CGC v. Company X
6 6

134 posts in this topic

2,904 posts

I wouldn't even consider using any company other than CGC.  As far as the slight resto, that's no fun, but I'm fairly certain Sqeggs can make up for any loss with volume!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,195 posts

For those not already tired of this little saga, here are the grader's notes for the Action 58.  Apparently Company X doesn't include the date the book was graded in their notes. No mention in the notes of any glue.

Notes:
light wear to corners & edges, some breaks color
small tear right front cover
sun shadow top back cover
1/2" top spine split
spine wear & stress, small tears at staple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,103 posts
15 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

For those not already tired of this little saga, here are the grader's notes for the Action 58.  Apparently Company X doesn't include the date the book was graded in their notes. No mention in the notes of any glue.

Notes:
light wear to corners & edges, some breaks color
small tear right front cover
sun shadow top back cover
1/2" top spine split
spine wear & stress, small tears at staple

I have always thought that a little glue was ok for a blue holder and have seen a lot of glue with blue. :screwy: that it got c-1 just crazy. I think X thought the glue was no big deal so why put notes on it.

Oh Oh its my X Crazy-Glue-Finds-His-Ex-Girlfriend-With-Elmer-Glue-In-Comic-By-Sunny-Street_408x408.jpg.c9bb56cebfecb49b46a02c9021910b8e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
559 posts

I had a gut feeling that Voldemort books are less likely to be pressed than CGC so for a good while I was cracking, pressing and submitting to CGC and doing pretty good with this approach on the balance.  I upgraded two Blue Beetle #1's through this and netted out mostly neutral with some higher grade Timely books.  I think Voldemort recently rolled out pressing services so that may change.  Again, gut feeling.  I have no data to backup whether books are less likely to be pressed in one holder than another.  I reasoned that if you are looking for savings with the Voldemort holder or in a rush, you may not press that copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,095 posts

How do the grading notes compare? Anything 'extra' or obvious between the two companies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,195 posts
3 minutes ago, Iceman399 said:

How do the grading notes compare? Anything 'extra' or obvious between the two companies. 

For comparison, here are the CGC grader's notes.  The key difference is the mention of the glue.

Glue/adhesive (Non-archival material small amount) Center Spine C-1
light crease left top of back cover
light wear center of spine
light wear full top of back cover breaks color
moderate tanning interior cover
small split top of spine
very light crease top of front cover
very small tear right center of front cover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,974 posts
6 hours ago, DjMartini said:

I am actually not surprised by these conversions. I feel like CGC has harder grading standards than any other company. I'm not a betting man but I would bet that about 99% of the time the grade is going be the same or lower if you take a slab from company X to be regraded by CGC. My condolences on the lower grades. 

:gossip:

I am actually surprised that there is basically a grade difference of only one increment between the 2 companies as this is indicating a sign of consistency for both of them from my point of view.  (thumbsu

Especially from all of the negative talk here all of the time about the other company which kind of leaves one with the impression they might have been as much as 2 or 3 grade increments higher when it comes to grading.  A more interesting test would be to send in CGC slabbed books graded during the 5 or so years time period prior to 2016 and see how they fare in comparison to this same test being conducted against the other company.  I strongly believe probably not so well from some of the slabs I am seeing. 

I believe somebody did one for some of the CA books and virtually everything came in lower without exception, with even a previously graded CGC 9.2 X-Men 94 coming back as only a CGC 8.0 graded copy with the new grading team in place.  At least they were smart enough to keep the old label to challenge them on the revised grade, whereby they agreed they had been too tight on the 8.0 grade and bumped it up to an CGC 9.0 in the end upon a further review of the book.

It's kind of sad that I now find myself checking on the serial number of every CGC slab before I bid on it to determine when it was graded.  I guess the big number on the top left is not good enough and I now also have to check on the date of grading amongst other things as part of my due diligence before bidding on a book.  Latest conspiracy theory is that they are getting even tighter on the uber HG's, but loosening up on the low and mid grades a bit.  Maybe there's some truth to the comment that the new CGC 9.6 is the old CGC 9.8, especially when it comes to the more recent books.  hm

The ideal situation is to have both accurate and consistent grading over an extended period of time.  Definitely not a reality though as grading teams change over time and the grading companies are still a business, and as such, are subject to their business agendas and what is happening in the marketplace at the time.  I definitely prefer the tight grading as long as it is reasonable and not to the point of obvious undergrading relative to what has taken place before. 

Although competition is generally good, it is never good for a grading company to "weaponize" their grades in response to another company gaining market share.  Definitely a faster and more effective way to get back market share as opposed to more costly alternatives like faster turnaround times, easier access to grading notes, better case holders, or what have you.  The only problem is that it could also invalidate many of their own previously graded books and if continued on both sides, could result in a race to the bottom of the grading scale. :frown:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,371 posts

Interesting.  Other than the glue the other differences seem to be the:

light crease left top of back cover

and

very light crease top of front cover

Could account for the slight difference in grade?  Anyone know if Company X doesn't deduct for correctable problems?  As a way of limiting pressing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,508 posts
4 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

The C1 is the dreaded "Restoration includes: small amount of glue on spine of cover."  As we all know, this one is sometimes overlooked (by both companies) on GA books.  So that may have been just a bad roll of the dice.  I'm assuming I can probably get it scrapped off and get the book back in a blue label.

Yeah. I know I am dense but I have a hard time understanding what passes as unrestored and what gets tagged as conservation.  I have blue labels with the notation and PLODs, and now conserved labels with the notation.  A judgement call on the label and I assume different graders roll the dice differently.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,103 posts
1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

I am actually surprised that there is basically a grade difference of only one increment between the 2 companies as this is indicating a sign of consistency for both of them from my point of view.  (thumbsu

Especially from all of the negative talk here all of the time about the other company which kind of leaves one with the impression they might have been as much as 2 or 3 grade increments higher when it comes to grading.  A more interesting test would be to send in CGC slabbed books graded during the 5 or so years time period prior to 2016 and see how they fare in comparison to this same test being conducted against the other company.  I strongly believe probably not so well from some of the slabs I am seeing. 

I believe somebody did one for some of the CA books and virtually everything came in lower without exception, with even a previously graded CGC 9.2 X-Men 94 coming back as only a CGC 8.0 graded copy with the new grading team in place.  At least they were smart enough to keep the old label to challenge them on the revised grade, whereby they agreed they had been too tight on the 8.0 grade and bumped it up to an CGC 9.0 in the end upon a further review of the book.

It's kind of sad that I now find myself checking on the serial number of every CGC slab before I bid on it to determine when it was graded.  I guess the big number on the top left is not good enough and I now also have to check on the date of grading amongst other things as part of my due diligence before bidding on a book.  Latest conspiracy theory is that they are getting even tighter on the uber HG's, but loosening up on the low and mid grades a bit.  Maybe there's some truth to the comment that the new CGC 9.6 is the old CGC 9.8, especially when it comes to the more recent books.  hm

The ideal situation is to have both accurate and consistent grading over an extended period of time.  Definitely not a reality though as grading teams change over time and the grading companies are still a business, and as such, are subject to their business agendas and what is happening in the marketplace at the time.  I definitely prefer the tight grading as long as it is reasonable and not to the point of obvious undergrading relative to what has taken place before. 

Although competition is generally good, it is never good for a grading company to "weaponize" their grades in response to another company gaining market share.  Definitely a faster and more effective way to get back market share as opposed to more costly alternatives like faster turnaround times, easier access to grading notes, better case holders, or what have you.  The only problem is that it could also invalidate many of their own previously graded books and if continued on both sides, could result in a race to the bottom of the grading scale. :frown:

 

Really I'm so drunk I cant read all that:makepoint:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,974 posts
17 minutes ago, woowoo said:

Really I'm so drunk I cant read all that:makepoint:

Well then, it looks like you are in the perfect and ideal inebriated state of condition required for the accurate and consistent grading of comic books.  (thumbsu

As Donald or Arnold would say......."YOU ARE HIRED".  lol

Edited by lou_fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,186 posts

@Sqeggs if you submit more of these, crack the tops and take just the grade label out, then send it off to CGC without them.  I know you say you trust CGC, but we need to perform this study scientifically without any extra variables.

Thank you very much for sharing.  I have some CGC books with glue on the spine and they are BLUE!  That Action is HOT!!!  Don't despair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,103 posts
1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Well then, it looks like you are in the perfect and ideal inebriated state of condition required for the accurate and consistent grading of comic books.  (thumbsu

As Donald or Arnold would say......."YOU ARE HIRED".  lol

Archie.jpg.260b9ae86907ac6133d0998c381e331d.jpg Thanks Meathead:tink::foryou:

Edited by woowoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323 posts

I subbed 3 X books to CGC.  

X ASM 31 9.0 came back CGC 7.5

X Hulk 2 4.5 came back CGC 4.5

X Hulk 4 6.0 came back CGC 5.0

I kept the X labels before I sent them to CGC. That ASM was a killer :tonofbricks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,103 posts
2 minutes ago, grube09 said:

I subbed 3 X books to CGC.  

X ASM 31 9.0 came back CGC 7.5

X Hulk 2 4.5 came back CGC 4.5

X Hulk 4 6.0 came back CGC 5.0

I kept the X labels before I sent them to CGC. That ASM was a killer :tonofbricks:

:fear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,809 posts

Did anyone say if x=Voldemort or if x=PG (shrug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,103 posts
9 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

Did anyone say if x=Voldemort or if x=PG (shrug)

I did on page 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94 posts
11 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

So ... I had some Company X books that I thought I would send in to CGC to see what's what, who's who, and where's where.  The grades for the first group just posted.

Here are the results

Action 58 

Company X grade:  7.0 OW-W

CGC grade:  6.5 C-1 :cry: OW

Action 111

Company X:  7.5 OW

CGC: 7.0 OW

Adventure Comics 43

Company X: 8.0 CR-OW

CGC: 7.0 CR-OW

Captain Marvel, Jr. 27

Company X: 9.2 OW-W

CGC: 9.0 OW

Funny Picture Stories 7

Company X:  5.5 OW-W

CGC: 5.0 OW-W

It's still early in the season, but 0 for 5 ain't good. 

 

 

 

I'm always a bit confused by collectors/investors being fixated with a number.  Those who are familiar with the sports card grading industry know that PSA and BGS are the gold standard companies with reputable evaluations, where there were card grading companies (GAI : Global Authenticators International; SCD : Sports Collectors Digest; and others) who were so liberal with their grading standards, almost every card that looked decent received a perfect 10 pristine grade.  Ooh, wow!

But call a spade a spade, as a card "is what it is" and I would think in the case of comics and this example here it's not 0 for 5 in going from Company X to CGC, but in truth it's validating to the integrity and standards of CGC where Company X may be too loose and liberal with their grading assigments.

I'd rather have companies like CGC exist with stricter grading than random companies pop up and give the submitters what they dream of, which are delusional unwarranted higher grades.

Whether it's for a personal collection or resale, buyers and collectors need to back-up the grading service who is most strict, so when the grades are compared, there's validity to the scale.

That's my opinion 'tho, as not enamored by grading numbers, and am one of those collectors who believe in the subjective nature of grading, so would usually abstain from buying modern 9.8's if there's a 9.6 for a fraction of the cost that looks good (Yes, you should look at the front and back of the comic, not just the label) in comparison.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,820 posts
3 minutes ago, BeholdersEye said:

I'm always a bit confused by collectors/investors being fixated with a number.  Those who are familiar with the sports card grading industry know that PSA and BGS are the gold standard companies with reputable evaluations, where there were card grading companies (GAI : Global Authenticators International; SCD : Sports Collectors Digest; and others) who were so liberal with their grading standards, almost every card that looked decent received a perfect 10 pristine grade.  Ooh, wow!

But call a spade a spade, as a card "is what it is" and I would think in the case of comics and this example here it's not 0 for 5 in going from Company X to CGC, but in truth it's validating to the integrity and standards of CGC where Company X may be too loose and liberal with their grading assigments.

I'd rather have companies like CGC exist with stricter grading than random companies pop up and give the submitters what they dream of, which are delusional unwarranted higher grades.

Whether it's for a personal collection or resale, buyers and collectors need to back-up the grading service who is most strict, so when the grades are compared, there's validity to the scale.

That's my opinion 'tho, as not enamored by grading numbers, and am one of those collectors who believe in the subjective nature of grading, so would usually abstain from buying modern 9.8's if there's a 9.6 for a fraction of the cost that looks good (Yes, you should look at the front and back of the comic, not just the label) in comparison.  

I think most folks (at least in the gold section) agree with your logic, but there are a ton of collectors that are just chasing the labels.  9.8 or bust, and it doesn't matter what the 9.8 looks like in the slab, as long as that number is in the corner. 

Some of the folks I see on Instagram absolutely lose their minds when a book comes back lower than expected.  I do notice that they don't seem to mind if it comes back higher than expected. hm 

As long as people keep feeding the idea that tiny, almost imperceptible differences in condition are worth double/triple/quadruple or more than similar looking books with one more spine tick, or a slightly blunted corner are, this won't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491 posts

I recently submitted this Comic Cavalcade #19 that I’ve owned for 3 years that had been graded by Company “P” as a 7.0. I submitted it in it’s slab. I couldn’t believe it when it came back from CGC as an 8.0!!! 

7AD27628-31C1-406B-95AF-4F505AD40C8F.jpeg

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
6 6