Please help me understand this Promise Pedigree grade, it hurts my brain. 2 2

[Phill the Governor]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:05 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

Maybe it's an exaggeration to say that they were all overgraded by that much—but many of them were. The ones from the first few auctions where they were offered were probably among the worst overall. The ones that were offered later didn't appear to be overgraded as badly, but the grading was still soft on most of them.

Somebody just posted the Gangsters Can't Win; it would be pretty difficult to defend the grading on that one without being disingenuous.

Your Airboys didn't look bad; they were at least reasonably graded. Based on the Promise purchases you've shared, I would venture to guess that you passed on quite a few books that you knew were softly graded and targeted the rare few that were graded more tightly than the rest.

I'm assuming that the label on the Mary Marvel #6 below has a typo and that the outer cover is actually the 8.5. If that's the case, CGC is saying that the outer cover is an 8.5 even those that cover has two corners chewed off. And the inner cover, which has one cover chewed off, is a 9.2. That's just one example. @Phill the Governor can peruse the Promise threads to see more examples.

I will mention one more: The notes on this Subby 23 say "moderate bindary chip out left bottom of whole book." Does that look like a bindery chip to you? It sure looks like a mouse chew to me (and would even if I didn't know that mouse chews were prevalent within the collection).

Yeesh.

I'm still not seeing anyone defend the Tec 166 I initially posted. Taking it one book at a time, how is that one a 9.6? Aside from the spine stress, and giving the dust/sun shadow a severe benefit of the doubt, is a normal book with spine stress lines AND a tear (that's even in the grader's notes!) on the back cover acceptable in 9.6?

On 2/11/2023 at 1:21 PM, Gotham Kid said:

miscut (only thing that bothers me), but still a beaut

What are your thoughts on the statement above? The difference in the price that book, as a 9.6, went for, vs what it would have gone for if even graded a 9.2 is what, over $10,000? That's not an arbitrary amount. And we're just looking at one book, where the main issue on the back cover may be initially overlooked.

 

I'm seeing a trend of some people like @MrBedrock and @Artboy99 who, for understandable reasons, only appear to focus on "well the books I have/seen look tightly graded, or graded accurately" when the argument other's seem to be making is "that has no bearing on the ones that aren't accurately graded, and by a large margin- and there's more than just a couple of them". The existence of the former does not dismiss the existence of the later, unfortunately.

@MrBedrock and @Artboy99 Can either of you provide legitimate reasons why the Tec 166 with the tear on the back cover (aside from the sun/dust shadow on the front cover) is acceptable in 9.6. How about the Gangster's can't win that was posted on the previous page? How about the Sub-Mariner 23 and Mary Marvel 26 posted right above? We all can point to books that were accurately graded, but these other ones still need to be accounted for, right?

[Artboy99]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:18 AM, Phill the Governor said:

Yeesh.

I'm still not seeing anyone defend the Tec 166 I initially posted. Taking it one book at a time, how is that one a 9.6? Aside from the spine stress, and giving the dust/sun shadow a severe benefit of the doubt, is a normal book with spine stress lines AND a tear (that's even in the grader's notes!) on the back cover acceptable in 9.6?

What are your thoughts on the statement above? The difference in the price that book, as a 9.6, went for, vs what it would have gone for if even graded a 9.2 is what, over $10,000? That's not an arbitrary amount. And we're just looking at one book, where the main issue on the back cover may be initially overlooked.

 

I'm seeing a trend of some people like @MrBedrock and @Artboy99 who, for understandable reasons, only appear to focus on "well the books I have/seen look tightly graded, or graded accurately" when the argument other's seem to be making is "that has no bearing on the ones that aren't accurately graded, and by a large margin- and there's more than just a couple of them". The existence of the former does not dismiss the existence of the later, unfortunately.

@MrBedrock and @Artboy99 Can either of you provide legitimate reasons why the Tec 166 with the tear on the back cover (aside from the sun/dust shadow on the front cover) is acceptable in 9.6. How about the Gangster's can't win that was posted on the previous page? How about the Sub-Mariner 23 and Mary Marvel 26 posted right above? We all can point to books that were accurately graded, but these other ones still need to be accounted for, right?

My post on my specific book was in response to this comment:

"Most of the Promise Collection books were graded about three increments higher than CGC norms. Some were overgraded even more than that. I saw some that looked to be overgraded by about 5 increments." 

Over nearly 5000 quantity of books in the Promise Collection how many of them are correctly graded versus the number that have been graded inaccurately? 

I agree the books you mention are not graded accurately. The correct response to all of this is: Buy the book not the label.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Artboy99

[Phill the Governor]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:47 AM, Artboy99 said:

My post on my specific book was in response to this comment:

"Most of the Promise Collection books were graded about three increments higher than CGC norms. Some were overgraded even more than that. I saw some that looked to be overgraded by about 5 increments." 

Over nearly 5000 quantity of books in the Promise Collection how many of them are correctly graded versus the number that have been graded inaccurately? 

I agree the books you mention are poorly graded. The correct response to all of this is: Buy the book not the label.

I think that by phrasing the argument "most of the books in the collection" it takes focus away from the fact that there are definitely books there were over-graded. Then it becomes an exercise of one book at a time instead of focusing on the semantics of how the argument was phrased. Probably better to just say there are a number of over-graded books instead of "most of the books are over-graded".

Regardless, I think at a certain point the "buy the book not the grade" falls flat when an unsuspecting buyer, like the one with the Tec 166 shells out 5 figures more than the book is worth because they don't trust their grading skills (that's why they're buying an already graded book!) and believe the book was accurately graded by CGC. I can't rationalize an excuse that is fair, and "buy the book not the grade" doesn't cut it with that much money involved. It's not our job to identify the grade and buy the book, doesn't that defeat the purpose of CGC's grade in the first place?

At best, this could be chalked up to human error of inconsistent/overgrading. But if it is true that many Promise books have been selling for less the second time around, is that not also an indicator of a scheme that rhymes with fonzi, given the the worst, most damning scenario?

[buttock]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:47 AM, Artboy99 said:

My post on my specific book was in response to this comment:

"Most of the Promise Collection books were graded about three increments higher than CGC norms. Some were overgraded even more than that. I saw some that looked to be overgraded by about 5 increments." 

Over nearly 5000 quantity of books in the Promise Collection how many of them are correctly graded versus the number that have been graded inaccurately? 

I agree the books you mention are poorly graded. The correct response to all of this is: Buy the book not the label.

Exactly.  Most of the books were accurately graded.  There were several that were egregiously overgraded, but taken as a whole the reputation that "all promise books are overgraded" is just wrong.  The number that were overgraded is about the same as the number of books on average that are overgraded from that era.  

[whomerjay]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:19 PM, buttock said:

Exactly.  Most of the books were accurately graded.  There were several that were egregiously overgraded, but taken as a whole the reputation that "all promise books are overgraded" is just wrong.  The number that were overgraded is about the same as the number of books on average that are overgraded from that era.  

Without a comprehensive analysis of all Promise books, I don't think anyone can confidently say "most of the books were accurately graded" or "most books were overgraded."

It is likely true that the impression currently held by some (many?) that "most books were overgraded" is questionable, because overgraded books are going to get a disproportional amount of discussion.  

However, there has never been so many examples of overgraded, and in some cases grossly overgraded, books of a pedigree. I am sure there are some and the BSDs here probably know, but I've never seen a Church book someone has said is significantly overgraded.  

There is really no justification for the grades on several of the books highlighted in this thread. Some of the notes mentioned aren't differences of opinion, they are flat out gaslighting. If a CGC grader or rep spoke out trying to justify those grades and said anything other than "we f'd up", I'd probably start liquidating all of my slabs.

So what we have is too many examples of CGC grading fail that lead me to believe, at the very least, this pedigree has been graded relatively softly compared to other pedigrees, and compared to the population of all graded books.  To me the lesson is "CGC: every book you grade has a potential impact on your brand, and particularly for high profile books you should carefully consider the effect when you screw up."

[Phill the Governor]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:19 PM, buttock said:

Exactly.  Most of the books were accurately graded.  There were several that were egregiously overgraded, but taken as a whole the reputation that "all promise books are overgraded" is just wrong.  The number that were overgraded is about the same as the number of books on average that are overgraded from that era.  

It does appear that it's more like "a number of them" that exceeds "several", so "several" is just as disingenuous as saying "they were all over-graded".

 

[Phill the Governor]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:55 PM, whomerjay said:

they are flat out gaslighting.

Bingo.

The Tec 166 actually has the tear on the back cover IN the grader's notes. In no reality would a book normally be given a 9.6 with a tear like that (aside from the dust/sun shadow).

[buttock]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:56 AM, Phill the Governor said:

It does appear that it's more like "a number of them" that exceeds "several", so "several" is just as disingenuous as saying "they were all over-graded".

 

You're really having to assign concrete values to intentionally ambiguous terms there to draw that conclusion.  Seems like you're reading what you want into it. 

[Phill the Governor]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:56 PM, Phill the Governor said:

It does appear that it's more like "a number of them" that exceeds "several", so "several" is just as disingenuous as saying "they were all over-graded".

 

On 2/12/2023 at 1:03 PM, buttock said:

You're really having to assign concrete values to intentionally ambiguous terms there to draw that conclusion.  Seems like you're reading what you want into it. 

 

In the same way that people have a problem with other ambiguous terms favoring one side of the argument over another, I'm seeking to lend impartial ones where it seems to do the same. Since we don't yet have concrete numbers, part of the conversation involved the need to specify. It's only fair.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:12 PM, Phill the Governor said:

I understand grading can be subjective (to a point). But can someone please explain to me how this copy of Detective Comics 166 is a 9.6?

It's all down to the new super duper Chief Grader.....

 

[Artboy99]

I said buy the book not the label because that is really all that can be done. I hope the person that buys the Detective 166 does at least the bare minimum of diligence before they spend thousands of dollars to determine the book is probably an 8.0 instead of what the cgc label says.

[lou_fine]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:19 AM, buttock said:

On 2/12/2023 at 8:47 AM, Artboy99 said:

The correct response to all of this is: Buy the book not the label.

Exactly.  Most of the books were accurately graded.  There were several that were egregiously overgraded, but taken as a whole the reputation that "all promise books are overgraded" is just wrong. 

Yes, the motto of "Buy the book, not the label" should always apply in the case of all books, not just the Promise Collection books.  

As I have also often stated here, an book cannot be accurately graded from just a visual scan and you actually need to have it in hand to grade it properly.  Sure, a visual scan that allows you to see the visual defects on a book will identify overgraded books, but won't help to identify possible undergraded books.  Who knows, the graders might have also made errors the other way and there might also be a number of undergraded books in the collection, although I would probably be laughed at for thinking this based upon the current reputation of the collection.  

The sad part about this whole thing is that the Promise Collection is without a doubt an absolutely amazing and generational collection, and as such, deserved absolute top notch grading from the gang at CGC.  Unfortunately, based upon so many of the overgraded books which we have seen here, they for some unexplained reason failed to do this, and as a result, have seriously damaged or disdained the reputation of a historic pedigree collection going forward.  

Edited February 12, 2023 by lou_fine

[jimbo_7071]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:56 PM, Phill the Governor said:

It does appear that it's more like "a number of them" that exceeds "several", so "several" is just as disingenuous as saying "they were all over-graded".

 

Let me put it to you this way: When this collection first surfaced, I really wanted to go after a couple of Promise books, but I could not find a single book from my want list that was accurately graded. I could not even find one from my want list that was only one increment above what I would have given it. I settled for the Bomber because it's a tough book and it's right in my wheelhouse, but I can't deny the soft grading. In comparing it to my other books, I have to start looking at 8.0s and 8.5s to find comparable books.

[Phill the Governor]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:30 PM, Artboy99 said:

I said buy the book not the label because that is really all that can be done. I hope the person that buys the Detective 166 does at least the bare minimum of diligence before they spend thousands of dollars to determine the book is probably an 8.0 instead of what the cgc label says.

I'm pragmatic enough to adhere this is philosophy myself. Trust me, I get it.

However, I cannot escape thinking... what's the point of having it be CGC graded in the first place then? If we're suppose to buy the book not the grade.. wasn't that what CGC came into the marketplace to do: to be an impartial third party that gives a professional grade within a strict set of standards? That way people can be more re-assured of the book in grade they are buying and don't have to rely on their own ability to properly grade the book? When it comes down to it, the philosophy that we share really bothers me because the existence of CGC is suppose to remove the brunt of that responsibility from the consumer and somehow that came back around and it's suddenly suppose to be "our" responsibility again. Same as it was with raw books.

I can speak for myself that I can accurately (within a reasonable margin) grade and handle books. But I can't tell you how many collectors I know that are great people, that can't for the life of them even handle books properly, let alone grade them within a reasonable margin of error. And CGC was initially created to compensate for the number of people in the marketplace like them that will always exist, no matter what happens. It's not fair to them, that due diligence is their responsibility but only up to a reasonable degree.

[Funnybooks]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:30 PM, Artboy99 said:

I said buy the book not the label because that is really all that can be done. I hope the person that buys the Detective 166 does at least the bare minimum of diligence before they spend thousands of dollars to determine the book is probably an 8.0 instead of what the cgc label says.

What's the point of CGC as a trusted third party assessor if we, as consumers need to buy the book and not the label? 

[lou_fine]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:08 AM, Phill the Governor said:

But if it is true that many Promise books have been selling for less the second time around, is that not also an indicator of a scheme that rhymes with fonzi, given the the worst, most damning scenario?

You mean that you have not seen the chart that @MasterChief have been providing us with respect to the reselling of the Promise books:  

On 12/18/2022 at 7:02 PM, MasterChief said:

Update!

Current Promise Collection ROI snapshot.

Chart includes data from recently closed auctions, a "New Grade" column, and additional sales from other venues as noted by Resold @.

(Source: Heritage Auctions, Comic Connect (CC), ComicLink (CL), eBay. Data sorted oldest to newest Sale Date)
 

Even more telling than the sea of red ink here is the fact that virtually not a single one of these resellers have even dare to send their book back in for either pressing and/or regrading, especially considering the rampant CPR focused marketplace environment which we are currently in.  

Hopefully you was not the purchaser of either the Terry-Toons 38 which dropped from $60K down to only$16,800 upon resale for a -72% return or the Saddle Justice 6 which went from $21K and fell off from its saddle and landed at only $6,600 for a -69% return.  I guess we'll find out a lot more when the next 90 lots get resold in the March Signature Auction, but all I will say for now is this so far         

Edited February 12, 2023 by lou_fine

[Funnybooks]

anyone who does not entertain the idea that HA and CGC having a synergistic relationship is either naive or has a special interest to protect

[buttock]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:16 AM, Phill the Governor said:

 

In the same way that people have a problem with other ambiguous terms favoring one side of the argument over another, I'm seeking to lend impartial ones where it seems to do the same. Since we don't yet have concrete numbers, part of the conversation involved the need to specify. It's only fair.

It's only fair to imply things that you believe, but weren't stated?  I'm not following this logic.  Feel free to assume implications in what you say, but don't put words in my mouth.  

[Artboy99]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:55 AM, Funnybooks said:

What's the point of CGC as a trusted third party assessor if we, as consumers need to buy the book and not the label? 

completely agree. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Artboy99

[buttock]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:37 AM, lou_fine said:

Yes, the motto of "Buy the book, not the label" should always apply in the case of all books, not just the Promise Collection books.  

As I have also often stated here, an book cannot be accurately graded from just a visual scan and you actually need to have it in hand to grade it properly.  Sure, a visual scan that allows you to see the visual defects on a book will identify overgraded books, but won't help to identify possible undergraded books.  Who knows, the graders might have also made errors the other way and there might also be a number of undergraded books in the collection, although I would probably be laughed at for thinking this based upon the current reputation of the collection.  

The sad part about this whole thing is that the Promise Collection is without a doubt an absolutely amazing and generational collection, and as such, deserved absolute top notch grading from the gang at CGC.  Unfortunately, based upon so many of the overgraded books which we have seen here, they for some unexplained reason failed to do this, and as a result, have seriously damaged or disdained the reputation of a historic pedigree collection going forward.  

If a book can't be graded from a scan then this thread should stop, but that's not the case.  That's true in some cases, and not in others.  Just like some Promise books were overgraded and some were undergraded.  Both things can be true, but no universal rule applies.