Universal Grade Broken Down Into Ages

[blowout]

We have discused several times the differing grading standards that CGC applies over the different comic book eras. Taking into consideration differing paper quality, printing processes etc.

This is a rather confusing aspect of the CGC grading process.

 

I suggest that CGC should consider breaking down the Universal Grade into GA, SA, BA etc to reflect the different grading criteria applied.

Probably the most obvious would be to have a different color label for each age. Alternatively the Universal label could read Universal GA Grade, Universal SA Grade etc. I think this would help to add greater clarity to a grey area in CGC's grading standards.

 

What do the rest of you think?

[aardvark88]

Think it would confuse the collectors & graders themselves by having different criteria for different decades. Ppl who use Ostreet scale are trying to apply those grading criteria consistently across different decades of comics.

[ninanina]

Has anyone from CGC explained the different grading criteria for the ages?

 

Perhaps part of the problem is the fact that it's not explained. So, a lot of people that aren't aware of this wonder why CGC isn't grading consistantly. If they were to come "out of the closet" so to speak and identify the different criteria by giving the universal grades a different color it would show that yes they do grade each age differently and that's why the inconsistencies are there. Now, without the different colors many people may or could assume that CGC is not consistent in their grading. As a result, their credibility suffers. All you have to do is read some of the posts on the subject, and you'll see what I mean. So yes, I think a different color would be a great idea. IF THEY ARE GRADING EACH AGE DIFFERENTLY, HOW CAN YOU CALL IT A UNIVERSAL GRADE? THERE'S NOTHING UNIVERSAL ABOUT IT.

 

Grading is constantly evolving and this could be the next step. Great idea.

[blowout]

think a different color would be a great idea. IF THEY ARE GRADING EACH AGE DIFFERENTLY, HOW CAN YOU CALL IT A UNIVERSAL GRADE? THERE'S NOTHING UNIVERSAL ABOUT IT.

 

That is the whole deal in a nutshell.

We (on the forum) all know CGC are not grading the same across the ages (sorry Odin) but many collectors/buyers of CGC books do not.

If they applying different criteria to different ages it should be clearly stated somehow.

[PovertyRow]

If they applying different criteria to different ages it should be clearly stated somehow.

 

Definitely agree but I fear it will not be seen until a major competitor hits the scene. And even then? Crapola! Folks with obviously NOT 9.0 GA are NOT gonna re-sub there books. Actually this is a horrid situation. NO ONE with a CGC book is gonna resub to a more accurate grader. And how many will sub their books TO am more accurate grader when they can get a 9.0 from one but a 7.5 from another?

[blowout]

The re-subs will only occur if one company gets a rep for being a stricter more reliable grader thus creating a stronger market for their graded product.

CGC books (if they end up being regarded as more losely graded) will then lose their liquidity and would either be sold for less or resubbed to the other company.

[aardvark88]

Comicdom will be the LAUGHING STOCK of the slabbing field if we have different grading criteria for different decades. I don't believe the coin or sportscard graders differentiate between decades. How are we ever going to GROW the market & attract hi-rollers from other hobbies to bid on our comic cgc auctions if they can't fathom slabbing by decade. Cgc should be striving to consolidate grading stds between decades. I do realize in reality, Cgc today seems to have different criteria per decade.

[blowout]

I don't belive the coin or sportscard graders differentiate between decades.

 

They don't. But do they apply different grading criteria for different ages?

 

Cgc should be striving to consolidate grading stds between decades.

 

I absolutely agree with this. The problem is, what happens until they do? In the current situation: At best we are just left guessing as to what CGC is up to. At worst people are buying GA books and thinking the grades match up to their Modern equivalents.

[COI]

I suggest that CGC should consider breaking down the Universal Grade into GA, SA, BA etc to reflect the different grading criteria applied.

 

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!!! For the love of God NO!

 

What I suggest is that CGC not use different criteria acording to age in the first place. Why are GA books so expensive? It's because of the relative difficulty of achieving a high grade compared to newer stuff. This precicely why HG GA and early Silver is so treasured and coveted, and the reason you have to sell your wife and first born to get some. A NM 9.4 should be a NM 9.4 PERIOD, regardless of whether it's an Amazing Spider-Man #1 or an Ultimate Spider-Man #1.

 

So Blowout, breaking down the Universal grade is only adding to an already existing and prevailent problem.

 

Also, CGC has never claimed to do this, and if anything gives the impression that all books are on a level playing field. The reason the red modern label was scrapped is because people were concerned that moderns were not given the same treatment as Universal books. There was also a Golden Age label which was scrapped so fast, I never got to see one. So if they won't admit that they grade with different criteria, why would they create different labels after scrapping this concept already? Dosen't make much sense.

 

The only real solution to this and many other problems is if CGC would publish their official guidelines once and for all. But I would guess they never will because it will create too many problems for them. If a rival grading company ever does surface and publishes their guidelines, that'll definetly give them a "leg up" on CGC.

[drbanner]

The only thing I recall CGC stating publicly regarding differing grading standards for different ages is that they take less off for "...bindery tears and bindery chips on Golden Age comics...", as well as taking less off for "for Marvel chipping or pre-Marvel chipping" on SA books. I've seen many examples of both (apparent) overgrades and undergrades on Gold, Silver, and Bronze...and depending on how you define it, modern.

[aardvark88]

Today, Cgc should take it 1 step at a time. My beef previously was they did not grade consistently within the same decade. eg. silver DCs being graded harshly compared to silver Marvels from the same year.

[blowout]

So Blowout, breaking down the Universal grade is only adding to an already existing and prevailent problem.

 

I agree they need a grading consistency across the ages. But in the absence of this, are the unaware collectors not being misled?

 

[COI]

Yes, but when you break it down, we're ALL being misled to some extent. CGC's grading guidlines are in the dark, and that's misleading in itself.

[blowout]

I am judging by the lack of responses to this thread that not many of you see this situation as a problem?

CGC? This is YOUR forum, do you have any comment on this issue?

[COI]

CGC? This is YOUR forum, do you have any comment on this issue?

 

[blowout]

[vic6string]

I am completely with Andrew on this one. I have said it before, a 10 is a 10, a 7 is a 7, etc. Age should make no difference. If that means that there will never be anything better than a 9.4, or even an 8.4 for some older books, than so be it. Besides, how can they have different grading standards for each age when we can't even agree what the ages are? If you go by decades, you will have books from 1970 with Marvel Chipping next to books from 1979 made on modern presses with better ink on better paper. If you cut decades in half you will have all the off-centered and miscut books of the mid 70s with the virtually flawless books of the mid 80s. And that just covers bronze/modern. In cards, coins, stamps, etc. mint=mint. There will never be a Gem Mint Ty Cobb rookie card, but there will be thousands of Gem Mint Ken Griffey Jr rookie cards, and that is fine with me. Same for comics.