What a SCOOP!

[Darthdiesel]

CGC To Adopt Overstreet Grading System

Industry News, Scoop, Friday, July 18, 2003

 

 

 

 

CGC's Steve Borock has announced that due to the tremendous response within the industry, CGC has decided to fully adopt the Overstreet grading standards for their grading service! With these new events taking place, Steve Geppi has agreed that as a reflection of this, all issues of the new Overstreet Comic Price Review monthly newsletter (http://www.gemstonepub.com/ocpr) will now only feature prices for slabbed books.

 

Says John Snyder of the decision to have OCPR contain only slabbed book prices, "Steve was really pleased with all of this, it makes good sense." According to Geppi, "Tackling pricing for slabbed books seems only natural that it would come from the same place as the 'bible' of the industry, the #1 source for pricing comics - the Overstreet team! There seems to be a vast majority of retailers that want OCPR to be all about slabbed comics, and now they have gotten their wish. We are excited to be able to accommodate individuals from both the slabbed and unslabbed realms." Bob Overstreet expressed his enthusiasm by telling Scoop, "I am very excited about CGC's decision to accept the Overstreet grading standards, and I look forward to working closely with CGC on this."

[Hensley300]

so this means early cgc books may go up in value b/c they were graded harder as opposed to how they will be graded now? What will this mean for the long term?

[LordRahl]

This brings up a lot of questions. How different were their current standards from OStreets? How will this affect date stamps and cover miswraps? Are there a bunch of 9.8s out there that are now VFs because of miswraps? Will they still grade different era books differently? Hmmm... The funny thing is OStreets' standards are pretty open too so this might not make much difference.

[Hensley300]

what it will come down to for the books worth serious money is that serious investors will seek out books graded before cgc implements these standards assuming they are looser than cgc's current standards. Which, may mean, perhaps the date the book was graded should be put on the label or will be more important

 

[Ares]

Can we have a link to the Original Story?

[ArAich]

So does this in essance mean that CGC has just disclosed their grading criteria???...in other words...if they follow OS standards (which are printed and known) then by association it is an admission of what CGC's grading standards are...

 

This, however, adds some confusion as we don't truly know what CGC's standards were to begin with... so how this ultimatly affects future grading is known only to the CGC hierarchy...

[Darthdiesel]

Can we have a link to the Original Story?

 

original link

[blowout]

so this means early cgc books may go up in value b/c they were graded harder as opposed to how they will be graded now?

 

Er no. I think as LordRahl said the opposite is more likely to happen. Any high grade book with a printing defect is likely to loose value big time.

You will be ok if you have always followed the 'buy the book not the label' mantra though.

[Ares]

Can we have a link to the Original Story?

 

original link

 

Murky buckets

[read_em-migration]

So does this in essence mean that CGC has just disclosed their grading criteria???...in other words...if they follow OS standards (which are printed and known) then by association it is an admission of what CGC's grading standards are...This, however, adds some confusion as we don't truly know what CGC's standards were to begin with... so how this ultimatly affects future grading is known only to the CGC hierarchy...

Whoa! My thoughts exactly - so now we know exactly what CGC's grading standards are? If so, could/will they tell us how they differed from Overstreet all this time? And if they do that, will it mean looser grading and more resubmits? Or is Overstreet stricter than CGC? It seems that Overstreet stresses eye appeal more than CGC and CGC stresses structural integrity more, would that be safe to say?

[Ares]

So does this in essence mean that CGC has just disclosed their grading criteria???...in other words...if they follow OS standards (which are printed and known) then by association it is an admission of what CGC's grading standards are...This, however, adds some confusion as we don't truly know what CGC's standards were to begin with... so how this ultimatly affects future grading is known only to the CGC hierarchy...

Whoa! My thoughts exactly - so now we know exactly what CGC's grading standards are? If so, could/will they tell us how they differed from Overstreet all this time? And if they do that, will it mean looser grading and more resubmits? Or is Overstreet stricter than CGC? It seems that Overstreet stresses eye appeal more than CGC and CGC stresses structural integrity more, would that be safe to say?

My X-men 1 should rate higher than 3.5 then!!!

[LordRahl]

Man, this is gonna open up a whole new can of worms. Not to mention there will be a slew of CGC haters and conspiracy theorists, pipe in any time Hammer and Joe C, that are gonna be bittching up a storm about all sorts of stuff. Can't wait!

[ArAich]

Ok...does this article completly contradict THIS earlier thread in which it was stated that CGC would no longer be using anything but decimal grading designations...

If they are adopting OS grading criteria then they would have to keep the neumonic designation on the label as well as the decimal designation...unless that is...Overstreet intends to revamp their system...

[blowout]

If they are adopting OS grading criteria then they would have to keep the neumonic designation on the label as well as the decimal designation...unless that is...Overstreet intends to revamp their system...

 

That has already happened. In the new grading guide, Overstreet use the numeric grades alongside their standard ones.

[ArAich]

That has already happened. In the new grading guide, Overstreet use the numeric grades alongside their standard ones.

 

So then...(If I may assume)...you are saying that the decimal designation on a new CGC label will then directly correlate to the OS criteria???

[blowout]

Well, if what Darth is saying in this thread is true, then that is what I would expect to happen. At the time the new OS grading guide was put together there was much discusion with CGC and others to bring Overstreet in line with recent developments in the comic book grading field. Presumably CGC have had this in mind for some time, and hopefully it is another step towards an all encompasing standard.

[Smokinghawk]

Anyone know...Does Overstreet consider cleaning or pressing to be restoration?

 

I know someone who has an untouched ASM #1 9.0 that got a PLOD because of alleged cleaning and pressing (the owner even denies THAT).

 

[fantastic_four]

It seems that Overstreet stresses eye appeal more than CGC and CGC stresses structural integrity more, would that be safe to say?

 

That's not safe to say. I've only noticed a few minor differences between CGC's and Overstreet's standards, and with the 2002 Grading Guide, the differences became fewer still because Overstreet moved more towards CGC's standards. This could just be a move mostly motivated by the desire to get all the "we don't know what their standards are!" people off their backs, although when you study the topic enough, you'll realize that we don't really know what Overstreet's standards are either in their entirety. There's a broad range of defects and defect severities which aren't accounted for in Overstreet, nor is there any consistent direction given for how to assign deductions for defects.

 

This looks more like a marketing move to allow CGC's and Overstreet's brand names to support each other than any substantial change in the way CGC will grade. The way that Snyder says that they'll exclusively report CGC pricing in their newsletter because CGC is adopting Overstreet's standard seems to have no real meaning that I can see other than to support a business partnership. CGC has already set a big standard in comic book grading; why would CGC's "official" support for Overstreet standards have anything to do with how Gemstone reports PRICES? It doesn't make sense to me except within the context of a business partnership.

 

Regarding restoration--if memory serves, the narrative "Overstreet" opinion in the price guide and grading guide has never tried to define what is and what isn't restoration, although Susan Cicconi and Matt Nelson have written articles in the Grading Guide about the topic. I refer to the guide's uncredited text as the narrative "Overstreet" opinion because I assume it's now somebody at Gemstone and not Bob Overstreet who writes the guides now; Gemstone owns a trademark on the name "Overstreet" so I guess it's legally kosher for them to write under his name without the writing actually having been done by the man himself.

[drbanner]

although when you study the topic enough, you'll realize that we don't really know what Overstreet's standards are either in their entirety.

 

I agree w/JR here. The new grading guide had a few changes in the grading criteria from the 1st version, but not much. CGC will not be changing the standard they've been using for 2-3 years, they have simply referred people to the OS guide to read what their standard is.

 

 

[Zonker]

One interesting thing here is the pressure I assume this will put on the annual Overstreet book to have Overstreet 9.4 pricing consistent with CGC 9.4 sales. In the past you could sort of argue that was an apples to oranges comparison, that slabbed comics were a different beast altogether. But now, if CGC 9.4 books are actually selling on eBay for double what Overstreet lists the 9.4 price to be-- and both parties agree the same 9.4 standard applies-- how can Overstreet defend this any longer? Overstreet is apparently already moving in that direction with their CGC pricing for the interim review publications.

 

Hang on, the long-awaited Overstreet NM price inflation may be about to arrive!

(Will we get a corresponding price reduction in 5.0-ish books as well?)