CGC and Overstreet Grading

[HooDeeDoo]

I haven't really focused on the news that CGC is going to start using Overstreet grading standards until this afternoon. Below is the book that Overstreet specifically used as an example of a NM9.4 in his earlier grading book. As you can see, it didn't come back even close to 9.4.

 

I hope Steve Borock and the Haspelettes keep grading the way they have been. Overstreet standards would be a step down.

 

[joe_collector]

Below is the book that Overstreet specifically used as an example of a NM9.4 in his earlier grading book. As you can see, it didn't come back even close to 9.4.

 

So, did it go straight from the OS Grading Guide photo shoot to be picked up by CGC for grading? If not, what's the point?

[HooDeeDoo]

So, did it go straight from the OS Grading Guide photo shoot to be picked up by CGC for grading? If not, what's the point?

 

huh?

[joe_collector]

That anything can happen to damage comics from one day to the next. Some insufficiently_thoughtful_person replacing the Mylar, someone dropping/mishandling the book, putting a thumb indent, or even (gasp) reading it.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but what OS thought was NM a few years ago, has little to do with CGC standard, unless the book went directly from the OS graders to CGC with no hands touching the comic in-between.

[FlyingDonut]

That anything can happen to damage comics from one day to the next. Some insufficiently_thoughtful_person replacing the Mylar, someone dropping/mishandling the book, putting a thumb indent, or even (gasp) reading it.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but what OS thought was NM a few years ago, has little to do with CGC standard, unless the book went directly from the OS graders to CGC with no hands touching the comic in-between.

 

Vince, come in off the ledge. Lee Harvey acted alone. Vince Foster simply shot himself. Hitler is not in Argentina, and there's no conspiracy here. Grading is getting tighter. I have no idea when the OS grading was made, but tighter is better. In many things, true , but definitely in comics grading.

[BronzeBruce13]

That anything can happen to damage comics from one day to the next. Some insufficiently_thoughtful_person replacing the Mylar, someone dropping/mishandling the book, putting a thumb indent, or even (gasp) reading it.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but what OS thought was NM a few years ago, has little to do with CGC standard, unless the book went directly from the OS graders to CGC with no hands touching the comic in-between.

 

Vince, come in off the ledge. Lee Harvey acted alone. Vince Foster simply shot himself. Hitler is not in Argentina, and there's no conspiracy here. Grading is getting tighter. I have no idea when the OS grading was made, but tighter is better. In many things, true , but definitely in comics grading.

 

...better hope Mrs. Donut is NOT watching tonight

[fantastic_four]

Even though Joe is right that the book could have been slightly damaged at some point over the last decade, when you look at the defects Overstreet allowed in that 1992 book, you can easily see that CGC's standards are a bit tighter than the Guide's were back then--which Gemstone freely admitted when they rewrote it. Many of the 96 to 100 books definitely have the same kinds of defects we currently see in the 9.0 to 9.6 grades.

 

The other two books I've seen from the old grading guide are the Overstreet copy of Spidey #1, which he gave a NM95 and CGC gave a 9.0, and MAYBE the Mint 99 Showcase 4, which I suspect is the one Metropolis has that's a CGC 9.4.

[HooDeeDoo]

That anything can happen to damage comics from one day to the next. Some insufficiently_thoughtful_person replacing the Mylar, someone dropping/mishandling the book, putting a thumb indent, or even (gasp) reading it.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but what OS thought was NM a few years ago, has little to do with CGC standard, unless the book went directly from the OS graders to CGC with no hands touching the comic in-between.

 

Oh, now I know what you're babb....er....talking about. I bought it years ago when Bob sold his collection to Geppi. It was in the same condition as pictured in the book.

 

I never thought it was a NM although it was pictured in the grading book as being one.

[mr_highgrade]

[joe_collector]

Vince, come in off the ledge. Lee Harvey acted alone. Vince Foster simply shot himself. Hitler is not in Argentina, and there's no conspiracy here. Grading is getting tighter. I have no idea when the OS grading was made, but tighter is better. In many things, true , but definitely in comics grading.

 

Come on Dan, when I offer something with far more merit, I'm laughed off the boards. When Howdy Doody posts something of almost no value, it's raised up as evidence that CGC is tougher than OS.

 

How about I post a pic of a VF/NM, mis-cut Defenders issue (sold to me by a very reputable dealer who used OS standards - including miscuts as defects) that came back CGC 9.4. I bet that would go over like a lead balloon.

 

I'm not against tigher grading, but this example has more potential holes than a truckload of swiss cheese.

[fantastic_four]

Come on Dan, when I offer something with far more merit, I'm laughed off the boards. When Howdy Doody posts something of almost no value, it's raised up as evidence that CGC is tougher than OS.

 

CGC used to be tougher than Overstreet; since the 2002 guide, they seem roughly equivalent. You claim that CGC doesn't downgrade for miswraps, but the more accurate way to describe that would be that they don't downgrade much. I'm fairly certain that CGC would not give this book a 9.9:

 

 

You could post a LOT of the books from the 1992 grading guide and find defects that CGC wouldn't allow in the grade given by Overstreet...here's an example that everybody on here would be complaining to high heaven about if CGC gave this book a 9.4:

 

 

I don't have my guide or scanner near me, but I could continue posting examples like this...the standards have very convincingly tightened since the 1992 guide.

[joe_collector]

I don't have my guide or scanner near me, but I could continue posting examples like this...the standards have very convincingly tightened since the 1992 guide.

 

Exactly my point. It's 2003 and we're talking about a book that was displayed in 1992 and could not have been graded by CGC for many years later.

 

I have nothing against stating that both OS and CGC have tightened their grading practices circa 2003, only the example given to "show" this.

 

Maybe I should take a CGC 9.4, rattle it around in the holder, kick it down the stairs and pour water over it, and then offer it up to OS for their next grading guide.

 

WTF, a CGC 9.4 is only an Overstreet Very Good?

[fantastic_four]

Well if somebody doesn't beat me to it, I'll scan the page for the book in question from the 1992 guide when I get a chance over the next few days.

[joe_collector]

Well if somebody doesn't beat me to it, I'll scan the page for the book in question from the 1992 guide when I get a chance over the next few days.

 

Cool, does this mean Darth and Greggy get to dress like New Kids on the Block?

[greggy]

Well if somebody doesn't beat me to it, I'll scan the page for the book in question from the 1992 guide when I get a chance over the next few days.

 

Cool, does this mean Darth and Greggy get to dress like New Kids on the Block?

[fantastic_four]

Cool, does this mean Darth and Greggy get to dress like New Kids on the Block?

 

Are you inferring that this example of Hoodeehoo's from the 1992 guide is too old to be of interest?

[joe_collector]

Are you inferring that this example of Hoodeehoo's from the 1992 guide is too old to be of interest?

 

Nah, where would you get the idea that an 11-year gap would mean anything in the rapidly changing comic book field?

[blowout]

Are you inferring that this example of Hoodeehoo's from the 1992 guide is too old to be of interest?

 

I also seriously think that anyone with the 1992 grading guide should throw it away. We have seen huge leaps in grading in the last three years and it is just not relevant anymore.

[fantastic_four]

It's useful because it helps establish a vector for the change in the grading standard. Assuming the book wasn't damaged, if it's a 9.4 in 1992 and an 8.5 in 2003, what will it be in 2013, or 2023? It's useful to have some idea what grading might be like in the future, and one way to do it is to figure out how people downgraded for different types of defects in the past.

[joe_collector]

It's useful because it helps establish a vector for the change in the grading standard. Assuming the book wasn't damaged, if it's a 9.4 in 1992 and an 8.5 in 2003, what will it be in 2013, or 2023? It's useful to have some idea what grading might be like in the future, and one way to do it is to figure out how people downgraded for different types of defects in the past.

 

This is a crock.

 

A far better way to do this is to examine the high-profile comics sold through auction, that were graded by various comic book luninaries like Carter and Overstreet, and compare those grades against the CGC grade.

 

In the case of the Sotheby auctions in the early 90's, many of the NM-/NM/NM+ books have come back CGC 9.2-9.6 (easy to trace because of pedigree), with many being the exact same CGC grade as Carter, Overstreet et al decreed in 1990-92 or so.