How can these books be just 0.5 grade apart? 1 1

[Tokyojoe90]

On 8/28/2024 at 5:44 AM, TC33 said:

The dealer I used (comicpresser) seemed to think we were screwed and we just had to take the loss from the damage CGC caused?  I know he takes abundant before and after photos, so that should not have been an issue if CGC really covers their damage from handling?  The spine split from top staple to the very top of the book on a TOD 10 was undisclosed and I only noticed it after 6 months of deciding to crack it back open to see why the grade dropped instead of going way up.  I don't think my before shipping front cover pics show how the spine was perfectly intact before shipping, so I know I am screwed on that one. You would think graders would disclose this and be honest when they cause major damage like that and not hide it from the comic owner and their bosses, but apparently not based on my experiences and multiple others I have heard about.    

I feel your pain but I think this should have it's own thread as it doesn't have much to do with my original post unless you mean that you think CGC added the finger bends themselves during that missing year?

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/27/2024 at 1:15 PM, TC33 said:

I have cracked undergraded 4.0's, pressed many defects that make it look like a 6.0 and still gotten it back as a 3.5!  It all depends on who is grading.  I just got back a 3.0 grade on a book that looks 10X nicer than this ASM 50 book with literally no defects to mention, just minor wear, a couple very light corner creases (less than this one). Just sent it to a certified CGC dealer and he totally agreed with me! I think CGC likes the re-grading fees so they give out insanely low grades knowing we have to resubmit? There is some grader there at CGC that needs to be fired for grading books so far below everyone else it's embarrassing and destroying their reputation! I wonder if it's the same guy that is also destroying books in the grading process!  I have had perfectly fine/intact books come back with the entire spine split down to the top staple after their handling.  Another Avengers 4 8.5 I had a dealer resubmit that had a note to be very careful with the bottom staple that was a little soft.  They decided to look & handle it there extra hard after that note and popped the staple!  Now I have a 5.5 with a detached lower staple and CGC takes NO RESPONSIBILITY!  IF the major card grading company out there damages a card, they cover the damage and make restitution!  How the hell does CGC get away with destroying our books and causing thousands of dollars of damage to them with absolutely no restitution or sorry note or anything!  Seems like they should be insured for damage caused like this and it be a bare minimum to do so for even the most basic customer service! 

Crazy, I've been submitting to CGC/CCS for about a decade and have never had any issues like this. Post a photo of the 3.0 that looks "10X nicer", would love to see it.

[TC33]

I would take this JIM 85 all day over this ASM 50, shows far far nicer in every way and got screwed massively with a far lower grade at 3.0 by some CGC grader that needs to go back to remedial grading school or need to be fired for screwing over collectors with grossly under-graded books!  The authorized CGC presser/dealer was skeptical that something must be wrong with it you couldn't see from the scans, but he opened it and fully agreed with me it was easily a CGC 4.5 at a bare minimum by everything he has seen graded and he has sent in many thousands of books. I had thought it was likely a 5.0 and 4.5 at the low end on some tight graders bad day, but I guess they must have really been having a bad day for a 3.0!  No spline splits, fully attached at both staples, shows like a mid grade champ and it got a lousy 3.0! 

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 1:32 AM, TC33 said:

I would take this JIM 85 all day over this ASM 50, shows far far nicer in every way and got screwed massively with a far lower grade at 3.0 by some CGC grader that needs to go back to remedial grading school or need to be fired for screwing over collectors with grossly under-graded books!  The authorized CGC presser/dealer was skeptical that something must be wrong with it you couldn't see from the scans, but he opened it and fully agreed with me it was easily a CGC 4.5 at a bare minimum by everything he has seen graded and he has sent in many thousands of books. I had thought it was likely a 5.0 and 4.5 at the low end on some tight graders bad day, but I guess they must have really been having a bad day for a 3.0!  No spline splits, fully attached at both staples, shows like a mid grade champ and it got a lousy 3.0! 

So I assume this got a 3.0 because of the light staining, coupled with the small chip missing, and the moderate creasing and stress marks CGC denotes. Interestingly they didn’t notate the stains, but they don’t always list everything, although that is a pretty common thing to mention in the grader notes. I’m surprised your authorized CGC presser/dealer missed that who’s sent in thousands of books. At least I appear to see a couple stains, for sure a light circular stain on the top.

[Dick Pontoon]

That book also has a sub crease.

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:03 AM, dick pontoon said:

That book also has a sub crease.

Thank you for pointing out, forgot to mention that! Anyway, I get TC33 is clearly an unhappy CGC customer with a bit of an anti CGC agenda, which is fine by the way. If that's his feelings every right to them. But let's not keep hijacking the OP's thread. As pointed out, this discussion should be it's own separate thread. Personally I'm not super far off on this supposed amazing 3.0 though, and think a 3.5 could have been justified, but definitely not a 4.5-5.0.

Edited August 28 by LDarkseid1

[TC33]

On 8/28/2024 at 9:03 AM, dick pontoon said:

That book also has a sub crease.

An extremely light sub crease like this is still allowed in 5.5/5.0 books per dozens of similar copies I have had graded and is also noted as allowed in those grades per the CGC grading guide.  Note, I have a championship and the all time record for best ever performance in the CGC grading competition, so I am not some new collector clueless about grading or defects.  The JIM 85 presents like a 5.0, but absolutely no defects in this book should ever drop it below 4.5 at the very worst.  I actually meant to post this on another message where a collector was complaining about a 4.5 grade on his ASM 50 that presented worse than this book, so my mistake for posting here.  However to bring it back on track with this post, I would also take this JIM 85 over that 5.0 WOW 31 with the massive water damage/staining through the whole bottom of the book and pieces out at the back.  CGC usually hits heavy water damage like that a bit harsher than 5.0 even when the rest of the book is nice, but it likely got a GA bump AND caught a friendly grader on a good day?  The Wow 5.5 is immaculate though, I would take that book or any book like that at 5.5 any day.  Huge bump potential with a press!  

If I sound a bit pissed, I have had several really bad grading experiences recently and this one just came back with this massive miss.  To add insult to injury, the micro chip at the top back of this JIM 85 was only a micro tear/bend and the grader also caused that damage on after being too aggressive with it, so I am disappointed on multiple fronts.  In the end, it is still just a micro chip, far bigger ones can be found on 5.5 books, so it's not the end of the world or cause for the big grading miss.  The last CGC grading competition had many books at 5.0+ that presented worse than this JIM 85 and even some with very similar defects.  Attached here is a TOS from the last grading competition for an even more extreme example of the big miss.  This is a 4.0, a full 1.0 grade higher than the bogus JIM 3.0 under grade.  Large spine split, detached lower staple, huge piece out, heavy wear, doesn't hold a candle to my JIM 85 that has no major defects even in the same ball park of these defects. Grading misses happen with so many books being graded by so many different graders with differences of opinion/preference on defects, different experience levels and yes even some having a really bad day or perhaps even being a bit rushed to hit their grading quota for the day.  These misses are part of the cost of doing business with a huge grading company.  From past experience, it will be getting a sizable grade bump on resubmission and with as many books as I send in and the few extreme examples like this that I absolutely have to resubmit, I speak from significant experience.    

 

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:58 AM, TC33 said:

An extremely light sub crease like this is still allowed in 5.5/5.0 books per dozens of similar copies I have had graded and is also noted as allowed in those grades per the CGC grading guide.  Note, I have a championship and the all time record for best ever performance in the CGC grading competition, so I am not some new collector clueless about grading or defects.  The JIM 85 presents like a 5.0, but absolutely no defects in this book should ever drop it below 4.5 at the very worst.  I actually meant to post this on another message where a collector was complaining about a 4.5 grade on his ASM 50 that presented worse than this book, so my mistake for posting here.  However to bring it back on track with this post, I would also take this JIM 85 over that 5.0 WOW 31 with the massive water damage/staining through the whole bottom of the book and pieces out at the back.  CGC usually hits heavy water damage like that a bit harsher than 5.0 even when the rest of the book is nice, but it likely got a GA bump AND caught a friendly grader on a good day?  The Wow 5.5 is immaculate though, I would take that book or any book like that at 5.5 any day.  Huge bump potential with a press!  

If I sound a bit pissed, I have had several really bad grading experiences recently and this one just came back with this massive miss.  To add insult to injury, the micro chip at the top back of this JIM 85 was only a micro tear/bend and the grader also caused that damage on after being too aggressive with it, so I am disappointed on multiple fronts.  In the end, it is still just a micro chip, far bigger ones can be found on 5.5 books, so it's not the end of the world or cause for the big grading miss.  The last CGC grading competition had many books at 5.0+ that presented worse than this JIM 85 and even some with very similar defects.  Attached here is a TOS from the last grading competition for an even more extreme example of the big miss.  This is a 4.0, a full 1.0 grade higher than the bogus JIM 3.0 under grade.  Large spine split, detached lower staple, huge piece out, heavy wear, doesn't hold a candle to my JIM 85 that has no major defects even in the same ball park of these defects. Grading misses happen with so many books being graded by so many different graders with differences of opinion/preference on defects, different experience levels and yes even some having a really bad day or perhaps even being a bit rushed to hit their grading quota for the day.  These misses are part of the cost of doing business with a huge grading company.  From past experience, it will be getting a sizable grade bump on resubmission and with as many books as I send in and the few extreme examples like this that I absolutely have to resubmit, I speak from significant experience.    

 

Yeah we're going to agree to disagree on the books you're posting. The JIM 85 is appropriate at 3.0, you might get a slight bump to 3.5 though. It does present nice though for the grade. I'm sure enough to warrant a CVA sticker. And as far as talking a big game, congrats on the grading championship, I'm sure that means a lot. If you're soo unhappy bud, you know just don't grade. I'm sure you've had numerous great books that have come back and you've been more than happy, but you just seem to want to post some misses and cra* on CGC because it's the taboo thing to do. Soo much negativity, I feel bad for CGC because they provide a great service overall to the collecting community, despite what haters keep bringing up. And 4.0 seems appropriate on the TOS 42, could maybe see a 3.5, but 4.0 seems fine. Once a hijacker always a hijacker.

Edited August 28 by LDarkseid1

[Dick Pontoon]

On 8/28/2024 at 1:58 PM, TC33 said:

On 8/28/2024 at 11:03 AM, dick pontoon said:

That book also has a sub crease.

An extremely light sub crease like this is still allowed in 5.5/5.0 books per dozens of similar copies I have had graded and is also noted as allowed in those grades per the CGC grading guide.  Note, I have a championship and the all time record for best ever performance in the CGC grading competition, so I am not some new collector clueless about grading or defects.  The JIM 85 presents like a 5.0, but absolutely no defects in this book should ever drop it below 4.5 at the very worst.

FWIW, I wasn't disagreeing that the book was graded very strictly if not overly harshly, I just wanted to point out the sub crease since it was fairly obvious to me and not mentioned in the grader notes, adding to the list of defects. Once upon a time, a sub crease meant no better than a 4.0, and over time things got a little looser and 5.0s could have them as well.

[Tokyojoe90]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:58 AM, TC33 said:

An extremely light sub crease like this is still allowed in 5.5/5.0 books per dozens of similar copies I have had graded and is also noted as allowed in those grades per the CGC grading guide.  Note, I have a championship and the all time record for best ever performance in the CGC grading competition, so I am not some new collector clueless about grading or defects.  The JIM 85 presents like a 5.0, but absolutely no defects in this book should ever drop it below 4.5 at the very worst.  I actually meant to post this on another message where a collector was complaining about a 4.5 grade on his ASM 50 that presented worse than this book, so my mistake for posting here.  However to bring it back on track with this post, I would also take this JIM 85 over that 5.0 WOW 31 with the massive water damage/staining through the whole bottom of the book and pieces out at the back.  CGC usually hits heavy water damage like that a bit harsher than 5.0 even when the rest of the book is nice, but it likely got a GA bump AND caught a friendly grader on a good day?  The Wow 5.5 is immaculate though, I would take that book or any book like that at 5.5 any day.  Huge bump potential with a press!  

If I sound a bit pissed, I have had several really bad grading experiences recently and this one just came back with this massive miss.  To add insult to injury, the micro chip at the top back of this JIM 85 was only a micro tear/bend and the grader also caused that damage on after being too aggressive with it, so I am disappointed on multiple fronts.  In the end, it is still just a micro chip, far bigger ones can be found on 5.5 books, so it's not the end of the world or cause for the big grading miss.  The last CGC grading competition had many books at 5.0+ that presented worse than this JIM 85 and even some with very similar defects.  Attached here is a TOS from the last grading competition for an even more extreme example of the big miss.  This is a 4.0, a full 1.0 grade higher than the bogus JIM 3.0 under grade.  Large spine split, detached lower staple, huge piece out, heavy wear, doesn't hold a candle to my JIM 85 that has no major defects even in the same ball park of these defects. Grading misses happen with so many books being graded by so many different graders with differences of opinion/preference on defects, different experience levels and yes even some having a really bad day or perhaps even being a bit rushed to hit their grading quota for the day.  These misses are part of the cost of doing business with a huge grading company.  From past experience, it will be getting a sizable grade bump on resubmission and with as many books as I send in and the few extreme examples like this that I absolutely have to resubmit, I speak from significant experience.    

 

 

One thing that I haven't mentioned is that when I raised the question of the grade of the 5.5 with CGC despite the book having been lost for over a year they told me that CGC never make mistakes...

[TC33]

On 8/28/2024 at 4:38 PM, Tokyojoe90 said:

One thing that I haven't mentioned is that when I raised the question of the grade of the 5.5 with CGC despite the book having been lost for over a year they told me that CGC never make mistakes...

That is actually their policy no matter how obvious and credible the point you bring up.  Even after providing before and after pictures to prove they were wrong in their grading, their response is basically pound sand you get what you get and their grades are final.  That is why the crack, press and resubmit segment of their business is so strong.    

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 3:47 PM, TC33 said:

That is actually their policy no matter how obvious and credible the point you bring up.  Even after providing before and after pictures to prove they were wrong in their grading, their response is basically pound sand you get what you get and their grades are final.  That is why the crack, press and resubmit segment of their business is so strong.    

Not true at all, I've known people over the last decade who at numerous times have pointed out an issue, a book was looked at again and regraded. If you ultimately feel a mistake was made, CGC will be open to taking a second look. An agenda is an agenda.

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 3:38 PM, Tokyojoe90 said:

One thing that I haven't mentioned is that when I raised the question of the grade of the 5.5 with CGC despite the book having been lost for over a year they told me that CGC never make mistakes...

But they didn't make a mistake. Not sure why this point is getting rehashed, but the grade is correct. Had the book's defects as pointed out been taken care of with a press, the book would have risen. The 5.5 makes sense. It's a waayyy too common practice for people to mistake presentation with a book's true grade. Some books might present better, it happens quite often, but based off the defects could still grade worse. The examples TC33 keeps presenting are proof of that.

Edited August 28 by LDarkseid1

[TC33]

On 8/28/2024 at 4:51 PM, LDarkseid1 said:

Not true at all, I've known people over the last decade who at numerous times have pointed out an issue, a book was looked at again and regraded. If you ultimately feel a mistake was made, CGC will be open to taking a second look. An agenda is an agenda.

Correct, IF there is anything subjective to it, their response always points to their full right to grade how they grade no matter how off the grade looks to their final grade, their grades are final.   This is why resubmissions are alive and well to help correct when they under grade a book and it happens abundantly and there are many examples of the same books going up many/multiple grade points. 

Funny how few people have mentioned the WOW 31 5.0 being over graded when it has that massive water mark/stain through the whole book, and with fragile/chipping paper along the bottom area of the book, the technical limit should have been below 5.0 based on some examples I have seen.  However, there are absolutely no defects or accumulation of minor defects large enough on the JIM 85 that would still not qualify it to be a technical 4.5 or even 5.0, I can provide hundreds of examples with books that have the exact same defects or worse that graded 4.5 or higher, even quite a few from the last CGC grading competition alone.

As far as CGC ever changing their grades or labels/notes even when it is for things you can prove that are not all that subjective, they still told me to pound sand even when I have provided proof with before and after pics.  Example 1: X-Men 1, universal label, cracked open and had (some) black overspray scraped off from the white area, we left the black spray there over the art because I did not wan the art scraped off.  It came back purple label for black color touch (overspray), makes no sense, should be impossible right?  Customer service fully agreed with me and liked my evidence with the before and after pics, the graders upon second review still told me to pound sand, they grade how they grade even with proof it was Not restoration but simply black overspray.  I provided before and after resto pics on a restored AF 15 (very expensive to grade) to prove their label was completely wrong on what restoration was done to the book and how much of the cover was missing before hand (they were waaay off saying the vast majority (up to 90%) of the front cover was missing/replaced.  I had pictures proving it was a return copy with only the top 1/3rd strip replaced, so it should have received a full restoration grade by their own grading definition.  However, they still told me to pound sand it wasn't getting a restored grade only a .5 for missing too much front cover which is completely their call to make even though I proved them wrong with the before and after pics and "their grades are final".  Of course they fix obvious errors in the label has the wrong book listed or label color wrong etc, but fixing a grade or resto note or resto designation is near impossible even with strong proof/picture evidence from what I have experienced and heard from many others on the boards.

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 4:29 PM, TC33 said:

Correct, IF there is anything subjective to it, their response always points to their full right to grade how they grade no matter how off the grade looks to their final grade, their grades are final.   This is why resubmissions are alive and well to help correct when they under grade a book and it happens abundantly and there are many examples of the same books going up many/multiple grade points. 

Funny how few people have mentioned the WOW 31 5.0 being over graded when it has that massive water mark/stain through the whole book, and with fragile/chipping paper along the bottom area of the book, the technical limit should have been below 5.0 based on some examples I have seen.  However, there are absolutely no defects or accumulation of minor defects large enough on the JIM 85 that would still not qualify it to be a technical 4.5 or even 5.0, I can provide hundreds of examples with books that have the exact same defects or worse that graded 4.5 or higher, even quite a few from the last CGC grading competition alone.

As far as CGC ever changing their grades or labels/notes even when it is for things you can prove that are not all that subjective, they still told me to pound sand even when I have provided proof with before and after pics.  Example 1: X-Men 1, universal label, cracked open and had (some) black overspray scraped off from the white area, we left the black spray there over the art because I did not wan the art scraped off.  It came back purple label for black color touch (overspray), makes no sense, should be impossible right?  Customer service fully agreed with me and liked my evidence with the before and after pics, the graders upon second review still told me to pound sand, they grade how they grade even with proof it was Not restoration but simply black overspray.  I provided before and after resto pics on a restored AF 15 (very expensive to grade) to prove their label was completely wrong on what restoration was done to the book and how much of the cover was missing before hand (they were waaay off saying the vast majority (up to 90%) of the front cover was missing/replaced.  I had pictures proving it was a return copy with only the top 1/3rd strip replaced, so it should have received a full restoration grade by their own grading definition.  However, they still told me to pound sand it wasn't getting a restored grade only a .5 for missing too much front cover which is completely their call to make even though I proved them wrong with the before and after pics and "their grades are final".  Of course they fix obvious errors in the label has the wrong book listed or label color wrong etc, but fixing a grade or resto note or resto designation is near impossible even with strong proof/picture evidence from what I have experienced and heard from many others on the boards.

The fact is, you're examples are wrong, and CGC was correct in their grades. At the end of the day, I congratulate you on your correctly graded, very nice presenting JIM 85. That's all it is and will ever be, just like the 5.5 in question from this thread.

Edited August 28 by LDarkseid1

[Tokyojoe90]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:51 AM, LDarkseid1 said:

Not true at all, I've known people over the last decade who at numerous times have pointed out an issue, a book was looked at again and regraded. If you ultimately feel a mistake was made, CGC will be open to taking a second look. An agenda is an agenda.

When you say 'not true at all' I'm afraid that you are simply wrong. I still have the emails although I'm not going to share them on this forum, suffice it to say that when I specifically asked them to 'take a second look' they refused saying that I was at liberty to resubmit at my own expense if I wished. Bear in mind this was a submission of 25 books and it was only this book I wanted them to take a second look at.

On the other matter that the defects might have been removed or improved with a press, this book was pressed (as were all of those in the submission) but lost at CGC for over a year so it's impossible to know what happened exactly during that time but what I do know is that my presser erased some pencil writing (on the 2nd W) and even the dents caused by the writing so I have confidence that it was well pressed.

 

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 4:57 PM, Tokyojoe90 said:

When you say 'not true at all' I'm afraid that you are simply wrong. I still have the emails although I'm not going to share them on this forum, suffice it to say that when I specifically asked them to 'take a second look' they refused saying that I was at liberty to resubmit at my own expense if I wished. Bear in mind this was a submission of 25 books and it was only this book I wanted them to take a second look at.

On the other matter that the defects might have been removed or improved with a press, this book was pressed (as were all of those in the submission) but lost at CGC for over a year so it's impossible to know what happened exactly during that time but what I do know is that my presser erased some pencil writing (on the 2nd W) and even the dents caused by the writing so I have confidence that it was well pressed.

 

All things equal, it seems you’re wrong and your presser didn’t do a good enough job. I mean look, I’m sure they’re solid, but they could have just as easily made a mistake. Very easy to blame CGC, and not out responsibility on the presser.

Edited August 29 by LDarkseid1

[Tokyojoe90]

On 8/29/2024 at 9:22 AM, LDarkseid1 said:

All things equal, it seems you’re wrong and your presser didn’t do a good enough job. I mean look, I’m sure they’re solid, but they could have just as easily made a mistake. Very easy to blame CGC, and not out responsibility on the presser.

I disagree with you about two things, (a) it's simply a fact that CGC refused to take another look without an additional grading fee and (b) it's not possible to know whether or not the book had those finger bends caused/added during the missing year. I'm not blaming them, just saying it's impossible to know for sure what happened when a book is lost. I don't deny it's possible my presser didn't do a great job on that book but did in terms of removing the pencil marks and dents and on the other 24 books in the submission. It's possible after removing those pencil dents he forgot to press the finger bends, there's always the possibility of human error.

Of course none of this really has anything to do with the original reason for this thread. Side by side these books appear to be much further than 0.5 apart, do you disagree with that too?

[LDarkseid1]

On 8/28/2024 at 7:15 PM, Tokyojoe90 said:

I disagree with you about two things, (a) it's simply a fact that CGC refused to take another look without an additional grading fee and (b) it's not possible to know whether or not the book had those finger bends caused/added during the missing year. I'm not blaming them, just saying it's impossible to know for sure what happened when a book is lost. I don't deny it's possible my presser didn't do a great job on that book but did in terms of removing the pencil marks and dents and on the other 24 books in the submission. It's possible after removing those pencil dents he forgot to press the finger bends, there's always the possibility of human error.

Of course none of this really has anything to do with the original reason for this thread. Side by side these books appear to be much further than 0.5 apart, do you disagree with that too?

I mean I think I’ve made my point enough as to why one clearly looks nicer than the other, can’t explain it any further. It’s very easy to on CGC, everyone does it, no one wants to take responsibility and that the issue could be on their end. What I’ll say is you got a great book regardless so kudos to that.

[Tokyojoe90]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:46 AM, LDarkseid1 said:

I mean I think I’ve made my point enough as to why one clearly looks nicer than the other, can’t explain it any further. It’s very easy to on CGC, everyone does it, no one wants to take responsibility and that the issue could be on their end. What I’ll say is you got a great book regardless so kudos to that.

Thanks for the kudos. I think you assumed that I was complaining about getting a 5.5 when I equally might have been saying the 5.0 was over-graded. In fact I think both. In my view the stained, chipped book is closer to a 3.5-4.5 range and mine more like a 6.0-6.5. Or both could be lower, I just don't think side by side a difference of only 0.5 makes sense. For what it's worth I expect that one day I'll CPR my book