Crack and Resub - anxiously waiting for the grade... 0

[Dr. Balls]

Decided to resub a competitor's book. For this particular one, I wanted it to be in a CGC slab to match my Venus 18 (which it sits next to on the wall). She's low grade, and has a crapload of tape on it. It was graded as a 1.8 with the following notes:

Notes:

Off-White
cover reattached with 3 pieces of tape on interior, moderate amount of tape on cover & interior cover
vertical large stain through book with small color loss front cover
moderate creasing to cover breaks color front cover
small pieces missing spine & left edge back cover, tears to cover edges

I've got fingers and toes crossed, this comes back to me as a 1.8, but I am skeptical, only because I think CGC really hammers tape and I feel it's possible to get this back as a 1.5 (hope not). Thoughts anyone?

[MB1952]

On 11/10/2022 at 11:15 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Decided to resub a competitor's book. For this particular one, I wanted it to be in a CGC slab to match my Venus 18 (which it sits next to on the wall). She's low grade, and has a crapload of tape on it. It was graded as a 1.8 with the following notes:

Notes:

Off-White
cover reattached with 3 pieces of tape on interior, moderate amount of tape on cover & interior cover
vertical large stain through book with small color loss front cover
moderate creasing to cover breaks color front cover
small pieces missing spine & left edge back cover, tears to cover edges

I've got fingers and toes crossed, this comes back to me as a 1.8, but I am skeptical, only because I think CGC really hammers tape and I feel it's possible to get this back as a 1.5 (hope not). Thoughts anyone?

Good luck, did the same with a recent  book. Hoping for at least .5 bump. 
 

[Black Bat]

I've had heavily taped books come back with decent grades, I bet yours will make 1.8.  This is a pretty clean book other than the tape, which is on a few interior pages too.  The graders notes suggest the tape wasn't the main determining defect?   I used to have a crazy-taped Eerie book and the tape had turned dark honey brown and brittle.  The book was butt-ugly, with plenty of other defects, and it came back a 2.0, which totally surprised me.  So who knows...

Edited November 12, 2022 by Black Bat

[Ryan.]

On 11/10/2022 at 2:15 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Decided to resub a competitor's book. For this particular one, I wanted it to be in a CGC slab to match my Venus 18 (which it sits next to on the wall). She's low grade, and has a crapload of tape on it. It was graded as a 1.8 with the following notes:

Notes:

Off-White
cover reattached with 3 pieces of tape on interior, moderate amount of tape on cover & interior cover
vertical large stain through book with small color loss front cover
moderate creasing to cover breaks color front cover
small pieces missing spine & left edge back cover, tears to cover edges

I've got fingers and toes crossed, this comes back to me as a 1.8, but I am skeptical, only because I think CGC really hammers tape and I feel it's possible to get this back as a 1.5 (hope not). Thoughts anyone?

My thoughts are that I would be perfectly content with a 1.5 CGC instead of a 1.8 Voldy. Value wise they are probably the same.

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/12/2022 at 5:00 AM, Ryan. said:

My thoughts are that I would be perfectly content with a 1.5 CGC instead of a 1.8 Voldy. Value wise they are probably the same.

Yeah, I could handle a 1.5 I suppose. I don’t have any illusions that this thing is going to have a grade jump, I’m just hoping it stays in the low-grade beater neighborhood and not end up slumming in the completely ragged out neighborhood.

[Dr. Balls]

Well, damn - CGC slapped me with a 1.0 on my 1.8 competitor resub.  Let's compare notes. Here's the original competitor grading notes:

"Off-White
cover reattached with 3 pieces of tape on interior, moderate amount of tape on cover & interior cover
vertical large stain through book with small color loss front cover
moderate creasing to cover breaks color front cover
small pieces missing spine & left edge back cover, tears to cover edges"

Here's the new CGC notes:

"reattached with tape cover
tape back cover
heavy creasing to cover
large stain whole book
moderate cover tanning
moderate tanning interior cover
small, multiple spine split spine
tears to cover"

I'm going to guess that the classification of "heavy creasing on cover" and the cover tanning is the major factor to the grade drop - and perhaps the original grading of "small pieces missing on the spine" was regraded as a spine split by CGC, which probably didn't help.

Oh well, them's the breaks. 

[Ryan.]

Presentation matters significantly more to me than the technical grade, so that's a nice looking 1.0.

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/22/2022 at 5:49 PM, Ryan. said:

Presentation matters significantly more to me than the technical grade, so that's a nice looking 1.0.

Yeah, I still would have bought it regardless of grade - and I think it was priced a little less to begin with because of the competitors slab. I’ve got no complaints - it was worth the risk no matter what the outcome.

[Dr. Balls]

I take that back - if I’d got hit with a Plod or GLOD, I’d be pissed. 

[KCOComics]

I agree with Ryan. That's a really nice looking 1.0.  I'm sure you'll enjoy it! 

[tth2]

On 11/23/2022 at 6:22 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Well, damn - CGC slapped me with a 1.0 on my 1.8 competitor resub. 

This shouldn't be a surprise.  There's a reason that prices on competitor slabbed books are usually lower than CGC books of the same grade, because the assumption is that they'll be graded a step lower if they get resubbed to CGC.  Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to you.

Borock lost a major opportunity to firmly establish the credibility of the competitor by having it grade as strictly as CGC.  Instead, the market discounts its grades and the main reason people submit to them is faster turnaround times and lower prices. 

Maybe that's a good basis for fast food or delivery companies to compete on, but I wouldn't hire an accounting firm who's main marketing line is they're faster and cheaper than the Big 4.

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2022 at 10:48 PM, tth2 said:

but I wouldn't hire an accounting firm who's main marketing line is they're faster and cheaper than the Big 4.

unless you're SBF...

[MB1952]

I had a competitor’s 9.4 cross grading return CGC 8.5  

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:23 AM, MB1952 said:

I had a competitor’s 9.4 cross grading return CGC 8.5  

Did your 9.4 have any notes attached to it before sending it to CGC? Did they discover something on the inside that caused the grade drop? I don't have a lot of high grade newer books, so I don't know where the cutoff is for CGC in providing notes at certain grade levels.

Obviously, each company has criteria that they look at or don't look at. The absence of a tanning notation makes me wonder if the competitor disregards that as a detriment to the grade. I don't know (and will never know) if they consider this an appearance issue, and not a paper deterioration issue? (tanning is the deterioration of the paper - not sure why they would not consider it - but who knows.)

From a variety of examples I've seen, CGC does not take cover fading into account (at least in graders notes) - which could be justified since it's not technically a direct deterioration of the paper or the structure of the book, and only creates less of an appealing appearance, which (I'm guessing) does not have an effect on the grading of the book.

[Robot Man]

I would have figured a 1.5. 1.0-1.5-1.8 all pretty close. Nothing missing or ultra ugly. I’d be happy to have it. A book that slipped through the cracks when I was was buying tons of PCH back in the day.

You can always upgrade down the road…

[RareHighGrade]

On 11/22/2022 at 7:48 PM, tth2 said:

Borock lost a major opportunity to firmly establish the credibility of the competitor by having it grade as strictly as CGC.  Instead, the market discounts its grades and the main reason people submit to them is faster turnaround times and lower prices. 

I agree 100%.  I got the impression that they loosely graded books in an effort to attract submitters/sellers.  But what they didn't realize is that they lost significant credibility with buyers.  In the end, it backfired for both the grading service and the submitters because the product was viewed as substandard.  It's a shame because it would have been better for all of us if they had been comparable to CGC; then both companies would have had to raise the service bar to earn market share.

[MB1952]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:50 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Did your 9.4 have any notes attached to it before sending it to CGC? Did they discover something on the inside that caused the grade drop? I don't have a lot of high grade newer books, so I don't know where the cutoff is for CGC in providing notes at certain grade levels.

Obviously, each company has criteria that they look at or don't look at. The absence of a tanning notation makes me wonder if the competitor disregards that as a detriment to the grade. I don't know (and will never know) if they consider this an appearance issue, and not a paper deterioration issue? (tanning is the deterioration of the paper - not sure why they would not consider it - but who knows.)

From a variety of examples I've seen, CGC does not take cover fading into account (at least in graders notes) - which could be justified since it's not technically a direct deterioration of the paper or the structure of the book, and only creates less of an appealing appearance, which (I'm guessing) does not have an effect on the grading of the book.

It’s been years, the only thing I can remember CGC notes were finger marks on spine which were not noted on competitors notes. Had it CPR returned 9.0 

 

[D84]

I think CGC was harsh on that book. That's not an accusation of malfeasance, just an observation based off the notes and eye appeal.

Personally, I'd call it a 1.5. The 1.8 from CBCS was a little high.

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:31 AM, D84 said:

I think CGC was harsh on that book. That's not an accusation of malfeasance, just an observation based off the notes and eye appeal.

Personally, I'd call it a 1.5. The 1.8 from CBCS was a little high.

I was kind of expecting that to be a 1.5. I've had some really hammered 1.0s in GA and SA and they didn't look as good as that Venus. But, that's ok - I am 100% a believer in buying the book, not the grade. I bought it as a 1.8 because I liked that the image area was mostly clean and without visual defects - even if it says 1.0, I'm still happy I have that bad boy at all!

[rjpb]

There seems to be a bit of a range for heavily taped spines, which would make some sense if the tape seems more like overdone prevention than actually holding the spine together. IMHO a lower grade appearing book with a completely split spine shouldn't be more than a 1.0, if tape is the only thing holding the spine together. If it's more an example of someone taping up the whole spine because splits had started, then a 1.5 (or possibly 1.8) is more in order, or if the spine is completely split but the book is otherwise in decent shape. I'm not sure CGC is that consistent though.