No More CGC Submissions for me 3 3

[RobZe]

I had a similar experience, except it was more personal - books that I bought off the news stand and carefully stored for 30 years came back stupid low.  4.5 to 9.0.  Books that were carefully selected and NEVER even read and nothing over 9.0 ... a 4.5?  I can barely talk about it. 

I remain quite disappointed.  It does seem like they are pressing for their other services (see what I did there?lol) 

as a seller I certainly see the value in their product - no one seems to ever say “they over graded this book”

 

I’m still deciding about grading my other books, also considering sending some of these back for the clean and press routine to see what I get

 

I do NOT provide a grade on eBay, clearly someone expecting CGC standards isn’t going to like my grade - high res photos and a description of every flaw I see with a vague assessment of “high low or mid” is as far as I feel comfortable ...  

[NoMan]

Is 9.0 a low grade? Damn my drekollection just got dreker.

[The Lions Den]

4 hours ago, NoMan said:

dude I don't even know what that is. Is that some kinda SAT question where they ask you which direction the cat is going if hammer breaks glass.

I'm very, very distressed now. 

There's an episode of The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon explains this perfectly...

[The Lions Den]

8 minutes ago, RobZe said:

as a seller I certainly see the value in their product - no one seems to ever say “they over graded this book”

There are times when I think it happens, but that could be a whole different thread...

[JWKyle]

1 hour ago, DavidTheDavid said:

FWIW I will buy books from certain people who I think overgrade because they consistently overgrade and the price is right. As long as there’s consistency, I know what to expect and don’t get disappointed. 

This is so true I have some saved Ebay seller where in the description I saved a note OVERGRADES but yes you can still get pretty solid deals on people who overgrade. The ones I really love are the UNDERGRADES guess which list is bigger 

[lou_fine]

4 hours ago, LordRahl said:

20 hours ago, lou_fine said:

 

Sad to say, but very true.  

I would definitely agree with you and say that CGC's undisclosed grading criteria is all about grading very strict and very harshly on the additional revenue stream defects and much less so on the other defects which they cannot generate additional revenues.  Totally understandable though since CCG is a business entity after all, and in that sense it's all about generating as much money for their top and bottom lines by getting their customers to pay as many times as possible on the same book.  Unfortunately, even more so in the past few years now that the former owner of CCS is now the head grader for CGC and it's quite clear where his expertise is in terms of looking for defects.  

Why get money only once from a book when you can make subtle, but yet significant undisclosed changes to come up with a grading system which entices the customer to happily and readily submit the exact same book multiple times back to you.    

What about stains? They are brutal on stains. Much more so than the "old school" graders. Far as I know there is no way to remove stains (without getting into chemical washing, which will get you a PLOD) 

Well, from my reading of their new Restoration Grading Scale, it would appear that they have now moved cleaning (both water & solvent) from the dreaded PLOD category into the much more accepted quasi blue/grey Conserved category.  

Of course, you would have to resubmit the old PLOD back into them in order to get the much more accepted quasi blue/grey slab and you know what that means.  Dig much further down into your pocket once again.     

[RockMyAmadeus]

26 minutes ago, RobZe said:

I had a similar experience, except it was more personal - books that I bought off the news stand and carefully stored for 30 years came back stupid low.  4.5 to 9.0.  Books that were carefully selected and NEVER even read and nothing over 9.0 ... a 4.5?  I can barely talk about it. 

I remain quite disappointed.  It does seem like they are pressing for their other services (see what I did there?lol) 

 

The idea that CGC is grading "NEVER even read" (which has no meaning) as 4.5 merely because they want people to use CCS is, frankly, insulting to CGC. Post the 4.5 up, and I guarantee you, multiple people here can point out the flaw(s) that you missed.

29 minutes ago, RobZe said:

as a seller I certainly see the value in their product - no one seems to ever say “they over graded this book”

Happens all the time. I have a couple dozen (out of about 2000) that I think are overgaded. I just cracked a 9.0 Spidey #44 for a Romita signing, and cringed when I saw an inch+ long lightly CB crease along the right edge, which I'm afraid will limit the book to 8.0/8.5 on regrading. Had I examined the book more closely, I probably wouldn't have cracked it. I wouldn't have graded it better than an 8.0.

The reason no one seems to say it is because you don't see it. Sellers will very, very rarely tell you they feel CGC has overgraded a book (and why should they? They're selling CGC's opinion on the grade, not their own.) And when a buyer feels like it's overgraded, they either deal with it, or return the book...so the general public rarely hears about it.

37 minutes ago, RobZe said:

I do NOT provide a grade on eBay, clearly someone expecting CGC standards isn’t going to like my grade

CGC's standards aren't excessively strict...they're just a correct application of the standards that the hobby came up with over decades. They're not especially strict standards...they're just what everyone was telling everyone else how they were grading...CGC just actually does it. Big pictures and flaw descriptions, though, are just fine.

[lou_fine]

51 minutes ago, RobZe said:

I had a similar experience, except it was more personal - books that I bought off the news stand and carefully stored for 30 years came back stupid low.  4.5 to 9.0.  Books that were carefully selected and NEVER even read and nothing over 9.0 ... a 4.5?  I can barely talk about it. 

 

44 minutes ago, NoMan said:

Is 9.0 a low grade? Damn my drekollection just got dreker.

It most definitely is if you are talking about books from the late 80's like what the original boardie was referring to.  

I can think of only a small handful of regular newsstand books from the late 80's going forward that would even be worth slabbing if they were in CGC 9.6 graded condition or less.  That is why all of those cherry picked books off the shelves of the LCS from 30 years ago by the long time collectors might not even be worth slabbing unless it's also gone through the additional revenue generating pressing process as based upon the current CGC grading standards.    

Edited June 1, 2019 by lou_fine

[NoMan]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

 

It most definitely is if you are talking about books from the late 80's like what the original boardie was referring to.  

I can think of only a small handful of regular newsstand books from the late 80's going forward that would even be worth slabbing if they were in CGC 9.6 graded condition or less.  That is why all of those cherry picked books off the shelves of the LCS from 30 years ago by the long time collectors might not even be worth slabbing unless it's also gone through the additional revenue generating pressing process as based upon the current CGC grading standards.    

I stop reading comics (except for a Fantagraphic title or two and a D & Q title or two) around 88 and I read those hard, threw 'em in a corner when I was done, used 'em as coasters or whatnot so nothing there. 

I did pick books with care when I was a kid from the rack or the LCS (1978 to through High School to 1984) and bag and boarded those and, I dunno, forgot my point....

Edited June 1, 2019 by NoMan

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 5/30/2019 at 3:28 AM, moemaya said:

I had estimated in my grading a range of 7.5 - 9.0 for these books.

 

On 5/30/2019 at 3:28 AM, moemaya said:

I received a 5.5, 6.0, 6.0, 7.0, 7.5. This is absolutely ludicrous.

I don't know if anyone pointed this out, so I will. The OP didn't detail what they estimated for each book, but the last two are at or near the grade range they expected. I don't think that's very ludicrous. 

Also important to reiterate: the huge difference between a 5.5 book and a 7.5 book is almost entirely monetary. The actual PHYSICAL difference between a VF- book and a Fine- book is pretty insignificant: a 2 inch color breaking crease, for example, or a few additional heavier spine stress creases, or a 1 inch diameter splotchy stain. That the market reacts so wildly to these differences is an example of the ludicrousness of the market...not grading.

On 5/30/2019 at 3:28 AM, moemaya said:

As a reseller I lost hundreds of dollars on this as I could've sold these for higher grades with zero complaints (and no grading fees!).

It also ought to be pointed out that nothing is preventing this seller from cracking open the slabs, throwing the slabs away, and selling the books as raw.

I wouldn't recommend it, but there's nothing preventing it.

I imagine, though, that the OP won't be back....

[Supa-Bad-Mofo]

 

1 hour ago, RobZe said:

 It does seem like they are pressing for their other services (see what I did there?lol) 

I would agree that CGC obviously has some stock in the CPR game, but there are literally 1,000's of CPR companies out there and I assume many more who press their own books. I don't think that has any affect on how CGC grades a book. They look at the flaws, if you take care of the minor flaws before you get the book graded, the potential for a higher grade improves.

1 hour ago, RobZe said:

as a seller I certainly see the value in their product - no one seems to ever say “they over graded this book”

I have several books I feel are over-graded. Sure, most people don't lose their minds because the book is overgraded. Grade=value=cash. Naturally, most won't go out of their way to make it known that they disagree with CGC's overgrading. 

1 hour ago, RobZe said:

I’m still deciding about grading my other books, also considering sending some of these back for the clean and press routine to see what I get

IMHO, collectors that don't take advantage of CPR, are basically throwing money out the window.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Supa-Bad-Mofo

[Karl Liebl]

99 percent of books from the 80's are not going to need pressing.  Get back into the 60's and it is a totally different ballgame.  All of my books from like 1975 up still look new but they aren't worth squat (at this time).  These are books I bought and read once, not second hand books.  I use the term I bought loosely because everybody here already knows they were my brother's.

[Supa-Bad-Mofo]

13 minutes ago, Karl Liebl said:

99 percent of books from the 80's are not going to need pressing.  Get back into the 60's and it is a totally different ballgame.  All of my books from like 1975 up still look new but they aren't worth squat (at this time).  These are books I bought and read once, not second hand books.  I use the term I bought loosely because everybody here already knows they were my brother's.

I respectfully disagree. Almost every book can use a press...even one bought yesterday off the rack. There are exceptions,  but very few. I would argue that 90% of all books should be pressed if your sending to CGC.

[LordRahl]

56 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Well, from my reading of their new Restoration Grading Scale, it would appear that they have now moved cleaning (both water & solvent) from the dreaded PLOD category into the much more accepted quasi blue/grey Conserved category.  

Of course, you would have to resubmit the old PLOD back into them in order to get the much more accepted quasi blue/grey slab and you know what that means.  Dig much further down into your pocket once again.     

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure that the conserved category is any more acceptable than PLOD. The ones I've seen sell, including the one I own, have gone for considerable discounts to Blue label. Although I imagine if collectors get educated on what "conserved" vs "restored" means, the prices may differentiate between PLOD and Grey relative to Blue. Still doesn't change the fact that they aren't ONLY harsh on pressable defects. They've been harsh on non-pressable defects like stains for a looooong time. 

[Karl Liebl]

2 minutes ago, LordRahl said:

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure that the conserved category is any more acceptable than PLOD. The ones I've seen sell, including the one I own, have gone for considerable discounts to Blue label. Although I imagine if collectors get educated on what "conserved" vs "restored" means, the prices may differentiate between PLOD and Grey relative to Blue. Still doesn't change the fact that they aren't ONLY harsh on pressable defects. They've been harsh on non-pressable defects like stains for a looooong time. 

Tell me about it!

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The idea that CGC is grading "NEVER even read" (which has no meaning) as 4.5 merely because they want people to use CCS is, frankly, insulting to CGC. Post the 4.5 up, and I guarantee you, multiple people here can point out the flaw(s) that you missed.

+1

I would agree with you 100% that if the book is a CGC 4.5 graded copy, then there must be obvious visible defects which the submitter must have missed, even in the case of a book that was never read and he claims was stored carefully (but maybe improperly?? ) for 30 years.  

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

CGC's standards aren't excessively strict...they're just a correct application of the standards that the hobby came up with over decades. They're not especially strict standards...they're just what everyone was telling everyone else how they were grading...CGC just actually does it.

RMA;

Are you just trying to be sarcastic here or was you sleeping through the entire pressing fiasco that took place here back in 2005 when the good boys at CGC were caught with their pants and undies down around their ankles?    Did you also actually believe that whole "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book in and of itself does not constitute restoration" retroactive story that they came up with in order to justify how a Church copy of a book could go all the way from a CGC 3.0 graded copy up to a CGC 7.5 graded copy before settling in at a CGC 9.0 graded copy, all while residing in a blue Universal slab?  

Especially even when the bible of the industry (i.e. 2005 Overstreet Guide) at the time still had restoration clearly defined as "any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged book.  These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles     , staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc."  How dare Overstreet and his gang to include these additional revenue generating techniques all those past decades under the restoration umbrella when many of them were not included by CGC either right from the get-go (without informing anybody of course ) or eventually over time.  

I would assume when the day comes that Jason is hired by Heritage or becomes the head grader at CGC, that would mean another one of the former restoration (or was it destruction) techniques would have been moved out from under the restoration umbrella.  Especially when it is virtually impossible for the graders to tell if a book had been pressed micro-trimmed, if the work had been done properly, and you certainly would not want CGC to be guessing if something had been done to the book or not.    

Edited June 1, 2019 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, Supa-Bad-Mofo said:

3 hours ago, RobZe said:

I’m still deciding about grading my other books, also considering sending some of these back for the clean and press routine to see what I get

IMHO, collectors that don't take advantage of CPR, are basically throwing money out the window.

+1

Sad to say, but this statement is very true based upon how books are currently being graded for the past few years under the present CGC regime.  

At the very minimum, collectors should be doing a pre-screen for pressing or otherwise, probably shouldn't even bother sending the book in at all.    

Edited June 1, 2019 by lou_fine

[Hollywood1892]

I actually feel like I'm suffocating when I see the words on Ebay "I'm not a proffessional grader...but."

 

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, Supa-Bad-Mofo said:

2 hours ago, Karl Liebl said:

99 percent of books from the 80's are not going to need pressing.  Get back into the 60's and it is a totally different ballgame.  All of my books from like 1975 up still look new but they aren't worth squat (at this time).  These are books I bought and read once, not second hand books.  I use the term I bought loosely because everybody here already knows they were my brother's.

I respectfully disagree. Almost every book can use a press...even one bought yesterday off the rack. There are exceptions,  but very few. I would argue that 90% of all books should be pressed if your sending to CGC.

+1

I would 100% agree with your statement here.  

Especially in the case of the 80's regular newsstand books and newer which are relatively common and only have value in the uber HG conditions where pressing can mean a minute difference in grade, but a huge difference between a profit or loss on the book depending upon the number that shows up on the label.  Definitely not so much the case with the older vintage collectible comic books where many of them will still garner multiples of condition guide in all grade levels right across the entire condition spectrum from CGC 0.5 and up.  Especially in the case of the HTF or classic cover books where it's so much more about just being able to acquire any copy of the book, as opposed to needing to find it with a particular label.  

Edited June 1, 2019 by lou_fine

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

CGC's standards aren't excessively strict...they're just a correct application of the standards that the hobby came up with over decades. They're not especially strict standards...they're just what everyone was telling everyone else how they were grading...CGC just actually does it.

RMA;

Are you just trying to be sarcastic here or was you sleeping through the entire pressing fiasco that took place here back in 2005 when the good boys at CGC were caught with their pants and undies down around their ankles?    Did you also actually believe that whole "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book in and of itself does not constitute restoration" retroactive story that they came up with in order to justify how a Church copy of a book could go all the way from a CGC 3.0 graded copy up to a CGC 7.5 graded copy before settling in at a CGC 9.0 graded copy, all while residing in a blue Universal slab?  

Especially even when the bible of the industry (i.e. 2005 Overstreet Guide) at the time still had restoration clearly defined as "any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged book.  These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles     , staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc."  How dare Overstreet and his gang to include these additional revenue generating techniques all those past decades under the restoration umbrella when many of them were not included by CGC either right from the get-go (without informing anybody of course ) or eventually over time.  

Not sure what you're driving at here, LF, but the thread's about grading...and that's what I'm referring to. I don't entirely disagree with your statements here about resto (nor do I entirely agree), but the thread isn't about resto and its detection.

Edited June 1, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus
how embarrassing.