• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Nerd alert! Graphics about the CGC Census for the 1960s
1 1

6 posts in this topic

A previous post showed this chart...

decade_percentages.png

... but let's just look at the 1960s. :foryou:

Comparing the CGC Census grades (cumulative percentages for Universal and Signature Series), we see a distinct difference between the decade and the most valuable comic book in the decade, Amazing Fantasy #15 (1962).

decade_percentages1960s_AF15.png

These differences are due to two major factors, first, that books submitted to CGC must (generally) be worth the cost of CGC grading, otherwise, there is no financial reason to submit a book to CGC. As a result, the books submitted to CGC from 1960-1969 have primarily been higher grade copies than average, since value increases as the condition increases. Secondly, the entire decade of the 1960s has been combined to create the 1960s line on the graphic, while Amazing Fantasy #15 represents only a single issue from the single year of 1962.

To remedy these differences, the graphic below represents each year of the 1960s separately, and shows additional comics besides Amazing Fantasy #15 from 1962.

decade_percentages1960s_years.png

This may be the first time that the consistency of CGC grade percentages has been isolated for major comics of the early 1960s. Because each of these comic books (Brave & The Bold #28, Amazing Fantasy #15, Incredible Hulk #1, and Amazing Spider-Man #1) is generally worth submitting to CGC in all possible grades, these books generally reflect the full populations for each book (percentage-wise), despite every copy not being CGC graded.

While every copy of a comic book is unlikely to be sent to CGC for grading, those comics which are valuable in all grades, including valuable for the difference between CGC 0.5 and CGC 1.0, will be reflected on the CGC Census as a better sample of the total population of comics for that year, or possibly, for several years in that range.

It should be surprising that the four books selected are so closely aligned in their CGC grade percentages, and that they are so far from the percentages of the years they represent. It is possible that these grades may be generally applicable for all comic books of this era, CGC graded or not, even for other comic books of the same age which may have little value.

early1960skeys.png

Apart from more CGC 8.0 Brave and the Bold #28 than what might be expected (perhaps due to regrading), is it possible that this general distribution could be applicable to all comics from the early 1960s?

Perhaps time will tell…

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 3:28 PM, Aman619 said:

cool  So if you own an AF15 in 9.0 or higher, you're in the Top 1% !  Even an 8.0 is top 3%  Instead of "6th highest graded", sellers could quote your chart ... sounds better!

"Top 3%" is probably a better description than "6th highest graded" because that's a misleading label.  "6th highest graded" sounds like there are only 5 copies higher.  CGC 8.0 is the 6th highest grade, but any copy of CGC 8.0 Amazing Fantasy #15 is already behind 34 higher graded copies on the CGC census, because there are 4 in CGC 9.6, 6 in CGC 9.4, 3 in CGC 9.2, etc., and there are 22 copies graded CGC 8.0, so that book might not even be the 50th best copy graded ("6th highest graded" just isn't a good description if there are 55 others at the same grade or higher). 

 

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sal said:

now if only we could get people to send their labels back in when they have them CPRed or otherwise reentombed, then we'd really be on to something!!1!

True - when the CGC census says there are 2,025 universal grades for Amazing Fantasy #15, we know there are no more than 2,025... but we don't know how many are still slabbed, only that it's probably fewer than 2,025.

Link to comment
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
1 1