A Prime Example of CGC's inconsistent grading

[joeklecko]

I've been doing a lot of research on past auctions for Captain Midnight issues off of Heritage's website when I stumbled on this; CGC graded the Mile High copy of issue 8 twice and here are the results:

 

1) http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auctions/closedviewlot.asp?s=803&l=6673&SID=80C6CB59C8D54E7CB3FDC87F2CBEE98D

 

2) http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auctions/closedviewlot.asp?s=806&l=6133&SID=80C6CB59C8D54E7CB3FDC87F2CBEE98D

 

7/10 is a big difference, wouldn't you say?

 

[Smokinghawk]

Dang! There's no doubting it on this one, folks.

[dad-migration]

In fact, it's not a big difference. Which is precisely why people are so silly to assign

astronomical values to books with grades above 8.0 or 8.5. Most books new off

the rack would probably grade no better than 8.5 or perhaps 9.0.

 

A genuine collector wants a book that looks "new". An 8.5 with white pages

is in much better shape than a 9.6 with off-white pages.

 

This asinine infatuation with meaningless degrees of refinement is being

driven by investors, not collectors. Many collectors however seem to

be coming along.

 

I'm not fooled; I know how to think for myself.

[ericc123]

I agree CGCs grading seems to be getting less consistent. I thought I finally had them figured out based on the sheer amount of 9.0s and 8.5s I had so I sent in a comic that was every bit a 9.2 and got an 8.5 and recently I got an 8.5 in the mail that was no better than a 7.5 so go figure. I still think they can grade better than almost every Joe Smoe on Ebay though so I always buy CGC graded books when I can.

 

Ericc123

[murph0]

Completely agree with "dad" here. When talking in terms of purely grading, they're not THAT far off.. when speaking of $$$ terms (something CGC has no control over) they may be.

Btw, take a look at both books in the supersized scans.. You can't tell me the book looks better at 9.2 then it does at 8.5.. The overflash along the top of the front cover and the back looks pressed out.. and the dirt on the back cover looks like it's been W.B.'d off. Definately a nicer looking book IMO than the 8.5

 

Brian

[Susanville]

I'm not fooled; I know how to think for myself.

 

That's all well and good but, like it or not, CGC is here, there and everywhere (to quote the Beatles). That said, how can the same book get "better" a year later? Did the original slab contain curative powers like the TX in the Terminator movie?

[jonnydouble]

But a 9.2 is better than a 8.5....and a 9.4 is better than a 9.2....and a 9.6 is better than a 9.4 and.....

 

[Susanville]

that's funny. i'll use the thing here...

[highlite23]

Your still dealing with degrees of perfection, not to mention opinion. No to graders are going to see the same thing.

 

And I gotta follow "dad"s comments here.

 

I'll take a nice VF and save the cash for another VF.

[Arty]

This is nothing new...there are probably dozens of resubmitted mile high books with better grades.

 

If my memory serves me correctly there is nearly 30 resubmitted (with better grades) mile high books for sale in Heritage's San Diego con auction.

Some upgraded from VF+8.5 to NM+9.6 (Joker 19 and Junior Miss 27 for example)

 

But most of them are pressed (bumped corners,folds etc removed) so that means they aren't necessarily graded inconsistently. They are just altered with techniques not considered restoration.

 

Btw this was previously a VF/NM 9.0 book.

Young Allies 1 San francisco pedigree CGC NM+9.6

 

Price difference between those grades is $50,000 (CGC 9.6 Estimation is 72,000-up) Pennsylvania pedigree VF/NM 9.0 sold for $20,700

 

Takes some guts to resubmit such books I have to admit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DiceX]

The 8.5 was the grade after resub. It didn't go UP in grade.

Perhaps there was damage while it was in the holder.

 

This can happen.

 

However, I think they were very generous with the 9.2 on the first grade.

But what do I know? I don't buy Golden Age, so I don't know how generous they are with them.

[fantastic_four]

The 8.5 was the grade after resub. It didn't go UP in grade.

Perhaps there was damage while it was in the holder.

 

This can happen.

 

However, I think they were very generous with the 9.2 on the first grade.

But what do I know? I don't buy Golden Age, so I don't know how generous they are with them.

 

No, the 8.5 is from a 2002 auction and the 9.2 is from a 2003 auction

[murph0]

Is anyone else looking at the actual book? C'mon guys.. tell me it doesn't look nicer than it did originally.

 

Brian

[DiceX]

 

No, the 8.5 is from a 2002 auction and the 9.2 is from a 2003 auction

 

I see that now.

But, why is the serial number on the 8.5 higher than the code on the 9.2?

CGC codes in consecutive numbers.

[DiceX]

 

No, the 8.5 is from a 2002 auction and the 9.2 is from a 2003 auction

 

I see that now.

But, why is the serial number on the 8.5 higher than the code on the 9.2?

CGC codes in consecutive numbers.

 

Nevermind. I even looked at THAT backwards.

I need sleep.

[tpaine74]

I also agree with "dad" on this one.

 

I don't think CGC is necessarily bad for the hobby, and no one is perfect all the time when it comes to the art of grading books. However, paying 5-10x guide (or more!) for books in 9.2's and up is ridiculous in my opinion. Slabbed books are strictly for investment only, unless you particularly love looking at just the cover of a book. Or are obsessed with having the highest copy known to be in existence. Neither of those are what this hobby is really about. Not trying to start a rant about comics are made only for reading but you get the idea.

Talking about a SA crash? Take people now paying multiples of guide for slabbed books. Then down the road too many people start trying to unload these books and hoping to turn that much more of a hefty profit. We all learned in the 90's what can happen to this hobby when many investors get invovled. I'm not an expert on this and can't predict the future, but that is a possible formula for a crash. It seems to me that as time goes by only more and more books will surface to be professionally graded. Maybe more high grade books are found, or collectors who are against professional grading slowly make the change over to it. As a result, those books selling now can only hold or decrease in value if anything over the next several years. Maybe eventually all books will be professionally graded, who knows. Bottom line is, I think it may be difficult to get back down the road what is being paid out now for some of these 9.2's and up. Only time will tell. I do have some CGC books and the vast majority are in the 5.0-8.0 range. Amazingly, these can be bought for a raw book equivalent in guide, or lower in many cases.

 

Hulk 181 CGC 8.5 or higher selling for a $1000+? Shoot, give me a 10 or more raw Marvel bold 12 cent books in solid F to VF any day before I'd buy that.

 

Just my 0.02.

[Aman619]

this discussion you have now joind has been going on for months, if not years. Many inteersting observations and thoughts have been posted. I suggest you read up these threads. (If you havent already!)

 

Many agree with you. I do too. But many see only a bright new horizon where these multiples will last forever, and increase.

 

Welcome to the boards! Have fun!

 

[Kevin76]

I've been doing a lot of research on past auctions for Captain Midnight issues off of Heritage's website when I stumbled on this; CGC graded the Mile High copy of issue 8 twice and here are the results:

 

1) http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auctions/closedviewlot.asp?s=803&l=6673&SID=80C6CB59C8D54E7CB3FDC87F2CBEE98D

 

2) http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/auctions/closedviewlot.asp?s=806&l=6133&SID=80C6CB59C8D54E7CB3FDC87F2CBEE98D

 

7/10 is a big difference, wouldn't you say?

 

Your right Joe,

But, it seems like the 8.5 could have been graded on a bad day and then resubmitted on a good day,seems like CGC goes through a "strict stage" and a "generous stage" No one is perfect,CGC does in fact do the best they can,CGC does have to agree on the grade all the graders have to agree,sometimes a book will look better the second time around,would i have resubmitted that mile high 8.5? Heck NO! But let me ask you and who ever is reading this...are you consistant when you do your job,each and everytime? do you find every mistake? do you dot all your i's and cross all your T's? I doubt it...Does this make you a bad worker? No. If people don't think CGC is consitant enough,then don't buy graded books and go back to buying raw books

[fantastic_four]

CGC codes in consecutive numbers.

 

I used to hope they did that so that you could use a linear equation to estimate the date a comic was graded, but I've seen newly-graded comics have serial numbers lower than books I already owned. They're somewhat consecutive, but they seem to re-use old numbers--maybe on regraded books or something--fairly frequently.

[fantastic_four]

Is anyone else looking at the actual book? C'mon guys.. tell me it doesn't look nicer than it did originally.

 

Top edge seems to have had some work done to it. Can't exactly tell, but there's a tear on the back URC that doesn't appear to be in the 9.2 copy, although the too-light color of the scan might just be hiding it.