Age vs. True Condition

[s-man]

This is something I have a hard time understanding so a little help would be appreciated!

 

The whole age versus a books "true" condition has me puzzled. Now for example, if someone had two books: 1) Your average modern 2) Action Comics #1 (yeah, I went straight to the top for this one! ) and both books were in mint condition with ONLY one flaw that was the same on both books. Why would the AC 1 get a better grade than the other book simply because the book was printed a few decades before?

 

Another example, if you had two lamps that were identical with the same flaw, one was an old Tiffany lamp and the other a much newer knock off, and had a person grade the lamps that didn't know who manufactured them and just was supposed to assess the actual condition, would he look and say "One is NM+ while the other is NM- and I dont know why??" No...he would say both actual conditions are equal. Than why would he turn around and say, after looking at who manufactured the lamps, that the Tiffany is actually a higher grade and thus better condition than the knock off?

 

It seems to me that when a comic is assessed its not its true actual condition grade that is assessed, but more graded on a curve that goes from modern down to platinum age books. Is this the same for other graded collectibles (ie. stamps or coins)? The older they are the more curve they get from their "true" condition?? If thats so then how can anyone expect to get a real assessment of the actual condition of the book? If you were going to buy a graded book that wasn't modern, you would have to know the differential for each of the Ages it seems to me, before you knew the actual condition of the book. Is there a differential chart for each Age??

 

I guess I just dont get why age would play a factor in actual condition. A tanned book is a tanned book and a book with a corner bend is the same weather it be from 1940 or from 2007, it shouldn't matter which is older....or am I the only one who thinks the way?

[comicparadox]

I asked this very same question to Mark Haspel in in 2002. His answer at the time was that grading standards remained the same, whether a book was modern or Golden Age. The reason I had asked was a Gaines File Copy I owned that came back as a VF/NM 9.0 despite what I thought to be a significant corner impact. There was no color-break though, though, so the grade was only slightly "impacted", so to speak. Interestingly, another gaines book in the same run had a production cover crease and only graded a VF- 7.5 despite looking to me every bit as nice as the VF/NM 9.0 otherwise. I did take issue with that, since it was a production problem and not a wear/handling problem. Yet the VF-7.5 grade stood.

[mdandy8]

I agree 100%. It is so obvious when you look at the scans of even the Church copies of books. Now I know that there is no way that a book from 1938 could escape without those minor flaws and I'm willing to agree that the book might be the highest grade known to exist, but if it's an 8 then call it an 8 and don't tell me it's a 9.6

 

Like you point out, last weeks Xmen with a bit of corner rub and loss of gloss or a minor dust shadow is going to end up an 8 or lower, why call that Golden Age book a 9 or higher?

 

Foolish-

 

That being said I'm waiting for a Funny Pages V3#10 to come back and I hope they take into account it came from 1939 and bump it up a few.

[mdandy8]

Ok, one more bit since this is one of my favorate topics. In coins and some other collectibles they have a grade and price structure which recognizes that examples in those higher grades simily do not exist, or exist only in the form of a one of a kind unique example, which by it's very nature will not be available to others and so has it's own price structure. So in the guide you get prices that go up to an average grade, like an XF (or like 8.0) as the top grade. Then there is a note that says "A MS66 example exists and sold for XXX in XXXX" Something like that. Rather than try and make something that is not a high grade fit into that grade.

[Mr. Zipper]

In coins and some other collectibles they have a grade and price structure which recognizes that examples in those higher grades simily do not exist, or exist only in the form of a one of a kind unique example, which by it's very nature will not be available to others and so has it's own price structure. So in the guide you get prices that go up to an average grade, like an XF (or like 8.0) as the top grade. Then there is a note that says "A MS66 example exists and sold for XXX in XXXX" Something like that. Rather than try and make something that is not a high grade fit into that grade.

 

This post pretty much sums it up IMO.

 

While CGC claims they do not grade on a curve, it's apparent that books are graded relative to era of printing. We have all seen GA 9.4s and better that wouldn't even break 9.0 if it was a Bronze Age comic. We've all seen modern 9.4s with the smallest spine stress that would be a 9.8 if it was printed in 1964.

 

Many collectors believe that 9.8/9.6/9.4 represents "the best known examples" from that era rather than a rock solid technical grading standard.

 

Why is this?

 

Frankly, I don't know, but I suspect that this is driven by the high end investor mentality. For some reason, they just can't accept that 9.0 or 9.2 is super high grade for a GA book. They need to have a label denoting "9.8."

[s-man]

Many collectors believe that 9.8/9.6/9.4 represents "the best known examples" from that era rather than a rock solid technical grading standard.

 

 

Well that would make sense than when these older books are graded, but if that is the real case, then there never will be actual "true" condition grades for these books.

[Comicdey]

I've gleened from old postings that the increased size of a GA book and the production qualities of the day are also taken into account when grading.

[rjpb]

Some older books are graded too softly (and not just GA), while many modern books are graded too harshly. Tears, chips and creases resulting from production flaws vs. wear and tear should be treated the same IMHO.

 

The only lenience I can see for older books is slight loss of gloss and less than bone-white pages.

[s-man]

Some older books are graded too softly (and not just GA), while many modern books are graded too harshly. Tears, chips and creases resulting from production flaws vs. wear and tear should be treated the same IMHO.

 

My thinking exactly!

[drbanner]

I've gleened from old postings that the increased size of a GA book and the production qualities of the day are also taken into account when grading.

 

 

I believe the apparent differences in grading standards has more to do with the physical construction of the book than the age of the book, certain production defects (bindery chips) notwithstanding.

 

For example, on an otherwise NM book, what do you think the grade falls to with a 1/4" corner crease for an early GA (big!) book, a SA book, a Modern, and what about a Treasury? Is the affect on the grade related to the absolute magnitude of the crease, or the relative magnitude? I think it's the relative magnitude.

 

In addition to size differences, there are also differences in the quality of the paper and ink layers, the printing/production method (squarebounds, page count, # of staples), how the materials degrade, and numerous other factors which make the set of defects (and their affect on grade) for each genre/age unique.

 

Some argue that grading standards should not change based on age, but the reality is that the set of defects which must be considered when assigning a grade is different from book to book (mostly due to the age, but not by definition), so by necessity, the grading criteria is different.

 

Lots more discussion on this interesting subject can be found right here!

[FFB]

I've gleened from old postings that the increased size of a GA book and the production qualities of the day are also taken into account when grading.

 

 

I believe the apparent differences in grading standards has more to do with the physical construction of the book than the age of the book, certain production defects (bindery chips) notwithstanding.

 

For example, on an otherwise NM book, what do you think the grade falls to with a 1/4" corner crease for an early GA (big!) book, a SA book, a Modern, and what about a Treasury? Is the affect on the grade related to the absolute magnitude of the crease, or the relative magnitude? I think it's the relative magnitude.

 

In addition to size differences, there are also differences in the quality of the paper and ink layers, the printing/production method (squarebounds, page count, # of staples), how the materials degrade, and numerous other factors which make the set of defects (and their affect on grade) for each genre/age unique.

 

Some argue that grading standards should not change based on age, but the reality is that the set of defects which must be considered when assigning a grade is different from book to book (mostly due to the age, but not by definition), so by necessity, the grading criteria is different.

 

Lots more discussion on this interesting subject can be found right here!

 

Mike, I think that thread you linked in your post might be the best support for the notion that people should call CGC first if they have questions like this and can't find the answer on the boards. Which is not to say that people should not start posts if they have a question -- my point is that if someone has a question and can't get the answer quickly with a post, calling CGC almost always gets them the information they want.

[drbanner]

Mike, I think that thread you linked in your post might be the best support for the notion that people should call CGC first if they have questions like this and can't find the answer on the boards. Which is not to say that people should not start posts if they have a question -- my point is that if someone has a question and can't get the answer quickly with a post, calling CGC almost always gets them the information they want.

 

Sure, but what about the lost opportunity for pages and pages of endless speculation and rumor-mongering!?!?

 

Just kidding, but I have been chastised on these boards previously for suggesting people actually pick up the phone and call CGC when they have questions that are leading nowhere around here...

[FFB]

Mike, I think that thread you linked in your post might be the best support for the notion that people should call CGC first if they have questions like this and can't find the answer on the boards. Which is not to say that people should not start posts if they have a question -- my point is that if someone has a question and can't get the answer quickly with a post, calling CGC almost always gets them the information they want.

 

Sure, but what about the lost opportunity for pages and pages of endless speculation and rumor-mongering!?!?

 

Just kidding, but I have been chastised on these boards previously for suggesting people actually pick up the phone and call CGC when they have questions that are leading nowhere around here...

 

I know you have, and so have I -- many, many times.

[Mr. Zipper]

I believe the apparent differences in grading standards has more to do with the physical construction of the book than the age of the book, certain production defects (bindery chips) notwithstanding.

 

For example, on an otherwise NM book, what do you think the grade falls to with a 1/4" corner crease for an early GA (big!) book, a SA book, a Modern, and what about a Treasury? Is the affect on the grade related to the absolute magnitude of the crease, or the relative magnitude? I think it's the relative magnitude.

 

In addition to size differences, there are also differences in the quality of the paper and ink layers, the printing/production method (squarebounds, page count, # of staples), how the materials degrade, and numerous other factors which make the set of defects (and their affect on grade) for each genre/age unique.

 

Some argue that grading standards should not change based on age, but the reality is that the set of defects which must be considered when assigning a grade is different from book to book (mostly due to the age, but not by definition), so by necessity, the grading criteria is different.

 

With all due respect, Mike, this reads like something from a CGC Press Release and I don't buy it.

 

Certainly, books from different eras have different production issues, but we're not talking about a bindery chip here or the relative magnitude of a crease there.

 

The fact of the matter is there are GA -- and even SA -- books in 9.2+ slabs that have rounded corners, staple tears, spine stresses, color chips, scuffs, etc., etc. Look through the Heritage archive and examine the 9.2+ GA books. You'll see flaw after flaw after flaw that aren't related to age or era.

 

A 9.4 + book should look the way it did when it was new on the newsstand regardless of era. I highly doubt that books from the 40s appeared fresh on the newsstand with rounded spine corners or any of the other flaws I outlined above.

 

I guess you can say to-mah-to -- the set of defects which must be considered when assigning a grade is different from book to book (mostly due to the age, but not by definition), so by necessity, the grading criteria is different

 

And the skeptic in me can say to-may-to -- there is a tendency to elevate the best know exemplars to unrealistically high grade levels, thus grading on a curve

 

[rjpb]

While directly asking CGC makes perfect sense in regards to how CGC treats comics from different eras - I took the topic to be broader than that - including the question of whether the age of the comic should be taken into consideration - and if so, to what degree. I agree that magnitude of the flaw in relationship to the size of the book is more important than it's actual size, though I think this is more germain to treasuries and digests, than in comparing GA to moderns, as many 1943 onward GA books are not much larger in height and width than modern books.

[FFB]

While directly asking CGC makes perfect sense in regards to how CGC treats comics from different eras - I took the topic to be broader than that - including the question of whether the age of the comic should be taken into consideration - and if so, to what degree. I agree that magnitude of the flaw in relationship to the size of the book is more important than it's actual size, though I think this is more germain to treasuries and digests, than in comparing GA to moderns, as many 1943 onward GA books are not much larger in height and width than modern books.

 

My comment about calling CGC to get answers wasn't intended to mean that this thread or the discussion in it (or other threads like it) shouldn't exist. My only point was that we've all seen threads spin out of control with speculation and misinformation that could have been cleared up (or at least focused better) with a simple phone call. The discussion that follows is very important. I just think it's better, if we're going to discuss CGC's practices, to find out what CGC has to say about them rather than simply speculate about it.

[drbanner]

I guess you can say to-mah-to -- the set of defects which must be considered when assigning a grade is different from book to book (mostly due to the age, but not by definition), so by necessity, the grading criteria is different

 

And the skeptic in me can say to-may-to -- there is a tendency to elevate the best know exemplars to unrealistically high grade levels, thus grading on a curve

 

 

There are plenty of runs of early GA books in the census with few, if any, 9.0 or better copies listed so I don't know that I agree that CGC will assign the "best known" copy an articially inflated grade - the highest Action 1 is 8.5, the highest Detective 27 is 8.0, etc.,.

 

I became real familiar with how to inspect and grade SA and BA books after spending several years buying and selling 2 large OO collections, and it was fairly easy to maintain consistency when grading these books as every Marvel and DC was pretty much put together the same way (construction, materials, common defects). However, when I started collecting GA books I had to throw all that practical knowledge and experience out the window as the types and variety of materials and construction (paper and cover stock, size, page count, etc.,.) varied widely. The relative magnitude of a defect like a crease is one example, but what about a detached cover on a single-staple Timely (which has basically a 1/4" cover tear) - should it be downgraded as much as a SA DC with a detached cover (which has two 1/4" cover tears)? While both books have detached covers, to me, the DC is in worse shape as it has 2 big "injuries" whereas the Timely only has one. The list of examples/comparisons like this could go on and on.

 

While I don't feel proficient at grading GA books, I've done enough trying to know that it is a far different beast than grading SA and BA books is.

[mar-vell]

I agree golden age grading crteria is different- I still say AGE is a factor in CGC's estimation! As I recall there was a mile high key recently graded at CGC 9.6(i think it was the first flash) that had a dust shadow on BC-we all know no bronze age book would ever receive such a grade with that defect!

[drbanner]

I agree golden age grading crteria is different- I still say AGE is a factor in CGC's estimation! As I recall there was a mile high key recently graded at CGC 9.6(i think it was the first flash) that had a dust shadow on BC-we all know no bronze age book would ever receive such a grade with that defect!

 

Who knows, in all those thousands of SA and BA books I mention above, I don't recall seeing a single BA book with a dust shadow. That's just not a defect you see on BA books, although it is more common on SA and GA books (GA particularily), so it would be difficult to compare how CGC treats that particular defect between the ages. Have you seen a BA book with a dust shadow that CGC appeared to downgrade significantly?

[mar-vell]

I agree golden age grading crteria is different- I still say AGE is a factor in CGC's estimation! As I recall there was a mile high key recently graded at CGC 9.6(i think it was the first flash) that had a dust shadow on BC-we all know no bronze age book would ever receive such a grade with that defect!

 

Who knows, in all those thousands of SA and BA books I mention above, I don't recall seeing a single BA book with a dust shadow. That's just not a defect you see on BA books, although it is more common on SA and GA books (GA particularily), so it would be difficult to compare how CGC treats that particular defect between the ages. Have you seen a BA book with a dust shadow that CGC appeared to downgrade significantly?

 

Pretty sure i have seen BA books penalized but I can't recall anything off the top of my head. One statement alone by CGC reinforces the idea that age is a factor-they have stated that at their judgement certain golden & earlier books with minor restoration can be given a blue label with the resto noted on the label & .2 deducted from the technical grade! This was done with the mile high copy of more fun #52.