Grading New vs. Old

[mlovest]

I've seen some discussions regarding the issue of grading old and new comics. I don't understand the logic of having a different standard for the different comic eras. Why should a nice golden age comic that's 60 years old be given the benefit of the doubt, yet a new comic with the tiniest of flaws isn't? I fully understand that the printing is so much better today--better paper, processes, etc., but doesn't that just mean an older NM copy is just that much more rare and valuable? Does it make sense to take the best existing copy of older comics and say, this one is NM? What if a stash of better condition copies is found?

 

My frustration comes from looking at my CGC-graded copies. The newer copies are absolutely or nearly flawless, but it's almost impossible to find any flaws in the 9.4 graded comics. For my silver age copies, the flaws are obvious and easy to spot, yet the grade is the same. Why the difference?

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue!

 

Thanks and Happy New Year!

 

[chrisco37]

I'm not really sure, as CGC says they grade all Ages the same. From what I've seen, however, with the older books (SA, I don't have any Gold CGC books), the structure of the book is much more important than the "eye appeal". I have "modern" 9.4's where the color is superb, the gloss is bright, but a few small stress lines keep it at 9.4. Whereas, my SA 9.4 has bright colors, but not near to the extent of the newer book, but the structure (spine and corners) is superb.

 

But, I agree with you in that I think older books should be given some leeway (not much, but some). As we all know, comics have acids within them that, no matter if they've been stored in Mylars since they were purchased (which would not be the case with GA or even SA books), would affect the book. Paper deteriorates as time goes by. A 60 year old book could not possibly be expected to compare to a book printed a month ago.

 

Chris

[murph0]

The G.A. books I have seem fairly tightly graded. I only have 8 G.A. books, 4 are CGC'd. The highest I have is a 9.2 and it's structurally comparable to a CGC 9.0, I'd say.

 

Brian

[aardvark88]

Don't forget the lower end of the cgc grading scale for golden age bks. A Cgc 3.0 or 4.0 is a SOLID, unrestored comic from 1940s. Remember these vintage bks may be 2 or 3 times older than u are.

[supapimp]

they grade differently for each era of the comic age. from what i've seen up close and personal S.A. NM 9.4 would be VF 8.0 in the modern age, hope this helps.

[Rickdogg]

Just wait 20 yrs and submit that Ultimate Spidey #1 and get a 10.0! HAHAHAHA

[mlovest]

 

"Supapimp"

 

I understand that CGC tend s to grade differently based on a comic's age, but what are the differences? What are the era cut-off dates? Shouldn't we as collectors and investors know how CGC is grading the comics we're sending in and buying?

 

Also, from what I've gathered, CGC does not acknowledge that they grade older comics differently. It's obvious to most of us though. Just look at any modern comic with a 9.4 and compare it to a silver or gold age high grade--no comparison.

 

I still think all comics should be graded the same, regardless of the age. Most new comics would of course be very high grades, but it would be very tough to find high grade comics the farther you go back. This makes sense. At a minimum, if a grading company or dealer uses different criteria for the age of a comic, it should be noted. I haven’t heard of any dealer sights that discuss their grading criteria which includes different criteria depending on the age of a comic.

 

Mike

 

[Rickdogg]

Mike,

 

Here's a link to an old thread about this issue :

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=comicgen&Number=70633&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1

 

[murph0]

My comics aren't all that different from the modern ones. A lot of the Silver that I have that's graded NM 9.4, is about the equivalent of a modern 9.2, 9.0, or 8.5..8.5 being the extreme. Usually they seem to be in the 9.0 to 9.2 range. Hell, in some cases a really tight CGC 9.4 silver looks like a CGC 9.4 modern!

 

Brian

[mlovest]

 

"Odin88"

 

I understand how old comics can be, but a NM comic should be an NM comic. If it's old and the paper has faded, and there are a number of rub marks, scuffs, spine dings, etc., it's not NM, even if it's 60+ years old and it's the best copy in existence.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Mike

[Rickdogg]

You should have seen my Submariner #1 CGC 9.0! I was shocked when it arrived, because it was badly miscut, had a date stamp, impacted corners (BL & TL), rounded corners (TR & BR), a few spine breaks that broke color (1 being pretty bad), and the list goes on. I remember thinking, "what the hell is this!"

[murph0]

Yeah, the problem there is they don't seem to downgrade for printing flaws, date stamps, writing, etc. So a inferior book (with writing, miscut, etc) can get a 9.4 while a structurally tight book that's cut perfect, etc..doesn't get any bonus for being nicer and gets the same 9.4 :\

 

Brian

[mlovest]

Thanks for the thread, "Rickdog"!

[aardvark88]

Seems like Overstreet is trying to maintain std. grading definitions across different decades of comics. Keep in mind, the 1940s comics were thicker & when cut at the printers may have evident bindery corner tears at source. This is 1 of the reasons why cgc does not deduct many points off for production flaws/miscuts.

[Rickdogg]

Although I understand that it is only 1 of the many reasons that this overgrading of older books occur, it is still "inconsistent" IMO since a modern book that would have such a flaw off the press would be downgraded.

 

 

[aardvark88]

dogg,

U r correct. I have a Gh Rider #1 bronze w/ a small bindery corner production tear that is structurally 9.2, but came back graded 9.0.

[duncan36]

Of course older books are graded differently. A perfect book in the Golden Age is of course going to be much different from a perfect book in the Modern Age.

 

I think the only problem with this method is that they get so used to a certain level of flaws in Golden Age/Silver Age books that when a truly stunning example from that period graces their desk, the rating they give it doesn't distinguish itself from the books CGC graded close to it.

 

For example what I would consider a key silver age book in pristine condition that looks like it was printed yesterday may be ranked a 9.4-9.6. Yet because CGC is so used to cutting slack to silver age/golden age books a copy that in my opinion is worth 3x less may be given a 8.0-9.0.

 

Thats the biggest problem I see

[fantastic_four]

The problem you describe is the reason why you SHOULDN'T grade different ages with different criteria, save a few exceptions. There are some things you shouldn't downgrade for--lack of gloss on books that never had them to begin with, or pages that aren't as white as today's pages yet are as white as the inferior paper they used back then ever was upon original release--but most production or handling defects should be equally downgraded.

 

In general, you don't downgrade for elements which were never intended to be a part of a comic's design, but ANY kind of encroach upon paper integrity--rips, tears, stains, or creases, regardless of how they were introduced--should be downgraded equally amongst the ages.

[drbanner]

For example what I would consider a key silver age book in pristine condition that looks like it was printed yesterday may be ranked a 9.4-9.6. Yet because CGC is so used to cutting slack to silver age/golden age books a copy that in my opinion is worth 3x less may be given a 8.0-9.0.

 

What's up Duncan?

 

This is a pretty poor example to illustrate your concerns - 8's and 9's do go for 1/3 (and in many cases much, much less) what 9.4's and 9.6's go for. Is this what you meant? To the common man, a 9.0 probably looks pretty sweet, as does a 9.4 or 9.6. However, to seasoned collectors of high grade, there's a big difference between even a 9.0 and a 9.4, and they're willing to pay for it!

 

As for bindery tears, Overstreet has stated they're allowed in NM (although I haven't seen the new grading guide yet, so maybe that's changed). With golden age books, those same bindery tears caused by the production process become bindery chips since the books are so much bigger/thicker that pieces of the cover/interior pages actually become detached. It looks like CGC's position is that they do not detract for bindery chips on golden age books any differently than they detract for bindery tears on silver/bronze. However, bindery chips on a silver/bronze/modern would result in a greater point reduction. Likewise, it appears they do not deduct as much for writing/date stamps on golden age books.

 

All that said, I think the differences don't amount to much - maybe a single grading step or two on average. I've posted numerous examples of gold, silver, bronze, and modern books that defy the blanket statement that "CGC is much more lenient on Gold than they are on Silver, Bronze, Modern, etc.,." I collect all ages and have (and have seen) examples that would illustrate whichever position you wanted to defend - and it sounds like Murph does as well.

 

Frankly, without being able to actually hold the book, feel how stiff/solid it is, observe the colors firsthand, check the pages, and actually grade the book yourself (instead of critiquing other's grades), we shouldn't pass judgement based on a scan. It's like learning a foreign language - you can read books about learning Spanish for years, but you'd learn a whole lot quicker by visiting Spain for a month. Same with comics - you really can't learn to grade by viewing CGC encapsulated books, you have to grade thousands of books of all ages before really being able to discuss the differences in CGC grades between the ages.

 

Finally, how many times have you read an ebay listing that said "CGC really screwed up on this one - it should have graded much higher"? Now how many times have you read an ebay listing that said "CGC really screwed up on this one - it should have graded much lower"? All the attention gets drawn to books that people feel were undergraded, but you can bet there are just as many that are overgraded!

[duncan36]

Ok I'll refine what I said, Its not uncommon to see books with poorish corners and a few flaws getting a 9.0-9.2. These books are obviously very nice representatives from their time.

However for instance I've seen an absolutely incredible Silver Surfer book that looked like it was printed yesterday, which had minor imperfections. Its almost like the book looked so brand new and good that they graded it using the same standard they used on modern books, it got only a 9.4 though to me and any collector with any sense its worth 3x more than similar books that CGC grades that may get a 9.2 or even a 9.4.

 

This is where the problem lies, when you don't have a rigorous and somewhat standardized way of grading comics, Golden Age/Silver Age comics are given too much leadway. On the flipside if you are too rule-based and don't get an overall opinion of the comic you hammer a comic unfairly for minor flaws and miss the comics true worth. Its a real balancing act and I'm not sure its ever going to be right.

 

However the way I see it, when a Golden/Silver age comic comes into CGC they start off from a positive viewpoint, if you have a structually sound comic that is nice and flat and visually appealing, they overlook flaws and boost it up somewhat.

 

When a modern comic comes in they start from a negative viewpoint, scrutinizing for any perceptible flaws.

 

I'm not sure if this is policy or it just naturally evolves because of the nature of the different aged comics, but this is what is happening.

 

For better or worse, the way comics are currently graded by CGC, is unfair to really high quality golden/silver age books.