20 years of CGC - 90 years of comics - pretty picture 0

[valiantman]

[Buzzetta]

All I can tell from this chart...  is something about Alabama. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Buzzetta

[valiantman]

1 minute ago, Buzzetta said:

All I can tell from this chart is something about Alabama. 

Obviously, the correct interpretation of this chart is that collectors in Alabama started protecting their comics more in the 1970s. 

[valiantman]

4,500,000+ comics from the (current, September 3, 2019) CGC Census were used in the chart in the first post.

[All Be D'Oh!]

Really cool, that is an amazing over-arching view! I was also thinking about the transition between the hobby of reading a comic book, rolling it in your back pocket, and riding off on your bike ---> to the hobby of picking the best copy off the shelf and protecting it in plastic and cardboard. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by All Be D'Oh!

[Domo Arigato]

Interesting chart.  

Just as comics from the 2010's are highly skewed towards the upper grades.......I would have thought that comics from the 1930's would have been highly skewed towards the lower grades, just due to their age.  But that doesn't seem to be the case.  It seems to be more of an even distribution for them (with 50 percent being 5.5 or higher and 50 percent being 5.0 or lower).

[valiantman]

18 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Interesting chart.  

Just as comics from the 2010's are highly skewed towards the upper grades.......I would have thought that comics from the 1930's would have been highly skewed towards the lower grades, just due to their age.  But that doesn't seem to be the case.  It seems to be more of an even distribution for them (with 50 percent being 5.5 or higher and 50 percent being 5.0 or lower).

Remember that a book has to be sent to CGC in order to be included in the chart.

For the newest comics below 9.8, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

For the oldest comics below 4.0, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

This is a bit older, but it shows similar information, with the middle/median being roughly the "worth it to submit" line for each decade.  Individual books will vary, but generally speaking, this is a good guide.

Edited September 5, 2019 by valiantman

[Domo Arigato]

Just now, valiantman said:

Remember that a book has to be sent to CGC in order to be included in the chart.

For the newest comics below 9.8, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

For the oldest comics below 4.0, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

Yeah....I realize that. 

Still just seems like it would have been skewed toward the lower range a bit more on the 1930's stuff due to the age of the books.  Golden Age isn't really in my collecting wheelhouse, so it was interesting to me to see that it doesn't.  Just an observational opinion on my part. 

Cool chart, though. 

[valiantman]

1 minute ago, Domo Arigato said:

9 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Remember that a book has to be sent to CGC in order to be included in the chart.

For the newest comics below 9.8, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

For the oldest comics below 4.0, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

Yeah....I realize that. 

Still just seems like it would have been skewed toward the lower range a bit more on the 1930's stuff due to the age of the books.  Golden Age isn't really in my collecting wheelhouse, so it was interesting to me to see that it doesn't.  Just an observational opinion on my part. 

Cool chart, though.

Right, the "low grade 1930s" aren't generally "slab-worthy" for many who own/sell/collect those books.  The mid-point (50%) for CGC-slab-worthy is always higher than the mid-point for all-books-in-existence.

[All Be D'Oh!]

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

Remember that a book has to be sent to CGC in order to be included in the chart.

For the newest comics below 9.8, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

For the oldest comics below 4.0, there's not much reason to submit them vs. keeping them "as is".

I would expect the chart to skew toward the higher grades because that is where the value and justification would reside. There is a huge population of ungraded books in the lower grades for all the decades, especially the 1930s to 1950s.

But if they become valuable enough even in rough shape, I guess many of them may still end up getting graded. More so the early Actions and Detectives instead of the early Four Colors or Classics Illustrateds.

[jcjames]

2 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

All I can tell from this chart...  is something about Alabama. 

All I can see a whole lot of high-grade drek from the last 20 years clogging up the TAT pipeline.

[jcjames]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

4,500,000+ comics from the (current, September 3, 2019) CGC Census were used in the chart in the first post.

I did an analysis a while back that showed that over 50% of ALL graded books (Universal-label) were 9.6-9.8 range.

It's probably similar or more by now I'd guess.

 

[valiantman]

3 minutes ago, jcjames said:

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

4,500,000+ comics from the (current, September 3, 2019) CGC Census were used in the chart in the first post.

I did an analysis a while back that showed that over 50% of ALL graded books (Universal-label) were 9.6-9.8 range.

It's probably similar or more by now I'd guess.

That something easy to check quickly on my CGCdata.com page: http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/totals/

Yes, it's more than 50% at 9.6 or higher overall and specifically for 1980s and newer.

The decade breakdowns are here (takes a few seconds to run all the calculations): http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/totals/groupby/decade

Edited September 5, 2019 by valiantman

[JohnFranklin]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

I digress, but any idea what software generated this chart?  

[n2wdw]

4 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

All I can tell from this chart...  is something about Alabama. 

Ha!

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, JohnFranklin said:

I digress, but any idea what software generated this chart?  

Excel

[JohnFranklin]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

Excel

Guess I should get out more....I don't use Excel alot.  I knew it could do cumulative percentages but that is an interesting presentation of cumulative data...Thanks for the response.

[Unca Ben]

Is this a percentage or a percentile chart?  
It's late, I'm tired, but I'm having trouble interpreting some numbers.    Could be me (prolly is).
So, for 1960's comics, an 8.5 grade or better accounts for 41% of submissions? 

edit: sounds like i need cumulative data explained to me

Edited September 6, 2019 by Unca Ben
i'm really tired

[Domo Arigato]

22 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

So, for 1960's comics, an 8.5 grade or better accounts for 41% of submissions? 

I believe that is correct......at least that's the way I've been interpreting the chart.

[Jaylam]

Wow, what a shocker, now we have statistical proof of what we have suspected all along; it looks like in general, older books are not in as good of condition as newer books. 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Jaylam