored upon grading.    

Boy, do I ever wish you are right that books are graded much looser nowadays as compared to before because that would mean all of those CGC 9.2's to 9.6's that I got on my first run would grade higher now.

 

On 4/21/2022 at 6:33 AM, tth2 said:

Make up your mind!  In the space of two consecutive sentences, you have completely contradicted yourself!

I guess you missed my point that I was simply trying to be sarcastic here or it just flew over your head when you was reading it.    

[lou_fine]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:35 AM, tth2 said:

On 4/20/2022 at 9:44 PM, lou_fine said:

On 4/19/2022 at 4:27 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

on almost any other defect you could mention—edge tears, spine wear, color-breaking creases, writing on the cover—CGC has gotten looser.

Totally agree

The prosecution rests.

Counselor;

Looks like you are still thinking on the basis of one size fits all and that CGC treats all defects in the same manner when it comes to grading.  

Personally from my own POV, this could not be farther from the truth, but since a picture is worth a thousand words sometimes, maybe a visual picture will help to show the difference:  

Grading Scenario #1:     

Can you feel the soft gentle swishing of the CGC grading whip as it comes down to caress your book with that clearly visible rat chew, edge tears, spine wear, indented staples, color breaking creases, and what have you?    

 

Grading Scenario #2:  

 

Click link below to view:  

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/ejeW00YcZIc/hqdefault.jpg   

Can you feel the hard blood letting, scar inducing cracking of the CGC grading whip as it comes down to bludgeon your book with that near invisible tiny NCB spine tick that can only be seen if you hold the book up to the light or that unflattened still fresh looking book with still just a hint of the natural bow that comes when a book has been stored properly, especially when all of these additional revenue generating defects could have easily been taken care of if only you had been willing to open your wallet a bit wider so that we could have lighten it a lot more for you ?    

The defense rests.  

Edited April 22, 2022 by lou_fine