Giant Size X-Men #1 Just Graded 9.9. It Begins..... 7 7

[Vince G]

On 6/5/2024 at 4:05 PM, LordRahl said:

Nothing interesting about it. Gift grades have been happening for the entire 20+ year existence of CGC. It is not anything new in any way, shape or form. Also, Hulk 181 is not copper, copper in particular is what I called out as a category that CGC is harsh on currently.

Noted.  However, this isn’t the only gift grade in bronze we’ve seen recently.

[LordRahl]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:37 PM, Vince G said:

Noted.  However, this isn’t the only gift grade in bronze we’ve seen recently.

Oh I know. I posted a Superman 233 in the overgraded thread that is in a 9.6 holder but doesn't look any better than an 8.5. I haven't been submitting enough bronzer and silver lately to have an informed opinion on how they are grading those ages of books, copper however is getting hammered pretty regularly. Maybe they are in a "soft" grading period. Over the years people here have opined that they do that. Based on my experience, I don't think it's that but rather inconsistency between their graders. No way of verifying either way but gift grades have always been a thing.

[wiparker824]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:35 PM, LordRahl said:

You say that as if semantics aren't important. They are, especially in the context of what we're discussing here, which is what is in that statement by CGC and how more 9.9/10s changes it. I'm saying that statement as written has not changed even if CGC will now give out 9.9/10s more often. Of every 10 uber high grade books graded, not just moderns but all eras since moderns aren't the only books being graded, I'm betting that on average no more than 2 will grade out 9.9/10 and the other 8 will still be 9.8. That is in line with the statement that "9.8 is typically the best grade you can get". I actually think the percentage will be much lower but I do concede that it could be 20% on moderns. On bronze and below, where I believe that even with this change, it will be less than 1% that get above a 9.8, 9.8 will most definitely be the highest grade you can typically expect.

Semantics aren’t really important, not to the point I was getting at. It’s pretty clear the implication of that article was that 9.8 was the highest grade one should ever expect, and detailed how to look for 9.8 copies in your collection because pretty much since CGC’s inception it’s been well known by collectors that a 9.8 was the top and that 9.9 and 10.0 were magical unicorns most of us would never see on a non-cardstock submission. That article doesn’t get written that way in an era where 20% of moderns (by your estimate) are hitting 9.9. And definitely doesn’t get written that way in an era where there is a 9.9 prescreen. If you believe it still does, because of “semantics” making it still technically a true statement I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[Tony S]

On 6/4/2024 at 9:56 PM, LordRahl said:

I've said it multiple times on this board over the years that CGC artificially holds back 9.9s and 10s. The only responses I got were "take your tinfoil hat off" nonsense. Now everyone is up in arms about it

You and others that are very concerned with these 9.9/10 grades all of a sudden coming out (which they should have been all along) are blaming the wrong people. You seem to think CGC is creating this market. They are not. Collectors are. You have a problem with it? Blame all of us that create the market. We are the problem. CGC is doing what any other rational for profit business would do, they see a market and they cater to it in order to make money. 

I'm sure this wasn't some evil genius plan that was a 25 year plan by Borock when he helped found CGC all those years ago. It's something that probably evolved over time. But it most definitely started back then as they have always held back those grades.

 

On 6/4/2024 at 10:24 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Back when Matt Nelson ran his own comic pressing and restoration business - Classics Incorporated - he had an article on the website that demonstrated mathematically how there should have been more 9.9's and 10's in the CGC census. The article was quite convincing. The moment CGC purchased the business and renamed it CCS, that article went poof - even though the Classics Inc website stayed active for a time. 

I think Matt was right then.  Maybe Matt still feels the same way - and as President can now do something about it.  This basically started with the infamous interview about "how is there is not a single 9.9 or 10 on a book like Ultimate Fallout ". Matt's answer was along the lines of maybe they were to focused on 9.8 and were not looking.  So lets go over those numbers. Between the 1st and 2nd printings and the variant covers of each, CGC has certified over 8,500 copies of UF 4 at 9.8 (published 2011)  and not one single book at a MINT grade of 9.9 or 10. That seems pretty darn unlikely. 

So yeah - I too have said here on this forum before that there ought to be more 9.9 and 10's. Especially of real "modern" books - say published the last 25 years. Better printing, better paper. 

On 6/5/2024 at 9:07 AM, october said:

How they choose to format their grading standards is not nearly as important as the consistent application of those standards. This change fails that test. 

100% agree on consistency being the most important quality of grading. But if something has been done consistently wrong, it needs to be fixed. Books should get the grades they deserve. Or as Steve Borock has always said, give the book the highest grade that is not wrong.  CGC has arguably not been doing that. Despite the existence of the grades of  9.9 and 10, those two  grades were more like winning lottery tickets. 

The change may be disruptive and it may generate more submissions to CGC  But that doesn't mean it should not happen. Or I suppose we could do away with 9.9 and 10 and say the ones that exist were mistakes never to be made again.  

Edited June 6 by Tony S

[newshane]

I disagree with the notion that CGC is holding back mints and gems. 

They really are that difficult to find. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:15 PM, newshane said:

I disagree with the notion that CGC is holding back mints and gems. 

They really are that difficult to find. 

I sympathize with the thought that even graders at CGC didn't have a list criteria of every book in 9.9&10 and just marked it 9.8.

I also am of the belief that the lottery ticket of 9.9&10 grade is also a myth just to label why it has been so seldom.

Here is my opinion. Not too much wrong with this book qualifies for 9.8, and is not printed like last ronin on hard stock and doesn't warrant being scrutinized for 9.9&10.

Then through whatever venue, "really guys? Cgc graded all these books and not any 9.9&10? Wth ....  then they scrutinized for a little bit because it felt warranted and found no secure candidates and resumed their old ways UNTIL ALL THE SCENARIOS START REPEATING and they DO find a candidate.

Not doing their job, being lazy or for whatever the reason as it comes across?

I don't think they had a "plot to only let a few out!" Just that when they looked enough, stopped looking due to no winners, and eventually ran it through scenarios until once in that process they found a winner.

That's in my opinion or what I got from this post

On 6/5/2024 at 8:51 PM, Tony S said:

 

Back when Matt Nelson ran his own comic pressing and restoration business - Classics Incorporated - he had an article on the website that demonstrated mathematically how there should have been more 9.9's and 10's in the CGC census. The article was quite convincing. The moment CGC purchased the business and renamed it CCS, that article went poof - even though the Classics Inc website stayed active for a time. 

I think Matt was right then.  Maybe Matt still feels the same way - and as President can now do something about it.  This basically started with the infamous interview about "how is there is not a single 9.9 or 10 on a book like Ultimate Fallout ". Matt's answer was along the lines of maybe they were to focused on 9.8 and were not looking.  So lets go over those numbers. Between the 1st and 2nd printings and the variant covers of each, CGC has certified over 8,500 copies of UF 4 at 9.8 (published 2011)  and not one single book at a MINT grade of 9.9 or 10. That seems pretty darn unlikely. 

So yeah - I too have said here on this forum before that there ought to be more 9.9 and 10's. Especially of real "modern" books - say published the last 25 years. Better printing, better paper. 

100% agree on consistency being the most important quality of grading. But if something has been done consistently wrong, it needs to be fixed. Books should get the grades they deserve. Or as Steve Borock has always said, give the book the highest grade that is not wrong.  CGC has arguably not been doing that. Despite the existence of the grades of  9.9 and 10, those two  grades were more like winning lottery tickets. 

The change may be disruptive and it may generate more submissions to CGC  But that doesn't mean it should not happen. Or I suppose we could do away with 9.9 and 10 and say the ones that exist were mistakes never to be made again.  

 

Edited June 6 by ADAMANTIUM

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 6/5/2024 at 7:15 PM, newshane said:

I disagree with the notion that CGC is holding back mints and gems. 

They really are that difficult to find. 

On 6/5/2024 at 6:51 PM, Tony S said:

CGC has certified over 8,500 copies of UF 4 at 9.8 (published 2011)  and not one single book at a MINT grade of 9.9 or 10. That seems pretty darn unlikely. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:25 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I sympathize with the thought that even graders at CGC didn't have a list criteria of every book in 9.9&10 and just marked it 9.8.

I also am of the belief that the lottery ticket of 9.9&10 grade is also a myth just to label why it has been so seldom.

Here is my opinion. Not too much wrong with this book qualifies for 9.8, and is not printed like last ronin on hard stock and doesn't warrant being scrutinized for 9.9&10.

Then through whatever venue, "really guys? Cgc graded all these books and not any 9.9&10? Wth ....  then they scrutinized for a little bit because it felt warranted and found no secure candidates and resumed their old ways UNTIL ALL THE SCENARIOS START REPEATING and they DO find a candidate.

Not doing their job, being lazy or for whatever the reason as it comes across?

I don't think they had a "plot to only let a few out!" Just that when they looked enough, stopped looking due to no winners, and eventually ran it through scenarios until once in that process they found a winner.

That's in my opinion or what I got from this post

 

I also say all this full well knowing that every ten and nine points nine almost makes the news and is scrutinized.

In a way the rare makes that POSSIBLE.

If no longer "rare" that goes out the window, and that subtly will cause decline if anything else imo

[LordRahl]

On 6/5/2024 at 6:51 PM, Tony S said:

 

Back when Matt Nelson ran his own comic pressing and restoration business - Classics Incorporated - he had an article on the website that demonstrated mathematically how there should have been more 9.9's and 10's in the CGC census. The article was quite convincing. The moment CGC purchased the business and renamed it CCS, that article went poof - even though the Classics Inc website stayed active for a time. 

I think Matt was right then.  Maybe Matt still feels the same way - and as President can now do something about it.  This basically started with the infamous interview about "how is there is not a single 9.9 or 10 on a book like Ultimate Fallout ". Matt's answer was along the lines of maybe they were to focused on 9.8 and were not looking.  So lets go over those numbers. Between the 1st and 2nd printings and the variant covers of each, CGC has certified over 8,500 copies of UF 4 at 9.8 (published 2011)  and not one single book at a MINT grade of 9.9 or 10. That seems pretty darn unlikely. 

So yeah - I too have said here on this forum before that there ought to be more 9.9 and 10's. Especially of real "modern" books - say published the last 25 years. Better printing, better paper. 

100% agree on consistency being the most important quality of grading. But if something has been done consistently wrong, it needs to be fixed. Books should get the grades they deserve. Or as Steve Borock has always said, give the book the highest grade that is not wrong.  CGC has arguably not been doing that. Despite the existence of the grades of  9.9 and 10, those two  grades were more like winning lottery tickets. 

The change may be disruptive and it may generate more submissions to CGC  But that doesn't mean it should not happen. Or I suppose we could do away with 9.9 and 10 and say the ones that exist were mistakes never to be made again.  

This is so spot on, I'm going to repost it every time someone says this change shouldn't happen, with your permission.

[Tony S]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:46 PM, LordRahl said:

This is so spot on, I'm going to repost it every time someone says this change shouldn't happen, with your permission.

Sure. Post away 

[wombat]

All I know is if I was contemplating a 9.9 prescreen service I would be giving people a reason to use it. 

[Tony S]

On 6/5/2024 at 10:43 PM, wombat said:

All I know is if I was contemplating a 9.9 prescreen service I would be giving people a reason to use it. 

That is a profound observation. 

Edited June 6 by Tony S

[DC#]

Interesting conclusion drawn from watching weekly census results of Star Wars #1.   It was inferred that someone dropped a big load of 9.8/9.6 SW #1s hoping to get one elusive 9.9 back - the first in the census. 

If that is what went down - the fact that none achieved the higher grade starts to support what Matt said in the Swagglehaus interview that noT all books have the same likelihood  of hidden 9.9s within the ranks of the lowly 9.8s.   
 

 

[vheflin]

I wonder how deep the 9.9 market is, that is, will they still get monstrous 25x multiples over 9.8s if they aren't so exclusive?

[joeypost]

On 6/5/2024 at 11:43 PM, wombat said:

All I know is if I was contemplating a 9.9 prescreen service I would be giving people a reason to use it. 

Like the fast track option?

[october]

I love that some people think that the hundreds of thousands of nearly identical modern books submitted every year are closely scrutinized and carefully parsed between 9.8/9.9/10 as per the grading standards for each. Come on. These guys spend 2 seconds looking at these books, self-evident from the amount of stuff missed.

I do agree that these grades shouldn't have existed in the first place.

[vheflin]

On 6/6/2024 at 8:50 AM, october said:

I love that some people think that the hundreds of thousands of nearly identical modern books submitted every year are closely scrutinized and carefully parsed between 9.8/9.9/10 as per the grading standards for each. Come on. These guys spend 2 seconds looking at these books, self-evident from the amount of stuff missed.

I do agree that these grades shouldn't have existed in the first place.

and hence why no grader notes in said grades. . .

[Microchip]

A solid start of $36k with just over three weeks to go.

The census population today is that this book is alone in the top spot.   The obvious question is what the population will look like this time next year, and the year after.    

The stoppage on 9.9's in now removed, and the top grading band is now going to be expended from 9.4 - 9.8 to 9.4 - 9.9.    

We've spent the last two decades pointing out the that grading on 9.4's, 9.6's, and 9.8's is inconsistent, and now another tier of grading is added into the mix.   Well it ensures an endless stream of threads on grading for the next two decades as well

 

 

[mattn792]

Hey, it’s perfect according to the Quietly Exploiting Suckers criteria, how can you go wrong?

[Microchip]

On 6/7/2024 at 9:58 AM, mattn792 said:

Hey, it’s perfect according to the Quietly Exploiting Suckers criteria, how can you go wrong?

The adage "buy the book, not the grade" applies to 9.9 shopping as well.    There's chin scratchers at every grade.

Edited June 7 by Microchip