CGC announces NEW Pedigree Labels and NEW Pedigrees 3 3

[Sqeggs]

4 hours ago, N e r V said:

 

 

Which is why they should note some as you said as collections or create different levels of the term pedigree. I just like the info. and think it’s a shame every time information like a books roots is deleted off the label.

Reading the above standards would it not to fair to say having a silver age collection from 1956 to 1963 averaging 9.4 is way more difficult than having a 1964 to 1970 in that condition? That broad of range is tough. 

How do restored books weigh in on that average? No way a 9.4 clean book is remotely equal to a 9.4 restored. Are both 9.4’s weighed in the same now? 

It makes me wonder if all the books in known pedigrees were slabbed/graded how many of what people consider the top really averaged a 9.2 or 9.4 if you knock them down on points for restored or lesser copies?

 

If you push the date back one more year to 1962, then it's really night and day. It seems as if '63-'64 was the time when not only was there a tremendous expansion in the number of collectors, but many people began buying and preserving multiple copies of books. 

There are some late 1950s DC books that I've never seen a copy of in 9.2 or higher. Could well be that they don't exist in those grades. Same with Atlas/Marvel.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Sqeggs

[N e r V]

11 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

If you push the date back one more year to 1962, then it's really night and day. It seems as if '63-'64 was the time when not only was there a tremendous expansion in the number of collectors, but many people began buying and preserving multiple copies of books. 

There are some late 1950s DC books that I've never seen a copy of in 9.2 or higher. Could well be that they don't exist in those grades. Same with Atlas/Marvel.

I was thinking 1964 or latter but you might be correct.

Point is, night and day. So that standard on condition requirements in pedigrees is flawed...

Edited July 14, 2019 by N e r V

[sagii]

  

Looks like the Pedigree Book is back on track as updates with the new recognized Pedigrees have been added to the site

Also there's mention of CGC's labels,

and an Okajima sample chapter added.  @path4play @miraclemet

 

comicpedigrees.com

[miraclemet]

27 minutes ago, sagii said:

  

Looks like the Pedigree Book is back on track as updates with the new recognized Pedigrees have been added to the site

Also there's mention of CGC's labels,

and an Okajima sample chapter added.  @path4play @miraclemet

 

comicpedigrees.com

cant find that link to the Okajima chapter?  The link just goes to their book news page... http://www.comicpedigrees.com/book.php

would love to see what it looks like since my edits from long ago....

[sagii]

2 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

cant find that link to the Okajima chapter?  The link just goes to their book news page... http://www.comicpedigrees.com/book.php

would love to see what it looks like since my edits from long ago....

Yes, the link doesn't seem to be working, but the mock up of the chapter they posted looks pretty promising. 

[path4play]

50 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

cant find that link to the Okajima chapter?  The link just goes to their book news page... http://www.comicpedigrees.com/book.php

would love to see what it looks like since my edits from long ago....

Same problem for me.  Would really love to see this.

 

[jimbo_7071]

18 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

If you push the date back one more year to 1962, then it's really night and day. It seems as if '63-'64 was the time when not only was there a tremendous expansion in the number of collectors, but many people began buying and preserving multiple copies of books. 

There are some late 1950s DC books that I've never seen a copy of in 9.2 or higher. Could well be that they don't exist in those grades. Same with Atlas/Marvel.

At what point did cover stock become thinner? I know my '50s books have thinner covers that my early '40s books, but I never tried to pin down a date when that took place, whether industry-wide or on a publisher-by-publisher basis.

Edited July 15, 2019 by jimbo_7071

[lou_fine]

4 hours ago, sagii said:

  

Looks like the Pedigree Book is back on track as updates with the new recognized Pedigrees have been added to the site

Also there's mention of CGC's labels,

and an Okajima sample chapter added.  @path4play @miraclemet

 

comicpedigrees.com

I believe some of these newly recognized CGC Pedigrees were already listed on that site before.  

In fact, I believe they simply did a clean up of the old listing and actually REDUCED it back down from the 70+ listings which were in there before, as it now has details on only the 59 CGC recognized pedigrees.  It look like they also did a complete rewite in terms of the stated criteria for a collection to become recognized as a official CGC pedigree.  

Interesting to note their newly rewritten paragraph in terms of the expected quality for a pedigree collection:

There is no set rule as to what the minimum grade average must be for a pedigree collection, but generally speaking, Silver Age collections are held to a higher standard because they are more plentiful, particularly after 1964. Typically Golden Age pedigrees average 8.0 or higher, while Silver Age pedigrees average 9.0 or higher for pre '65 books, and 9.4 or higher for books '65 to present.

I know what my definition of average is, but I am not sure what CGCs definition of average would be in light of some of these new collections like the Eldon's, Harold Curtis, and the Cookville's being of high enough quality (i.e. average grade of CGC 8.0) to be considered as a pedigree.  

It would have been much better if they had been able to introduce a truly high grade and brand new to the market GA collection in support of this launch  for their new all-black pedigree labels.  Unfortunately, they probably would have had to wait forever for this to have happen, especially since when was the last time a truly HG and pedigree worthy GA collection has surfaced in the hobby place?  

 

[sagii]

22 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

I believe some of these newly recognized CGC Pedigrees were already listed on that site before.  

In fact, I believe they simply did a clean up of the old listing and actually REDUCED it back down from the 70+ listings which were in there before, as it now has details on only the 59 CGC recognized pedigrees.  It look like they also did a complete rewite in terms of the stated criteria for a collection to become recognized as a official CGC pedigree.  

Interesting to note their newly rewritten paragraph in terms of the expected quality for a pedigree collection:

There is no set rule as to what the minimum grade average must be for a pedigree collection, but generally speaking, Silver Age collections are held to a higher standard because they are more plentiful, particularly after 1964. Typically Golden Age pedigrees average 8.0 or higher, while Silver Age pedigrees average 9.0 or higher for pre '65 books, and 9.4 or higher for books '65 to present.

I know what my definition of average is, but I am not sure what CGCs definition of average would be in light of some of these new collections like the Eldon's, Harold Curtis, and the Cookville's being of high enough quality (i.e. average grade of CGC 8.0) to be considered as a pedigree.  

It would have been much better if they had been able to introduce a truly high grade and brand new to the market GA collection in support of this launch  for their new all-black pedigree labels.  Unfortunately, they probably would have had to wait forever for this to have happen, especially since when was the last time a truly HG and pedigree worthy GA collection has surfaced in the hobby place?  

 

Good catch on the newly rewritten paragraph Lou!

Edited July 15, 2019 by sagii

[lou_fine]

8 minutes ago, sagii said:

Good catch on the newly rewritten paragraph Lou!

I wish they would just give us their definition of the word "average".  

Are we supposed to simply assume that their CGC approved definition of average is being defined as "at least a minimum of one"?    

Edited July 15, 2019 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

5 hours ago, sagii said:

Looks like the Pedigree Book is back on track

Glad to see that you are now so optimistic based uon this latest update from them.  

Based upon this new posting from The Books' home page:

Work on the book has resumed, but its completion will take a considerable amount of time and effort.

I am now hopeful that the book will be completed in time for my still unborn grandchildren to reach full adult collecting age.  Wonder what their definition of "considerable" is?   Maybe I will have to reset my target to my great grandchildren.       

Edited July 15, 2019 by lou_fine

[Sqeggs]

5 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

On 7/14/2019 at 7:25 PM, Sqeggs said:

If you push the date back one more year to 1962, then it's really night and day. It seems as if '63-'64 was the time when not only was there a tremendous expansion in the number of collectors, but many people began buying and preserving multiple copies of books. 

There are some late 1950s DC books that I've never seen a copy of in 9.2 or higher. Could well be that they don't exist in those grades. Same with Atlas/Marvel.

At what point did cover stock become thinner? I know my '50s books have thinner covers that my early '40s books, but I never tried to pin down a date when that took place, whether industry-wide or on a publisher-by-publisher basis.

I'm not sure. There was an interesting discussion in the Four Color thread of how Dell changed its cover stock over time. I think that may have been more about flat v. glossy rather than thick versus thin. Dell even experimented in the mid-1960s with using newsprint cover stock for some of their giants. 

[Sqeggs]

5 hours ago, sagii said:

Good catch on the newly rewritten paragraph Lou!

I guess it makes sense that Matt Nelson would want to make the book/site consistent with CGC's current approach. 

[sagii]

56 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

I guess it makes sense that Matt Nelson would want to make the book/site consistent with CGC's current approach. 

My sentiments exactly!

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, sagii said:

2 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

I guess it makes sense that Matt Nelson would want to make the book/site consistent with CGC's current approach. 

My sentiments exactly!

I guess it really depends upon what CGC aspects you are referring to.

I would certainly have no problem with the Pedigree Book lining up with the 59 pedigrees that's currently being officially recognized by CGC, as opposed to the 70+ that they were initially intending to cover.  

I do, however, think it's a waste of time to try to linked it up with a detailed analysis of the relative grade rankings, CGC population stats, number of CGC highest graded copies, etc. as this type of information will become outdated even well before they are done with the book.  Especially in this type of marketplace where collectors are encouraged to enhance and resubmit their books on an almost never ending cycle.   I really don't need the detailed CGC stats which Ritter was supposedly trying to compile on each one of the collections due to the constant onging changes to this type of information which would actually render large portions of the book irrelevant as time went on.  

Although the CGC purists will certainly disagree with me here, I personally feel that the Pedigree Book should focus primarily on the back story behind the collections in terms of the original owners who compiled the collections, the founders who discovered the collections and how it was found, basic simple non CGC stats such as the size and time period of the collection, key books within the collection, etc.  A book with this type of seminal information in it will be similar in my mind to what the Gerber PhotoJournal was able to accomplished in terms of being a book that will always be relevant and stand the true test of time.  

[sagii]

4 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

I guess it really depends upon what CGC aspects you are referring to.

I would certainly have no problem with the Pedigree Book lining up with the 59 pedigrees that's currently being officially recognized by CGC, as opposed to the 70+ that they were initially intending to cover.  

I do, however, think it's a waste of time to try to linked it up with a detailed analysis of the relative grade rankings, CGC population stats, number of CGC highest graded copies, etc. as this type of information will become outdated even well before they are done with the book.  Especially in this type of marketplace where collectors are encouraged to enhance and resubmit their books on an almost never ending cycle.   I really don't need the detailed CGC stats which Ritter was supposedly trying to compile on each one of the collections due to the constant onging changes to this type of information which would actually render large portions of the book irrelevant as time went on.  

Although the CGC purists will certainly disagree with me here, I personally feel that the Pedigree Book should focus primarily on the back story behind the collections in terms of the original owners who compiled the collections, the founders who discovered the collections and how it was found, basic simple non CGC stats such as the size and time period of the collection, key books within the collection, etc.  A book with this type of seminal information in it will be similar in my mind to what the Gerber PhotoJournal was able to accomplished in terms of being a book that will always be relevant and stand the true test of time.  

Very good points Lou. 

Speaking of CGC stats,  should the book also acknowledge 'Other Guys' key books if certified information remains a key part of the presentation? Remember as far as public information is concerned, a copy of one of the most important books in the golden age hobby Suspense Comics #3 , the Church copy (pedigree #1) resides in a non CGC holder.  

[lou_fine]

47 minutes ago, sagii said:

Speaking of CGC stats,  should the book also acknowledge 'Other Guys' key books if certified information remains a key part of the presentation? Remember as far as public information is concerned, a copy of one of the most important books in the golden age hobby Suspense Comics #3 , the Church copy (pedigree #1) resides in a non CGC holder.  

Well, if it's supposedly a book about the pedigrees, of course it should include some of the key books from within that particular pedigree collection.  This should most definitely be done regardless if it was graded by CGC, the guys across the street, PGX, HALO, or whoever.  In fact, from my personal point of view, it doesn't even need to be graded at all as it should really be all about the pedigree itself and not the grading company. 

For example, what's the point of talking about the Edgar Church pedigree and not talk about the Action 1 or Marvel 1, or have a write-up about the Allentown Collection without mentioning the 'Tec 27 or the early Fox's just because these books have not yet been graded.  Now, to me that would be a total travesty and rather  and a non-starter from my own personal point of view. 

It is interesting to note though that the original group of 4 plus Arnie has now been cut back to a revised group of two (i.e. Matt Nelson & Steve Ritter) plus Arnie.  Looks like both West and Mark are no longer involved with the latest version of the book now.  

Edited July 16, 2019 by lou_fine

[sacentaur]

On 7/14/2019 at 11:08 AM, lou_fine said:

Endless is probably right as CCG seems to be totally focussed right now on generating as many additional streams of revenues as possible. 

That does seem to be the case. However, I don’t care what color their new pedigree label is, or if they offer a Ouija board reading with every submission, until they find a way to mitigate the horrendous Newton Ring problem CGC is not getting any more of my business. 

[lou_fine]

7 minutes ago, sacentaur said:

That does seem to be the case. However, I don’t care what color their new pedigree label is, or if they offer a Ouija board reading with every submission, until they find a way to mitigate the horrendous Newton Ring problem CGC is not getting any more of my business. 

Well, if Newton rings are your concern, then this is your lucky day as CGC has the perfect answer for you now.  

You can now take advantage of CGC's just announced partnership with eBay whereby they will be providing potential bidders with "likely grading ranges" and "likely label types" based upon reviews of an eBay listing's images as conducted by a CGC expert.  Who said that you can't really grade a book from just a scan and that you actually need to have the book in hand to grade it?  Why, they can even do a "likely restoration check" of a 68-page GA book just from a front and hopefully back cover scan of the book now.  

Their expert opinion will then be sent to you with a 100% guarantee of no Newton rings to alleviate your concerns here. 

Needless to say,all for a slight fee of course and depending upon the level of service you want.     

[Jimmy Linguini]

Does this mean ALL File Copies can get this new label?

I want to know specifically if my Stan Lee File copy can be resubmitted for this. Seems cool!