Giant Size X-Men #1 Just Graded 9.9. It Begins..... 6 6

[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

[NewWorldOrder]

On 6/8/2024 at 7:00 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.” 

Well then why don't you test that theory.

Send in a random assortment of CGC 9.8's (maybe a min of 25) and see how many CGC 9.9's or 10.0's you now get.

The results I would imagine would probably be zero.

I am up to one CGC 9.9 so far this year out of 700+ books submitted with mostly an emphasis of the comics being in high grade that were submitted. 

So when as a CGC Dealer do I get to see my uptick from what you said that I highlighted in bold above?

[NewWorldOrder]

On 6/10/2024 at 6:20 PM, Poekaymon said:

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

I am sure the hobby will get over that in time.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 6/7/2024 at 10:58 PM, Tony S said:

There are certainly people like what you describe. But there is another reason. There are many in the hobby that have little in the way of grading skills. They can't "buy the book not the label" because they lack the experience to see defects and assess their likely impact on the grade of the book. And restoration. It's easy for experienced collectors to miss small amounts of professional restoration and tiny amounts of amateur. 

So for a good number of newbies and amateurs - "buy the book not the label" really should not be a thing. New collectors or legally blind collectors or just lacking enough experience collectors should be able to count on professional grading and encapsulation is an equalizer. What's on the label is what it is. 

True, but some are acting as if CGC is misgrading all books now.  Point being from what you detailed above CGC is still is safest place for the novice collector or someone who can't grade to safely buy books from.  The average collector is still better off buying CGC graded books over rolling the dice with buying raw comics from random LCS's, dealers and other collectors when they have no inherit grading skills to fall back on.

In my opinion being a professional grader comes in handy the most for the books you don't buy versus the ones you do. I would encourage anyone who is a long-term back issue collector to make it a point to try to learn at least the basics of grading.

Edited June 12 by NewWorldOrder

[Kevin76]

I've been submitting books to CGC since 2000, I've gotten 4 9.9s in that time. 0 10s  

Harley Quinn 1 (2000)

Origins 1

Batman The Damed 1 - both covers  

People think 9.9s are going to become the new 9.8, and that 9.8s will tank in price are beyond delusional.  Most 9.9s that get graded are post 2000-now