Grading shenanigans at CGC? 9 9

[skybolt]

Here's my take on this whole thing. 

My gut tells me that dealers and prominent collectors have heard the chatter of CGC being more willing to give out 9.9 / 10.0 grades for years and have been hoarding pristine copies of bronze/modern age books in anticipation of this change. However, these individuals are not the type to leave things to chance by having a random CGC employee grade these books via the modern tier. I get the sense that they've specifically had conversations with CGC regarding submitting these books via the UV tier so that a more experienced grader evaluates them as potential 9.9 / 10.0 candidates (using CGC's guidelines for what constitutes a 9.9 or 10.0). Perhaps in some cases only 1 out 20 books qualified, but in other cases we get something like this submission. 

The main issue I have with this approach is that if a company is willing to give out 9.9/10.0 grades (especially for books that are more than 40 years old), then all its staff should be trained accordingly to perform this task. Again, if I submitted these same books via the modern tier and without any prior conversations with CGC, I guarantee that zero of them would come back as 9.9s (even if the books deserved the 9.9 grades). Perhaps CGC should look into amending its policy to state that only graders in the UV and Walkthru tiers are allowed to give out 9.9s and 10.0s for older books, and that a special note needs to be placed inside the package for them to specifically grade the books with that in mind. Also, as others have mentioned, if the person submitting these books via the UV tier also priced their Dazzler #1's at a $2k value each, that may give further indication that these books are special.

[shadroch]

So if you are willing to pay more to get your books examined, you have a better chance at a higher grade.   Isn't that right out of the PGX playbook?

[DanJD]

On 10/22/2024 at 9:10 AM, skybolt said:

Here's my take on this whole thing. 

My gut tells me that dealers and prominent collectors have heard the chatter of CGC being more willing to give out 9.9 / 10.0 grades for years and have been hoarding pristine copies of bronze/modern age books in anticipation of this change. However, these individuals are not the type to leave things to chance by having a random CGC employee grade these books via the modern tier. I get the sense that they've specifically had conversations with CGC regarding submitting these books via the UV tier so that a more experienced grader evaluates them as potential 9.9 / 10.0 candidates (using CGC's guidelines for what constitutes a 9.9 or 10.0). Perhaps in some cases only 1 out 20 books qualified, but in other cases we get something like this submission. 

The main issue I have with this approach is that if a company is willing to give out 9.9/10.0 grades (especially for books that are more than 40 years old), then all its staff should be trained accordingly to perform this task. Again, if I submitted these same books via the modern tier and without any prior conversations with CGC, I guarantee that zero of them would come back as 9.9s (even if the books deserved the 9.9 grades). Perhaps CGC should look into amending its policy to state that only graders in the UV and Walkthru tiers are allowed to give out 9.9s and 10.0s for older books, and that a special note needs to be placed inside the package for them to specifically grade the books with that in mind. Also, as others have mentioned, if the person submitting these books via the UV tier also priced their Dazzler #1's at a $2k value each, that may give further indication that these books are special.

The only wrinkle is that their statement was that a Sr grader reviewed these during QC and pulled a few back after encapsulation. Perhaps there is something less honest going on and pulled a few back after the fact to be less suspicious.  Why would a more senior grader overturn a senior grader after encapsulation and imaging.  

As a side question, where are the images of the correct 9.8 labels on those two?  Wouldn’t they have had to go back through encapsulation and re-imaging?  Maybe they have and are already updated.  If not, they should be.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/22/2024 at 7:10 AM, skybolt said:

Again, if I submitted these same books via the modern tier and without any prior conversations with CGC, I guarantee that zero of them would come back as 9.9s (even if the books deserved the 9.9 grades).

[MadGenius]

Nobody seems to be discussing another concern brought up in the original Youtube video - one of the books in this submission was flagged for professional color touch. Are we to believe this was just a one-off, or was restoration work performed on the other books that went undetected?

[shadroch]

Why am I getting an image of Remagen in my head?

[wombat]

On 10/21/2024 at 5:38 PM, CGC Mike said:

the grades were reassessed by the senior grading team during the QC step

This may be the single least believable thing ever said on this forum. QC doesn't even catch the most blatant of errors. Are we to believe that graders (senior or not) are involved in the QC process? 

[skybolt]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the 9.9 prescreening service that CGC will eventually role out. I doubt the service will be similar to the 9.8 and 9.6 prescreens. I assume the cost per reject will be closer to $15 than $9, since a more experienced person is spending more time per book looking at all the minute details. Secondly, I bet the service will also come with a 9.8 prescreen, so that if only 1 out of 25 books hits that 9.9 grade, the submitter is given the option of either having 24 books returned and taking the $360 hit, or grading another 16 books that qualified as 9.8's and only being charged $5 extra for these 16 (in addition to the $15 for each of the 8 books that didn't qualify). That way, the person still gets 1 9.9 copy (with an upcharge), 16 9.8 copies and a $200 rejection fee. Of course, collectors and dealers with deep pockets may want their books returned without slabbing so they can try again.

[wombat]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:43 AM, skybolt said:

I'm trying to wrap my head around the 9.9 prescreening service that CGC will eventually role out. I doubt the service will be similar to the 9.8 and 9.6 prescreens. I assume the cost per reject will be closer to $15 than $9, since a more experienced person is spending more time per book looking at all the minute details. Secondly, I bet the service will also come with a 9.8 prescreen, so that if only 1 out of 25 books hits that 9.9 grade, the submitter is given the option of either having 24 books returned and taking the $360 hit, or grading another 16 books that qualified as 9.8's and only being charged $5 extra for these 16 (in addition to the $15 for each of the 8 books that didn't qualify). That way, the person still gets 1 9.9 copy (with an upcharge), 16 9.8 copies and a $200 rejection fee. Of course, collectors and dealers with deep pockets may want their books returned without slabbing so they can try again.

Wait until they roll out the elite pressing service designed to get those 9.9s and 10s. 

[mikenyc]

On 10/22/2024 at 8:25 AM, Gator Guru said:

Zero proof of this and the photos people are flashing are well within 9.8 grade range or at least cgc’s somewhat new 9.8 range. Of course you could also put your trust in pictures posted by board members that are “not doctored”

In the famous words of Inigo Montoya " I do not think a 9.8 means, what you think it means"

What 9.8 guidelines state that you can have several color breaking spine ticks? Not 1 or even 2 ncb, but several color breaking. I believe CGC says, " a nearly perfect collectible with negligible handling or manufacturing defects". I can understand CGC putting out the, these aren't the droids you are looking for vibes, but when collectors do it it's odd. Unless you're a seller and then I can understand your motivation. 

Then to say that people are flashing photos, as if there hasn't been an extensive number of examples, detailed photos, from multiple angles, with comparison before pictures, taken by CGC in the slab, which show color breaking spine ticks appearing after. 

Saying people are doctoring photos and adding a laughing emoji really supports your argument. 

[mosconi]

On 10/22/2024 at 7:18 AM, DanJD said:

The only wrinkle is that their statement was that a Sr grader reviewed these during QC and pulled a few back after encapsulation. Perhaps there is something less honest going on and pulled a few back after the fact to be less suspicious.  Why would a more senior grader overturn a senior grader after encapsulation and imaging.  

As a side question, where are the images of the correct 9.8 labels on those two?  Wouldn’t they have had to go back through encapsulation and re-imaging?  Maybe they have and are already updated.  If not, they should be.

These are all valid questions that I would like answered as well. 

There is only one way to confirm what is going on here and end all the repetitive back and forth speculation of a possible insider scam.  CGC needs to review this submitter's entire past submission history and see how many other invoices have resulted in similar 9.9's and then verify if this is being accomplished with a specific CGC grader.  That would answer a whole lot of questions in my eyes    

[buttock]

On 10/22/2024 at 8:10 AM, skybolt said:

Here's my take on this whole thing. 

My gut tells me that dealers and prominent collectors have heard the chatter of CGC being more willing to give out 9.9 / 10.0 grades for years and have been hoarding pristine copies of bronze/modern age books in anticipation of this change. However, these individuals are not the type to leave things to chance by having a random CGC employee grade these books via the modern tier. I get the sense that they've specifically had conversations with CGC regarding submitting these books via the UV tier so that a more experienced grader evaluates them as potential 9.9 / 10.0 candidates (using CGC's guidelines for what constitutes a 9.9 or 10.0). Perhaps in some cases only 1 out 20 books qualified, but in other cases we get something like this submission. 

The main issue I have with this approach is that if a company is willing to give out 9.9/10.0 grades (especially for books that are more than 40 years old), then all its staff should be trained accordingly to perform this task. Again, if I submitted these same books via the modern tier and without any prior conversations with CGC, I guarantee that zero of them would come back as 9.9s (even if the books deserved the 9.9 grades). Perhaps CGC should look into amending its policy to state that only graders in the UV and Walkthru tiers are allowed to give out 9.9s and 10.0s for older books, and that a special note needs to be placed inside the package for them to specifically grade the books with that in mind. Also, as others have mentioned, if the person submitting these books via the UV tier also priced their Dazzler #1's at a $2k value each, that may give further indication that these books are special.

I can't believe there's a market for more than 1 Dazzler 1 in 9.9.  I can see maybe a single person who's chasing 9.9s just for fun wanting one.  But other than that...

[skybolt]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:29 AM, mosconi said:

These are all valid questions that I would like answered as well. 

There is only one way to confirm what is going on here and end all the repetitive back and forth speculation of a possible insider scam.  CGC needs to review this submitter's entire past submission history and see how many other invoices have resulted in similar 9.9's and then verify if this is being accomplished with a specific CGC grader.  That would answer a whole lot of questions in my eyes    

The biggest issue I have with all this is that if a senior grader was able to spot some noticeable defects on 2 of the books by just looking at them through the slab encasement, shouldn't the whole submission come under scrutiny as well? Shouldn't the next step have been to take all the 9.9 books out of the slabs for a closer inspection? It just seems to me like the senior grader just wanted to make sure that there were no visible defects or production type errors (like the miswrap) that could easily be identified by any individual looking at the slab.

 

[skybolt]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:40 AM, buttock said:

I can't believe there's a market for more than 1 Dazzler 1 in 9.9.  I can see maybe a single person who's chasing 9.9s just for fun wanting one.  But other than that...

Speak for yourself, I love Dazzler #1. 

[DanJD]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:47 AM, skybolt said:

Speak for yourself, I love Dazzler #1. 

Now you have to buy it for investigative purposes.  Let us know who the seller is when you buy it!  

[skybolt]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:50 AM, DanJD said:

Now you have to buy it for investigative purposes.  Let us know who the seller is when you buy it!  

It'll probably be ComicLink with no additional info. . 

[Chip Cataldo]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:39 AM, wombat said:

This may be the single least believable thing ever said on this forum.

QC doesn't even catch the most blatant of errors.

Are we to believe that graders (senior or not) are involved in the QC process? 

Louder, for those in the back.

[mattn792]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:29 AM, mosconi said:

These are all valid questions that I would like answered as well. 

There is only one way to confirm what is going on here and end all the repetitive back and forth speculation of a possible insider scam.  CGC needs to review this submitter's entire past submission history and see how many other invoices have resulted in similar 9.9's and then verify if this is being accomplished with a specific CGC grader.  That would answer a whole lot of questions in my eyes    

CGC investigate itself?  Might as well ask the Loch Ness Monster to offer guided tours of Atlantis.  The lost continent or the resort in the Bahamas, either one is still more likely to happen before CGC tries to screw up Blackstone’s bottom line.

[mikenyc]

On 10/22/2024 at 2:30 PM, mattn792 said:

CGC investigate itself?  Might as well ask the Loch Ness Monster to offer guided tours of Atlantis.  The lost continent or the resort in the Bahamas, either one is still more likely to happen before CGC tries to screw up Blackstone’s bottom line.

CCG estimated annual revenue is 58 million. Blackstone's annual revenue 11 billion dollars. CGC revenue as a percentage of CCG revenue as a percentage of Blackstone revenue = go f yourself, lol. You'll take your bent wells and say thank you sir, may I have another. 

 

[ExNihilo]

On 10/22/2024 at 4:00 AM, Ryan. said:

How is it that every time CGC offers an explanation for something, things make even less sense than they did before?

Because we're getting everything filtered through Mike.  Mike is in turn probably getting some summarized answer from another department who is getting it from another person, who is probably getting it from the "senior grader".  None of which is getting passed through a PR team (because let's face it, QC doesn't exist at CGC, nor should we believe PR does).