CGC v. Company X
6 6

134 posts in this topic

315 posts
1 hour ago, Ghastly542454 said:

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

You are officially the .5% where this happens...congrats though!  :golfclap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,587 posts
22 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. 

 

 

 

Tony,

I won't comment on this until personally seeing pictures of the books and evaluating them. However, what do you think the grades should be?

thx,

john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,189 posts
1 hour ago, bronze johnny said:

Tony,

I won't comment on this until personally seeing pictures of the books and evaluating them. However, what do you think the grades should be?

thx,

john

Always wondered why company X books sold for less. Maybe overgrazing is the reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,189 posts

:kidaround: Libs! :foryou:

27 minutes ago, Foley said:

Overgrazing can often lead to soil erosion and nutrient runoff. I hope company X does not condone this practice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,974 posts
16 hours 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:

Killer in what sense of the word?  ???

In Fishler's terminology that the ASM 31 was a "killer copy" (i.e. real HG copy) and that CGC had severly undergraded the book?

Or that you knew that the other company had clearly overgraded the book and sent it in anyways to CGC hoping they would give you an equivalent or possibly even higher grade and you got "kill" because it was graded more accurately this time?  doh!

Since you held the book in hand and must have had some idea about its condition level, did you personally feel it was closer to a VF/NM copy or only a VF- copy?  hm

Edited by lou_fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323 posts
2 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Killer in what sense of the word?  ???

In Fishler's terminology that the ASM 31 was a "killer copy" (i.e. real HG copy) and that CGC had severly undergraded the book?

Or that you knew that the other company had clearly overgraded the book and sent it in anyways to CGC hoping they would give you an equivalent or possibly even higher grade and you got "kill" because it was graded more accurately this time?  doh!

Since you held the book in hand and must have had some idea about its condition level, did you personally feel it was closer to a VF/NM copy or only a VF- copy?  hm

Killer in the fact that it was such a big drop.  I did feel it was overgraded as a 9.0 so I was not disappointed in the drop, but the severity of the drop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,974 posts
28 minutes ago, grube09 said:

Killer in the fact that it was such a big drop.  I did feel it was overgraded as a 9.0 so I was not disappointed in the drop, but the severity of the drop.  

Good to know that you did not want the book to be sitting in a slab with what you felt was an overgraded label.  :golfclap:

Since you felt that it was such a big and severe drop in grade, did you feel that the 7.5 grade was accurate or might the book have been slightly undergraded here?

This is where a comparison of the Grader's Notes would be very useful to see why the book dropped down to only a CGC 7.5 as it would indicate what the other company might have missed when they graded the book.  hm

As collectors here, it's all part of the learning curve. (thumbsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,820 posts

What are the odds they'll ever get more detailed when describing restoration?  For example, it would be helpful if color touch was noted as "one area" or "multiple areas," instead of the ever vague "small amount."  That would actually benefit them as a grading company, because many customers would probably attempt to have the single spot removed, then have the book regraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564 posts
On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 12:57 PM, Sqeggs said:

Finally, there's the issue of which company is grading more accurately.  Maybe it's not that Company X is too loose and CGC is accurate, but it's that Company X is accurate and CGC is too tight.  Maybe Company X is coming closer to Overstreet grading or to what the consensus grading was in the hobby pre-CGC or to some other standard.

I very much agree with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,195 posts
7 hours ago, bronze johnny said:

Tony,

I won't comment on this until personally seeing pictures of the books and evaluating them. However, what do you think the grades should be?

thx,

john

I'd say that CGC's grade are more on the mark to me.  The Action 58 seemed like a weak 7.0 (the grade Company X gave it).  The Adventure 43 was a tough one because it looks very sharp but has a few scrapes along the spine, including one noticeable one at the top of the spine.  That's the kind of unusual defect that's difficult to grade, imo.  I can understand downgrading it from Company X's 8.0, but dinging a full point to 7.0, seems a bit harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,195 posts
5 hours ago, Foley said:
5 hours ago, johnenock said:

Always wondered why company X books sold for less. Maybe overgrazing is the reason?

Overgrazing can often lead to soil erosion and nutrient runoff. I hope company X does not condone this practice.

I used to run into that autocorrect all the time.  The work around is to have it learn the spellings "overgrading" and "overgraded." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,108 posts
1 hour ago, WoWitHurts said:
On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:57 AM, Sqeggs said:

Finally, there's the issue of which company is grading more accurately.  Maybe it's not that Company X is too loose and CGC is accurate, but it's that Company X is accurate and CGC is too tight.  Maybe Company X is coming closer to Overstreet grading or to what the consensus grading was in the hobby pre-CGC or to some other standard.

I very much agree with this. 

100% after all these books are 70 plus years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,366 posts
On 5/1/2018 at 11:57 AM, Sqeggs said:

The least shocking thing to see on the boards? An insightful post from Dr. Love!

I didn't crack them out -- I sent them still in the Company X slabs.  I believe CGC when they say that graders only see the raw books and don't know the previous grade (if any) on either their slab (on a straight resubmit) or on another company's slab.  Even if we put on our tinfoil hats, it's not clear which way knowing the previous company's grade would cut.

Would it be, "Aha, let's knock the grade down to show we're really tight graders" or would it be, "If we knock down the grade we reduce the incentive for people to submit the other company's books"? 

I wasn't surprised that some of the grades were lower.  I think I've posted before that my experience has been that typically CGC grades are lower than Company X's grades.  In fact, I don't recall ever getting back a book with from CGC with a grade higher than the grade Company X gave it.  But I have gotten back some books at the same grade.  So, five out of five lower was surprising.

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.

On the pq, it's certainly subjective, but all five books coming back the same or lower is interesting.  But again, small sample.

Finally, there's the issue of which company is grading more accurately.  Maybe it's not that Company X is too loose and CGC is accurate, but it's that Company X is accurate and CGC is too tight.  Maybe Company X is coming closer to Overstreet grading or to what the consensus grading was in the hobby pre-CGC or to some other standard.

I don't think any of that much matters because, for better or worse, CGC has become the industry standard.  They account for the overwhelming number of graded books and their books are the only ones represented on GPA, which is our best source of pricing data.

So, I guess the bottom line for me is that I think it's a problem for Company X that their grades are consistently lower than CGC's grades, irrespective of whether in some fundamental sense Company's X grades are more accurate. 

IMO, CGC is paranoid about glue and will call it when it's debatable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,366 posts
On 5/1/2018 at 8:07 AM, 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. 

 

 

 

Another thing to consider in all of this: It's pretty easy to call a 9.4 or a 1.0.  The 4.0-7.5 range is much tougher and you'll find a lot more variation in opinion there.  I'd be curious to see what a comparison would show between a handful of 9.0+ books and I suspect that would be a more accurate indicator of differences between the two companies.  That being said, when West was the head grader at CGC their grades got really soft, so I think there's a reason for softness that we might all have expected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323 posts
22 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Good to know that you did not want the book to be sitting in a slab with what you felt was an overgraded label.  :golfclap:

Since you felt that it was such a big and severe drop in grade, did you feel that the 7.5 grade was accurate or might the book have been slightly undergraded here?

This is where a comparison of the Grader's Notes would be very useful to see why the book dropped down to only a CGC 7.5 as it would indicate what the other company might have missed when they graded the book.  hm

As collectors here, it's all part of the learning curve. (thumbsu

I was hoping 8.5, but thought 8.0 on a bad day.  I was really caught off-guard by the 7.5.  Oh well...at least I can now say I have a NICE 7.5!  :banana:

Here are the ASM 31 notes:

Company X:  

tiny spine stress breaks color
tanning top interior cover
wear bottom spine breaks color

CGC:

Light crease left bottom of front cover breaks color

Moderate tanning top of interior cover

Hard to say what they punished so heavily.  Is tanning a big CGC negative?  The lower left hand crease was my guess, but CGC calls it "light".  

And apologies, as I know this is the Gold forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,974 posts
16 minutes ago, grube09 said:

CGC:

Light crease left bottom of front cover breaks color

Moderate tanning top of interior cover

Hard to say what they punished so heavily.  Is tanning a big CGC negative?  The lower left hand crease was my guess, but CGC calls it "light".  

And apologies, as I know this is the Gold forum.  

No apologies necessary as I consider this type of good discussion to be healthy and part of the learning curve for collectors like me who don't really sen books in for grading.  (thumbsu

Based upon what I am reading here, I also don't see why the book would have graded as low as a CGC 7.5.  Unless they didn't bother to list all of the defects which I am not sure is common or not with respect to their notes.  Maybe it's quite possible that the other company's 9.0 grade might actually be closer to the actual real grade of the book, as opposed to CGC's 7.5 grade.  (shrug)

Is it a requirement for them to list all of the defects they identify on a book because I heard that in cases like a CGC 9.6 or CGC 9.8, they sometimes don't have anything in their notes at all?  ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,538 posts

I can’t speak for everyone who uses them but it seems I’ve seen a lot more “comments” recently about CGC being even tighter these days with grading. My own limited experience is even people I respect with their “solid” grading standards I’m having the books come back about 1/2 grade lower than what I purchased them at. 

I believe I’ve seen a few people comment that the time of year you send them in seems to matter though I can’t remember the when or if it was supposed to be up or down. 

Edited by N e r V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323 posts
25 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

No apologies necessary as I consider this type of good discussion to be healthy and part of the learning curve for collectors like me who don't really sen books in for grading.  (thumbsu

Based upon what I am reading here, I also don't see why the book would have graded as low as a CGC 7.5.  Unless they didn't bother to list all of the defects which I am not sure is common or not with respect to their notes.  Maybe it's quite possible that the other company's 9.0 grade might actually be closer to the actual real grade of the book, as opposed to CGC's 7.5 grade.  (shrug)

Is it a requirement for them to list all of the defects they identify on a book because I heard that in cases like a CGC 9.6 or CGC 9.8, they sometimes don't have anything in their notes at all?  ???

From what I know there are no requirements for CGC and their graders when it comes to graders notes.  In fact, I rarely check them as 99% of the time (for me anyway), it's a waste of time given the vagueness of most of their notes, if there are any.  I guess this is in accordance with their policy on not to publish their grading standards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,169 posts
4 hours ago, buttock said:

Another thing to consider in all of this: It's pretty easy to call a 9.4 or a 1.0.  The 4.0-7.5 range is much tougher and you'll find a lot more variation in opinion there.  I'd be curious to see what a comparison would show between a handful of 9.0+ books and I suspect that would be a more accurate indicator of differences between the two companies.  That being said, when West was the head grader at CGC their grades got really soft, so I think there's a reason for softness that we might all have expected.  

Sorry to throw facts into the equation, but I was never a head grader at CGC. That honor belonged to Haspel & Litch.

 

West 

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