No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[fantastic_four]

There is no exception in this case. COW pages are allowed in 9.8. Seen it a few times.

 

Yah, me too, there are several Gaines File Copy books with cr/ow pages.

 

Going literally by the latest Overstreet Grading Guide, this could be construed as a difference in the CGC and Overstreet standards since the highest book they list as allowing cream/offwhite pages is the 9.4 grade. However, they state somewhere that if a book is an exceptional copy in all regards save one or two grading categories, that defects with severities worse than the ones listed for a particular grade can be present. This means that according to Overstreet's guidelines, it's too strict to say that a 9.6 or better book can never have cream/offwhite pages.

[blowout]

CGC claims their guidelines are the same as Overstreet's. Do you know of significant differences between the defects CGC allows and the Overstreet standards?

 

Two words...Production flaws.

[THE_BEYONDER]

CGC claims their guidelines are the same as Overstreet's. Do you know of significant differences between the defects CGC allows and the Overstreet standards?

 

Two words...Production flaws.

 

You mean like this....? Rate the QP on this one.

[fantastic_four]

Two words...Production flaws.

 

Which ones does Overstreet downgrade for that CGC doesn't?

[joe_collector]

Which ones does Overstreet downgrade for that CGC doesn't?

 

Centering and other production flaws, especially above 9.4. CGC is also more lenient on things like missing staples or poorly-aligned staples (in the front of the book), while OS doesn't let those into the higher grades. CGC and OS are quite consistent up to NM 9.4, but after that, CGC lets some horrible production flaws that go far beyond the OS guidelines.

 

In another area, the old "rusted staples" area is also different, with CGC allowing this on relatively high-grade comics, while OS limits this flaw for a G/VG 3.0 and no higher. OS also requires WHITE pages at NM+ 9.8 and above.

 

My only beef with OS: The old "Golden Age Protection Rule" of allowing FOXING (fungus growth) on high-grades, which is just a bone to dealers with hyper-valuable GA keys/Pedigrees with foxing.

 

Still, allowing a Modern NM 9.4 with foxing on it seems ludicrous to the extreme.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Grade this.

[joe_collector]

CGC WOW (Sure-Fire Investment)

 

Page Quality: Guaranteed to Increase in Value

[fantastic_four]

Centering and other production flaws, especially above 9.4. CGC is also more lenient on things like missing staples or poorly-aligned staples (in the front of the book), while OS doesn't let those into the higher grades. CGC and OS are quite consistent up to NM 9.4, but after that, CGC lets some horrible production flaws that go far beyond the OS guidelines.

 

Where did you find in the Overstreet guidelines that the following defects aren't allowed above 9.4?

 

• Centering flaws
• Other "horrible" production flaws? What types and how horrible?
• Missing or poorly aligned staples (has anyone seen missing staples on a CGC book above 9.4)?

Comparing the Overstreet and CGC standards is a big job, but since it sounds like you've found some mismatches, I was hoping you'd point some of these explicitly described items inconsistencies from the written Overstreet standards. I've searched around for some of these in the Overstreet grading guides for the last few years without being able to find them accounted for, but there is a lot more there than I'm sure I've noticed or can remember.

[joe_collector]

Centering: Just take out any OS Grading Guide and look at the upper grades. It states: WELL CENTERED, which is pretty easy to understand.

 

As we move down the grades, we get into Generally Well Centered, and then it disappears as a grading criteria after VF/NM 9.0. It's pretty obvious from this that CGC does take centering into effect at the higher-than 9.0 grades, while CGC definitely DOES NOT.

 

Missing Staples: I know I saw this somewhere, but I am still looking for it. I know OS takes this into consideration, since they deal with raw comics, where a missing staple interferes with the integrity of the comic and interferes with readility and structure. It may be under a detailed examination of the "READABILITY" area in another section.

 

And yes, I have seen CGC 9.6 and 9.8 copies with missing staples.

 

Other Production Flaws: I know OS takes color and print quality into consideration under the Cover Inks/Gloss section, while CGC doesn't care if it was printed B&W if the structure is perfect.

 

Printer's creases are kind of a grey area, but I've known OS Advisers (pre-CGC) who treated serious ones as a "grade limiter" and would not let such flawed books above a NM-, and the OS Grading Guide lists "ONLY SUBTLE" production flaws in their high-grades. A book-length printer's crease would certainly not qualify as SUBTLE, even to the most ardent CGC fan.

[fantastic_four]

Centering: Just take out any OS Grading Guide and look at the upper grades. It states: WELL CENTERED, which is pretty easy to understand.

 

How centered does Overstreet mean by "well" centered and "generally well" centered? No more than 1/16" off? 1/8"? 1/4"?

 

 

Other Production Flaws: I know OS takes color and print quality into consideration under the Cover Inks/Gloss section, while CGC doesn't care if it was printed B&W if the structure is perfect.

 

Aren't you the one who owns the very faded X-Men #94 that's looks very black and white which CGC gave a 4.0 that is structurally much, much higher in grade? I mostly only look at high grade books, but I can't remember seeing faded books at 9.0 or above. How does one measure gloss, and how do you know CGC doesn't deduct for it?

 

 

Printer's creases are kind of a grey area, but I've known OS Advisers (pre-CGC) who treated serious ones as a "grade limiter" and would not let such flawed books above a NM-, and the OS Grading Guide lists "ONLY SUBTLE" production flaws in their high-grades. A book-length printer's crease would certainly not qualify as SUBTLE, even to the most ardent CGC fan.

 

I agree mostly...CGC not downgrading enough for printer's creases is the biggest hole I've found in their grading. However, like you say, it's a fairly controversial topic--although I can't figure out why because it seems plain enough to me that they're a significant defect--and one that Overstreet doesn't specifically mention. Which is a shame, because they're fairly common.

[Darthdiesel]

Has there ever been a CGC 9.8 with TAN to Brittle pages ?

Nope...not allowed as per Steve at the SD dinner. A 9.4 book can't have soley cream pages according to him so it's not possible to have a worse PQ at a higher grade!

 

I love the way Darth counters my valid point with an exception to an overwhelming rule: CGC does not factor page quality into the grade itself. (If they did, we could consider the notations re: page quality to be 'grader's notes,' and we know that's not what they are!)

 

Okay, so we have some limited info from CGC re: how page quality might impact the overall grade of the book... but we also know that page quality is not directly factored into the final grade a book receives, and we know that Overstreet does in fact set parameters on the grade a book can achieve based in part on the quality of the pages.

 

I don't see how Steve Borock tossing out a few tidbits of info over lobster and steak really amounts to a set of grading guidelines/parameters from CGC...?

 

This is what I was countering from your post, and I DIDN'T think it was anywhere near valid or factual as you tried to present it to be, just more opinion:

 

CGC doesn't use the OS grading standards, and as far as I can tell, they never will.

 

Really? Is that a fact??? So they are pulling grades out of thin air, using mystical criteria that is not meant for the unwashed masses to ever learn..

 

Why? Because Overstreet factors paper quality (as one example) into the book's overall grade; according to Overstreet, a NM book can't have brown pages.This is diametrically counter to the way CGC grades, breaking out the paper quality almost as though the paper in question isn't part of the book being graded.

 

BROWN pages? I was just making a point that I've NEVER seen BROWN pages on a CGC 9.4 book. Thanks for chalking it up to laughable minutia...glad you enjoyed "?DIAMETRICALLY counter to??? " CGC ignores page quality COMPLETELY when assigning a grade? That's news to me, because that is what you are saying with "DIAMETRICALLY counter to" if you are trying to convey that Overstreet factors in the PQ with their grading. Steve Borock has commented on here enough about PQ and grading for me, and Greggy and probably Bronzebruce have grilled him enough on more occasions than one regarding this issue. All signs point to "yes, PQ is a factor in the final grade" Just because it is set aside and noted on the label apart from the grade does not MEAN that it is not factored in. You are saying, from what I read in the above statement, that CGC does not? So you want to tell me about a brown paged CGC NM 9.4???

 

You can agree or disagree on whether paper quality should be incorporated into a comic's overall grade - but the bottom line is, CGC does this differently from Overstreet, and always will.

 

Once again, fact or supposition? It's a good guess I'd wager, based possibly on your observations. Maybe others see it this way as well. I see that when pages get down to the tan and brittle quality level, it most definitely affects the integrity and physical structure of the comic; therefore, it IS factored into the grade, relegating it somewhere below a threshold where books with such PQ are allowed.

 

[Darthdiesel]

Now for this post...

 

I love the way Darth counters my valid point with an exception to an overwhelming rule: CGC does not factor page quality into the grade itself. (If they did, we could consider the notations re: page quality to be 'grader's notes,' and we know that's not what they are!)

 

How do you KNOW it is not factored in? Why should we concur that if they did, PQ references should be considered "grader's notes"? What if the PQ notes function as part of the grade based on the proximity of this info in relation to the numerical grade depicting the condition of the book? I could be wrong, but yet again, another assumption presented as fact.

 

Okay, so we have some limited info from CGC re: how page quality might impact the overall grade of the book... but we also know that page quality is not directly factored into the final grade a book receives, and we know that Overstreet does in fact set parameters on the grade a book can achieve based in part on the quality of the pages.

 

 

once again with the "we know" - You know that CGC doesn't set the same thresholds for lower PQ not appearing above a certain grade? Everything you just noted about Overstreet setting parameters and assigning grades "based in PART" on PQ...how is this any different than what is evidenced on CGC books? It is all up to interpretation once again. But yet, you put this forth so boldly as fact? Or is it just your strong conviction? Because there is a HUGE difference.

 

I don't see how Steve Borock tossing out a few tidbits of info over lobster and steak really amounts to a set of grading guidelines/parameters from CGC...?

 

Nice shot So you are insinuating that Steve can't be taken at face value over dinner conversation? Ever been in a business lunch or at a seminar/conference where folks talk about work while dining? I guess all comments made over a meal are just BS or to be brushed off as insignificant???

[joe_collector]

How centered does Overstreet mean by "well" centered and "generally well" centered? No more than 1/16" off? 1/8"? 1/4"?

 

But the point is that Overstreet obviously takes centering into account at higher grades while CGC does not. Regardless of the limits, OS uses Well Centered for the high grades and Generally Well Centered for 9.4-9.0.

 

That was my point, that is is definitely a factor for OS, which is extremely strict at the 9.6 and above, pretty strict at 9.4-9.0 and a non-issue at 8 and below.

 

There are CGC 9.8 copies that no sane person would even rate close to "Generally Well Centered", and Steve has stated that production flaws don't enter into their grading, except in extreme cases. ie. the horrible CGC 9.6 Hulk 181 or the horrendous ASM 129 CGC 9.6 spinola copies. .

 

Aren't you the one who owns the very faded X-Men #94 that's looks very black and white which CGC gave a 4.0

 

But that isn't a production flaw, but sun-fading. I'm referring to dead-color issues that look like they were printed with a last dregs of ink. Those issues are defintely not OS high-grade, but CGC has no qualms about putting a nice CGC 9.8 sticker on if the structure is high.

[Darthdiesel]

I think the number-only format stinks, for many reasons:

- it creates a disconnect between slabbed and raw books, which may in turn cause newcomers to the market to give up in frustration.

 

The disconnect? It exists already as evidenced by premiums the slabbed ones gather over their unslabbed counterparts. New label format does not do anything noticeable to further that. Your cause and effect here is such a reach, IMO. Newcomers to the market pick up comics for a variety of reasons, continue to pick them up for various reasons once again and leave the hobby for yet more various reasons. You can blame anything. Why pick on the number only format. One aspect in a million.

 

- by the time CGC gets any sort of signal from the market (us), it will be far too late to turn back and reinstate the alpha grading.

 

Someone mentioned this before. CGC is a business and they can run it how they see best. Too late? Why? If they decide it is in their best interest to reinstate their "Letters", then they just make a few calls and just do it? what is so hard about that? What would prevent them from bringing it back? Losing face? Don't think so...makes no sense.

 

- it further de-emphasizes the "old school" comic book collecting community, in favor of the speculators/investors and the dealers who cater to them.

 

REally? I'm somewhat "old school" and I'm not have a coronary over this decision or thinking it is an affront or slap-in-the-face to comic collectors. Some folks take it too personally, IMO. So CGC is now in cahoots with specs/investors and dealers huh...didn't blazingbob attest to his not being asked for input? Most of you on here ,whether incorrectly or not, think I'm a spec/investor...I wasn't asked...If anyone here was, please chime in how you were approached for your opinon on the new label. So to like numbers only format, you've got to be a spec/investor only type, or a dealer who caters to CGC??? I find that statement more of an affront than the removal of letters from the label.

 

- it further simplifies the condition of a comic book down to a single notation, when in fact the condition of a comic book is derived from large amounts of data; it moves grading toward a single line item, when in fact a comic book's grade is the result of many considerations, not to mention various and conflicting criteria and perspectives

 

Simplicity is bad I guess...it equates a dumbing down of the hobby acc to some on here. If a newbie is clueless but interested, maybe it's easier for them to stick around if it wasn't so hard and once they are no longer wet behind the ears, they can tackle the intricacies, nuances, and idiosyncracies of the hobby as we know it and encountered in our own collecting experiences. However, if you inundate them with all this about grading and flaws allowed in a certain grade and what each of the 25 points mean and the history behind it all, One may go crazy and become even more frustrated. what this label does is facilitate the 3rd party grading newbie's entrance into the slabbed collecting club. If they were not interested in it, they would have just chosen to keep buying raw books; they're much cheaper and easier to read. When I was young and collecting, I could care less about condition and didn't know what a key was. I was in it for the story. I read grade-A junk and memorable sagas one after the other. It wasn't until I was selling comics that all this stuff about condition and which books were keys really mattered so much.

 

Now some people would look at that last point above and say "exactly - THIS is why it's a good thing! It will eventually establish CGC's grading as the industry standard." To which I would respond, "that's great, except CGC has never fully disclosed those criteria, so none of us really knows why a given book receives the CGC grade that it does..."

 

IMO, it does nothing to further this comic book community takeover by CGC, frocefeeding us with their "secret recipe" as you keep harping on. CGC grading is simple enough for me...if the book is flawed in any way shape or form, it gets less than a 10.0... and that's all you need to know. How much lower due to the flaw? Break out your OS or Wizard guide and you'll find a close approximation More about undisclosed grading standards...go work for CGC if it means so much to know about it. There are sellers on eBay who used to work for CGC...go interview them and ask them to share.

 

CGC is talking out both sides of its mouth. On the one hand they've stated that they're following the Overstreet grading guidelines. On the other hand, they've removed the letter/alpha grading nomenclature, and ignore other aspects of Overstreet's grading criteria such as page quality.CGC, you can't have it both ways - are you responding to market demands/pressures/issues, or are you directing the market with an iron hand in an oh-so velvety glove?

 

I've no constructive response to this tripe..more of the samemish mash of fact and supposition I was done posting on this thread.I thought all that could be said or needed to be heard has already been put out there. Thanks Garth

 

 

[fantastic_four]

But the point is that Overstreet obviously takes centering into account at higher grades while CGC does not. Regardless of the limits, OS uses Well Centered for the high grades and Generally Well Centered for 9.4-9.0.

 

That was my point, that is is definitely a factor for OS, which is extremely strict at the 9.6 and above, pretty strict at 9.4-9.0 and a non-issue at 8 and below.

 

There are CGC 9.8 copies that no sane person would even rate close to "Generally Well Centered", and Steve has stated that production flaws don't enter into their grading, except in extreme cases. ie. the horrible CGC 9.6 Hulk 181 or the horrendous ASM 129 CGC 9.6 spinola copies. .

 

The 2002 Overstreet Grading Guide says "Well Centered" for 10.0 and "Generally Well Centered" for 9.9 down to 9.2. They don't mention centering that I noticed at 9.0 and below. Even though I agree with your preference for well-centered covers--I don't buy many that are more than 1/16" off myself--Overstreet says nothing at all about how centered "well" centered is. This is my constant argument about how CGC's internal standard is highly likely to be more well-defined than Overstreet's written standard...Overstreet uses a lot of qualitative words in their grading parameters. They cleaned a lot of the qualitative descriptions up in the 2002 grading guide, but there's still a lot of it there--including the description of centeredness.

 

Qualitative descriptions are too open to different interpretations by different collectors with differing attention to a defect like miswrap. Check out this scan from the 1992 Overstreet Grading Guide--it's a comic with miswrap, translucency, and staples pretty far onto the front that Overstreet and Carter give a ONE99 to (there are a bunch of miswraps in that guide at 96 and above):

 

 

Notice especially the tag that says "no printing defects"...yet there are several of the flaws that we here commonly refer to a "printing defects." This infers that in 1992, Overstreet didn't consider miswrap or misplaced staples to be printing defects. It's hard to say what their current interpretation is since they don't quantitatively define it.

 

 

Those issues are defintely not OS high-grade, but CGC has no qualms about putting a nice CGC 9.8 sticker on if the structure is high.

 

I can't say that I've seen these CGC 9.4 and above books with color printing defects. Has anybody else seen one, or do you have a scan? Could you have seen it at Heritage where they keep scans around on their servers?

[Darthdiesel]

Grade this.

 

Wrong forum - scan is 9.0

[THE_BEYONDER]

Grade this.

 

Wrong forum - scan is 9.0

 

It's not the scan.....

[joe_collector]

The 2002 Overstreet Grading Guide says "Well Centered" for 10.0 and "Generally Well Centered" for 9.9 down to 9.2.

 

Well, I have the Second Edition (Now with New 10 Point Grading) and it spells it out exactly as I mentioned above. Forgive me for saying this, but let's try and use up-to-date material when making comparisons.

 

Arnoldt has stated before that there were notable issues with the original Grading Guide and that this new one was supposed to fix those up and be "The Bible" for grading.

 

The scans are also much better and there is even a great example of a "slight miswrap" where a smidgen of White is showing. All other 9.4 and above scans are perfectly centered, while the lower-grade ones start showing more white and worse centering.

 

At the VF and F ranges, there are progressively worse Mis-Wrapped Cover notations, all of which are not even close to some CGC 9.8 and 9.6 copies I've seen.

 

But this really isn't the point. It's that OS without a shadow of a doubt takes centering and miswraps seriously at high grades and CGC does not.

 

There is no "gray area" when CGC grades a comic 9.6 and the "2" in 25-cents is wrapped totally to the back, along with some of the cover text. Ask 100 people if that book is "Well Centered" (as OS requires above 9.4) and no sane respondent (who isn't a dealer) would answer Yes.

[joe_collector]

P.S. For anyone with the Second Edition, turn to page 233 to see an example of a badly printed book and how drastically it affects the OS Grade.

 

We've all seen books like this sitting in high-grade CGC cases, and argued about them on the forums, but this is perhaps the most conclusive proof that OS takes centering seriously and CGC does not.

 

No real damage or defects, other than an off-angle cut and a mis-wrapped cover (OWL 10 pages). Basically a CGC 9.4, or in this case, an Overstreet Fine 6.0.

 

Read it and weep boyz....

[blowout]

No real damage or defects, other than an off-angle cut and a mis-wrapped cover (OWL 10 pages). Basically a CGC 9.4, or in this case, an Overstreet Fine 6.0.

 

But CGC are adopting OS standards...aren't they?.....