Comic Verification Authority (CVA) ?!?!?!
5 5

219 posts in this topic

30,323 posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117 posts
1 hour ago, comicdonna said:

It’s an “Exceptional” frayed corner :banana:

Currently Victimizing Anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,299 posts

Here is an example of a book with the CVA label.  Apologize if it is a boardees book but just to illustrate my points.

1st, the book is a 6.0 so we have to expect some wear and tear, but here are the things about the book that make me say it doesn't have superior eye appeal.

Chips missing on all four corners.  In general missing pieces are just plain ugly.  :sick:

Mis-trimmed which is easiest to see in the DC circle in the top right corner.  This is a big pet peeve of mine  :sick::sick:

Poor registration, blue and green are both shifted to the right. :sick::sick::sick:

 

Screen Shot 2019-01-13 at 6.46.34 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117 posts
23 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

Here is an example of a book with the CVA label.  Apologize if it is a boardees book but just to illustrate my points.

1st, the book is a 6.0 so we have to expect some wear and tear, but here are the things about the book that make me say it doesn't have superior eye appeal.

Chips missing on all four corners.  In general missing pieces are just plain ugly.  :sick:

Mis-trimmed which is easiest to see in the DC circle in the top right corner.  This is a big pet peeve of mine  :sick::sick:

Poor registration, blue and green are both shifted to the right. :sick::sick::sick:

 

Screen Shot 2019-01-13 at 6.46.34 PM.png

Another excellent example of why CVA is a total joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,105 posts
On 1/12/2019 at 8:16 PM, comicdonna said:

It's corner wear. Most 9.4s have either some corner wear on more than one corner or visible spine stress marks. If the corner was hanging off it probably wouldn't be a 9.4

I suppose it has a sticker because of the centering, rest of the corners are clean along with the spine being mostly clean from what I can see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,798 posts
4 hours ago, MGsimba77 said:

It's corner wear. Most 9.4s have either some corner wear on more than one corner or visible spine stress marks. If the corner was hanging off it probably wouldn't be a 9.4

I suppose it has a sticker because of the centering, rest of the corners are clean along with the spine being mostly clean from what I can see

Yeah I don't know what the heartburn is over that Bat 251. It looks better than a lot of 9.6s and is definitely a superior presenting copy relative to most 9.4s you'll find. A bindery chip (production) of that size is even possible at 9.8, let alone 9.4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406 posts

The only way for such a grading practice could work would be if there was a "gold standard" reference for each book.  The "gold standard" wouldn't necessary have to be the best book but all grading would have to use that book as a standard. i.e. say a grade of 1 would mean that it is exactly the same as the standard. Higher would be greater than 1, worse would be less than 1.  I think it would be an interesting concept if CGC did this in regards to the front and back covers.  There must be software out there that could calculate a value for, let say brightness of the cover which then could be referenced back to the gold standard. 

Edited by Xenosmilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117 posts
12 hours ago, Xenosmilus said:

The only way for such a grading practice could work would be if there was a "gold standard" reference for each book.  The "gold standard" wouldn't necessary have to be the best book but all grading would have to use that book as a standard. i.e. say a grade of 1 would mean that it is exactly the same as the standard. Higher would be greater than 1, worse would be less than 1.  I think it would be an interesting concept if CGC did this in regards to the front and back covers.  There must be software out there that could calculate a value for, let say brightness of the cover which then could be referenced back to the gold standard. 

CGC would just be causing themselves a complete nightmare.  People already debate grades enough as it is, introducing some “gold standard” into their equation would just make the debate substantially worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,806 posts

Double post, because I think its brilliant:headbang:

Here is an idea - how about an "if pressed grade."?

Yeah, that's right.  I'm going to start a grading service that says what your book "will grade" if pressed - so you don't have to actually press but you know what it will be, if pressed.  The sticker will be the IPG (if pressed grade).  I'm thinking for already graded comics its a +/- sign, so say for example my Rodger Dodger CGC 6.0 has an IPG +2.0.

This is particularly useful for lower value books that don't warrant pressing fees, and those collectors legitimately concerned about the "press time loss factor" (PTLF).  An already pressed book gets an IPG of AP-1 aka "Already Pressed, Press Time Loss Factor = -1 yr. "  Benefits include warding off press and flippers to a potential re-press and providing a sense of security to those who want to fill that gap between full blown restoration and an unnatural intervention of a hot iron.

Looking for investors who what to get in on ground level of this exploding opportunity, please PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,854 posts
On 2/28/2019 at 7:43 AM, mattn792 said:
On 2/27/2019 at 7:18 PM, Xenosmilus said:

The only way for such a grading practice could work would be if there was a "gold standard" reference for each book.  The "gold standard" wouldn't necessary have to be the best book but all grading would have to use that book as a standard. i.e. say a grade of 1 would mean that it is exactly the same as the standard. Higher would be greater than 1, worse would be less than 1.  I think it would be an interesting concept if CGC did this in regards to the front and back covers.  There must be software out there that could calculate a value for, let say brightness of the cover which then could be referenced back to the gold standard. 

CGC would just be causing themselves a complete nightmare.  People already debate grades enough as it is, introducing some “gold standard” into their equation would just make the debate substantially worse

NGC, CGC's sister company, already does this, except that they obviously don't include a "negative" side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117 posts
8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

NGC, CGC's sister company, already does this, except that they obviously don't include a "negative" side.

Still, do we really want to see a world where we’re looking at comics being graded in the vein of 9.8 standard, 9.8 exceptional, 9.8 suboptimal...

CVA doing it is one thing, most recognize them as useless.  But if CGC got into that business, yikes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,854 posts
4 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

Still, do we really want to see a world where we’re looking at comics being graded in the vein of 9.8 standard, 9.8 exceptional, 9.8 suboptimal...

CVA doing it is one thing, most recognize them as useless.  But if CGC got into that business, yikes.  

There will never be such a thing as "suboptimal" anything, but yes. The more information I have to make a decision, the better. If other people looked at this book in hand and said "yes, this has superior eye appeal for the grade", then more information is always better.

There will always be people who "collect" rags, who have very little of value, and don't care about condition. If that's what makes them happy, more power to 'em. But that doesn't mean they have the right to sneer at those of us who do value condition, to look down their noses with contempt at those who find value in something that managed to last 40, 60, or even nearly 90 years now, in excellent condition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654 posts
10 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If other people looked at this book in hand and said "yes, this has superior eye appeal for the grade", then more information is always better.

.......I think it's obvious to collector's whether a book has eye appeal or not. I certainly don't need a second opinion. Paying for a second opinion seems ludicrous to me. (shrug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,854 posts
2 hours ago, mrc said:

.......I think it's obvious to collector's whether a book has eye appeal or not. I certainly don't need a second opinion. Paying for a second opinion seems ludicrous to me. (shrug)

And if said book is on a website, and cannot be examined in person prior to purchase...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117 posts
1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And if said book is on a website, and cannot be examined in person prior to purchase...?

Even still, say you bought a hypothetical 9.4 exceptional online, but when you got it in hand you disagreed with the “exceptional” it got assigned.  Then what? 

Like I said earlier, arguments over grades are bad enough.  If CGC got into the eye appeal business too, they’d have to let customer service drink on the job.  

Leave it in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,854 posts
2 hours ago, mattn792 said:

Even still, say you bought a hypothetical 9.4 exceptional online, but when you got it in hand you disagreed with the “exceptional” it got assigned.  Then what? 

Like I said earlier, arguments over grades are bad enough.  If CGC got into the eye appeal business too, they’d have to let customer service drink on the job.  

Leave it in the eye of the beholder.

Then nothing. I don't understand why this is such a difficult issue to process. All they are doing (and, again, I have virtually zero experience with CVA, and am making ZERO comment about their specific business practices; I am only discussing theory) is saying "yes, this book presents exceptionally well for the grade it was given."

That's it. You can accept their opinion, or you can reject their opinion: it's just an opinion. The value of that opinion is in the value you place on the ability of the people making that opinion. If that value to you is $0, then that's what you pay extra: $0. Other people might value CVA's opinion...again, I don't know them, and cannot speak to their level of expertise...and pay "a little extra" for the item in question. I disagree with Batman_Fan's analysis of the Batman book he presented earlier, but that doesn't make him wrong, and it doesn't make me right. He makes a compelling case, but he's also ignoring the positive things that CVA saw. I agree with much of his case, but don't agree with his conclusion. He assigns a $0 value to that opinion...I assign...eh...say 1%.

There are people...right now, on this board...whose opinions I would accept in terms of knowing whether a book is superior for its grade, and I know there are people who would view my opinion in the same way. I don't deal in the high end of the market, where such opinions could be worth thousands of dollars, but for those that do, it has a lot of value.

Why do you imagine, if CGC added a "+" or "*" or equivalent designation, that that would result in enormous problems for their customer service? Are you not aware that CGC already takes eye appeal into consideration when it assigns grades...? No one is going to call in and say "why'd you give me this + designation on this book? There's no way it deserves that!" If anything, they'll say "why didn't you give me this better grade!?" but a "+" (or WHATEVER) designation makes it less likely...not more...that they will complain!

And I tell you what added benefit it would be to the market: because of the smoothing out of prices, since there wouldn't be (as many) massive gaps in value that directly encourages the crack/press/resub game, there would be less incentive to do that. "Ehhh...I can live with a 9.6+" (or WHATEVER) for this book.

Same exact arguments from people in coins, a decade ago. Same exact ones. It worked out just fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117 posts

$0 it is (thumbsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
710 posts

Has anyone on the boards ever sent something to cva only to have them deny and say your copy was not good enough for the sticker?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654 posts

The only designation that would be useful to me would be a big letter 'P' on the cgc label to tell me whether the book's been through their in-house pressing service or not.

Share this post


Link to post
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
5 5