Is this a 9.6? 1 1

[BleekerBob]

Ive been out of the game for many years and i stopped collecting comics for OA but is this a 9.6??? Thanks in advance.

 

https://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=756558 

[Alf Pogs]

There are long threads somewhere around here about the higher grade Avengers 1's from the way back days.

You can hunt them down and see all the opinions for yourself if you like.

If memory serves correct, what I got out of the discussions was they had graded a "9.4" then a nicer looking book showed up and so it had to be a "9.6" even tho it might not stack up against your ASM 252 9.6.

Anybody feel free to correct me or find the thread. 

[ninanina]

I've always believed there's a certain degree of leniency involved with an older book. So if  a Bronze Age comic came along which had the same amount of minor issues as the Avengers 1 pictured , it may be graded .2 or maybe even .4 lower? Again, just something I believe. I personally would trust the grade given.

[Bomber-Bob]

This book was graded in 2011, without a doubt the most loose period in CGC grading history. I've stated many times around here that I avoid purchasing any book graded in 2011. It was a good year for the submitters but a bad year for the buyers.

[MustEatBrains]

The spine alone disqualifies as a 9.6 IMO but hey, it's about what's on the label, right?

[The Lions Den]

  

[Not A Clone]

On 6/1/2018 at 6:56 PM, ninanina said:

I've always believed there's a certain degree of leniency involved with an older book. So if  a Bronze Age comic came along which had the same amount of minor issues as the Avengers 1 pictured , it may be graded .2 or maybe even .4 lower? Again, just something I believe. I personally would trust the grade given.

Without a doubt. I don't think you could get higher than an 8.5/9 if that spine was on a modern. But, I don't have a problem with these older books being graded on a curve. That's just me though.

[MustEatBrains]

7 hours ago, Not A Clone said:

Without a doubt. I don't think you could get higher than an 8.5/9 if that spine was on a modern. But, I don't have a problem with these older books being graded on a curve. That's just me though.

Well CGC has been known to give the "GA" bump for books in the golden era not sure so much for SA.  There should at least be some consistency in any discretion used when dealing with books at this price point.  Here's a book I recently got that predates the above Avengers 1 by 13 years that I believe is a true 9.6 and looks better than that AV 1. I think @Bomber-Bob reply was spot on in that grading was very loose for a period of time and some of those books should be avoided.

[namisgr]

I agree that grading has varied quite a bit over the years, and so when a book was submitted can be revealing about the grade it was assigned.

This book was virtually perfect, and the 9.6 Avengers #1, with its fuzzy upper left corner and 4-5 spine stress lines, looks nothing like it.  I submitted it for grading, then years later sold it, only to see it turn up months later in a 9.8 slab:

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by namisgr

[Bomber-Bob]

These examples clearly demonstrate that, over periods of time, CGC is not consistent. At any given point in time, relevant to that time frame, they may be consistent but over the years they fluctuate. Some say presently they are tight. I really don't think this Avengers 1 in 9.6 would get the same grade today. I suspect it would get a 9.2. The buyer better hope the slab does not get damaged in shipping, requiring an evaluation. 

[The Lions Den]

7 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

These examples clearly demonstrate that, over periods of time, CGC is not consistent. At any given point in time, relevant to that time frame, they may be consistent but over the years they fluctuate. Some say presently they are tight. I really don't think this Avengers 1 in 9.6 would get the same grade today. I suspect it would get a 9.2. The buyer better hope the slab does not get damaged in shipping, requiring an evaluation. 

Bob, there are some books I've resubmitted in an attempt to get a better grade. My advice to the owner of this book is to never try that strategy with this copy. 

[The Lions Den]

13 hours ago, MustEatBrains said:

Well CGC has been known to give the "GA" bump for books in the golden era not sure so much for SA.  There should at least be some consistency in any discretion used when dealing with books at this price point.  Here's a book I recently got that predates the above Avengers 1 by 13 years that I believe is a true 9.6 and looks better than that AV 1. I think @Bomber-Bob reply was spot on in that grading was very loose for a period of time and some of those books should be avoided.

And this is a beautiful copy with a fantastic Feldstein cover! Thanks for sharing...

[The Lions Den]

13 hours ago, namisgr said:

I agree that grading has varied quite a bit over the years, and so when a book was submitted can be revealing about the grade it was assigned.

This book was virtually perfect, and the 9.6 Avengers #1, with its fuzzy upper left corner and 4-5 spine stress lines, looks nothing like it.  I submitted it for grading, then years later sold it, only to see it turn up months later in a 9.8 slab:

 

Those Pacific Coast books are nice, man...  

[Bomber-Bob]

57 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

Those Pacific Coast books are nice, man...  

I know the CGC Grading room doesn't know the submitter information but did they know if it was submitted as a pedigree ?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I saw the 9.8 FF #2 that Heritage auctioned a few years ago. It was a beauty, but I was disappointed to see a 9.5ish book in a 9.8 slab. 

I understand the theory. And it was a stunning, beautiful book. But I think it would have been even more stunning properly graded.

And...there's a reason why it sold for less than the White Mountain 9.6, a mere 8 months later.

[MadGenius]

Shouldn't a 9.6 be a 9.6 regardless of age? Setting aside printing defects which the wear on this Avengers 1 doesn't fall into, a 9.6 Silver Age shouldn't have any more defects than a 9.6 Modern Age. It seems CGC is hammering the grades on moderns (I've sent a few in recently that looked like no-brainer 9.8s and received 9.6 labels) and giving a pass to older books. I'd like it to be consistent.

[The Lions Den]

11 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I know the CGC Grading room doesn't know the submitter information but did they know if it was submitted as a pedigree ?

Well Bob, that information should be provided by the submitter through proper documentation, such as a certificate of authenticity. Then a member of the receiving team will be able to enter the proper information into the system when it's received. That way, the graders can easily determine if the book or books are actually pedigree books (or not). If the submitter doesn't specify a pedigree, receiving has no way of knowing, because many times there won't be any accompanying paperwork with the book. If that happens, then it's up to someone else (like a member of the grading team) to notice that the book or books may be part of a pedigree collection and verify the authenticity. Does this help answer your question...?

[Bomber-Bob]

Just now, The Lions Den said:

Well Bob, that information should be provided by the submitter through proper documentation, such as a certificate of authenticity. Then a member of the receiving team will be able to enter the proper information into the system when it's received. That way, the graders can easily determine if the book or books are actually pedigree books (or not). If the submitter doesn't specify a pedigree, receiving has no way of knowing, because many times there won't be any accompanying paperwork with the book. If that happens, then it's up to someone else (like a member of the grading team) to notice that the book or books may be part of a pedigree collection and verify the authenticity. Does this help answer your question...?

As always, thank for the response. Sorry, I don't think I stated my question clearly. As you stated, the submitter should indicate on the form if it's a pedigree. My question is if that information is passed to the graders when they are grading. Years ago, Mark Haspel wanted to review every book submitted as a Pedigree. I remember waiting for a submission for a longer than usual time because Mark was Out Of Office. So, I always assumed the graders graded and someone else did the Pedigree check. BTW, I liked the fact that Mark looked at every Ped. The integrity of a pedigree should be maintained. I think this check got a little loose when Mark Left for a while.

[The Lions Den]

2 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

As always, thank for the response. Sorry, I don't think I stated my question clearly. As you stated, the submitter should indicate on the form if it's a pedigree. My question is if that information is passed to the graders when they are grading. Years ago, Mark Haspel wanted to review every book submitted as a Pedigree. I remember waiting for a submission for a longer than usual time because Mark was Out Of Office. So, I always assumed the graders graded and someone else did the Pedigree check. BTW, I liked the fact that Mark looked at every Ped. The integrity of a pedigree should be maintained. I think this check got a little loose when Mark Left for a while.

Please bear in mind that the graders perform many tasks to keep the operation running smoothly. And if there's ever any question about a pedigree book, it will usually end up on Mark's desk.  

[rjpb]

CGC took what had been a 3 or 4 grade range for most of the hobby (NM,NM+ ,NM/M and Mint), with the middle two being interchangeable for many, and divided it up into 5 grades. In addition, I don't recall a lot of people using NM- (9.2) as a grade much prior to CGC. This takes an already subjective measurement, in which reasonable people following the same standards can argue for at least 2 different grades for the same book, and expands that to 3 or 4. 

So what is the real 9.6? The book someone else dismisses as no better than 9.2, or the one another person says looks like a 9.9?