Grading Standards

[QuasarComics]

Hi everyone, a question:

 

I think we all know that CGC generally grades very well and some would call that “strict”.

 

For silver-age and earlier books, using the Heritage web site (not a slam against them, they are to be commended for their archive and nice images), I have seen a lot of CGC graded books in the VF or better range with a very noticeable corner fold or noticeable blunting/abrasion/slight bending stress at the corners or along the edges or noticeable tanning edges. (And this what I can see through the slab, not raw) My first thought is that they should not have that for the grade assigned.

 

My question: Would you say these noticeable head scratchers are simply the “outliers” of the CGC population and can best be explained by the fact that when any humans are involved, the grade is still somewhat subjective or has there been, perhaps, a slight loosening of standards since the beginning? That is, CGC responding to the “market” and what the market will accept for a grade. (This is an absolute fact in coins if you compare say, MS-65 coins from the two major sever ices that were MS-65 10 – 15 years ago and compare them to that currently receives that grade. It is no secret and freely talked about in the coin periodicals).

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

- Bruce

[Zanarkand]

I don't think CGC's grading can be called "strict". That term implies a letter-of-the-law adherence to a defined set of standards, and CGC's grading standards remain undefined. For that matter, you couldn't even call CGC "accurate", since that implies correct application of a defined set of grading standards. Agasin, who knows what they are.

 

The best you could say is whether they are consistent or inconsistent, relative only to themselves.

[action1kid]

I would not say strick either.They cannot give each book the attention that you and i can give our books.They have 1000s upon 1000s to grade.they certainly can and will make errors.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I would not say strick either.They cannot give each book the attention that you and i can give our books.They have 1000s upon 1000s to grade.they certainly can and will make errors.

 

They damned well should be! This is not a free service and to earn their corn, they should be paying MORE attention to the books than you or I.

[action1kid]

I know your correct, but as there volume grows and grows,well im just un easy about it.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I know your correct, but as there volume grows and grows,well im just un easy about it.

 

Yeah, me too.

 

There's a possibility that what they SHOULD be doing and what they ARE doing start to differ.

[Jeffro.]

I would not say strick either.They cannot give each book the attention that you and i can give our books.They have 1000s upon 1000s to grade.they certainly can and will make errors.

 

They damned well should be! This is not a free service and to earn their corn, they should be paying MORE attention to the books than you or I.

 

You're absolutely right.

[divad]

I would not say strick either.They cannot give each book the attention that you and i can give our books.They have 1000s upon 1000s to grade.they certainly can and will make errors.

 

They damned well should be! This is not a free service and to earn their corn, they should be paying MORE attention to the books than you or I.

 

You're absolutely right.

 

I would venture that CGC critically inspects every one of the books it receives to a greater degree than most collectors have EVER inspected their own books.

 

Hence, the continuum of complaints about grades received, especially from newbie submitters.

[Pickey_Grader-migration]

I think CGC has to tighten up on its grading of mis folded books. Grading is the apperance of the book. When you look at a book and its back cover is on the front then that takes alot away from the grade of the book.

 

 

 

[uclapeterg]

I think CGC has to tighten up on its grading of mis folded books. Grading is the apperance of the book. When you look at a book and its back cover is on the front then that takes alot away from the grade of the book.

 

 

 

 

Are you talking about Miswrap? That's a production defect.

[sterlingcomics]

Grading is the apperance of the book.

 

Actually, it's more technical than that-and there are some defects that aren't necessarily obvious that affects the grade.

[october]

I think CGC has to tighten up on its grading of mis folded books. Grading is the apperance of the book. When you look at a book and its back cover is on the front then that takes alot away from the grade of the book.

 

 

 

 

Are you talking about Miswrap? That's a production defect.

 

I don't agree with CGC's stance on prod defects either. Taking points off for poor centering isn't without precendent either, it has long been a part of sports card grading.

[QuasarComics]

Good points all.

 

It would be nice for them to publish a defined set of standards that they unwaiveringly try to meet (consistency).

 

Strict or not is another good pint - I have seen books I wondered how they ever acheieved the high grade they recieved and of course, vice versa.

 

- Bruce

[trevorlsmith]

I don't think CGC's grading can be called "strict". That term implies a letter-of-the-law adherence to a defined set of standards, and CGC's grading standards remain undefined.

 

That is just one narrow definition of 'strict' and does not address the topic's practical question. I agree that it would be nice if cgc published even a basic outline of its grading standards, but this sort of intentional semantic misinterpretation is unproductive when it is clear that the poster was asking whether cgc is tough.

 

I think that cgc is very strict, particularly in the high grades. There is a good argument that their grading has become more lenient over the last 2 years or so. However, I feel that in general, less flaws are acceptable in the NM grades today than in the pre-cgc days.

[trevorlsmith]

Zanarkand,

 

Btw, I just read my post and it comes off as a little rude, which was not my intention.

[jokersrevenge]

I agree with divad. Another way of looking at it is if they grade 1000's of comics, they ought to be pretty good at it by now.

[Pirate]

Has anyone ever questioned the graders. They could have 40 years of grading experience but if it's 40 years of bad grading then what good is it

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think that cgc is very strict, particularly in the high grades.

 

I would beg to differ. I have a good number of 9.4s that I would be hard pressed to give a raw NM- to. I think what I previously knew as a NM is now a 9.6 or 9.8, as the top end has been extended out by CGC.

 

Before plastic slabs were even a twinkle in Mr Borock's eye, I never graded anything, for any reason, above NM, so this might explain my dissatisfaction with the high grades.

[trevorlsmith]

I would beg to differ. I have a good number of 9.4s that I would be hard pressed to give a raw NM- to. I think what I previously knew as a NM is now a 9.6 or 9.8, as the top end has been extended out by CGC.

 

Before plastic slabs were even a twinkle in Mr Borock's eye, I never graded anything, for any reason, above NM, so this might explain my dissatisfaction with the high grades.

 

I don't disagree with you. Certain niches of the collecting community have always been quite tight with their grading. What I should have said was that the advent of cgc has made many collectors see that many of the NMs in their collection are actuallys Fs, VFs or VF/NMs, and pressured dealers, who probably always knew better, to reevalute their stock.

 

However, there are veryfew dealers who consistently undergrade their stock (e.g., 9.4 raw = cgc 9.6). The reverse equation, if you can call it that, is much more prevelant. It could therefore be inferred that cgc is a strict grader.

 

edit: grammar

[uclapeterg]

I think that cgc is very strict, particularly in the high grades.

 

I would beg to differ. I have a good number of 9.4s that I would be hard pressed to give a raw NM- to. I think what I previously knew as a NM is now a 9.6 or 9.8, as the top end has been extended out by CGC.

 

Before plastic slabs were even a twinkle in Mr Borock's eye, I never graded anything, for any reason, above NM, so this might explain my dissatisfaction with the high grades.

 

me too.