• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Grading is Subjective? by Tnerb

20 posts in this topic

  • Member

Why?

 

A defect on a book should be consistently prevalent. There should be no question about it. If the Marvel Value Stamp is cut out of an Incredible Hulk 181, what is subjective about it? A crease, a fingerprint? Shouldn't preference be taken out of the equation? Are stains judged more harshly by one grader and not as much by another? Is a rusty staple a death toll?

 

After carefully looking over my 8.0 Iron Man #55, I didn't see any defect on it that wasn't already present when it was a 9.2. The same corner scrunch, the same stain. It's all there. A Carfax report would show if a vehicle was damaged or had been taken care of, so shouldn't grader's notes be more comprehensive? On many of the comic books I have graded, I systematically listed every defect. It might have been tedious, but the end result was worth it, because I knew exactly what was wrong with the book.

 

Should grader's notes also include who graded the book? Would you be willing to wait longer for a more comprehensive list of notes? Shouldn't the subjectivity be taken out of the equation? I would be okay with a grade change one up or one down on this book (not really), because that's the possible result from subjectivity. But a three grade drop?

 

Thanks for Reading

 

Tnerb

16999.png

 

See more journals by Tnerb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'd all agree that grading is subjective, meaning any grading criteria would also be subjective. But amongst all the graders at a company like CGC, the grading criteria absolutely needs to be applied in a consistent manner. Grader A shouldn't be able to opine that the 3/4 corner crease he sees merits a 9.2, while grader B thinks the exact same defect should result in an 8.5...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it shouldn't be subjective, I just think it inevitably is because humans are involved. Although a 3 grade drop is pretty amazing. Just curious, did you tell CGC the old reg # when you resubmitted it? I've never resubmitted anything but I see it on the form; I always thought if CGC is asking for that info they must use it as a starting point. If you gave them that info and they still gave you the 3 grade drop, it's almost like they should refund the money of your original submission as it's practically an admission they didn't do a good job (although I'm sure cgc would say it got damaged somehow during the time it was out). Anyway, interesting post, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate a little more about your resubmit ? Specifically.....

- Did you resub it in the original slab or deslab it yourself.

- Did you submit the book for pressing, signing, or anything else that would initiate more handling.

 

There are just so many possibilities here. I suspect some damage to the book occurred. Your comments about grading being subjective has to assume the book is in the exact same state. I suspect it was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can it not be subjective?

A cut out Marvel stamp is one thing but how big is that crease, a half inch? Two inches? One centimeter? How big is that stain, dime sized, quarter sized, chick pea sized? How much distributor ink is too much?

 

One person's opinion is 9.0 and yet on the same comic, another person's opinion is 9.2.

 

You can't remove the subjectiveness from grading.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

A defect on a book should be consistently prevalent. There should be no question about it. If the Marvel Value Stamp is cut out of an Incredible Hulk 181, what is subjective about it? A crease, a fingerprint? Shouldn't preference be taken out of the equation? Are stains judged more harshly by one grader and not as much by another? Is a rusty staple a death toll?

 

After carefully looking over my 8.0 Iron Man #55, I didn't see any defect on it that wasn't already present when it was a 9.2. The same corner scrunch, the same stain. It's all there. A Carfax report would show if a vehicle was damaged or had been taken care of, so shouldn't grader's notes be more comprehensive? On many of the comic books I have graded, I systematically listed every defect. It might have been tedious, but the end result was worth it, because I knew exactly what was wrong with the book.

 

Should grader's notes also include who graded the book? Would you be willing to wait longer for a more comprehensive list of notes? Shouldn't the subjectivity be taken out of the equation? I would be okay with a grade change one up or one down on this book (not really), because that's the possible result from subjectivity. But a three grade drop?

 

Thanks for Reading

 

Tnerb

16999.png

 

See more journals by Tnerb

You're going to have to post more details before anyone can give you an educated answer.That said, a little perspective is always good: you're talking about the difference between VF and NM-. We all should be dancing in the streets that we have gotten to this point, that people think the difference between an 8.0 and a 9.2 is a massive gulf. It's not.Only the upper echelon of comic book collectors would be able to consistently tell you the difference between 8.0 and 9.2. Non-comics people would never be able to do it, because there's very little difference in the physical preservation of the two grades. My mom can tell you the difference between a 2.5 and a 9.6. She could not begin to tell you the difference between an 8.0 and a 9.2.Which is why, of course, the PRICE differences between these grades are mostly absurd, but, well: the market.Now...absolutely granted...a book shouldn't be graded by CGC at 9.2 and then regarded at 8.0, BARRING other events taking place in between.But I had a book that was in a 9.0 slab....I cracked it, pressed it, and resubbed it, FULLY expecting a 9.2, if not a 9.4....the book was IMPROVED from where it was in the 9.0 slab...and it came back a 7.5.Why?Because when it was graded 9.0, tanning wasn't the death knell to CGC that it is now, and the book had fairly significant tanning. Not "the book is brittle" tanning, but obvious oxidation of the paper had occurred.And though the book was structurally better, CGC hammered the tanning. Because grading is subjective.Be thrilled...be BEYOND thrilled...that we're no longer arguing about the difference between VG (4.0) and NM (9.4), but rather 8.0 and 9.2.We have come a very, VERY long way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the upper echelon of comic book collectors would be able to consistently tell you the difference between 8.0 and 9.2. Non-comics people would never be able to do it, because there's very little difference in the physical preservation of the two grades. My mom can tell you the difference between a 2.5 and a 9.6. She could not begin to tell you the difference between an 8.0 and a 9.2.

 

Which is why, of course, the PRICE differences between these grades are mostly absurd, but, well: the market.

 

Truth!

 

But I had a book that was in a 9.0 slab....I cracked it, pressed it, and resubbed it, FULLY expecting a 9.2, if not a 9.4....the book was IMPROVED from where it was in the 9.0 slab...and it came back a 7.5.

 

Why?

 

Because when it was graded 9.0, tanning wasn't the death knell to CGC that it is now, and the book had fairly significant tanning. Not "the book is brittle" tanning, but obvious oxidation of the paper had occurred.

 

And though the book was structurally better, CGC hammered the tanning.

 

And I support tanning being penalized. It dramatically reduces the eye appeal of a comic.

 

Now if only the buffoons at PSA would understand that tanning in a card should be penalized.... Excuse me fellows, but a browned card isn't NM or even close.

 

:preach:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate a little more about your resubmit ?

 

I don't understand why he resubmitted the book in the first place. Isn't once more than enough?

 

???

 

 

Sometimes not.

 

Just a few example.

 

Submitted onsite in WW Philly GS X-Men 1 comes back 9.0

Submitted same book, no additional work and it comes back a 9.6 in WW Chicago.

 

Recent JO 134 that comes back an 8.5..second submission with no additional work comes back a 9.2.

 

ASM 194 sent in as a 9.4 pre-screen. Fails the pre-screen and sits in one of my boxes for 2-3 months. Send it in with a regular submission (no pre-screen) and comes back a 9.6.

 

So sometime once is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the upper echelon of comic book collectors would be able to consistently tell you the difference between 8.0 and 9.2. Non-comics people would never be able to do it, because there's very little difference in the physical preservation of the two grades. My mom can tell you the difference between a 2.5 and a 9.6. She could not begin to tell you the difference between an 8.0 and a 9.2.

 

Which is why, of course, the PRICE differences between these grades are mostly absurd, but, well: the market.

 

Truth!

 

But I had a book that was in a 9.0 slab....I cracked it, pressed it, and resubbed it, FULLY expecting a 9.2, if not a 9.4....the book was IMPROVED from where it was in the 9.0 slab...and it came back a 7.5.

 

Why?

 

Because when it was graded 9.0, tanning wasn't the death knell to CGC that it is now, and the book had fairly significant tanning. Not "the book is brittle" tanning, but obvious oxidation of the paper had occurred.

 

And though the book was structurally better, CGC hammered the tanning.

 

And I support tanning being penalized. It dramatically reduces the eye appeal of a comic.

 

To you.

 

That's why grading is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why he resubmitted the book in the first place. Isn't once more than enough?

 

???

 

 

Sometimes not.

 

Just a few example.

 

Submitted onsite in WW Philly GS X-Men 1 comes back 9.0

Submitted same book, no additional work and it comes back a 9.6 in WW Chicago.

 

Recent JO 134 that comes back an 8.5..second submission with no additional work comes back a 9.2.

 

ASM 194 sent in as a 9.4 pre-screen. Fails the pre-screen and sits in one of my boxes for 2-3 months. Send it in with a regular submission (no pre-screen) and comes back a 9.6.

 

So sometime once is not enough.

 

Ahhhhhh, but you're missing my underlying point. I can understand submitting a comic to CGC once just to check for what CGC considers "restoration", e.g. colour touches, etc.

 

After that though regardless of how many times you submit the comic, it's still the same comic. You're either happy with it, or you're not. Why should the number on the label matter to you? That's not part of the comic.

 

Unless of course you're playing the crack and resubmit game because you're trying to flip the comic for a higher price (which I suspect is the case here). If so, he won't get any sympathy from me. I'll just laugh.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why he resubmitted the book in the first place. Isn't once more than enough?

 

???

 

 

Sometimes not.

 

Just a few example.

 

Submitted onsite in WW Philly GS X-Men 1 comes back 9.0

Submitted same book, no additional work and it comes back a 9.6 in WW Chicago.

 

Recent JO 134 that comes back an 8.5..second submission with no additional work comes back a 9.2.

 

ASM 194 sent in as a 9.4 pre-screen. Fails the pre-screen and sits in one of my boxes for 2-3 months. Send it in with a regular submission (no pre-screen) and comes back a 9.6.

 

So sometime once is not enough.

 

Ahhhhhh, but you're missing my underlying point. I can understand submitting a comic to CGC once just to check for what CGC considers "restoration", e.g. colour touches, etc.

 

After that though regardless of how many times you submit the comic, it's still the same comic. You're either happy with it, or you're not. Why should the number on the label matter to you? That's not part of the comic.

 

Unless of course you're playing the crack and resubmit game because you're trying to flip the comic for a higher price (which I suspect is the case here). If so, he won't get any sympathy from me. I'll just laugh.

 

;)

 

True, and I agree it is the same comic. It is the same comic before it was ever encapsulated. But for some, the label is what they are after. If not, no one would buy slabbed books, just raw. While it has no appeal to you, to some it is the center of their universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so you know guys, Tnerb doesn't really engage anyone. He just blogs. Expecting a discussion or response is unrealistic.

 

That's unfortunate (and a bit condescending..."I shall make my pronouncements from on high, but shan't be expected to engage the rabble"), but at least there are others willing to have the conversation.

 

Bloggers should either confine themselves to areas which don't allow comments at all, or be willing to engage others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that a book can be slabbed at 9.0 and then be re submitted and come back a 9.6 is crazy. Especially when nothing was done to the book to "help" the grade. This is exactly why I don't submit books to be graded. I will buy a slabbed book. But only after I have received some good scans/photos and agree with the assigned grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I had a book that was in a 9.0 slab....I cracked it, pressed it, and resubbed it, FULLY expecting a 9.2, if not a 9.4....the book was IMPROVED from where it was in the 9.0 slab...and it came back a 7.5.

 

Why?

 

Because when it was graded 9.0, tanning wasn't the death knell to CGC that it is now, and the book had fairly significant tanning. Not "the book is brittle" tanning, but obvious oxidation of the paper had occurred.

 

And though the book was structurally better, CGC hammered the tanning.

 

And I support tanning being penalized. It dramatically reduces the eye appeal of a comic.

 

To you.

 

That's why grading is subjective.

 

But it's not a case here of degree. PSA completely ignores toning as a defect. This is despite the fact that terms such as MT and NM imply freshly removed from the pack condition and the cards certainly weren't toned when initially sold.

 

:preach:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I had a book that was in a 9.0 slab....I cracked it, pressed it, and resubbed it, FULLY expecting a 9.2, if not a 9.4....the book was IMPROVED from where it was in the 9.0 slab...and it came back a 7.5.

 

Why?

 

Because when it was graded 9.0, tanning wasn't the death knell to CGC that it is now, and the book had fairly significant tanning. Not "the book is brittle" tanning, but obvious oxidation of the paper had occurred.

 

And though the book was structurally better, CGC hammered the tanning.

 

And I support tanning being penalized. It dramatically reduces the eye appeal of a comic.

 

To you.

 

That's why grading is subjective.

 

But it's not a case here of degree. PSA completely ignores toning as a defect. This is despite the fact that terms such as MT and NM imply freshly removed from the pack condition and the cards certainly weren't toned when initially sold.

 

:preach:

 

I don't really know or care about PSA. I'm just talking about comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites