New grading company starting up?

[MrNice-migration]

Regardless of what the exact vernacular may be in referring to these ugly, distracting defects incurred by the comic in production or inherent in the materials used to produce them, they are still there.

 

When you see a 3" crease occurring that's deep enough to have cracked all the color out of it on a book that has been professionally graded a 9.4 it matters very little whether you call the defect a print line, print fold, pipe roller, nips, blanket smash or monster mash. It's still very unexpected (for me anyway), seemingly way out of place on a comic graded that high up on the scale, and an ugly defect to boot!

 

Just because another service, or another 10 services become available to comic collectors doesn't necessarily mean that collectors are going to unslab CGC 9.4 Amazing Fantasy 15s. That's a pretty radical example of assumption. What about having the option to submit to another reputable company whose opinions are respected that may have better services, quicker turn-around times, better rates as well as excellent quantity submission rates?

 

Card grading started with PSA and within 10 years of their emergence, there were over 100 grading services, most of which have came and went. There are two main services SGC and PSA, possibly 3 or 4 more that carry reputability and weight as far as opinions go, a dozen "also-rans", and approx. 2 dozen that are considered a joke. Personally, I wouldn't submit elsewhere other than SGC but that opinion is based on the experience of buying cards graded by different companies over many years, not just a feeling of, "I'll stick with CGC 'cause they're the best although I haven't tried elsewhere or seen and sampled other company's services" mentality.

[MrNice-migration]

??

[Kevin76]

Mr Nice, welcome back Meth/Hammer/BlackSnotzy and Mr Nice soon to be added to the list of Alias that is Comic-Keys...your too over opinionated to keep away from these boards

[BachelorOfComix]

Hammer! Welcome back. Where've you been?

[BachelorOfComix]

I'll stick with CGC 'cause they're the best although I haven't tried elsewhere or seen and sampled other company's services"

Greggy's restored purple label CGC Avengers 4 was graded as unrestored by CGG. Apparently, they didn't detect the resto & if they did, it should have been noted on the label. That's all I needed to see from them. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Bronty]

I could be mistaken, but it's an awfully distinctive posting style..

[BachelorOfComix]

Mr Nice, welcome back Meth/Hammer/BlackSnotzy and Mr Nice soon to be added to the list of Alias that is Comic-Keys...your too over opinionated to keep away from these boards

 

[MrNice-migration]

? So anyone who makes sense is over-opiniated?? It does seem as though I am not alone in my over-opiniated opinion.

 

I think that Fantastic Four made an excellent post about printing flaws going "unnoticed" by professional graders in the final and overall factoring of a comic's grade and possibly inclusion of all major defects on a label (grader's notes). I'm in complete agreement with him.

 

Think of it this way. How'd you like to win a CGC Hulk 6 graded 9.4 for $5000 or so, and when you inspect the comic, whose only label notes state "off-white pages", discover a printing crease in a portion of the artwork that disguised its presence very well? Couple that with making your bidding decisions based on an image that may already be hiding it to some extent.

 

These things do happen and to have it happen on a purchase with no return options is a shame. Just a little more detail in the way of grader's notes might diminish these type of occurrences and a company that goes the extra distance to include as much data as possible about a comic on the label or an accompanying document, may be worth considering as an alternative route of submission.

[BachelorOfComix]

I could be mistaken, but it's an awfully distinctive posting style..

Bronty, I know. I was just joking.

[MrNice-migration]

Bacelor,

 

Just one example of an error on CGG's part eliminates them from your contention for your business??? Do you feel you have ever seen a "mistake" made by CGC??? Were you in complete agreement with the 2.5 on that Action 1 that would have been a 2.5 at best if 1/7th of the cover weren't missing??? It seems that 90%+ on this Board felt that was a blatantly blown call. How about restored Golden Age books being slabbed with blue labels?? Does these few and far between examples mean that we should dismiss all of CGCs other accurate findings?? Of course not!!

 

I've seen mostly modern age books graded by CGG and the one thing that impressed me the most about what I saw was that in each and every case, there was a marked difference between comics graded 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 with amazing consistancy from piece to piece.

 

Also, I saw no comics in the 9.2 and up category where printing defects, even as mild as the way the cover is wrapped (off-centeredness) took "center stage" or were noticeable factors.

[Kevin76]

Think of it this way. How'd you like to win a CGC Hulk 6 graded 9.4 for $5000 or so, and when you inspect the comic, whose only label notes state "off-white pages", discover a printing crease in a portion of the artwork that disguised its presence very well

 

a wrinkle in the paper doesn't bother me,oh sorry "printer's crease" for the printing impaired

[BachelorOfComix]

Were you in complete agreement with the 2.5 on that Action 1 that would have been a 2.5 at best if 1/7th of the cover weren't missing??? It seems that 90%+ on this Board felt that was a blatantly blown call.

That was clearly a blown call. Have you seen another like it from CGC? One with a big chunk missing & a "generous" grade given? I have not.

[Bronty]

Ahh, I see!!

[fantastic_four]

a wrinkle in the paper doesn't bother me,oh sorry "printer's crease" for the printing impaired

 

Would a 3" non-color-breaking crease bother you then? I see very little difference between a non-color-breaking handling crease and a non-color-breaking printing crease, yet CGC would give one up to a 7.0/7.5 and the other up to a 9.6/9.8.

[read_em-migration]

He's just an Average Joe Collector like you and me.

 

Heh heh, he's no Joe Collector. But I would have thought somebody would know him. He presents himself as a real "player":

 

"Unfortunately there are MANY eBayers that watch every move I make on the CGC comic buying and selling side...I have had a few emails recently asking me why I have not purchased as many CGC'd comics like I once did as I get spam from Dealers all the time. A few of them have lowered prices and this used to work with me quite well. I used a few legit reasons as why I gave the appearance of "cutting back" purchases, such as (such and such) - I HAVE drastically cut back on purchases of CGC comics. Another reason is that Grading company I am going to give a go..."

 

I'll have to ask again on Monday, see if any of the San Diego people heard anything.

[BachelorOfComix]

I don't think this guy is tied with the "global" group. They are heavy hitters. This calamerica dude just sounds like a frustrated dealer. If he can start his own successful grading company all the power to him.

[MrNice-migration]

and I'd have to ask you the same question. Agreed, that was a blatantly blown call on the Action 1, and yes, the only one where I've seen such major defect completely ignored, but in the same respect, how many other CGG blown calls have you seen like the Avengers 4 they failed to detect the cleaning and pressing on??

 

I believe that Marnin Rosenberg wrote in an Overstreet article that he submitted 6 comics to CGC, each with a different range of restoration performed, and they all passed blue label status. Is Marnin being truthfull, exaggerating, not telling the whole story, or lying through his teeth?? I have no idea as I don't know the man but his reputation seems very solid.

 

Now if this did happen to one extent ot another, it obviously was early in CGCs "career" and any company starting up does have some bugs to iron out. I'm sure that the same could be said of CGG's Avengers 4 error and omission as they were a few months old when the Avengers 4 was slabbed.

 

Also, CGG didn't have a bottomless rooker of cash backing them at start-up with everything they could possibly need to become fully 100% functional from day 1 of operation. They started from far more humble beginnings but I'm sure that something like that will make them try even harder to excel in the grading service game.

 

You have to cut some slack to people and companies starting out. Not all the great ones start out great. Mike Schmidt and Sandy Koufax were basically bums, the first few years in their careers and wound up the greatest ever at their positions. There had to have been something special that managers saw in them to keep them in the majors and they paid off on promise handsomely.

 

I saw something special when I saw CGG's 9.2s, 9.4s and 9.6s that I didn't see with CGC. I saw clearly discernable differences between those .2 spreads. Very subtle ones but of extreme accuracy and bullseye consistancy. None of the 9.6s had any stresses whatsoever and all had square corners, the 9.4s may have had either a stress or a slightly blunted corner (but not both) and the 9.2 may have had a few stresses but looked just like a 9.4 with one or two extra minute breaks on the spine. Consistancy in anything defines greatness and I believe that they're on the right track. Also, none of those 9.2 to 9.6 had any discernable printing or mechanical flaws and if they did, were so slight as to be unnoticeable unless you were hunting for them with a magnifying glass!

 

You can't judge things on one submission, one day, one moment or there would be one restaurant, one make of car, etc. You give new things a chance and see if it's for you or not, or we'd wear, eat, drive and use the same things every day for our whole stagnant, unchanging, boring lives if that were the case.

[Kevin76]

a wrinkle in the paper doesn't bother me,oh sorry "printer's crease" for the printing impaired

 

Would a 3" non-color-breaking crease bother you then? I see very little difference between a non-color-breaking handling crease and a non-color-breaking printing crease, yet CGC would give one up to a 7.0/7.5 and the other up to a 9.6/9.8.

 

cause there is nothing you can do about the wrinkle in the paper,but the handling crease can be avoided

[fantastic_four]

cause there is nothing you can do about the wrinkle in the paper,but the handling crease can be avoided

 

Yes there is--throw the wrinkled paper away. I know that wouldn't be cheap from a production point of view, but I don't care--don't tell me there's "nothing you can do" about wrinkles, because there is, it's just that it'd take more work to do it than the printers want to go through.

 

A crease is a crease is a crease...the aesthetic beauty of a comic book shouldn't depend on who caused a defect and when they did it, it should depend upon how it looks at the time of grading. Printing creases and non-color-breaking handling creases look about the same, so they should be deducted similarly. The difference that does exist between them is that printing creases don't break gloss, whereas handling ones often do...but this is extremely minor, certainly not enough of a defect to justify the chasm in current grading between the two types of defects.

[BachelorOfComix]

It appears that CCG has what you're looking for in a comic book grading company. How many CCG comics do you own?

 

Let's just agree to disagree. I can't change your mind & you can't change mine. CCG for you. CGC for me. 'Nuff Said.