Resub/Upgrade Database

[tth2]

As an offshoot of the whole "take back the hobby" movement that has arisen from the Ewert debacle, in the Polls forum we've been discussing creating a database to track all known resubmissions of CGC books that have resulted in an upgrade (or downgrade). It's high time this information was consolidated in one place for easy reference.

 

If you know of any CGC'd books that have been resubbed and received an upgrade (or downgrade), please provide as much of the following information as you can:

 

1. Title, Issue, Initial CGC grade, initial serial number

2. New CGC grade, new serial number

3. If you think the new grade was the result of pressing or other restoration, please indicate so, and reasons why. We may ask you to provide before and after scans before "officially" designating a book as having been worked on.

 

This can include books that were previously slabbed as PLODs, had the restoration reversed and then received a lower grade BLOU.

 

I'll get the ball rolling on some books I know of. If anyone has the missing serial numbers, your contribution would be appreciated.

 

JLA #1--before: 9.2 (0112024003); after: 9.4 (0098364008)

JLA #7--before: 9.2 (0112537001); after: 9.4 (0099267004)

JLA #9--before: 9.4 (SN unknown); after: 9.6 (0625360003)

Flash #105--before: 9.2 (0000910001); after: 9.4 (0098364007); dirt or some foreign substance was removed from the spine.

X-Men #1 (Pacific Coast copy)--before: 9.6 (SN unknown); after: 9.8 (0631963001)

[Davenport]

There's that triple crown ASM #4. STL thread

CGC 8.5 0093183001

CGC 9.0 0700031002

CGC 9.2 0703056003

 

That last 9.2 version is a known Ewert.

[FlyingDonut]

As an offshoot of the whole "take back the hobby" movement that has arisen from the Ewert debacle, in the Polls forum we've been discussing creating a database to track all known resubmissions of CGC books that have resulted in an upgrade (or downgrade). It's high time this information was consolidated in one place for easy reference.

 

If you know of any CGC'd books that have been resubbed and received an upgrade (or downgrade), please provide as much of the following information as you can:

 

1. Title, Issue, Initial CGC grade, initial serial number

2. New CGC grade, new serial number

3. If you think the new grade was the result of pressing or other restoration, please indicate so, and reasons why. We may ask you to provide before and after scans before "officially" designating a book as having been worked on.

 

This can include books that were previously slabbed as PLODs, had the restoration reversed and then received a lower grade BLOU.

 

I'll get the ball rolling on some books I know of. If anyone has the missing serial numbers, your contribution would be appreciated.

 

JLA #1--before: 9.2 (0112024003); after: 9.4 (0098364008)

JLA #7--before: 9.2 (0112537001); after: 9.4 (0099267004)

JLA #9--before: 9.4 (SN unknown); after: 9.6 (0625360003)

Flash #105--before: 9.2 (0000910001); after: 9.4 (0098364007); dirt or some foreign substance was removed from the spine.

X-Men #1 (Pacific Coast copy)--before: 9.6 (SN unknown); after: 9.8 (0631963001)

 

What's the point of this exercise? Are we saying now that resubbing is bad?

[tth2]

What's the point of this exercise? Are we saying now that resubbing is bad?

Not at all, Dan, just trying to put more information in the hands of people. The more you know about the history of a book, the better. People can then decide for themselves whether they`re happy to buy a book that`s X and which used to be Y, or at least factor that into their pricing.

 

The collective information that is available on these boards is incredible and a powerful tool. The problem is a lot of it is scattered amongst many threads and hard to find. Resubbed books have been identified on an ad hoc basis scattered throughout numerous threads, so I just figured it was time to consolidate them all, if possible, into one place.

[drbanner]

It would be interesting to see what the 3 "pre-grades" are for the books that increase in grade for as that would help distinguish between plain old resubs that were graded too harshly the first time, and resubs that actually were in better condition the 2nd time they were graded (pressed, cleaned, trimmed, etc.,.). It would also be interesting to see the dates of the initial grades as that might help ascertain whether or not there's any truth to the urban legend of strict/lenient periods in CGC's grading criteria (a position I don't subscribe to). Last Spring, Steve indicated that grader's notes would be made available on-line "...this summer...", which would make it much easier to obtain the grade dates and pre-grades...

 

[FlyingDonut]

It would be interesting to see what the 3 "pre-grades" are for the books that increase in grade for as that would help distinguish between plain old resubs that were graded too harshly the first time, and resubs that actually were in better condition the 2nd time they were graded (pressed, cleaned, trimmed, etc.,.). It would also be interesting to see the dates of the initial grades as that might help ascertain whether or not there's any truth to the urban legend of strict/lenient periods in CGC's grading criteria (a position I don't subscribe to). Last Spring, Steve indicated that grader's notes would be made available on-line "...this summer...", which would make it much easier to obtain the grade dates and pre-grades...

 

 

This I think is the crux of my argument - if a book, for example, grades 9.2, 9.2, 9.4 and is then resubbed to be 9.2, 9.4, 9.4, the change, while a significant dollar change, can be attributed to a simple change in judgement by a grader.

[tth2]

It would be interesting to see what the 3 "pre-grades" are for the books that increase in grade

Yup, if you`ve got that info, please provide it too. The more info, the better.

 

In the case of the JLA 9 that I mentioned above, all 3 graders gave it a 9.4 the first time, and the owner (whom I believe) swears that no work was done on the book before it was resubbed. CGC just changed its mind, apparently.

[drbanner]

It would be interesting to see what the 3 "pre-grades" are for the books that increase in grade for as that would help distinguish between plain old resubs that were graded too harshly the first time, and resubs that actually were in better condition the 2nd time they were graded (pressed, cleaned, trimmed, etc.,.). It would also be interesting to see the dates of the initial grades as that might help ascertain whether or not there's any truth to the urban legend of strict/lenient periods in CGC's grading criteria (a position I don't subscribe to). Last Spring, Steve indicated that grader's notes would be made available on-line "...this summer...", which would make it much easier to obtain the grade dates and pre-grades...

 

 

This I think is the crux of my argument - if a book, for example, grades 9.2, 9.2, 9.4 and is then resubbed to be 9.2, 9.4, 9.4, the change, while a significant dollar change, can be attributed to a simple change in judgement by a grader.

 

Yep!

 

However, doesn't the "finalizer" (Steve or Mark) give the final grade, and it's not necessarily tied to the 3 pre-grades? Are those two the only finalizers?

[drbanner]

It would be interesting to see what the 3 "pre-grades" are for the books that increase in grade

Yup, if you`ve got that info, please provide it too. The more info, the better.

 

Well, the only two books I ever re-subbed came back exactly the same grade!

 

They were originally submitted back in the alleged "strict red label" period, and indeed I felt they were undergraded so I sent 'em back in...

[Davenport]

Don't forget this doozie that was discussed before all the Ewert trim info broke. CGC thread

A CGC 8.5 GS X-Men #1 the owner sold to Ewert because he thought it was slightly over graded (spine tear) with grader notes of 8.0, 8.5, 8.5.

 

The Ewert magic-flip to a CGC 9.2 had grader notes of 9.2, 9.2, 9.2.

[arexcrooke]

Wasnt that D-Bols book?

[Aman619]

It would be interesting to see what the 3 "pre-grades" are for the books that increase in grade for as that would help distinguish between plain old resubs that were graded too harshly the first time, and resubs that actually were in better condition the 2nd time they were graded (pressed, cleaned, trimmed, etc.,.). It would also be interesting to see the dates of the initial grades as that might help ascertain whether or not there's any truth to the urban legend of strict/lenient periods in CGC's grading criteria (a position I don't subscribe to). Last Spring, Steve indicated that grader's notes would be made available on-line "...this summer...", which would make it much easier to obtain the grade dates and pre-grades...

 

 

This I think is the crux of my argument - if a book, for example, grades 9.2, 9.2, 9.4 and is then resubbed to be 9.2, 9.4, 9.4, the change, while a significant dollar change, can be attributed to a simple change in judgement by a grader.

 

if the new grade WAS merely teh result of an honest change of opinion bt CGC, that info will be corede for a potential buyer as well. The more info the better. But a list of every known upgrade, innocent and not so innocent is the goal.

[Davenport]

Wasnt that D-Bols book?

It was Mosconi's on STL. Here's the old thread: My GS X-Men 1 CGC 8.5 is being sold by Jason Ewert as a 9.2

 

It reads like Ewert was enjoying a level of re-sub luck that extended well beyond staple swaps and trim jobs.

[Darthdiesel]

What's the point of this exercise? Are we saying now that resubbing is bad?

 

Come on Dan..it's to f@#k dealers plain and simple... who benefits from full disclosure? Certainly not sellers in any sense of the word. Anything to sway the market towards lowering prices for "collectors"... I'll (and others without making this stance) participate because otherwise my future activities will be stigmatized and my sales will be affected.

[esquirecomics]

What's the point of this exercise? Are we saying now that resubbing is bad?

 

Come on Dan..it's to f@#k dealers plain and simple... who benefits from full disclosure? Certainly not sellers in any sense of the word. Anything to sway the market towards lowering prices for "collectors"... I'll (and others without making this stance) participate because otherwise my future activities will be stigmatized and my sales will be affected.

 

Oh what a crying shame. I am heartbroken. How callous of us to go after the poor, defenseless dealers who only try to act for the better of the comic collecting community at all times. Damn backstabbers we are.

[Darthdiesel]

[tth2]

Don't forget this doozie that was discussed before all the Ewert trim info broke. CGC thread

A CGC 8.5 GS X-Men #1 the owner sold to Ewert because he thought it was slightly over graded (spine tear) with grader notes of 8.0, 8.5, 8.5.

 

The Ewert magic-flip to a CGC 9.2 had grader notes of 9.2, 9.2, 9.2.

Thanks. Do you have the serial numbers to either the 8.5 or 9.2 versions?

[tth2]

Updated list:

 

Adventure Comics #72 (Mile High/Church copy)--before: 9.6 (0022413001); after: 9.8 (0090959001)

Amazing Spider-Man #4--before: 8.5 (0093183001); after: 9.0 (0700031002); after: 9.2 (0703056003)

Flash #105—before: 9.2 (0000910001); after: 9.4 (0098364007); dirt or some foreign substance removed from spine.

JLA #1—before: 9.2 (0112024003); after: 9.4 (0098364008)

JLA #7—before: 9.2 (0112537001); after: 9.4 (0099267004)

JLA #9—before: 9.4 (SN unknown); after: 9.6 (0625360003)

X-Men #1 (Pacific Coast copy)—before: 9.6 (SN unknown); after: 9.8 (0631963001)

[esquirecomics]

I'll have to supply the serial #s in a later post, but for now you can add these books. More to follow.

 

Military Comics #38 (Mile High/Church copy) before 8.5; after 9.4 (0044751002)(some glue removed, pressed)

 

More Fun Comics #28 (Mile High/Church copy) before 9.2; after 9.4

More Fun Comics #52 (Rockford copy) before 6.5 (restored); after 5.5 (0084149001)(glue removed, unrestored)

More Fun Comics #118 (Mile High/Church copy) before 9.4; after 9.6

[tth2]

thanks Mark!