Beta vs. VHS; Blue Ray vs. HD; Star Wars Vs. Star Trek; and the list goes on.

Both CGC and PGX use the same basic principles to encapsulate their books. The following was taken from their own sites.

The first is from CGC:

The newly-printed labels are stacked in the same sequence as the comics to be encapsulated with them, ensuring that each book and its label match one another. The comic is now ready to be fitted inside an archival-quality interior well, which is then sealed within a transparent capsule, along with the book?s color-coded label. This is accomplished through a combination of compression and ultrasonic vibration. The result is a newly-encapsulated CGC comic, ready to be shipped to its proud owner.

The second is from PGX:

Our holder also offers optimal protection for your book -- the airtight inner-holder is surrounded by a durable outer-holder, which preserves and protects your book much better than conventional storage methods. Each book has two pieces of micro-chamber paper inserted inside the book to help absorb any gases or acids the book lets off over time, thereby helping to slow down the aging process a great deal.

It seems that the above keep comic books safe from being damaged and retain the grade given but how do Both CGC and PGX grade. PGX has a comparative price list on what they charge and what CGC charges; CGC only has what they charge. However anyone keeping up with encapsulating their books knows that the information PGX has is outdated. I do not know how PGX can compete if they are not even updating their own website. The company has so much potential but at the moment they cannot hold a candle to CGC?s light (that was so clich?).

I remember when I first started to collect back issues. Most books when becoming a back issue were simply put in a bag with a board and then twenty five cents was added to the price stated on the cover. This was probably just to cover the cost of the bag and board. I remember when extra issues from my local comic book shop were put in the back issue bin I still recall seeing the New Mutants #98 for only a $1.25. Now years later CGC comes along and grades this book (along with the success of Deadpool) and the comic has been selling for over two hundred dollars (graded as a 9.8). I recently read that a 9.9 fetched a few thousand dollars. I do not think this book would be anywhere close to this price in a simple Mylar.

I have this book (the previously mentioned New Mutants #98). I purchased it off the rack, read it, and put it in a Mylar bag with board. I didn?t do this with all my books, barely any in fact, but I loved this series so much that when (starting with) issue #86 came out I labored to take care of this series. I plan on getting my #98 graded with the hopes of receiving a 9.8. I looked it over numerous times. The spine is tight. The corners crisp. The staples clean, dare I dream a 9.9 when I expect a 9.6?

I have one PGX 9.9 (my only PGX). Of course it is from The New Mutants, issue #5 in fact. I purchased it off of e-Bay under the ?make an offer? option. I offered $45(the average I like to pay for a 9.8 from this series). He accepted. I now have the book in my collection of 10 to get graded by CGC (the only reason I purchased it was to get one book closer in my attempt to get all the New Mutants in a 9.8) at Wizard World 2010. I inquired to them if they would do this. My reply is that they would but there was no guarantee it would receive the same grade. I understand this but I wonder if it does not receive the same grade how do the two separate companies agree or disagree on what is and what is not a flaw.

The #5 is indeed crisp. The corners are magnificent; the cover colorfully vibrant. I stared over and over at the staples and they are my main concern. They are clean but where the cover is attached I question the space between metal and paper. I would have graded this book a 9.8 by Overstreet?s Grading Standards but then again I am strict in grading my own books, maybe too strict but I don?t want anyone telling me that I only gave it a high grade because it?s mine.

So how do CGC and PGX grade? A rip is a rip, very east to distinguish; a rusty staple also very easy to tell, but what about spine stress. I have Daredevil #158 (graded an 8.0) which looks nicer than my X-Men #141 which I bought from auction as a 9.6. Sure it helps my points when I add it to my registry but I don?t get as much joy out of it as let?s say a Rom or the Human Fly graded in a 9.8 (just kidding). If I brought both with me to Wizard World 2010 would they look them over (the Daredevil and X-Men not The Human Fly and Rom)? Would my 9.6 drop, would my 8.0 increase? I plan on bringing a copy of X-Men #142 to get graded by CGC. This raw book is beautiful (better than the 9.6 141of X-Men I won) and anything less than a 9.6 would make me lose faith in CGC?s ability to grade properly or consistently.

I am reminded of the days when there was VHS and Beta. Beta had better quality and better packaging (think green, they were smaller), but VHS had better marketing. Recently it was Blue Ray vs. HD. Blue Ray won. Who would win between CGC and PGX? If PGX could allow them to excel in so many areas including placing themselves into the forefront of the market rather than sit back and take the scraps that CGC leaves behind, I believe PGX could dominate. I am reminded when UPS went on strike about ten years ago and Fed Ex had the opportunity to excel?..they didn?t.

Until then my preference is CGC. I can?t tell you why. Maybe it is the comprehensive registry. Maybe it is the journal?s that are so easy to post and get feedback from. It could also be like a pedigree that the market has deemed them the first and foremost expert in grading comic books. But if I had anything vested in either company I would honor another fully encapsulated book and grade it the same grade if they wished to switch their collection from PGX to CGC or vice versa. After all a rip is a rip and a rusty staple is a rusty staple, which leaves the question how many creases does it take to lower a grade and which company is better suited to make the distinction?

Thanks for reading

Tnerb