A couple of comments about grading from a baseball card guy

[MW1]

In reviewing this last week's auctions of ASM's, I encountered the following:

 

ASM #33 - CGC 9.6

 

...and I wondered -- what impact does "centering" have on vintage comic books? The reason I ask is because after viewing Heritage Auction lot #5438, I began to question whether this "defect" is even a factor in assessing a comic's overall condition. Here's the direct link..

 

Take a look at the beginning of the words "Marvel Comics Group" and their proximity to the edge of the comic. Also take a look at the artwork below and how it is "centered" on the cover. Clearly, one of the 9.6 copies is better "centered" than the other.

 

Using a baseball card analogy, I view the first comic (on eBay) as having 75/25 centering and the second (Heritage) as being somewhere on the order of 50/50. I have noticed a similar treatment with respect to top-to-bottom centering on various ASM issues. Am I the only one thinking that CGC should grade some comic books tighter on this visual characteristic? Then again, perhaps this is only a factor on 9.8 or 10.0 issues -- I really haven't seen enough vintage ASM's in this grade to comment. Opinions?

 

Also, one other question. Let's say we have two ASM #1's. Both are 8.5s and of roughly equal condition. How much would a known pedigree typically add to the value of one of these comics?

[hammer-migration]

MW, Centering does not seem to affect CGC grading. Neither does a tilted cover where say for instance, the spine line is right on the spine edge at the bottom but at the top, is shifted 1/8inch to the right. BOTH Hulk 181s in 9.8 have far too much white showing on the left edge for ME to consider them NM/MT, but that is only my opinion because I consider this a DEFECT. I've seen Spiderman 33s and FF 48s, two double printed Marvels readily available in the market in all grades, housed in CGC 9.6 holders that were shifted so far in the folding that the MCG group box reads: arvel omics roup, the first letters completely cut off, and similarly, other issues in the 9.6 and 9.8 range that had parts of comic codes encroached and cut off by factory miscuts. That's not to say CGC is wrong in assessing a book that way according to thier guidelines. They just appear to grade comics on a far different wavelength than SGC. Comic centering does not appear to be a major consideration in weighing grading outcomes.

[PovertyRow]

They just appear to grade comics on a far different wavelength than SGC.

 

My take is that a card has two things: front and back. A comic book is a lot more complex. But I DO believe that centering should be taken into consideration due to the prices realized for CGC comics. Unfortunately, I don't think even CGC itself took into consideration the - how to phrase it nicely - lack of reality-checks of the folks bidding on the 9.x+ books.

[MW1]

Povertyrow,

 

I'm going to disagree with you here. The proper grading of vintage baseball cards is accomplished through a detailed examination of the following categories or standards which are applied to both sides of the card:

 

(1) Surface (includes amount of applicable gloss, paper stock composition and homogeneity).

 

(2) Corners (amount of wear -- can generally be measured on a sub-scale of 1 to 10).

 

(3) Edges ("dings" or defects in the integrity of an edge count as deductions; occasionally, a rough cut will also be counted as a deduction, depending on its severity).

 

(4) Centering (specific minimum requirements exist for each grade; centering is cited as a ratio or percent, i.e., 50/50 or 80/20).

 

(5) Image quality (includes color and brightness of image as well as registration; minor defects such as printer's "spots" can cause deductions for higher grades -- generally NM-MT or better).

 

(6) Size (different issues have different size requirements; a card that is "undersized" may be rejected, depending on its exact measurements and an analysis of its cross-section).

 

(7) Smell (no joking!)

 

Collectible baseball cards have been around longer than nationally distributed comic books and generally have more detailed grading standards. That's not to say that comic book grading doesn't involve a similar analysis of condition and have certain nuances that I don't understand, but keep in mind that standardized grading has existed in the baseball card world since the late 1980s....but that's a whole different topic.

 

I'm just curious if centering is a concern for collectors of high-grade vintage titles. During the last week, I've passed on several higher-ticket books because I didn't like the orientation of the covers. Am I being too picky?

[PovertyRow]

I agree with what you say but you have to admit that these things are applied to a front and back. There are no staples. There are no interior pages. These things create additional grading criteria.

 

The criteria you mention are pretty much taken into consideration:

 

(1) Surface - gloss, folds, sub creases, etc etc are taken into account

 

(2) Corners - also taken into account - the more square the better

]

(3) Edges - same thing - "marvel chipping" and assorted edge dings etc taken into account

 

(4) Centering - a major controversy - CGC does not seem to take Centering into account as much as we would like. but it is an acknowledged - even if out of CGC's reach - criteria. And taken into account at least by collectors.

 

(5) Image quality - absolutely - bright glossy inks are more desireable

 

(6) Size - in comics we call it "trimming"

 

(7) Smell - don't think CGC grades for smell but I have said before the VERY first thing I do, after a cursory glance at the cover, is open the book and smell it. If it has the tell-tale acetic acid smell it is an automatic no-go. Other scents depending on their character.

 

And usually smell accompanies interior page quality. Those tanning/borwning books - the smell may not be notated but the condition due to the acids that CAUSE those smells are - aka - low interior page quality.

 

[PovertyRow]

Collectible baseball cards have been around longer than nationally distributed comic books and generally have more detailed grading standards.

 

Please differentiate the more detailled standards.

[MW1]

Povertyrow,

 

There is no question that comics have more surface area than baseball cards and that a detailed examination might take a longer period of time (hence, the larger grading fees). But keep in mind that sports cards are more three-dimensional than comic books. Grading on a two-dimensional surface (the cover) or looking at 2-dimensional pages is quite different than analyzing the cross section and striations of a 1933 Goudey. As far as detail is concerned, I think that's simply a by-product of the development of the particular collectibles category. Coins have been graded for a longer period of time than baseball cards and therefore, the standards are better developed and allow for greater precision. The same relationship exists between baseball cards and comic books. Perhaps that even provides an explanation for my questions about centering standards...I don't know.

 

Getting back to one of my original questions -- let's say we have two ASM #1's. Both are 8.5s and of roughly equal condition. How much would a known pedigree typically add to the value of one of these comics?

 

Also, what might be the rationale for not incorporating tighter centering standards in comic book grading?

[PovertyRow]

But keep in mind that sports cards are more three-dimensional than comic books. Grading on a two-dimensional surface (the cover) or looking at 2-dimensional pages is quite different than analyzing the cross section and striations of a 1933 Goudey.

 

Not at all true. A comic is perceived in its full state. It MUST be in order to determine if long-edge trimming has been applied. Please see my post about detecting trimming and especially note the concept of the "triangle" (in order to judge this the book must be closed flat and looked along the long edge - much thicker than a card).

I shall quote the relevant sentence: "A classically untrimmed book, when the book is folded shut and held to the light, will usually show a slight triangle with the tip of the triangle being the centerfold."

 

Look to the post here dated 9/27 1:10AM for the full details.

 

Both are 8.5s and of roughly equal condition. How much would a known pedigree typically add to the value of one of these comics?

 

The thing about a pedigree - a real pedigree - is that it reflects an aspect of comic collecting many collectors could not experience. "Why is the value of a knife owned by George Washington more than one of the same manufacturer/time owned by an unknown?". "Why is a signature by George Washington more valuable than a signature of an unknown of the same time frame?". Figure between 1.5-3 times the non-pedigree counterpart depending on the pedigree.

 

Pedigree=provenance. Provenance=history. Comic history is quite recent in comparison to World History, or even American History, but it is History nonetheless. It is, in fact, History in the making and pedigrees are a fascinating study and quite rare.

 

As regards the centering? You have to ask CGC that! But I assure you, regardless of how much (or LITTLE) importance CGC places on centering, at least the collectors here place great importance on it.

 

[fantastic_four]

Theoretically the pedigree would add nothing to the score. I haven't seen any hard evidence to suggest that CGC's grading isn't objective with respect to that. Allegations, yes, but not convincing evidence. CGC is getting a bad rap after that Marvel Mystery 33 thing; I've talked several times to Matt Nelson, the restoration guy who works with Heritage, and if he's the one who erased the pencil mark on the front cover, then I can guarantee you that he pressed it. I had him remove some restoration for me a few months ago; I had to specifically instruct him to not press the comic when I sent it to him. His initial cost estimate just threw the pressing in there as something to do, but I was pretty sure it wouldn't affect the grade due to the spine stresses, so I told him not to do it even though he reassured me that it would grade lower if he didn't press it.

 

I disagree that a card is more "three-dimensional" than a comic. Comics are thicker than cards! Comic graders do look at the spine and the edges of the pages to get a feel through a slab for how the interior pages have aged and to help assess whether a comic has been manually trimmed by one of its owners.

 

The primary grader of CGC, Steve Borock, hasn't thoroughly explained why they don't take centering into account, but he has commented on the topic. He says that they generally don't downgrade at the CGC 9.8 level and below for what they consider to be very minor printing defects which don't impact the comic's surface. On cover wrap, he has said that "comic book collectors generally don't care all that much about how the cover wraps around the book." Borock isn't alone in this view; Overstreet's grading standards have generally allowed slight cover miswrap over the years; or, at least, they haven't specifically said that a NM or MT comic can't have a slight 1/16" to 1/4" cover miswrap. As Povertyrow stated, I believe that the general idea is that comics are a much more complex item, and as such, cover wrap contributes less to the overall grade on a 34- to 102-sided 7" by 10.5" comic than it does on a much smaller, two-sided card. "You can't judge a book by its cover" is an old cliche which holds a lot of weight amongst comic collectors who think professional grading is "ruining the hobby" and that comics were meant to be read, not put in plastic to prevent reading.

 

My own opinion is that centering definitely does matter, and that amongst collectors, it is MUCH more likely to matter to the type of person who buys a slabbed comic than the rest of the general comic collecting community. The simple truth of collecting is that once a comic has been read once or twice, then the interior doesn't matter NEARLY as much as the exterior; we all glance at the exterior from time to time to be reminded of interior stories which we enjoyed. As such--as shallow as it sounds--comics should be judged by their covers. It's just a truth of how comics aesthetically function for collectors. It's odd that you bring up Spidey 33 as an example; it's a fairly common issue, but it's one of the few Spideys I don't own a copy of because I've been holding out for a perfectly-centered copy, which isn't easy to find for this issue. CGC should either downgrade more for centering than they do, or that they should come up with a second grade to take these "eye appeal" factors into account.

 

This is not the kind of comment I throw around lightly, and I don't throw it out there to damage CGC, but rather to urge them to reconsider their position for their own benefit. But anyway, here's the comment--CGC has done a great job, but their lack of consideration for centering is one of a dozen or two minor issues that they will be vulnerable on once their inevitable competition comes out.

[MW1]

Povertyrow,

 

Good point. I never thought of incorporating the condition of the pages and the cover into one holistic perspective. But what if the cover is over-sized and it is trimmed to fit the size of the pages? Surely then, there is no applicable cross section to examine for evidence of trimming.

 

You are also correct about the "cross section" of a comic being larger than that of a card, but that doesn't make it more difficult to grade, it makes it easier. Assuming that we're not all going to grab our scanning electron microscopes to look at the cross section of the cover or of each page to determine whether an accomplished "professional" has trimmed a book, I think such an examination of the cross section of a baseball card is more painstaking and requires greater expertise -- not just in identifying the original surfaces, but in applying the nuances of each year or issue to the given subject that is being analyzed. And when we're talking about four major sports and countless nonsport issues dating back to the 1860s, that's a great deal of accumulated knowledge that needs to be carefully applied.

 

I'm still not sold on the concept of a "pedigree." Certainly, a personal effect or item used by someone famous has exceptional provenance and value because it allows a collector to "capture" some of the essence of that person. Does comic book ownership afford collectors the same opportunity? I don't think it does. My feeling is that each book should be graded based on its own merits. And sure, pedigreed copies are usually of higher quality than those that are not pedigreed, but beyond that, I don't think it means much....maybe I'm wrong. I guess my feeling is that a cover can only be so bright and a page can only be so white.

 

On a related subject, I have to agree about using provenance alone as a selling point -- there certainly seems to be some justification there; although I sometimes wonder if it isn't more hype than anything else. Allow me to elaborate. Once, after an extensive debate (100+ post thread) about the quality of a PSA 9 1967 Topps Rocky Colavito vs. the quality of an SGC 96 version of the same card on the Collectors Universe message boards (can I say "across the street?"), I decided to test this phenomenon. I purchased the PSA 9 Colavito (I was the owner of the SGC 96 specimen) and I resold it on eBay, realizing a tidy profit. Of course, my listing included the information concerning the debate that had transpired on the chatboards and the notoriety that the card subsequently possessed. I also wrote about a possible rumor of the card being touched by the Loch Ness monster. How's that for "acquired" provenance?

[fantastic_four]

I'm still not sold on the concept of a "pedigree."

Join the club. CGC itself has severely weakened the concept of a pedigree. It used to be an assurance of quality to people before grading was as advanced or as well-described as it is today, but now, it looks more like marketing to many people than any real concept that should add any value to a comic.

 

The only provenance that matters to the modern comic collector is how well it was cared for, not who owned it. May people disagree with that, but it's generally true.

[MW1]

FF --

 

Some great points!

 

My question is this -- do pedigreed comics usually sell for greater amounts than those that are not pedigreed? If so, is it possible to derive a common multiplier?

[PovertyRow]

But what if the cover is over-sized and it is trimmed to fit the size of the pages? Surely then, there is no applicable cross section to examine for evidence of trimming.

 

You didn't read my post about detecting trimming all the way, did you? Or if you did, there are signs that point to that as I explained. I do hope CGC knows and uses these.

 

How's that for "acquired" provenance?

 

Two words: Nicholas Cage! But at least CGC did not say they were pedigrees. Just "from the collection of Nicholas Cage" - which means as much to me and probably many others as "from the colleciton of Michael Johansen".

 

Does comic book ownership afford collectors the same opportunity? I don't think it does. My feeling is that each book should be graded based on its own merits.

 

You had it right the first time when you asked "How much would a known pedigree typically add to the value of one of these comics?" The pedigree should not add to the grade. If CGC lets that happen well, I do not agree. A pedigreed 9.4 should be the same condition as a non-pedigreed 9.4 - but it is up to the collector to determine how much more VALUE (as opposed to grade) the pedigree adds.

[MW1]

Povertyrow,

 

Value, not grade.

[fantastic_four]

Yea, pedigrees often do sell for more; around 50% to as much as 1000% more if it's a famous pedigree like the Mile High collection or the Bill Gaines EC collection. There are more recent pedigrees which sell for more also, such as the Curator collection or the Western Penn collection. A good number of people seem to be drawn to the concept of entire collections which somehow escaped the ravages of time and the rough handling of children, but I feel that it's not a majority of collectors who pay extra for pedigrees alone anymore. I could be wrong; the percentage of people who drop big bucks on comics and are willing to pay more for a Pedigree are probably fairly even with those who won't pay more.

 

I do know the idea is losing the appeal it once had, and I see this trend continuing, especially since EVERYBODY keeps their collections in great shape starting from 1980-on. It's interesting to note that CGC doesn't recognize ANY Modern pedigrees; even books from the Western Penn collection which were purchased in the 1980s don't get Western Penn marked on the CGC label.

 

I can sure say that I've been consistently WOWED by how nice the Western Penn comics are; but I wouldn't pay more for that Western Penn label, I'd just pay more for the pristine condition of the comic.

[PovertyRow]

I already answered avout value a few posts ago ... "Figure between 1.5-3 times the non-pedigree counterpart depending on the pedigree."

[MW1]

povertyrow,

 

Yes, I know. Thank you. I was just clarifying my previous statement...perhaps I should have asked if certain pedigrees always command the same premiums.

 

Also, after reading some of your previous posts, you seem to be the resident expert on comic alterations. In your opinion, how much more difficult is it to detect alterations (if there were to be any) once a comic is inside of a holder?

[OldGuy]

"CGC is getting a bad rap after that Marvel Mystery 33 thing"

 

! Isn't that like saying "I got a bad rap after I was arrested for holding up that convenience store."?

[fantastic_four]

I was out of town when that thread hit, but I just read it and didn't see what CGC did wrong with that book. I also couldn't find where anyone established that it was Heritage who resubmitted it. I saw some allegations, but no evidence to form a conclusion.

 

In your eyes, what did they do that was unethical? Feel free to start another thread on the topic.

[OldGuy]

I don't want to start another thread on it, but I wont hijack this one either. I'll just say that I want to know how I can "upgrade" my CGC books (only 5 or 6) by 1.2 grading points without restoration. Because there is no answer for that question I'll leave it at that. I'll also "bump" the original thread just incase anyone else wants to chime in.