CGC needs to modify its stance on Color Touch 5 5

[Get Marwood & I]

13 hours ago, VintageComics said:

No joke. The grade divisions have gone from a 3 point scale of 1-3-5 to a 25 point grading system because as values increase the disparity in price necessitates more grade divisions.

Do you not think that the price disparity that currently exists between a 9.8 and a 9.6 would not just transfer to the 9.8 vs 9.7 scenario Roy? To me, the main reason a 9.8 carries a huge premium over a 9.6 is not so much the (arguable) technical difference in condition as so much the fact that the 9.8 may be, or is often, the 'highest graded'. People pay the premium to have the 'best' so the additional grades were they added may not actually make that much of a difference.

A few other issues with introducing 9.1, 9.3, 9.5 and 9.7. Realistically, the vast majority of books that sit in the top grades will be moderns. This will certainly be the case as time moves on and older books become harder to find in high grade. There aren't many Golden Age or Silver Age copies that would go above 9.6. So to introduce a further set of grades would just make the top end harder for the CGC graders and for the books that, arguably, do not underpin the core of the hobby. Fancy having to look at thousands of brand new off the press modern variant covers and try to separate the 9.5's from the 9.6's from the 9.7's from the 9.8's etc. It would likely drive you insane. I bet that most would agree that on any given day, with any given grader, the book that gets a 9.6 on Monday might get a 9.8 on Tuesday. It would surely be so much harder for CGC to introduce yet further layers of assessment. Wouldn't it?

We all say and agree that grading is subjective. I can see how coins could have a 100 point scale. A 93 coin, a 95 coin etc. They are solid small lumps. Flaws are either there or they are not. I bet you could devise a scanner that could detect flaws in a coin with 100% accuracy. But comics? They move. They smell. They fade. They're fragile. They crease and tear. They look dull. They look bright. They have 'production flaws'. Etc. So my gut tells me that the would be much harder to assess in a 9.1 up to 10.0 range. 

Also, think of all the new rules. At what point would paper quality come into play? Would a 9.7 with off white pages be trumped by a 9.6 with white? 

We currently have 10 and 9.9 to show that the microscopic level of assessment is possible. But they represent a tiny % of the whole. You can almost see how CGC would allocate books to 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8 'in their sleep', and then finesse them down. A 9.9 and a 10.0 would stand out. But to assess every single rotten modern above a 9.0 for a further 10 divisions? I wouldn't want that job.

And what happens when CGC have a 'strict period'? We can currently tell when a 9.8 is being punished to a 9.6 because CGC are currently 'being strict'. Could we with the extra grades? And can we honestly sat that two graders would be able to grade ten comics the same to a ten point (above 9.0) scale? I don't think so. 

Now I'm not saying this wont happen. It may well do. But I think it would make the graders job harder for the reasons stated above. Am I wrong to think that? If not, harder means more work, means more cost, means prices go up. My gut tells me CGC won't want it. 

A final thought. I hold a 9.4 Amazing Spider-Man in my hands, all freshly graded. My mate has a 9.5. He has trumped me. His book is better than mine. It's worth more. He is the WINNER!

Is he? 

Really?

Does that scenario not have the clear whiff of nonsense about it? Especially if I crack my 9.4 open, send it back in, and it comes back a 9.6 because a different grader assessed it. Yes, I know that concept already exists today, but more grades makes it ever more likely.

So, my solution is radical and would be laughed out of town, as radical solutions often are. Off the top of my head, at a high level, I would grade only as follows:

• High Grade
• Mid Grade
• Low Grade
• No Grade

The boundaries could be set, and CGC would assess every book into one of those four categories. So from a CGC label perspective, the most anyone would ever be able to say is I jointly share a 'high grade' copy. To get the best copy within that grade you would have to use your eyes. Sounds silly doesn't it. Of course, any internal defects would be noted (like you care if you want your book slabbed for all eternity). Restoration would be noted. Anything missing? Noted on the label. And at a stroke, all the nonsense price discrepancies would disappear. Collectors would have to do what they always did in the past - buy the book, not the grade. Seek out the nicest looking high grade copy they could find. And there would be a greater sense of fairness in the hobby. And all the arguments that a 9.4 should have been a 9.6 or 9.2 would go at a stroke. I have a 'high grade' copy, and I'm happy. Etc. 

See, I told you it was silly. Now, to shreds I invite you to tear this! 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, thunsicker said:

You still may be cray cray,

Ha. 

Haha.

1 hour ago, thunsicker said:

The big question for me is: Is the reason that 9.6's straight resubbed become 9.8's because 9.7 doesn't exist?  Or is it that grading isn't an exact science and what one cgc grader sees as a 9.6 another sees as a 9.8.  If it's the former, these in between grades solve the problem.  If it's the latter, then it makes it much much worse.

Much worse for whom? Grading is subjective. However, over time, and thousands of examples, it is quite possible to objectively demonstrate what is a "typical" 9.8 and a "typical" 9.6. And I know people don't believe this, but a "typical" 9.6 and a "typical" 9.8 are, to the trained eye, easily differentiated. It's when you get the sloppy over- and under-graded books, the "gift" grades and the "hammered" grades, that the lines become fuzzy for people. And it's the market's responsibility to hold CGC accountable, to keep them consistent. 

Borock once said "I was waffling between a 9.6 and a 9.8 for one book, and just couldn't decide. I wished I was able to give a 9.7."

And my answer was "and..? What's stopping you? Nothing." There's nothing stopping CGC from making those grades exist. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, Hollywood1892 said:

slabbing prevents a person's ability to read the comic,

Slabs can be opened...

[Rip]

11 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

 

We currently have 10 and 9.9 to show that the microscopic level of assessment is possible. But they represent a tiny % of the whole. You can almost see how CGC would allocate books to 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8 'in their sleep', and then finesse them down. A 9.9 and a 10.0 would stand out. But to assess every single rotten modern above a 9.0 for a further 10 divisions? I wouldn't want that job.

 

 

 

It's very possible. Just like cards & coins.

In fact the current 9.8, 9.9 10 system could have been done more accurately in the first place but CGC choose not to. 

Before CGC, the 100 point system(s) out there had a more accurate upper grading system rather than the Willy Wonka-ish gift grade system we have today for 9.9's and 10.0's

Think about how many undergraded 9.8's are out there because you didn't win the census lottery.

 

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Rip said:

Think about how many undergraded 9.8's are out there because you didn't win the census lottery.

Good point. Take your earlier example:

14 hours ago, Rip said:

Avengers 4

CGC 9.8 $143,000

CGC 9.6 $23,500

Now imagine that book is the one being discussed in this quote from an earlier post:

"Borock once said "I was waffling between a 9.6 and a 9.8 for one book, and just couldn't decide. I wished I was able to give a 9.7.""

So Borock's can't make his mind up whim carries a $120,000 difference. 

So let's indeed have that interim grade. 

Now imagine the price discrepancy transfers as follows:

Avengers 4
CGC 9.8 $143,000 (highest graded copy)
CGC 9.7 $43,500

My God in heaven.

 

[Get Marwood & I]

10 minutes ago, Rip said:

It's very possible. Just like cards & coins.

But card and coins are small, single item artefacts. And rigid. Comics are multi-page floppies. Much harder to pin down to a 9.1 to 10.0 scale, surely? 

Taking subjectivity into account, human frailty, and going 'grade blind', how can you expect a person to assess 100's of comics daily to this level of finesse? It may be easier for the trained eye to differentiate a 9.6 from a 9.8. But a 9.2 from a 9.3 from a 9.4 from 9.5 from a 9.6 from a 9.7 from a 9.8.....

They'd go blind. 

[Rip]

Why not give them better more accurate tools to make grades with? It was done before, it can be done again. Will it ever be perfect? No.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Rip

[Rip]

20 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Good point. Take your earlier example:

Now imagine that book is the one being discussed in this quote from an earlier post:

"Borock once said "I was waffling between a 9.6 and a 9.8 for one book, and just couldn't decide. I wished I was able to give a 9.7.""

So Borock's can't make his mind up whim carries a $120,000 difference. 

So let's indeed have that interim grade. 

Now imagine the price discrepancy transfers as follows:

Avengers 4
CGC 9.8 $143,000 (highest graded copy)
CGC 9.7 $43,500

My God in heaven.

 

Sounds good now we have a more accurate grade. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Rip

[VintageComics]

57 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Do you not think that the price disparity that currently exists between a 9.8 and a 9.6 would not just transfer to the 9.8 vs 9.7 scenario Roy? To me, the main reason a 9.8 carries a huge premium over a 9.6 is not so much the (arguable) technical difference in condition as so much the fact that the 9.8 may be, or is often, the 'highest graded'. People pay the premium to have the 'best' so the additional grades were they added may not actually make that much of a difference.

The market would decide what it wants to pay.

I've always argued (and have even had people put me on ignore because of this) that the grade should have no bearing on the value of a book.

So if someone wants to pay multiples of a 9.7 (or a 9.6) to own a 9.8 let 'em. As long as the grades are 'correct'.

59 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

A few other issues with introducing 9.1, 9.3, 9.5 and 9.7. Realistically, the vast majority of books that sit in the top grades will be moderns. This will certainly be the case as time moves on and older books become harder to find in high grade. There aren't many Golden Age or Silver Age copies that would go above 9.6. So to introduce a further set of grades would just make the top end harder for the CGC graders and for the books that, arguably, do not underpin the core of the hobby. Fancy having to look at thousands of brand new off the press modern variant covers and try to separate the 9.5's from the 9.6's from the 9.7's from the 9.8's etc. It would likely drive you insane. I bet that most would agree that on any given day, with any given grader, the book that gets a 9.6 on Monday might get a 9.8 on Tuesday. It would surely be so much harder for CGC to introduce yet further layers of assessment. Wouldn't it?

You will have the same problems no matter what the grading scale is.

Like it has been said, there have been 100 point grading scales already used in the past.

Stephen Ritter still uses one (or used to - even as recently as a year or two ago I saw 8.7 and the such grades on his books).

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

We all say and agree that grading is subjective. I can see how coins could have a 100 point scale. A 93 coin, a 95 coin etc. They are solid small lumps. Flaws are either there or they are not. I bet you could devise a scanner that could detect flaws in a coin with 100% accuracy. But comics? They move. They smell. They fade. They're fragile. They crease and tear. They look dull. They look bright. They have 'production flaws'. Etc. So my gut tells me that the would be much harder to assess in a 9.1 up to 10.0 range. 

Coins also have qualities that do not include physical defects you can touch. I don't know the exact terminology but colors come into play.

It's like anything else (and ironically what the discussion started on): People will become more proficient as they are exposed to it.

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Also, think of all the new rules. At what point would paper quality come into play? Would a 9.7 with off white pages be trumped by a 9.6 with white? 

In my opinion it NEVER should have - and I've said this for years as well.

The technical grade should be related to physical condition with the paper grade independent of the numerical grade.

I know a lot about the CGC grading system and I still don't understand why they factor in Paper Quality into the numerical grade. THAT is much more subjective than simply grading physical defects.

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

A final thought. I hold a 9.4 Amazing Spider-Man in my hands, all freshly graded. My mate has a 9.5. He has trumped me. His book is better than mine. It's worth more. He is the WINNER!

Is he? 

Really?

Who cares?

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

So, my solution is radical and would be laughed out of town, as radical solutions often are. Off the top of my head, at a high level, I would grade only as follows:

• High Grade
• Mid Grade
• Low Grade
• No Grade

The boundaries could be set, and CGC would assess every book into one of those four categories. So from a CGC label perspective, the most anyone would ever be able to say is I jointly share a 'high grade' copy. To get the best copy within that grade you would have to use your eyes. Sounds silly doesn't it. Of course, any internal defects would be noted (like you care if you want your book slabbed for all eternity). Restoration would be noted. Anything missing? Noted on the label. And at a stroke, all the nonsense price discrepancies would disappear. Collectors would have to do what they always did in the past - buy the book, not the grade. Seek out the nicest looking high grade copy they could find. And there would be a greater sense of fairness in the hobby. And all the arguments that a 9.4 should have been a 9.6 or 9.2 would go at a stroke. I have a 'high grade' copy, and I'm happy. Etc. 

See, I told you it was silly. Now, to shreds I invite you to tear this!

Back to the Dark Ages.

You may as well propose keeping all books chained to walls.

[VintageComics]

25 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Good point. Take your earlier example:

Now imagine that book is the one being discussed in this quote from an earlier post:

"Borock once said "I was waffling between a 9.6 and a 9.8 for one book, and just couldn't decide. I wished I was able to give a 9.7.""

So Borock's can't make his mind up whim carries a $120,000 difference. 

So let's indeed have that interim grade. 

Now imagine the price discrepancy transfers as follows:

Avengers 4
CGC 9.8 $143,000 (highest graded copy)
CGC 9.7 $43,500

My God in heaven.

 

When grading the comic book the price has and should have nothing to do with the grade.

Stop conflating the two.

[VintageComics]

If you were grading items of ZERO value, you'd want as accurate a scale as possible, wouldn't you?

That's why the scale went from $0.10 a comic for any copy (or half price if the cover was ripped) to 1-3-5 to 25 and 100 point scales that we have today.

It's logical.

Once you start conflating with values it becomes illogical.

And just to be clear, I'm not pushing for a 100 point scale personally. I'm OK with it as is. At least for now.

But it is a logical progression.

[Rip]

23 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

But card and coins are small, single item artefacts. And rigid.

They'd go blind. 

Try grading a fresh box of Alien cards from 1979 and make sure your subs stay in the 9 & 10 range. Tell me how easy it is. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Rip

[thunsicker]

I propose we keep all books chained to walls.

[Get Marwood & I]

[VintageComics]

10 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

I propose we keep all books chained to walls.

Only the high grades! The masses can have the low grade copies for consumption!

[Bookery]

11 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

If you were grading items of ZERO value, you'd want as accurate a scale as possible, wouldn't you?

That's why the scale went from $0.10 a comic for any copy (or half price if the cover was ripped) to 1-3-5 to 25 and 100 point scales that we have today.

It's logical.

Once you start conflating with values it becomes illogical.

And just to be clear, I'm not pushing for a 100 point scale personally. I'm OK with it as is. At least for now.

But it is a logical progression.

Why is it a logical progression?  In the relatively short history that comics have been traded as collectibles, they have rapidly escalated the number of grade distinctions.  Yet rare books have been sold for 500 years, and though there have been a variety of grading systems employed, I don't think any of them have exceeded 10 different grading points.  Movie posters, magazines, pulps... none even have the level of comic distinctions we have now.  Coins... a fixed metal object that wears in exact and predictable ways topped out at what is it... something like 65 grades?  Yet as has been pointed out, comics at various times have been graded on a 100-point scale!  When it comes to comic collectors... I don't think the word "logic" should be employed in the discussion.

[Robot Man]

Old school pressing...

[Rip]

32 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Why is it a logical progression?  In the relatively short history that comics have been traded as collectibles, they have rapidly escalated the number of grade distinctions.  Yet rare books have been sold for 500 years, and though there have been a variety of grading systems employed, I don't think any of them have exceeded 10 different grading points.  Movie posters, magazines, pulps... none even have the level of comic distinctions we have now.  Coins... a fixed metal object that wears in exact and predictable ways topped out at what is it... something like 65 grades?  Yet as has been pointed out, comics at various times have been graded on a 100-point scale!  When it comes to comic collectors... I don't think the word "logic" should be employed in the discussion.

I think we have gone backwards in some ways. Pull out your old Sotheby's from the 90's.

We have a industry that seems to be built far more on a fragile distinction between various copies and having the best/better copy. Like coins and cards, grade - value matters more so we have more distinctions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I simply don't see people saying "Look here I got a Near Mint 9.4 copy of Audubon's Birds of America. Better than your VF/NM copy." and then paying a large sum more. (Yes I know I'm being a little over the top with this example)

Edited May 2, 2019 by Rip

[Badger]

49 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

...

I've always argued (and have even had people put me on ignore because of this) that the grade should have no bearing on the value of a book.

...

Ok, Roy. I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. Are you saying that grades are pointless relative to the value? Did you mean to say, "The value of the book should have no bearing on the grade."?  The former needs some 'splainin' while I agree with the latter. The former makes my 10 year collection of Wizard magazine worthless (regardless of grade).

[RockMyAmadeus]

Those arguing that comics aren't the same as other items, and that adding extra grades would make things "worse", don't understand the inevitable nature of the market. 

Wear is wear; anything can be graded. Obviously, metal items ought not be graded the same as paper items, and they're not. But saying "such and such an object is simple to grade, so and so other object isn't" are arguing a completely irrelevant point, and really don't understand...or are purposely dismissing...the dynamics of grading. I lean towards the latter.

Again: anything can be graded. It doesn't matter if it's a lump of metal, or a 5,000 page bound illustrated manuscript. Just because something may appear to be more difficult to grade doesn't mean it can't be graded.