Marvel Mystery Run on Heritage

[skybolt]

Arty, have you reviewed the current Heritage catalogue and compared the Mile High grades now to what they might have previously been?

 

Add the Adventure #72 as having been changed from 9.6 (June 2003) to 9.8 (current).

 

Why mess with Mile Highs!

 

Not every upgrade is attributable to pressing (which I believe you were implying).

 

Think of it this way. If 1 out of every ten books CGC grades is possibly undergraded, then there might be 50,000-60,000 undergraded CGC books.

 

That's with no manipulation being done to the book.

 

And I have to believe that 10% of all books have the three graders give different grades, with at least one being higher then the final grade. Even if it's only 1 out of every 20, then there could still be 25,000 undergraded books.

 

sfilosa, you bring up a good point.

 

If I had 10 books that I felt were undergraded and wanted to send them to CGC for re-certification, my best bet would be to call and find out which books received at least one higher score.

 

For instance, my chances of receiving a 9.6 grade on a 9.4 resub are much greater if the given grades were 9.4/9.4/9.6 vs. 9.2/9.4/9.4. Why take a chance on a resub if there's a possibility of the book grading as a 9.2 per the 2nd scenario. Is this why comgeek is so successful in receiving higher grades?

[esquirecomics]

Arty, have you reviewed the current Heritage catalogue and compared the Mile High grades now to what they might have previously been?

 

Add the Adventure #72 as having been changed from 9.6 (June 2003) to 9.8 (current).

 

Why mess with Mile Highs!

 

Not every upgrade is attributable to pressing (which I believe you were implying).

 

No, I wasn't implying any such thing. If I had wanted to reference pressing I would have done so. Everyone, listen please, just because I raise concerns about pressing doesn't mean that everytime I post a comment I am somehow surreptitously hiding a pressing reference in my sentiment. Believe me if I want to make a comment about pressing, I won't hide it.

 

I don't care what the reason for a bump in grade might be, no one should touch a pedigree! As far as I am concerned, IMHO, it diminishes the "value" (which is not necessarily monetary) or significance of the pedigree. Darn book survived 60 years in gorgeous shape. Let it be.

 

Most upgrades are probably the result of a pure resubmit, which I also have problems with for a variety of reasons and I have detailed them in the Adventure #72 thread in the General Section.

 

As far as the 1 in 10, or 1 in 20, that's just speculation. For all we know, it could be 1 in 3 or 1 in 300. Unless someone takes a random sample large enough for statistical significance and convenes some sort of grading panel or authority, it doesn't further the discusion - with all due respect.

 

[adamstrange]

HAS A GRADE EVER BEEN CHANGED ON A PARTICULAR BOOK MORE THAN TWICE BY CGC?

 

A friend sent in a book. First grade: 8.5, Second grade: 9.0, Third 8.0 This was within a 1 year time span maybe 3 years ago or so.

[Scrooge]

Steve and Mark got me thinking about this possibility of mis-grading a book and so in the last 15 minutes, I whipped the following analysis. Not entirely to my liking but I'd encourage anyone to take pot-shots at it:

 

We have three graders for a given book and their grades are determined independently of each other. Let's assume also that there exists a "true" grade for a given comic book (this is the premise this thread has taken and this is also what the CGC business model is promoting). Let's further assume that each of our graders are of the same quality and that they have the following capability:

 

 

where one should read the table as follows:

 

Prob(Gi=(X)/X) as the probability that Grader i (where i can be either 1, 2 or 3) assigns the correct grade X to a book whose true grade is X is 75%. In other words, any CGC grader will nail the book's true grade 3 times out of 4. Then the probability that they will err by one grade (up or down as represented by X+1 and X-1) is symmetric (there is no bias) and is 8.5%. Then they can deviate by more than one grade but this is unlikely and represented by a lower probability 4% off up by more than 1 grade and 4% off down by more than 1 grade.

 

Now that we modeled our grader, let's see the scenarios possible when calling up for the graders' note:

 

 

(For brievity's sake I skipped some potential combinations which having little probabilities of occurence are non relevant to our question and would have no impact on the results).

 

The first 3 columns represent the grades given by individual graders. GG corresponds to the grade assigned overall considering the grades given by the 3 graders. Then I assign in the spirit of recent posts a judgment on the quality of CGC's given grade where C means Correct, MO = Maybe Overgraded, MU = Maybe Undergraded, U = Undergraded and O = Overgraded. Prob is the probability of the represented scenario occuring.

 

Then we can say that:

 

So Probability a book is correctly Graded is 47%

So Probability a book is maybe Undergraded is 24%

So Probability a book is maybe Overgraded is 24%

So Probability a book is Overgraded is 3%

So Probability a book is Undergraded is 3%

 

Of course this is conditional of the assumed original capabilities of each graders. If we feel that these graders being professional and having graded for a while would be better than 3 out 4 times correct, the reworked numbers are:

 

Right 75% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 47%

Right 80% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 55%

Right 85% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 64%

Right 90% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 74%

Right 95% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 86%

 

Right 75% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 47%

Right 80% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 41%

Right 85% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 34%

Right 90% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 25%

Right 95% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 7%

 

Right 75% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 5%

Right 80% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 3%

Right 85% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 2%

Right 90% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 1%

Right 95% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 0%

 

I would then say that the probability that a book is clearly not accurately graded in 5% or 1 in 20 at most.

[Scrooge]

Reading over some of Mark's new posts in the Modern thread, I guess the number that he would highlight is that: even if we assume that CGC graders get it right 9 times out of 10, calling the graders' note would still leave you feeling unsure about the grade assigned a good quarter of the time but that's where grading is not an absolute as mentioned again in that Modern thread and there will always be disagreement as to the exact grade.

 

From CGC's point of view however, the analysis performed above is actually showing people should have confidence in the assigned grade for most books (conditional on the graders being of superior quality).

 

Awaiting further comments.

[tth2]

so jp owns the denver,white rose and pay copies of marvel 1...do i have it right?

 

Yep

I rest my case.

[tth2]

HAS A GRADE EVER BEEN CHANGED ON A PARTICULAR BOOK MORE THAN TWICE BY CGC?

 

A friend sent in a book. First grade: 8.5, Second grade: 9.0, Third 8.0 This was within a 1 year time span maybe 3 years ago or so.

Adam, was he just doing this as a test of CGC's consistency (or lack thereof) or did he think even at 9.0 it was still undergraded?!

[esquirecomics]

Steve and Mark got me thinking about this possibility of mis-grading a book and so in the last 15 minutes, I whipped the following analysis. Not entirely to my liking but I'd encourage anyone to take pot-shots at it:

 

We have three graders for a given book and their grades are determined independently of each other. Let's assume also that there exists a "true" grade for a given comic book (this is the premise this thread has taken and this is also what the CGC business model is promoting). Let's further assume that each of our graders are of the same quality and that they have the following capability:

 

 

where one should read the table as follows:

 

Prob(Gi=(X)/X) as the probability that Grader i (where i can be either 1, 2 or 3) assigns the correct grade X to a book whose true grade is X is 75%. In other words, any CGC grader will nail the book's true grade 3 times out of 4. Then the probability that they will err by one grade (up or down as represented by X+1 and X-1) is symmetric (there is no bias) and is 8.5%. Then they can deviate by more than one grade but this is unlikely and represented by a lower probability 4% off up by more than 1 grade and 4% off down by more than 1 grade.

 

Now that we modeled our grader, let's see the scenarios possible when calling up for the graders' note:

 

 

(For brievity's sake I skipped some potential combinations which having little probabilities of occurence are non relevant to our question and would have no impact on the results).

 

The first 3 columns represent the grades given by individual graders. GG corresponds to the grade assigned overall considering the grades given by the 3 graders. Then I assign in the spirit of recent posts a judgment on the quality of CGC's given grade where C means Correct, MO = Maybe Overgraded, MU = Maybe Undergraded, U = Undergraded and O = Overgraded. Prob is the probability of the represented scenario occuring.

 

Then we can say that:

 

So Probability a book is correctly Graded is 47%

So Probability a book is maybe Undergraded is 24%

So Probability a book is maybe Overgraded is 24%

So Probability a book is Overgraded is 3%

So Probability a book is Undergraded is 3%

 

Of course this is conditional of the assumed original capabilities of each graders. If we feel that these graders being professional and having graded for a while would be better than 3 out 4 times correct, the reworked numbers are:

 

Right 75% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 47%

Right 80% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 55%

Right 85% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 64%

Right 90% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 74%

Right 95% of the time, Prob of Correctly graded is 86%

 

Right 75% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 47%

Right 80% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 41%

Right 85% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 34%

Right 90% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 25%

Right 95% of the time, Prob of Maybe mis-graded is 7%

 

Right 75% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 5%

Right 80% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 3%

Right 85% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 2%

Right 90% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 1%

Right 95% of the time, Prob of mis-graded is 0%

 

I would then say that the probability that a book is clearly not accurately graded in 5% or 1 in 20 at most.

 

HOLY COW Scrooge!

 

I am going to have to re-read this several times (or have several scotchs) before I can even begin to understand all those numbers. We lawyers do not understand higher math.

 

But it looks real purty and impressive!!!!

[adamstrange]

HAS A GRADE EVER BEEN CHANGED ON A PARTICULAR BOOK MORE THAN TWICE BY CGC?

 

A friend sent in a book. First grade: 8.5, Second grade: 9.0, Third 8.0 This was within a 1 year time span maybe 3 years ago or so.

Adam, was he just doing this as a test of CGC's consistency (or lack thereof) or did he think even at 9.0 it was still undergraded?!

 

We both thought/think the 9.0 was undergraded.

[Scrooge]

HOLY COW Scrooge!

 

I am going to have to re-read this several times (or have several scotchs) before I can even begin to understand all those numbers. We lawyers do not understand higher math.

 

But it looks real purty and impressive!!!!

 

Well maybe it's time I get hired to be an expert witness then huh

[Bonds25]

Glad this thread has turned into YET another pressing and re-grading thread!

[sfilosa]

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Not every upgrade is attributable to pressing (which I believe you were implying).

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

No, I wasn't implying any such thing. If I had wanted to reference pressing I would have done so. Everyone, listen please, just because I raise concerns about pressing doesn't mean that everytime I post a comment I am somehow surreptitously hiding a pressing reference in my sentiment. Believe me if I want to make a comment about pressing, I won't hide it.

 

I don't care what the reason for a bump in grade might be, no one should touch a pedigree! As far as I am concerned, IMHO, it diminishes the "value" (which is not necessarily monetary) or significance of the pedigree. Darn book survived 60 years in gorgeous shape. Let it be.

 

OK, fair enough.

 

But are you then implying that if you own a Mile High book, but feel that it is undergraded, you shouldn't resubmit it?

 

If I had an expensive book that was worth $1,000 in CGC 9.2, but I was pretty sure it would sell for $2,000 if it was a CGC 9.4, and I felt that it had a real shot at a 9.4 (maybe from the graders notes), then I don't see anything wrong with resubmitting it.

 

Am I wrong?

[Silver Surfer]

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Not every upgrade is attributable to pressing (which I believe you were implying).

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

No, I wasn't implying any such thing. If I had wanted to reference pressing I would have done so. Everyone, listen please, just because I raise concerns about pressing doesn't mean that everytime I post a comment I am somehow surreptitously hiding a pressing reference in my sentiment. Believe me if I want to make a comment about pressing, I won't hide it.

 

I don't care what the reason for a bump in grade might be, no one should touch a pedigree! As far as I am concerned, IMHO, it diminishes the "value" (which is not necessarily monetary) or significance of the pedigree. Darn book survived 60 years in gorgeous shape. Let it be.

 

OK, fair enough.

 

But are you then implying that if you own a Mile High book, but feel that it is undergraded, you shouldn't resubmit it?

 

If I had an expensive book that was worth $1,000 in CGC 9.2, but I was pretty sure it would sell for $2,000 if it was a CGC 9.4, and I felt that it had a real shot at a 9.4 (maybe from the graders notes), then I don't see anything wrong with resubmitting it.

 

Am I wrong?

 

I guess if we actually knew what a CGC 9.4 was that might help?

[esquirecomics]

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Not every upgrade is attributable to pressing (which I believe you were implying).

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

No, I wasn't implying any such thing. If I had wanted to reference pressing I would have done so. Everyone, listen please, just because I raise concerns about pressing doesn't mean that everytime I post a comment I am somehow surreptitously hiding a pressing reference in my sentiment. Believe me if I want to make a comment about pressing, I won't hide it.

 

I don't care what the reason for a bump in grade might be, no one should touch a pedigree! As far as I am concerned, IMHO, it diminishes the "value" (which is not necessarily monetary) or significance of the pedigree. Darn book survived 60 years in gorgeous shape. Let it be.

 

OK, fair enough.

 

But are you then implying that if you own a Mile High book, but feel that it is undergraded, you shouldn't resubmit it?

 

If I had an expensive book that was worth $1,000 in CGC 9.2, but I was pretty sure it would sell for $2,000 if it was a CGC 9.4, and I felt that it had a real shot at a 9.4 (maybe from the graders notes), then I don't see anything wrong with resubmitting it.

 

Am I wrong?

 

It is tough to make this a right vs wrong discussion. All I can tell you is my own personal opinion, and I would not do it. I just simply would not.

 

What I would do, if I disagreed with a CGC grade, is crack the book out and advertise it as the grade I think it is. Now of course I realize that perhaps my saying a book is a 9.4 does not have the same "weight" as a CGC 9.4 and so it might not garner the same price. I suppose it is a debatable issue for any dealer to place his/her grade against a CGC grade. CGC certainly touts itself as being above the rest in its ads when it compares the price realized for a non-slabbed book versus one of their CGC books.

 

Still, CGC and its staff are not grading G-Ds. They are subjective human beings just like us.

 

What we hope CGC has going for it is consistency so that we can rely on their "skills" as being, dare I say, better than most (or us). The more we come to realize that CGC grading is all over the place the more it loses credibility and CGC books lose value. Why would I want to contribute to actions that would devalue my CGC collection?

 

Let's say I did resubmit it and obtain a 9.4 grade. I put it up for sale on my website, or e-bay or Heritage. And one of the smarter forumites discover it, as they have with so many resubmits (or pressed books), and posts it on the boards. So now everyone knows the book that is a 9.4 was a 9.2, both graded by CGC. Will it receive the 9.4 price? Should it (we'll know soon enough since some of the Heritage books have been identified as obviously either resubmits or pressed)? Why was the 9.2 grade wrong and not the 9.4? Who is to say? CGC? Why should I, as a potential buyer, believe they were right the second time given they flip flopped? And remember that means anywhere from 3 to 6 graders potentially changed their opinion. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in CGC, at least to me.

 

At least, that's how I see it. But again, this is a tough issue to simplify to "right vs. wrong".

[skybolt]

Let's say I did resubmit it and obtain a 9.4 grade. I put it up for sale on my website, or e-bay or Heritage. And one of the smarter forumites discover it, as they have with so many resubmits (or pressed books), and posts it on the boards. So now everyone knows the book that is a 9.4 was a 9.2, both graded by CGC. Will it receive the 9.4 price? Should it (we'll know soon enough since some of the Heritage books have been identified as obviously either resubmits or pressed)? Why was the 9.2 grade wrong and not the 9.4? Who is to say? CGC? Why should I, as a potential buyer, believe they were right the second time given they flip flopped? And remember that means anywhere from 3 to 6 graders potentially changed their opinion. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in CGC, at least to me.

 

At least, that's how I see it. But again, this is a tough issue to simplify to "right vs. wrong".

 

I probably won't resubmit my books for the exact same reason. I just don't like seeing someone post a before and after picture of a book I resubmitted. It just opens up a whole new can of worms as to whether it was pressed or not. I'll leave them as is.....old label and everything.

[rjpb]

That there are people put there willing to pay twice as much ( or even more) for a 9.4 as they would for a 9.2 invites resubmits. The more widespread the knowledge becomes that the difference betwen the two grades ( or any two adjacent grades) is small enough that the grade might shift on a resubmit, it is the validity of paying multiples and not CGCs reputation that is at greater risk.

 

When we say a book is worth a $1000 what we really mean is that would likely sell for around $1000 - maybe only $800, maybe $1200, and if GPA is any guide, the spread can sometimes be wider. If the price jump from one grade to the next was more in the 30-50% range, then there is greater potential for overlap in the high end price in one grade and the low end in the next. In this scenario minor grade bumps become less profitable and the temptation to resubmit is curtailed.

 

I don't see this happening in the short run - too many people have too much invested in the notion that their 9.4s are worth twice what a 9.2 is, but in the long run I see some price compression as likely. The mystery is what grades in what eras will benifit the most and least from this. On the other hand, at least with SA and later books, I can see the competitive desire to have "top of census" copies maintaining the gap between such books and the next tier down, much the same way many GA pedigree books have always demanded a high premium over non-pedigree books of the same grade.

[FFB]

Arty, have you reviewed the current Heritage catalogue and compared the Mile High grades now to what they might have previously been?

 

Add the Adventure #72 as having been changed from 9.6 (June 2003) to 9.8 (current).

 

Why mess with Mile Highs!

 

Not every upgrade is attributable to pressing (which I believe you were implying).

 

Think of it this way. If 1 out of every ten books CGC grades is possibly undergraded, then there might be 50,000-60,000 undergraded CGC books.

 

That's with no manipulation being done to the book.

 

And I have to believe that 10% of all books have the three graders give different grades, with at least one being higher then the final grade. Even if it's only 1 out of every 20, then there could still be 25,000 undergraded books.

 

I saw the Adventure #72 Edgar Church CGC 9.8 in person this weekend and can say with 100% certainty that the defects that made that book a 9.6 are still there. It is soft for a 9.8, but still a mindblowing book. I doubt seriously whether it was pressed because pressing couldn't have alleviated the bindery tears at top and bottom spine that resulted in the 9.6 the prior time it was submitted. It's just an example of the same book getting a different grade on two different days.

[FFB]

so jp owns the denver,white rose and pay copies of marvel 1...do i have it right?

 

I seem to recall that JP had three high grade copies on his website, the Pay Copy and another 9.0 copy and I believe the 8.5 copy? I have asked this question before but I'm not sure I got an answer to it. Wouldn't a high grade October copy be worth way, way more than a similar grade November print? Just seems to me that the October version is the original and I still haven't seen another October copy for sale in the last two years other than the Nic Cage one that Metro has.

 

The Metro copy is Nic Cage's copy.

 

Harley Yee has another one right now. It used to be in a bound volume, but is still in remarkably good shape. I got to read it/flip through it yesterday.

[sfilosa]

What I would do, if I disagreed with a CGC grade, is crack the book out and advertise it as the grade I think it is. Now of course I realize that perhaps my saying a book is a 9.4 does not have the same "weight" as a CGC 9.4 and so it might not garner the same price.

 

Don't take offense but PLEASE:

 

There is no way you would take a CGC 9.2 book that you felt was a 9.4, and crack it out (and not resubmit) and sell it raw as a 9.4. That makes ZERO SENSE.

 

No way do you get more money, plus that is significantly worse then resubmitting it.

 

 

Remember that the grade CGC assigns a books is 3 graders opinion on one given day. Three different graders might have come up with a slightly different grade on that same day.

 

Resubmits were part of the hobby before their was CGC. Basically any dealer who bought a book from a collector and said it was VF and then sold it as a VF+, resubmitted the book, IN THEIR MIND.

 

And one more word on pressing. My guess (but I don't know for sure), is that pressing performed on very high grade books is probably very localized. In other words if there is a small bend at the corner, why press the whole book?

[esquirecomics]

What I would do, if I disagreed with a CGC grade, is crack the book out and advertise it as the grade I think it is. Now of course I realize that perhaps my saying a book is a 9.4 does not have the same "weight" as a CGC 9.4 and so it might not garner the same price.

 

Don't take offense but PLEASE:

 

There is no way you would take a CGC 9.2 book that you felt was a 9.4, and crack it out (and not resubmit) and sell it raw as a 9.4. That makes ZERO SENSE.

 

No offense taken.

 

But I stand by my position as to what I would or would not do under the circumstances we have been discussing.

 

And the reasoning is simple - integrity and principle. I prefer not to allow financial motivation, and dare I say greed, compromise either. And I think CGCresubmits in the scenario discussed above does just that, as well as undercut the credibility of CGC. I simply don't want to be a party to that.