GA grading

[Mad Dog]

Have been wondering about this, since i have seen some interesting comments in the PGM forum and have taken a bit of heat for my view. Im hoping someone more experienced can then help me understand how this works.

 

There seems to be these kind of collectors:

 

1) Those acknowledging that CGC and in general apply a softer grading scale to GA books. Some agree with this practise (most dont)

 

2) Those who refuse that any such softer scale exists and yet continous to apply different grading style's for SA versus GA.

 

Help me understand why this book:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/sho...part=1&vc=1

 

being a golden age is atleast a 6.5 some believing as high as 7.5 - 8.0

 

while this book is a 5.0-5.5 (the grade I would assign to above GA book as well

 

 

 

To compare what a 8.0 book looks like, this one is a cracked 8.0 yet with board opinion consensus at 7.0 (some as low as 6.0, a single highscorer mentioning 7.5-8.0)

 

 

 

 

To take one in between, this book i would believe was a 6.0, however again being a SA book board consencus was at 5.5 (high/low 4.5/5.5)

 

 

<img src="http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/Mad-Dog_photo/X-

men26_BC.jpg">

 

 

 

my questions are thus:

 

1) am I truly the only one not understanding the above examples relative towards eachother

 

2) is there generally applied a GA bump, is it used by CGC and do you agree with it. (would you accept it on a 1000+ GA book you were buying raw?

 

 

[Apotheosis]

Personally I think there is a bit of a bump for GA below a certain year. Especially on low to mid grade books. Higher grade tend to have less of a bump. I'm not a fan of the policy, but I do understand it.

 

I do find, however, that the people that are the most vocal about the GA bump are High grad, High $$ SA collectors. It's probably a scream of foul when it's not their book.

[Point Five]

I replied back in the grading thread as to the differences between the examples you're posting...

 

There generally is a slight GA bump for early books, but I don't think it's as extreme as you seem to be thinking. Maybe .5 or so?

 

And no "heat" is meant, by the way. I actually really enjoy these kinds of grading debates, and I've learned a TON from the grading forum over the last two years.

[SurfingAlien]

It looks to me like there is definitely a small GA bump & special circumstance bump as well (Pay Copy anyone - imagine the fury that would be unleashed on these boards if a run of the mill SA book with that writing on the cover got a 9.0!)

 

There is also rumor of a SA DC downwards bump as well.

 

Different defects that bug people differently also enter into the equation. I am a corner crease hater but some are spine tic haters, while those spine defects bother me much less than a crease. My own opinion from all the books I've seen is that CGC is really run by human beings after all, not machines, and that over the course of time & thousands and thousands of books, there are variations within the grades, sometimes very obvious, sometimes very subtle.

 

I wonder if a book graded with a cup of coffee at 9:00 AM on a monday gets the same grade as a book graded at 5:00 PM with a glass of wine, just before the Christmas party

[Mad Dog]

I replied back in the grading thread as to the differences between the examples you're posting...

 

There generally is a slight GA bump for early books, but I don't think it's as extreme as you seem to be thinking. Maybe .5 or so?

 

And no "heat" is meant, by the way. I actually really enjoy these kinds of grading debates, and I've learned a TON from the grading forum over the last two years.

 

Totally agree, the point is to learn, and debates are always a good way to achieve that. Reason why prefer people with an opinion far from the consensus on a given book to state their comments rather than just shouting out a grade.

 

Ref your comments in the other thread, midgrade books are the most difficult and arguably the most subjective grades. It is almost scientific what the difference is between 9,2,9,4,9.6 and 9.8 while the difference between 6.0 and 7.0 is much more difficult. Also the different types of flaws on a midgrade book is more varied and people have different views on how much foxing, dust shadow, holes, tanning, water damage, subcreases, stains etc. affect the grade. its alot easier when all you have to do is count non-colourbreaking spine creases

[Point Five]

True enough, midgrade books are definitely tougher to grade.

 

I posted this comment in the grading thread, but it would actually be interesting to get a reaction from the GA forum crowd:

 

My impression is that for better or worse, CGC seems to hammer GA books very little for defects like foxing and moderate dust shadows, seemingly in favor of concentrating more on the overall structure & wear of a book. (For instance, October has posted examples of books with ugly back cover foxing that have still received CGC grades in the VF range.) These kinds of defects bother me, but I guess over time we have learned to "tune them out" more when grading GA books, and have brought our grading more in line with CGC's with regards to defects like these. Is that fair to say?

[Sid]

I think most debate begins depending on what you hate the most as a defect. I hate when a book starts to look rounded and worn. I also despise any kind of un-natural markings on a book wether vendor defect or not. I'll bump up grades from inital impression for good centering, defect free spines etc.

[FFB]

Your X-Men #50 has a subscription crease down the entire book, plus a hard crease on the front cover/lower right corner, plus spine wear. The Action Comics #77 in that other thread is significantly higher grade than your X-Men #50, with or without a GA bump.

 

As for the GA bump, within the last day or two I posted my understanding (which is based on several conversations I've had with Steve Borock over the past couple of years) of the GA "bump" (such as it is) as applied by CGC. The Overstreet Grading Guide also acknowledges that certain bindery defects are more "allowable" in higher grades on golden and silver age books -- so part of the "bump" is written right into Overstreet's grading criteria. The other aspect of the GA bump is that GA books tend to be bigger books than moderns or silver age, thus a 1" crease on a Flash Comics #1 is a proportionately smaller defect than it would be on a Spawn #1, and is therefore downgraded a bit less for the Flash Comics #1.

[thedude]

One things for sure,.. comicdonna's newly aquired Action Comics #77 is getting more press than Britney Spears' hoo ha today..

[Mad Dog]

One things for sure,.. comicdonna's newly aquired Action Comics #77 is getting more press than Britney Spears' hoo ha today..

 

It certainly is a cool and nice book but being up against Spears' hoo ha... thats a tough call

[rjpb]

True enough, midgrade books are definitely tougher to grade.

 

I posted this comment in the grading thread, but it would actually be interesting to get a reaction from the GA forum crowd:

 

My impression is that for better or worse, CGC seems to hammer GA books very little for defects like foxing and moderate dust shadows, seemingly in favor of concentrating more on the overall structure & wear of a book. (For instance, October has posted examples of books with ugly back cover foxing that have still received CGC grades in the VF range.) These kinds of defects bother me, but I guess over time we have learned to "tune them out" more when grading GA books, and have brought our grading more in line with CGC's with regards to defects like these. Is that fair to say?

 

 

Don't give in to the dark side Point Five, a structurally VF book speckled with little brown dots along the edge should be graded the same as a structurally VF book with a similarly distracting moisture stain (even more so when it's the front cover). I find people are often too lenient with the foxing and too harsh with the moisture stain. Dust shadows are discoloration and should be treated as such. I'd rather have a squarely graded FN with a few nicks and dings, than a bogus "VF" with a half inch or more of dark stripe down one edge.

[Point Five]

 

In your example, I imagine I'd split the difference. I wouldn't hammer the book as if it were stained, but I doubt I'd call it a straight VF either.

[ciorac]

I love foxing...

[whomerjay]

Your X-Men #50 has a subscription crease down the entire book, plus a hard crease on the front cover/lower right corner, plus spine wear. The Action Comics #77 in that other thread is significantly higher grade than your X-Men #50, with or without a GA bump.

 

As for the GA bump, within the last day or two I posted my understanding (which is based on several conversations I've had with Steve Borock over the past couple of years) of the GA "bump" (such as it is) as applied by CGC. The Overstreet Grading Guide also acknowledges that certain bindery defects are more "allowable" in higher grades on golden and silver age books -- so part of the "bump" is written right into Overstreet's grading criteria. The other aspect of the GA bump is that GA books tend to be bigger books than moderns or silver age, thus a 1" crease on a Flash Comics #1 is a proportionately smaller defect than it would be on a Spawn #1, and is therefore downgraded a bit less for the Flash Comics #1.

 

I agree that Action 77 is much better than the X-men 50 irrespective of age.

 

But I hate the fact CGC gives an unwarrented GA bump and I don't find these reasons you list a very compelling argument for it. I and a lot of others downgrade a book for bindery tears (OS has said a lot of foolish things about grading that many ignore).

[sacentaur]

I love foxing...

 

One word, Bill.....L A R S O N

 

(though there are trade-offs of course, just about all the GA books I own with foxing have really nice paper quality)

 

STEVE

[Point Five]

But I hate the fact CGC gives an unwarrented GA bump and I don't find these reasons you list a very compelling argument for it. I and a lot of others downgrade a book for bindery tears (OS has said a lot of foolish things about grading that many ignore).

 

Good point about the bindery tear thing. That's another GA book flaw that seems to get a pass from CGC (and from Overstreet too I guess). I'm thinking in particular of that CGC 7.0 Superman #5 awhile back (on Heritage I think? anyone remember this one?) where the top and bottom corners of the spine looked like they were gouged out with a knife (spine chunks missing, jagged tears extending out from the missing pieces, etc). I doubt most of us would have graded the book above 5.5. An extreme example, but even the tamer examples are sometimes baffling.

[ciorac]

I love foxing...

 

One word, Bill.....L A R S O N

 

(though there are trade-offs of course, just about all the GA books I own with foxing have really nice paper quality)

 

STEVE

 

That was my point

[rjpb]

Here is a GA face-off courtesy of Heritage's archives.

 

This to me is one of the more absurd examples of foxing getting a pass from CGC - which would you rather have? (as a collector, not a flipper)

 

 

All-Star #1 5.0

 

 

All Star #1 7.0

[thedarkknight]

The 5.0 hands down. I'm not sure why the other book got a 7.0.

[Durden08]

Interesting that the recurring themes in this thread are "Britney Spears hoo ha" and "foxing".