tight grading years

[sterlingcomics]

are there any years where grading was known to be particularly tight?

No,never

 

But there are years with "weak grading".

"Tight" is the excuse for those who over-grade their books, then whine like heII when CGC calls them on it.

 

With the possible exception of the first few years of their existence, yes. I particularly feel grading early on was very tight...

 

I've got an old label 8.0 GL #76 that was graded in early 2001 , looks like a 9.0. Just sayin'.

 

Re-reading my statement I found it confusing. I meant to say that the first few years WAS tight. Outside of that timeframe, we seem to be going through extreme tight and loose periods. When I stopped back in here a couple of years ago the grading was so bad I immediately went back into comic buying hiberation. I was actually loosing faith in CGC's grading---it seems to have returned closer to what I think it should be.

[The-Collector]

Never buy 2016.

 

Only because of the holder fiasco. Most dealers will tell you grading has been consistent this year.

 

Not even close to consistent. Just last weekend in Chicago, the grades are all over the board. CPR'd books coming back a full point lower, 9.8s with CBCs and rusty staples... certainly not consistent.

 

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago - you're pulling out two examples to show inconsistency? The vast, vast majority of books I saw were tightly graded - just like the ones CGC has been churning out for the last couple of years.

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

I mentioned 2 (of 3) inconsistencies THAT I KNOW OF, which is a microcosm of what was submitted. If all submissions received the same consistency of inconsistency there would be about a 50% variation.

 

That's like saying "I received 10 books back from CGC, 2 of them had the wrong labels, ergo 20% of all CGC books have wrong labels".

 

If a book with rusted staples comes back a 9.8, it's not an inconsistency - it's a grading error.

 

If the sample was large enough you could draw that conclusion.

[The-Collector]

I think 2006 was a tight grading year.

 

+1

[Ron Rau]

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

Hi mschmidt,

 

Man, that's a lot of books. How did they go about getting so many graded and encapsulated in such a short amount of time? Is there a crew there grading around the clock, working different shifts?

 

About the TOS, was it a book that a fellow collector showed you right before it was handed off at the Con and made it's ill-fated journey through the hot press and onsite grading?

[mschmidt]

Never buy 2016.

 

Only because of the holder fiasco. Most dealers will tell you grading has been consistent this year.

 

Not even close to consistent. Just last weekend in Chicago, the grades are all over the board. CPR'd books coming back a full point lower, 9.8s with CBCs and rusty staples... certainly not consistent.

 

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago - you're pulling out two examples to show inconsistency? The vast, vast majority of books I saw were tightly graded - just like the ones CGC has been churning out for the last couple of years.

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

I mentioned 2 (of 3) inconsistencies THAT I KNOW OF, which is a microcosm of what was submitted. If all submissions received the same consistency of inconsistency there would be about a 50% variation.

 

That's like saying "I received 10 books back from CGC, 2 of them had the wrong labels, ergo 20% of all CGC books have wrong labels".

 

If a book with rusted staples comes back a 9.8, it's not an inconsistency - it's a grading error.

 

If the sample was large enough you could draw that conclusion.

 

Which isn't the case here.

[mschmidt]

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

Hi mschmidt,

 

Man, that's a lot of books. How did they go about getting so many graded and encapsulated in such a short amount of time? Is there a crew there grading around the clock, working different shifts?

 

About the TOS, was it a book that a fellow collector showed you right before it was handed off at the Con and made it's ill-fated journey through the hot press and onsite grading?

 

CGC brings pretty much everybody to an onsite show - pre-graders, finalizers, encapsulators, QA people, verifiers, etc. They then proceed to work their asses off in a nearby conference space whilst the rest of us happily wander around the show.

 

In regards to the TOS, I saw it when the owner picked it up from the CGC booth.

[joeypost]

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

Hi mschmidt,

 

Man, that's a lot of books. How did they go about getting so many graded and encapsulated in such a short amount of time? Is there a crew there grading around the clock, working different shifts?

 

About the TOS, was it a book that a fellow collector showed you right before it was handed off at the Con and made it's ill-fated journey through the hot press and onsite grading?

 

CGC brings pretty much everybody to an onsite show - pre-graders, finalizers, encapsulators, QA people, verifiers, etc. They then proceed to work their asses off in a nearby conference space whilst the rest of us happily wander around the show.

 

In regards to the TOS, I saw it when the owner picked it up from the CGC booth.

 

What was the story with the TOS?

[VintageComics]

Never buy 2016.

 

Only because of the holder fiasco. Most dealers will tell you grading has been consistent this year.

 

Not even close to consistent. Just last weekend in Chicago, the grades are all over the board. CPR'd books coming back a full point lower, 9.8s with CBCs and rusty staples... certainly not consistent.

 

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago - you're pulling out two examples to show inconsistency? The vast, vast majority of books I saw were tightly graded - just like the ones CGC has been churning out for the last couple of years.

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

I mentioned 2 (of 3) inconsistencies THAT I KNOW OF, which is a microcosm of what was submitted. If all submissions received the same consistency of inconsistency there would be about a 50% variation.

 

I didn't submit many books because I've been too busy to process them but I looked at a few boxes of books in Chicago and the boxes I looked at looked bang on to tightly graded. If there was inconsistency in your opinion, was it between different invoices, grading tiers, days submitted, etc?

 

[mschmidt]

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

Hi mschmidt,

 

Man, that's a lot of books. How did they go about getting so many graded and encapsulated in such a short amount of time? Is there a crew there grading around the clock, working different shifts?

 

About the TOS, was it a book that a fellow collector showed you right before it was handed off at the Con and made it's ill-fated journey through the hot press and onsite grading?

 

CGC brings pretty much everybody to an onsite show - pre-graders, finalizers, encapsulators, QA people, verifiers, etc. They then proceed to work their asses off in a nearby conference space whilst the rest of us happily wander around the show.

 

In regards to the TOS, I saw it when the owner picked it up from the CGC booth.

 

What was the story with the TOS?

 

As far as I recall, it was a blue label 4.5 TOS #39 that got subbed for a press & regrade - and then came back a 3.5.

[joeypost]

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

Hi mschmidt,

 

Man, that's a lot of books. How did they go about getting so many graded and encapsulated in such a short amount of time? Is there a crew there grading around the clock, working different shifts?

 

About the TOS, was it a book that a fellow collector showed you right before it was handed off at the Con and made it's ill-fated journey through the hot press and onsite grading?

 

CGC brings pretty much everybody to an onsite show - pre-graders, finalizers, encapsulators, QA people, verifiers, etc. They then proceed to work their asses off in a nearby conference space whilst the rest of us happily wander around the show.

 

In regards to the TOS, I saw it when the owner picked it up from the CGC booth.

 

What was the story with the TOS?

 

As far as I recall, it was a blue label 4.5 TOS #39 that got subbed for a press & regrade - and then came back a 3.5.

 

[pickycollector]

I think 2006 was a tight grading year.

 

+1

2006

[Johnny545]

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

Hi mschmidt,

 

Man, that's a lot of books. How did they go about getting so many graded and encapsulated in such a short amount of time? Is there a crew there grading around the clock, working different shifts?

 

About the TOS, was it a book that a fellow collector showed you right before it was handed off at the Con and made it's ill-fated journey through the hot press and onsite grading?

 

CGC brings pretty much everybody to an onsite show - pre-graders, finalizers, encapsulators, QA people, verifiers, etc. They then proceed to work their asses off in a nearby conference space whilst the rest of us happily wander around the show.

 

In regards to the TOS, I saw it when the owner picked it up from the CGC booth.

 

What was the story with the TOS?

 

As far as I recall, it was a blue label 4.5 TOS #39 that got subbed for a press & regrade - and then came back a 3.5.

 

Pressing make a spine split worse??

[thunsicker]

Never buy 2016.

 

Only because of the holder fiasco. Most dealers will tell you grading has been consistent this year.

 

Not even close to consistent. Just last weekend in Chicago, the grades are all over the board. CPR'd books coming back a full point lower, 9.8s with CBCs and rusty staples... certainly not consistent.

 

CGC did 3,000+ onsite books in Chicago - you're pulling out two examples to show inconsistency? The vast, vast majority of books I saw were tightly graded - just like the ones CGC has been churning out for the last couple of years.

 

I also saw the TOS that dropped a full grade after a press - it looked every bit the new grade.

 

I mentioned 2 (of 3) inconsistencies THAT I KNOW OF, which is a microcosm of what was submitted. If all submissions received the same consistency of inconsistency there would be about a 50% variation.

 

That's like saying "I received 10 books back from CGC, 2 of them had the wrong labels, ergo 20% of all CGC books have wrong labels".

 

If a book with rusted staples comes back a 9.8, it's not an inconsistency - it's a grading error.

 

If the sample was large enough you could draw that conclusion.

 

Very true. For a population of 3000 you would need a sample size of 341 for a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval.