• 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.

The Future of Grading (9.1,9.3 etc.)
1 1

52 posts in this topic

Custom labels are just another way to maximize profits....Some individuals will resubmit their slabs for these "cool labels" just to grace the walls of a man cave with a more decorative display...

The same as with the new holders...this disease some of us share... OCD completionist will resubmit some slabs just because of the change in design....Now with even more reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Obviously the current CGC grading scale is far more incremental at the top grades (from 9.0-10.0) which has 28% (7/25) of all the grading "steps" than the the rest of the scale .

It seems like the scale itself is designed for distinguishing high-grade books much more than mid or lower grade books - is this because high grade books are more commonly submitted for graded?

An interesting thing happens when you look at the numbers:

Average grade of 2,851,774 CGC Universal Graded books by decade:
2010s = 9.73 (400,601 books, 14.0% of all books)
2000s = 9.68 (374,700 books, 13.1% of all books)
1990s = 9.55 (307,188 books, 10.8% of all books)

1980s = 9.36 (476,701 books, 16.7% of all books)
1970s = 8.82 (557,082 books, 19.5% of all books)
1960s = 7.42 (512,662 books, 18.0% of all books)

1950s = 6.80 (108,148 books, 3.8% of all books)
1940s = 6.40 (109,074 books, 3.8% of all books)
1930s = 5.34 (5,618 books, 0.2% of all books)

It SEEMS, at least from this look, that the majority (54.2%) of all graded books  (those from the 60's-80's) have an average grade somewhere between 7.0 and 9.4.

But, as the adage goes, there are lies and then there are statistics.

In actuality, when looking at the number of books AT EACH GRADE (regardless of era) we see that just over 50% of all Universal Graded books on the census are actually graded 9.6-9.8:

Percent and Number of CGC Universal Graded books by grade:
10.0 = 0.1% (2,612 books)
9.9 = 0.4% (11,063 books)
9.8 = 34.3% (977,276 books, of which 58% of these are from 2000 to present)
9.6 = 16.5% (470,105 books, of which 26% of these are from 2000 to present)
9.4 = 11.1% (317,919 books)
9.2 = 6.6% (189,315 books)
9.0 = 5.5% (156,644 books)
8.5 = 4.7% (134,214 books)
8.0 = 3.7% (106,357 books)
7.5 =  3.0% (84,929 books)
7.0 = 2.7% (77,924 books)
6.5 = 2.1% (58,185 books)
6.0 = 1.8% (51,185 books)
and so on...

So basically, the current scale is skewed to differentiate HG books and that's the majority of books being graded.

Now here's the 10-cent question: Would folks be submitting all these modern books if the upper scale was incremented 9.0, 9.5, 10.0 like it is for most of the rest of the grading scale?

Also, right now there's always the 9.6 vs 9.8 uncertainty and almost unknown reasoning of why some books get 9.6 and some get 9.8 when many experienced collectors can't tell the difference for sure (thanks again no-grader-notes). Now just imagine that same ambiguous uncertainty as to why SA-book A gets a 6.2 while SA-book B (which looks in nearly same condition) gets a 6.4 or 6.0.

There is already a lot of ambiguity between many 9.6 and 9.8 submissions and especially for moderns, a lot of value riding on that nearly-imperceptible +/- 0.2 in the grade.

Why spread this minutia of ambiguousness across mid and lower grade books by creating even MORE grading increments?  Does it help the collectors and the hobby? Or would it create even more confusion?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me more grading increments ultimately leads to more subjectivity in grading.......i.e., harder to get a concensus between differences of .1, .2, .3, etc.  As others have said or at least implied it's hard enough with the existing increments.

Edited by JohnFranklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want it to go the other way, just to ease my OCD.  9.0, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 10.  The result would be an absolute flood of 9.8s on the market, which would make the vast majority of my collection drop in value overnight (unless they introduced a NEW new label to distinguish between a 'real 9.8' and a 'soft 9.8')   Can you imagine the amount of money to be made on the resubs alone?  Maybe Voldy should do this hm 

Jerome

Edited by Lethal_Collector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Michelangelo said:

it's already splitting hairs when you get into super high grade. How many more ways can a hair be split?

Even OSPG only goes up to 9.2/nm-

How many ways to split a hair is going to depend on what you're using to split them.

OSPG stopped tracking books over 9.2 because there was a lot more price volatility in grades above 9.2 and it wanted to stay relevant.

That change happened about 10 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jcjames said:

It seems like the scale itself is designed for distinguishing high-grade books much more than mid or lower grade books - is this because high grade books are more commonly submitted for graded?

it probably has something to do with the fact that MORE defects are allowed in lower grades.

So having more accumulated defects in lower grades makes it necessary to spread out the difference between each lower grade point much more.

In the top grades the difference between defects in grade is so tiny - a speck of color, a spine stress, a tiny crease or a bindery tear - that it makes it far easier to distinguish between grades with small increments.

It's actually logical once you think it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lethal_Collector said:

I want it to go the other way, just to ease my OCD.  9.0, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 10.  The result would be an absolute flood of 9.8s on the market, which would make the vast majority of my collection drop in value overnight (unless they introduced a NEW new label to distinguish between a 'real 9.8' and a 'soft 9.8')   Can you imagine the amount of money to be made on the resubs alone?  Maybe Voldy should do this hm 

Jerome

Of course, the flip side is that people would start paying less for 9.8's because they wouldn't be as special.

It's not the fact that it's a 9.8 that makes it so expensive.

It's the fact that it's better than a 9.6 (and a 9.4, and a 9.2, etc) that makes it so expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VintageComics said:

it probably has something to do with the fact that MORE defects are allowed in lower grades.

So having more accumulated defects in lower grades makes it necessary to spread out the difference between each lower grade point much more.

In the top grades the difference between defects in grade is so tiny - a speck of color, a spine stress, a tiny crease or a bindery tear - that it makes it far easier to distinguish between grades with small increments.

It's actually logical once you think it through.

 

It is logical, however, currently using OGG, having 2-3 defects is the allowable range for both 9.6 and 9.4 grades so not really helpful there. In fact, there is often a lot of "mystery" as to why a book might come back a 9.6 vs 9.8 from CGC so I don't see it making it easier to distinguish between small grade increments. It's still very subjective - like having 7 defects according to OGG could get a grade anywhere from 5.5 to 8.0 depending on the severity of the defects. That's pretty loose and a lot of subjective wiggle room independent of the number of allowable defects.  

But you're right, having very few allowable defects automatically creates smaller grade increments in the HG ranges. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2017 at 3:11 PM, Michelangelo said:

The difference between 9.4 and 9.6 or 9.6 and 9.8 is already fairly negligible... imaging the difference between a 9.5 and 9.6 :o

+1 Now, I know that some are going to say they can for sure tell the difference of .2 in a book, but the greatest majority of collectors (and many major dealers I've asked) can't. Breaking it own even further seems just like a blatent money chase, nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jcjames said:

It is logical, however, currently using OGG, having 2-3 defects is the allowable range for both 9.6 and 9.4 grades so not really helpful there. In fact, there is often a lot of "mystery" as to why a book might come back a 9.6 vs 9.8 from CGC so I don't see it making it easier to distinguish between small grade increments. It's still very subjective - like having 7 defects according to OGG could get a grade anywhere from 5.5 to 8.0 depending on the severity of the defects. That's pretty loose and a lot of subjective wiggle room independent of the number of allowable defects.  

But you're right, having very few allowable defects automatically creates smaller grade increments in the HG ranges. 

The differences in grade, especially in the higher grades is not only the amount of defects but also the size of them.

That's often where the mystery is in those highest grades. I agree it's still subjective but after certifying books for nearly 15 years I've come to understand it reasonably well.

Once you drop out of high grade it's an entirely different way of grading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robot Man said:

Breaking it own even further seems just like a blatent money chase, nothing more. 

If you have two 'Mint' books side by side and both are 100% identical except for one or two tiny defects on one copy, and you want the best copy available which are you going to buy?

That's the reason for the incremental grades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jcjames said:


Obviously the current CGC grading scale is far more incremental at the top grades (from 9.0-10.0) which has 28% (7/25) of all the grading "steps" than the the rest of the scale .

It seems like the scale itself is designed for distinguishing high-grade books much more than mid or lower grade books - is this because high grade books are more commonly submitted for graded?

An interesting thing happens when you look at the numbers:

Average grade of 2,851,774 CGC Universal Graded books by decade:
2010s = 9.73 (400,601 books, 14.0% of all books)
2000s = 9.68 (374,700 books, 13.1% of all books)
1990s = 9.55 (307,188 books, 10.8% of all books)

1980s = 9.36 (476,701 books, 16.7% of all books)
1970s = 8.82 (557,082 books, 19.5% of all books)
1960s = 7.42 (512,662 books, 18.0% of all books)

1950s = 6.80 (108,148 books, 3.8% of all books)
1940s = 6.40 (109,074 books, 3.8% of all books)
1930s = 5.34 (5,618 books, 0.2% of all books)

It SEEMS, at least from this look, that the majority (54.2%) of all graded books  (those from the 60's-80's) have an average grade somewhere between 7.0 and 9.4.

But, as the adage goes, there are lies and then there are statistics.

In actuality, when looking at the number of books AT EACH GRADE (regardless of era) we see that just over 50% of all Universal Graded books on the census are actually graded 9.6-9.8:

Percent and Number of CGC Universal Graded books by grade:
10.0 = 0.1% (2,612 books)
9.9 = 0.4% (11,063 books)
9.8 = 34.3% (977,276 books, of which 58% of these are from 2000 to present)
9.6 = 16.5% (470,105 books, of which 26% of these are from 2000 to present)
9.4 = 11.1% (317,919 books)
9.2 = 6.6% (189,315 books)
9.0 = 5.5% (156,644 books)
8.5 = 4.7% (134,214 books)
8.0 = 3.7% (106,357 books)
7.5 =  3.0% (84,929 books)
7.0 = 2.7% (77,924 books)
6.5 = 2.1% (58,185 books)
6.0 = 1.8% (51,185 books)
and so on...

So basically, the current scale is skewed to differentiate HG books and that's the majority of books being graded.

Now here's the 10-cent question: Would folks be submitting all these modern books if the upper scale was incremented 9.0, 9.5, 10.0 like it is for most of the rest of the grading scale?

Also, right now there's always the 9.6 vs 9.8 uncertainty and almost unknown reasoning of why some books get 9.6 and some get 9.8 when many experienced collectors can't tell the difference for sure (thanks again no-grader-notes). Now just imagine that same ambiguous uncertainty as to why SA-book A gets a 6.2 while SA-book B (which looks in nearly same condition) gets a 6.4 or 6.0.

There is already a lot of ambiguity between many 9.6 and 9.8 submissions and especially for moderns, a lot of value riding on that nearly-imperceptible +/- 0.2 in the grade.

Why spread this minutia of ambiguousness across mid and lower grade books by creating even MORE grading increments?  Does it help the collectors and the hobby? Or would it create even more confusion?

 

I think this post just confused the heck outta me. I tried to follow it I really did but come on really? Do you actually ever read any of your comics? I guess not because they are probably all encased and you are too busy discecting them to actually enjoy any. Hey if it floats your boat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

If you have two 'Mint' books side by side and both are 100% identical except for one or two tiny defects on one copy, and you want the best copy available which are you going to buy?

That's the reason for the incremental grades.

Oh, I get it Roy. To me they are "comic books" and myself, personally, I don't need the best copy available. Chasing the grade is a very fleeting endevor that rarely turns out well. Besides, I have better things to spend all that extra money on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Robot Man said:
6 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

If you have two 'Mint' books side by side and both are 100% identical except for one or two tiny defects on one copy, and you want the best copy available which are you going to buy?

That's the reason for the incremental grades.

Oh, I get it Roy. To me they are "comic books" and myself, personally, I don't need the best copy available. Chasing the grade is a very fleeting endevor that rarely turns out well. Besides, I have better things to spend all that extra money on...

I understand where you're coming from.

But some people making a lifestyle out of chasing nice things.

Different strokes and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1