First Generation CGC Holders (2000-03) 1 1

[MAR1979]

On 12/31/2022 at 7:53 PM, The Lions Den said:

What would you like to know? 

overall opinion on grading then compared to modern day.

[The Lions Den]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:05 AM, MAR1979 said:

overall opinion on grading then compared to modern day.

A much smaller group of graders would lead me to think there was less chance for variability within the process...   

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 1/1/2023 at 1:37 PM, The Lions Den said:

A much smaller group of graders would lead me to think there was less chance for variability within the process...   

That smaller group would be spending more time on each book as well.

[The Lions Den]

On 1/1/2023 at 2:54 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

That smaller group would be spending more time on each book as well.

From what I recall, there was a more relaxed "family" atmosphere back then, too...

[justafan]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:29 AM, MAR1979 said:

Here's one from 1999 I've posted a few times before. Early in CGC operation (testing?) is was not uncommon for page quality not be considered.  From my records I won this on eBay in April 2000 for $41 which back then was a bit high. It was my first CGC book that was not 9.6 or 9.8.

 

 

That is the lowest cert # ive ever seen. I always wondered if they started at 0000000001.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:06 PM, justafan said:

That is the lowest cert # ive ever seen. I always wondered if they started at 0000000001.

The way I understand it, but not for certain is: yes they started with #1, but in a way since they were first starting out? I believe they got a bunch agreed to send in to try it out, and to have some available either for sale or examples, to give it advertisement and prices realized. That may not be word for word, but

 

 my point would be or hold true that a regular submission or submitter might not have got below a certain number, as they did some before being "public?"

That's my guess or approximation, but I could be misleading and would love to have it hashed out.

So +1

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/25/2022 at 8:32 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

These are the 5 of mine I could find easy

I knew there was a couple more, but this looks to be the last one. Since the thread got bumped again, I'll post it

 

[Iconic1s]

Just picked this up… grade date 12/29/2000 

 

Spoiler

 

[Tbone911t]

Only "old label goodness" I have left. 

[valiantman]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:06 PM, justafan said:

That is the lowest cert # ive ever seen. I always wondered if they started at 0000000001.

No, the first 7 digits are the invoice number, then the last 3 digits are the item number.

The first invoice (and first item) was numbered 0000001001

http://www.slabdata.com/blog/2021/slabbing-comics-cgc-census-retrospective-the-first-two-years/

 

[justafan]

Here's my contribution to the preservation of the "Old Label Goodness". I might have more but this is what I've found so far.

 

[Brandon Shepherd]

On 1/11/2023 at 5:51 PM, justafan said:

Here's my contribution to the preservation of the "Old Label Goodness". I might have more but this is what I've found so far.

 

Wow, OG labels in 9.9 and 10!

[jimjum12]

On 12/22/2022 at 7:10 PM, Brandon Shepherd said:

Hello!

This is ancient history but I’m curious what the community thinks about books in vintage CGC holders. Do you pass if you see one for sale? Do you think they are neat relics of the past? 

I got my first CGC book in 2006, since then I’ve only owned ten or eleven vintage holders. I only have three currently in my collection since the others arrived cracked after shipping, they are fragile after all.

I recall rumblings in the mid 2000s about CGC being more strict on page quality and grade in the early years, prompting discussions about cracking those vintage holders for upgrades. I also heard SCS was a problem in many of those holders.

I don’t see too manny of these holders on eBay or places like ComicLink anymore, I’m sure many have gone through the CPR treatment, especially the Golden Age pedigree examples. 

Curious on your thoughts, observations and experiences.

In the coin hobby, the earliest slabs can actually command premiums based on that alone. Most people aren't even aware of what a first generation CGC slab is composed of. The posts could be pried apart with the right amount of care, resulting in two halves that could be re-united, posts still intact, with various nefarious intent in mind. The inner well was not a well, it was a sealed sleeve, with no stabilizing edge well, like we see today. It was this early unit that resulted in Shaken Slab Syndrome, damage done to already slabbed books. The book could actually move and slide in the "sleeve". The "well" design was created to address that design flaw. GOD BLESS... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

The slab posted by Iconic1s a few posts up appears to be the type of early inner sleeve I'm referring to.

Edited January 16, 2023 by jimjum12

[Sigur Ros]

Only one I have left (I think).  But that's because the book is as wavy as the label.  No way it would grade the same, and not interested enough to try pressing.

I assume the many years of off-gassing.

 

 

[valiantman]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:08 PM, Sigur Ros said:

Only one I have left (I think).  But that's because the book is as wavy as the label.  No way it would grade the same, and not interested enough to try pressing.

I assume the many years of off-gassing.

 

 

There is little or no "off-gassing" in high quality paper. The problem was acidic pulp in the decades prior. The label might be the lowest quality paper in the slab. 

[Robot Man]

I only have a small amount of slabs. I’m a “cracker”. This is the only one I have of these. I got it right here on the boards. I would never crack it. I doubt the “pedigree” would come back the same. Does CGC still note this?

[DocGo]

This is the last one I had which transitioned nicely into a Signature Series slab

 

[Jasonmorris1000000]

[gadzukes]

Got these two oldies in the mail today.  It's been a while since I've seen Red labels.

Both graded 1/4/2001

[Jasonmorris1000000]