Giant Size X-Men #1 Just Graded 9.9. It Begins..... 8 8

[Chip Cataldo]

.

Edited June 8 by Chip Cataldo

[Iconic1s]

I think the whole “buy the book, not the label” argument is really pointless at this point.

CGC is supposed to be the “most trusted” third party grader… yet you can’t trust the label!  The label is supposed to be the whole point (of paying for grading) because YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO TRUST IT!

The book can be “bought” without the label, why have to make an excuse for inconsistent grading by reminding collectors to not “buy the label?”  Some defects may be more or less desirable to individual collectors but the grade from these guys is supposed to be undisputed.

CGC has become more and more hopeless the past few years.  I (and many others) have spent years searching for books in the right grade… now we see, through CGC’s actions, that their grading criteria / philosophy can be changed at their discretion.  It would be different if a book comes along that is truly that remarkable specimen that hits that 9.9 / 10 grade and blows everyone’s minds.  But what is actually happening is they loosened their grading to start making 9.9 the new 9.8. 

Instead of getting  off we remind each other to “ buy the book.” 

[Vince G]

On 6/8/2024 at 10:00 PM, Iconic1s said:

I think the whole “buy the book, not the label” argument is really pointless at this point.

CGC is supposed to be the “most trusted” third party grader… yet you can’t trust the label!  The label is supposed to be the whole point (of paying for grading) because YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO TRUST IT!

The book can be “bought” without the label, why have to make an excuse for inconsistent grading by reminding collectors to not “buy the label?”  Some defects may be more or less desirable to individual collectors but the grade from these guys is supposed to be undisputed.

CGC has become more and more hopeless the past few years.  I (and many others) have spent years searching for books in the right grade… now we see, through CGC’s actions, that their grading criteria / philosophy can be changed at their discretion.  It would be different if a book comes along that is truly that remarkable specimen that hits that 9.9 / 10 grade and blows everyone’s minds.  But what is actually happening is they loosened their grading to start making 9.9 the new 9.8. 

Instead of getting  off we remind each other to “ buy the book.” 

Changing the grading criteria is really the issue here.  The trusted authority slides the scale at their own discretion.  I can’t see how this isn’t going to be a huge problem.

[Iconic1s]

On 6/8/2024 at 9:22 PM, Vince G said:

Changing the grading criteria is really the issue here.  The trusted authority slides the scale at their own discretion.  I can’t see how this isn’t going to be a huge problem.

I don’t think it’s fair to the collecting community for them to slide the scale when they are over 10 million books into it though.

This means it took them over 10 million tries to realize they weren’t applying their own scale properly and uniformly?

We pay the price for this inconsistency one way or another, not CGC.

They have been given too much power to do whatever they want which is troubling when their actions directly affect all of our collections, and our pocketbooks.  They have so obviously and suddenly slid their scale to make more 9.9’s and also made such a big deal about it that it’s kind of a joke.  ESPECIALLY when there IS NOT much agreement that the 9.9’s that are popping up are actually of that condition (hence the old “buy the book” adage).  They are making 9.9’s now just because they can… oh, and while also telling us they probably misgraded a ton of 9.8’s over the years that are “probably” 9.9’s?!  What kind of thing is that for this “authority” to say?!   Basically, I’ve been hosing you for two decades, you’re welcome 

The ship sailed a few million books ago… CGC really should have stuck to what worked (more or less) the past 24 years instead of playing around with this idea now.  If this truly is just it should have been applied since day one, not now when literally millions of books have been graded and bought and sold tens of millions of times.

- Why do they do it?  It’s money for them… (and because we let them)

- What’s it means for us?  (Maybe) chasing 9.9 LABELS (that may or may not actually be 9.9’) to keep that “highest graded” book in your collection…

You really just can’t trust them anymore.

It’s all really kind of dumb and I can only speak for myself but I used to REALLY love chasing CGC graded books and submitting myself, but now I’m just kinda tired of being played for a fool. 

 

[Iconic1s]

Except NOT since 2000… more like 2024, or whenever else we decide to change things up on you.

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

The 9.9 and/or 10 chase, perhaps easier said than done.

I chased the 9.8 for several titles. Now I only chase it for Detective Comics 400 to 500 and Batman 200 to 300, if I'm willing to pay the price like many, perhaps most collectors. I paid objectively high prices for too long. I have been unwilling to do so for several years now. This is the way I collect, it is none of my business how others do so.

Are all the 9.8s I own, actually 9.8? Not even close.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 6/9/2024 at 4:16 AM, Tec-Tac-Toe said:

Are all the 9.8s I own, actually 9.8? Not even close.

 

[alexgross.com]

every month i look at CL auctions and see more high grade books with a pinched corner, usually the bottom right one. these books are often 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8 copies. how can you start giving more 9.8s if you can't even make a case that will keep it that way?

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:36 AM, alexgross.com said:

every month i look at CL auctions and see more high grade books with a pinched corner, usually the bottom right one. these books are often 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8 copies. how can you start giving more 9.8s if you can't even make a case that will keep it that way?

Based on my relatively small sample size, I have seen quite a few, for example, second generation holder books that did not suffer SCS that are not 9.8, I own a few (wish I did not), despite what CGC "said". Granted, I am basing my grading solely on the covers but if the cover looks somewhat crappy, the interior may be pristine but, I argue, a 9.8 was not warranted. Of course, "grading is an art," subjective, etc.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Graded last month; the first 9.9 for this book.  Link to auction

Edited June 10 by BlowUpTheMoon
greggy is a dork

[DC#]

On 6/10/2024 at 10:54 AM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Graded last month; the first 9.9 for this book.  Link to auction

 

[Poekaymon]

On 6/10/2024 at 3:41 PM, DC# said:

 

I can't respect any 9.9 with a white spine.

[wiparker824]

https://goldin.co/item/dec-2022-sports-illustrated-kylian-mbappe-newsstand-edition-world-cup17ide

“For 15 years, all the way from 2009 through February 2024, CGC graded over 27,000 total copies of Sports Illustrated and NEVER, not even once, gave out any grade higher than 9.8.”

Quote is from Goldin listing. I’m not as familiar with the magazine side of things but this seems even more rare than the modern comic 9.9’s if that line from Goldin is accurate. 

[Wall-Crawler]

I have no idea if it has been discussed, but personally,  I find the whole concept of a 9.9, to be ridiculous.

Why not have a grading scale that goes 9.6, 9.8, 10? How can any one "trust" that level of minutia to be applied consistently, between a 9.8 and even a 9.9 much less a 9.9 and a 10? Sure you would have some "soft" 10's, like any other grade, but then they could still be rare with clearer parameters. I have several 9.8's, especially modern ones with thicker card stock covers, and when I looked at several of them, I am like, how is this NOT a 9.9 or 10, even when looking at the guide.

This is not sour grapes, just honestly, if it is NOT a 10, it should have notes, but notes are a whole other matter.

Until robots / AI completely take over grading, maybe we should leave the .1 scale difference off the table .

 over

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 6/10/2024 at 7:05 PM, Wall-Crawler said:

I have no idea if it has been discussed, but personally,  I find the whole concept of a 9.9, to be ridiculous.

Why not have a grading scale that goes 9.6, 9.8, 10? How can any one "trust" that level of minutia to be applied consistently, between a 9.8 and even a 9.9 much less a 9.9 and a 10? Sure you would have some "soft" 10's, like any other grade, but then they could still be rare with clearer parameters. I have several 9.8's, especially modern ones with thicker card stock covers, and when I looked at several of them, I am like, how is this NOT a 9.9 or 10, even when looking at the guide.

This is not sour grapes, just honestly, if it is NOT a 10, it should have notes, but notes are a whole other matter.

Until robots / AI completely take over grading, maybe we should leave the .1 scale difference off the table .

 over

 

 

 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 6/10/2024 at 10:16 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

+☆

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

On 6/10/2024 at 3:41 PM, DC# said:

 

I have many CGC 9.8 books with the white landing strip. However, you can land a 747 on the #97 landing strip.

[DC#]

On 6/11/2024 at 2:50 AM, Tec-Tac-Toe said:

I have many CGC 9.8 books with the white landing strip. However, you can land a 747 on the #97 landing strip.

My opinion and a dollar bill still won't get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds - but the landing strip doesn't bump me on a 9.8.    However it feels strange that a miswrap, especially a very wide landing strip, could be called Mint.    Maybe if it were a very narrow, uniform strip like the DD131 below I could see it OK for a 9.9 - and to achieve a 10 it would be perfect.   But the width of the stip on the #97 just feels like a significant enough flaw to not be considered Mint.    

If you didn't know the grade and just looked at the pics below - which would you guess was 9.8 vs 9.9?

Echoing what others have stated in this thread - the world would probably be a better place if CGC had initially created a more simplified scale that was only full and half points (8.0, 8.5, 9.0. 9.5, 10.0, etc).   But then again....what would we all have to talk about?  

 

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

On 6/11/2024 at 11:28 AM, DC# said:

My opinion and a dollar bill still won't get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds - but the landing strip doesn't bump me on a 9.8.    However it feels strange that a miswrap, especially a very wide landing strip, could be called Mint.    Maybe if it were a very narrow, uniform strip like the DD131 below I could see it OK for a 9.9 - and to achieve a 10 it would be perfect.   But the width of the stip on the #97 just feels like a significant enough flaw to not be considered Mint.    

If you didn't know the grade and just looked at the pics below - which would you guess was 9.8 vs 9.9?

Echoing what others have stated in this thread - the world would probably be a better place if CGC had initially created a more simplified scale that was only full and half points (8.0, 8.5, 9.0. 9.5, 10.0, etc).   But then again....what would we all have to talk about?  

 

"...But the landing strip doesn't bump me on a 9.8." As you note, not all landing strips are equal. I have seen some 9.8s, and I'm certain you have as well, with such a wide landing strip that they, arguably, look awful-wider than the #97. I avoided those as much as I was able, and replace them as I can. I also have some books with the slanted landing strip that, generally, don't look terrible but also try to replace them if possible.

Replacing has, unfortunately, reached a $ for some books that I'm not willing to pay, preferring to keep the money in the bank.

This is the way I collect comic books (or not, $, ).

As concerns, "If you didn't know the grade and just looked at the pics below - which would you guess was 9.8 vs 9.9?", yes, front cover wise I much prefer the DD 131.

As concerns CGC's grading scale, if I correctly recall, it was borrowed from Stephen Fishler, Metropolis, who, I'll say, created the 0.5 to 10 point grading scale. If this is incorrect, another board member may have a clearer understanding. Lastly, when I purchased comic books as other board members did in, for example 1970s and, that I recall, at least through the 1990s, there were no numerical grades, it was VG, VF, etc., with the top grade being NM. Of course, unless you knew how to grade, a "NM" could range from, for example, VF- to VF/NM. Ahh, those were the days.

"You want $40 because it is NM? It's FF 48, who else would want it?"

Edited June 11 by Tec-Tac-Toe
Add "B" to "But ..." becaue CGC does not like [B].

[Wall-Crawler]

On 6/10/2024 at 11:16 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

LOL, yes, I know. 

I just started dabbling in TCGs and CGC Cards uses a .5 grading scale  EXCEPT they have a Gem Mint 10 and then the PRISTINE 10, which is also weird to me, you can have a more perfect perfect?

...And yes, I know they say they partly determine that under 10× magnification... 

But if the naked eye can't see it...? Maybe comics for a  9.9 or 10 should undergo a magnification test? 

Anyway, fun for us to debate and talk about!

Edited June 11 by Wall-Crawler