Thoughts on CGC GRADING (((POLL)))

[PovertyRow]

What I do have a problem with is CGC Acolytes refusing to accept reality and stating that any 70-year old book would stack up to CGC 9.6-9.8 fresh off the presses.

 

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is calling a GA book that grades VF as a NM simply because it is older. Either use age-grades or grade consistently. I haven't seen anything in any grading spec that says "for books before 1940 this is a NM. For books from 1941-1950 this is a NM."

 

I have no issue with using the same grading standard but applying it equally. Expecting a GA book to be different in quality from a new book is fine - as long as that is notated in whatever grading standard is being used. As I say, I have yet to see that and if you know of any links to such a grading standard would appreciate the url.

 

As far as reality goes - my feeling, as already stated, is that "The condition of the book is gonna remain what it is regardless of what we call it." Now we just have to figure out what to call it, cause it ain't happening now as far as I can see.

 

[drbanner]

You CGC detractors make me want to hurl.

 

I personally submitted a Phantom Stranger #1 (1969) with a rounded corner/bottom of the spine and a faint 1/4" edge crease that came back 9.6 - the best known copy. I personally submitted a sweet Adventure 431 with no fewer than 3 visible spine stresses/cracks that came back 9.8 - again, the best known copy.

 

I personally started a thread with scans of 5 of my Golden Age books asking for opinions on the grades, and the silver/bronze age collectors on this board graded them much more leniently than CGC did - so again, the results support the position that CGC is so much more lenient on silver and bronze age books that it's not even funny. Of course, conspicously absent with his expert opinion on the grades of those golden age books was none other than the CGC-grading expert himself.

 

Now, I don't really believe CGC is stricter on gold than they are on silver/bronze, but unlike CI, I have first-hand knowledge of how CGC grades gold, silver, and bronze age books, and provided the info for all to see.

 

CI only supplies opinion, re-hashed 2nd hand information, and conjecture. Just like the "CGC is starting another strict grading period" thread CI started b/c, gasp, he read it on the internet (RJ). Here's a tip - don't believe everything you read on the internet. That claim quickly died out as Double-D and I came back with FACTS - my last 50 bronze age submittals came back 9.4 and above, and DD showed us all his invoice. I suspect RJ was wasn't submitting more moderns due to the (yes, crash, as my good friend Gene has pointed out to us), and not b/c of the changing grading standards.

[ericc123]

This issue confuses me. I admitedly only have 30 or so high grade Silver Age CGC books but they all have consistency. Now Rickdogg and CI are saying that Golden Age is graded differently than Silver. I'm not sure what to think of that. I know CGC doesn't say that they grade different and if you'd ask them I'm sure they'd actually say they grade the same for all eras. This makes me wonder if I should have bid so much on the high grade golden age book in the heritage auction. I am going to go cry myself to sleep now. Thanks CI you ruined my Christmas

 

Ericc123

[PovertyRow]

This makes me wonder if I should have bid so much on the high grade golden age book in the heritage auction.

 

I wouldn't worry. What we are really talking/arguing/debating about is terminology applied to a grade and what is means for different ages. Your GA is still a high grade GA along with the other hi-grade GAs.

[fantastic_four]

I'm aware of CGC's inconsistency with only giving the Universal nod to Golden Age with restoration; I pointed it out seven months ago and argued how stupid it was ( http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=comicgen&Number=6818&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 ). This, along with their use of the Qualified grade, are two of the biggest inconsistencies they have. Luckily they're fairly minor points, although they point at a disturbing trend of favoritism in grading to the deep pockets that minorly detracts from the company as a whole.

 

If we're not against them, we must be for them, eh? NO! In between acceptance and rejection, yes and no, true and false--there's objective reality.

 

If you can remember some titles, issues, and grades on those Golden Age CGC 9.6s you've seen that were sub-par, perhaps we can find them for you. Next time you see one, save it to a folder on your hard disk; I do that all the time for grades that prove some hypothesis I have or that are interesting grading examples.

[clobberintime]

ahem -are you talking about facts and evidence here, in this cgc forum? Are you nuts? You must have escaped from that asylum where I still am. This is the place where one puts forth any wild, simplistic theory or conjecture as gospel and call it official. You know -you just think up a position and support it with whatever logic you can dream up. It snowed last night - it is the start of a new ice age! Facts and evidence -you are waiting for godot my man!

[comicinvestor-migration]

So what indisputable facts are you presenting slobberingrime? Other than the CAPS button on your keyboard is busted.

[drbanner]

So what indisputable facts are you presenting

 

I'm still waiting to hear how many CGC books you've had graded, bought, or sold to make you the resident expert on the differences in the grading standard between ages? In fact, I'm still waiting for any facts to support any of your theories....

[Guest]

There is a difference in the grading of moderns vs gold,silver. I have seen it. Therefore, it is my belief that not very many books at all from the gold and silver age should EVER grade above 9.0-9.2. ALL books should be graded by the SAME standards and this is how CGC has told me they have set up thier grading system. I dont understand how they grade some of these older books as high as they do when they are not even close to what a modern book grades in the same bracket. I have to agree with C.I. on this one.

[drbanner]

There is a difference in the grading of moderns vs gold,silver. I have seen it.

 

Oh good, finally some facts! I agree that there may be slight differences in the grading standards, but it has more to do with the physical construction of the book than the age of the book.

 

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.

 

CGC continues to use the NM standard for golden age books used before CGC existed, used in fact, by people like Mark and Steve, who were grading NM books of all ages before anyone ever heard of CGC, and who by now who have probably seen more NM and above golden age books than anyone (except maybe Chuck)!! Makes me wonder if anyone has looked at a comparison of the Mile High collection as graded by CGC and as graded in the original catalog?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Then perhaps Ricky was right when he said there should be grades such as Gold 9.6...which would equal the grade of say a Modern 9.2. Would this not be "relative" grading?

[drbanner]

By "relative", I'm referring to the fact that a 1/4" cc on a treasury should not have the same affect on grade that a 1/4" cc has on a modern. Agree?

[Joanna]

Is the only concern in this thread about 9.0 and above? How many modern comics get CGC'd that are under 9.0? There is no way to compare grading between gold and modern because there are only a handful of NM gold books, and probably even less 8.5 and under moderns that have been graded. So you are in effect using a sampling that is so small as to be non-representational.

 

And as some have stated, manufacture and materials are so different as to be apples/oranges. What is white page quality when comparing super-glossy modern pages to 70-year-old newsprint? Even a Mile High's superior page quality can't be as white as the glossy paper simply due to the difference in material. So should gold be downgraded for this? Or should it be commensurate? "This page looks as white as when it was first printed" is one way to say it. But if the "all standards must be identical" factor were applied, then a gold book that was printed today (replicating methods and materials) would be lightyears from a modern-style book printed at the same moment. How is this fair? Both would be the best either could ever be, but 1 is a 10.0 and the other a 7.0 due to binding, newsprint and so on?

 

You have to use some common sense. If you're buying gold, you should know what a gold book looks like and judge the grade accordingly. A gold book has little to do with a modern book, so why should the grade use the same criteria? Yes, a crease is a crease, and a tear is a tear, but does white = white? How can a modern get foxing or dust shadows -- they haven't 'lived' long enough? I say if a modern has one of those problems, ding the grade harshly. Someone did something really wrong in storage if a freshly printed book has a problem it took the gold book 60 years to get.

 

The bottom line is that there is such an unnatural focus on high 9.+ books, that gold can't compete even if there are allowances made. A 9.4 gold is a miracle. A 9.4 modern is something that would upset Darth as being a waste of time. An unrestored 5.5 gold is a book in damn good shape. A 5.5 modern was handled by a 2 year old. Yet only 9.+ matters, right lads? Regardless of age, anything else is worthless.

 

-- Joanna

[Guest]

All Im saying is that defects are defects any way you look at them. I agree that there are differences in material and that should be taken into account BUT a crease is a crease and a tear is a tear if it happened 60 years ago or 60 days ago. Thats the grading criteria that I was talking about.

[Rickdogg]

Based on the small poll we had...

 

CGC should have started with a set standard across all ages is the WINNER!

[comicinvestor-migration]

Hey drbanner, you essentially wrote what I wrote.

 

I have no problem with this, since as you stated, it has been in effect long before CGC came along. You guys should stop seeing my name and automatically going into attack mode, since I'm in total agreement here.

 

What does bug me is when someone states that the exact same (down to the letter) grading standards are applied to an 80-year old comic as to an off-the-shelf Modern, when that is totally illogical due to the reasons you state.

 

This isn't any big news for anyone who's been involved with comic collecting, as older books need to have more leeway concerning defects and degradation.

[PovertyRow]

Both would be the best either could ever be, but 1 is a 10.0 and the other a 7.0 due to binding, newsprint and so on?

 

Actually if that happened I would be fine with it. I feel the most important thing is consistency that can be understood. If a modern book is a 9.4 and a GA with the same standards applied is an 8.0, that is fine. It wouldn't take long for people to be aware that an 8.0 GA is more special than a 9.4 Modern. What kind of irks me though is the importance placed upon what a grade is called as opposed to what it means. If one standard is applied to all ages,and it is applied strictly and fairly, then over time the various ages will sort themselves out and people may well be looking for VF GA books as fervently as others look for NM+ Bronze. I don;t really see a problem with that. If the grading is accurate and impartial they can be called J NB PN N RN S SS (Junk, Not Bad, Pretty Nice, Nice, Really Nice, Sweet and Super Sweet.) As long as we know precisely what each term implies.

[Darthdiesel]

To see a beautiful Golden Age book Click Here

 

Just took alook - sweet! BTW, do you know if the little green discoloration spots that appear by the spine to the viewer's left of Superman in his white "wake/ray of light" are part of the artwork or grease/spotty stain/foxing?

[comicinvestor-migration]

What you're saying is true, but there are some big money collectors who would never buy anything lower than a VF/NM, no matter the era. So CGC and the dealers give it to them, based on the age-old gradng standard of "knowing what comprises a high-grade Golden Age comic".

[Darthdiesel]

no, that would be wizard, no, i take that back, wizard would be perfect for arse paper if you ever run out

 

But you still read it don't you....Wizard is by far the most influential magazine on the comic industry today , just to spite all you Overstreet fanatics. I read and have them both. I only open up the Overstreet Big Book when I get it and when I'm pricing Bronze age and earlier comics. I check my Wizard every week almost 3 times a week for pricing moderns; comparing to Overstreet on older issues and for the first week after I get the new one, I read it page by page on the metro on the way in to work, reread it after supper when I'm relaxing, and get kept up to date on what's happening in comic books today. CBG barely intereests me now and I am just waiting for my subscription to run out. Too many ads, the letter column is much like a rehash of topics on this forum - almost verbatim, and the CGC multiples indices are way way off for Moderns; basis also on CBG price guide (WTF is that and WHO The F uses it, other than CBG staff? rhetorical ...)

 

 

whatever...Wizard rocks and you know it...just are afraid to admit how far its influence has spread. Read this months Year end Wizard and its take/ look back at on 2002....purely AWESOME!