Gold And Silver age books Graded with different standards than Modern books?

[Ares]

Considering Age and Natural deterioration are Gold and Silver age books graded differently than modern?

 

Is a Spine stress mark in a Golden age book treated differently than a Modern age book where it would be cause for concern and not a magic 10.0?

 

 

[OldGuy]

For a partial (and "official") answer to your question you can start by reading the back of a CGC label. The short answer is "yes" they are graded differently.

[Ares]

I have not submitted or bought a CGC book yet so I have nothing to read.

[garthgantu]

Brian or another board regular, can you post a scan of the back of the CGC label?

 

It's pretty apparent to me, just from looking at a fair number of slabbed books (some of which I sent in for slabbing, some of which I got already slabbed), that there's a definite discrepancy in this regard. Golden Age books are simply view far more kindly/forgivingly by CGC.

 

I think this is in part due to the evolution of the materials involved over many decades. Would a NM 9.4 copy of Action #1 have "cover gloss" as we know it today? I don't think it EVER had cover gloss, at least not what we think of as cover gloss on a newer (say, 1950's and up) comic.

 

Not faulting CGC here - they going with what they have to work with - but it certainly makes it hard to predict the grade that a given GA comic will receive from CGC.

 

Garthgantu

[OldGuy]

If someone hasen't posted one first, I'll post one when I get home.

[OldGuy]

Here ya go.

 

[Ares]

HOLY GIANT FREEKING IMAGE BATMAN

[garthgantu]

Apologies if I'm being dense here, but I don't see anything in the wording of that CGC label re: a difference in grading that is or might be applied to different eras/ages of comics...?

I mean it says "our grading, like everyone else's, is ultimately subjective," but it doesn't go any further...

 

I've heard many references to the idea that CGC may grade more leniently with respect to GA books, and I've certainly seen examples that appear to bear this out. But is it actually in writing?

[ninanina]

All people have is their own personal experiences to fall back on. I don't think CGC has made anything official about the difference in grading among the ages, at least nothing I've heard about.

 

Anybody else?

[greggy]

As I have only had 1 modern lot along with a ton of economy and standard lots, I can say that I believe that they graded my moderns tougher than my pre-1975 books. Mind you, my moderns were books in the 1975 era and not the more recent ones. It may have to do with who's finalizing the moderns as compared to the pre-1975 books.

[PovertyRow]

HOLY GIANT FREEKING IMAGE BATMAN

 

No - you mean "HOLY GIANT FREEKING IMAGE BATMAN RTHAT FORCES EVERYONE ELSE AFTER THAT POST TO HAVE TO KEEP SCROLLING LEFT/RIGHT TO READ THE TEXT!

 

 

Methinks the point could easily be made with a scan that did not muck up the display!

 

[fantastic_four]

All people have is their own personal experiences to fall back on. I don't think CGC has made anything official about the difference in grading among the ages, at least nothing I've heard about.

 

Anybody else?

 

With regards to restoration, yes, but with regards to downgrading for defects, not that I've seen. It would some sense to me that Golden Age would be graded differently due to the following differences in their production:

 

• Paper quality is worse
• Cover gloss is less, and some Golden Age comics never had any gloss
• The total paper area of a Golden Age book is larger. Moderns are approximately 6 and 5/8" by 10 and 1/8", whereas Golden Age varies more widely but can be as big as approximately 8" by 10.5". Taking those measurements, Modern Age comics have a surface area of approximately 67" and Golden Agers have a surface area of appoximately 84". That means Golden Age comics can be 25% bigger than Modern comics. If the total surface area of a Golden Age comic is larger, wouldn't that infer that a 1/8" crease would cover less of that area than the same 1/8" crease on a Modern age comic?

I guess Golden Age comics were also cut, stacked, shipped, and handled much more roughly, but all that shouldn't matter.

[hammer-migration]

In going through your typically uncalled for great lengths in defending CGC's honor, did you actually think about what you're saying? Tell me and everyone else here, in all honesty, that Mile High Golden Age DCs graded 9.4 and 9.6 don't look every bit as sharp and eye-appealing as most Silver age books graded similarly. How about the Gaines file copy ECs graded 9.6 and 9.8?? You can discern an appreciable difference in condition and paper quality of those versus early 60's Marvels in simialr grade?? What about the Action 1 from the WhiteRose collection graded 5.0 or 5.5? THAT book looked as good as ANY Silver age Marvel or DC I've seen graded 6.0 to 6.5. You don't agree?

[joe_collector]

Don't worry about FF, as I'm starting to think he's one of those "silent partners" in the CGC Empire.

 

No one else could possibly believe this tripe.

[garthgantu]

Okay, I'm due for some abuse on these boards anyway... I'll agree with FF on this one. I've seen many CGCed GA books graded 8.0 to 9.6 and even a few that were higher, and in many cases I felt the books were getting the benefit of the doubt because they were 55 - 60+ years old...not ALL cases, mind you - there are certainly some books from the Church Collection (why does Mile High get the credit for ol' Edgar's wonderful feat? He did all the work, all Rosanski did was get lucky) that are marvels to behold. But even those don't truly have the same sort of gloss - or even color brightness - that a NEW comic has. Yet CGC is grading a comic printed yesterday with (supposedly) the same standards as one printed 65 years ago? I don't buy it.

 

You can have a 1943 book that grades out at 9.4 with a significantly more flaws than a 2003 book can have in the same grade...

 

Garthgantu