Does CGC Overgrade Pedigree books? 2 2

[William-James88]

I came across this while looking at the worth of some of my books and grading Golden Age can be tough at times since there can be no wear and tear but still imperfections from the initial printing process.

Regardless, I have a tough time believing that the comic below with not one but 2 messed up corners + writing on the comic would get a 9.6. Is this because the comic got over graded due to it being a Mile High copy? Or is this an actual legit grade and if I send a comic in with the same imperfections I too would get a 9.6? Because so far with what I sent, it wasn't the case, hence why I am looking for more opinions and insights.

 

 

[sacentaur]

If the two corners are identified as bindery at the time of production, then CGC won’t necessarily deduct for that.

The writing is what outwardly identifies the book as a pedigree, there typically is no deduction for that (indeed, most collectors consider the coding as a perk).

[Flex Mentallo]

1 hour ago, sacentaur said:

If the two corners are identified as bindery at the time of production, then CGC won’t necessarily deduct for that.

The writing is what outwardly identifies the book as a pedigree, there typically is no deduction for that (indeed, most collectors consider the coding as a perk).

Right, Steve. happens a lot with Fiction House. Mind, some of the Church Planets recently auctioned did look a tad overgraded to me, but that is only going by the scans. Non-bindery chips, dust shadows, etc.

[Flex Mentallo]

Here's an example of a 9.4 with bindery chip. No longer in my collection.

[William-James88]

3 hours ago, Flex Mentallo said:

Here's an example of a 9.4 with bindery chip. No longer in my collection.

Thanks! Though I still find it odd that your fiction house comic would get a 9.4 while the Captain marvel book above gets a 9.6 since it seems to have twice as many bindery defects as yours. These slight grade bumps can spell for a huge change in worth, especially for these golden age books.
Also, how does one know if something is a bindery defect rather than wear? I have one book where the only defect is something at the top left edge, will scan it later and post it. 

Thanks for all the responses.

[RareHighGrade]

5 hours ago, sacentaur said:

The writing is what outwardly identifies the book as a pedigree, there typically is no deduction for that (indeed, most collectors consider the coding as a perk).

Speaking for myself, penciled Mile High (Church) coding is a huge plus.  If I have a choice of two similar Church books, one with coding and one without, I will always pick the coded copy.

[Robot Man]

3 minutes ago, RareHighGrade said:

Speaking for myself, penciled Mile High (Church) coding is a huge plus.  If I have a choice of two similar Church books, one with coding and one without, I will always pick the coded copy.

Likewise. I really love pedigree markings. Larsons, Okajimas, San Francisco (especially with the Riley stamp on back) get a lot more consideration to me.

[LearnedHand]

 

45 minutes ago, RareHighGrade said:

Speaking for myself, penciled Mile High (Church) coding is a huge plus.  If I have a choice of two similar Church books, one with coding and one without, I will always pick the coded copy.

Yes, completely agree!  Maybe an illogical quirky collector thing, but coded copies are def my preference.  

In terms of the OP query, I do think some pedigrees get the "nod" for whatever reason.  But, I also think this applies to some keys, regardless of pedigree/non-pedigree status.

 

[William-James88]

Thanks for the responses, here are the books where I was unsure if the defects near the corners counted as bindery defects or not. I will also post them with the back in the spare me a grade threwad for others to chime in.

 

 

[adamstrange]

3 hours ago, William-James88 said:

Thanks! Though I still find it odd that your fiction house comic would get a 9.4 while the Captain marvel book above gets a 9.6 since it seems to have twice as many bindery defects as yours. These slight grade bumps can spell for a huge change in worth, especially for these golden age books.
Also, how does one know if something is a bindery defect rather than wear? I have one book where the only defect is something at the top left edge, will scan it later and post it. 

Thanks for all the responses.

Minimal bindery defects don't result in much of a deduction.  There are likely other defect(s) on the Fight 41 that result in the 9.4 grade.

Also, CGC is not perfectly consistent so sometimes a pedigree gets a better grade because, well, because. 

CGC did say early on that pedigrees would be given the benefit of the doubt on 'tweener grades.  A 9.5 in a pedigree would get a 9.6 whereas a non-pedigree would get a 9.4.

[adamstrange]

3 hours ago, Robot Man said:

3 hours ago, RareHighGrade said:

Speaking for myself, penciled Mile High (Church) coding is a huge plus.  If I have a choice of two similar Church books, one with coding and one without, I will always pick the coded copy.

Likewise. I really love pedigree markings. Larsons, Okajimas, San Francisco (especially with the Riley stamp on back) get a lot more consideration to me.

+1

I have pristine Church copies without markings and, while stunning, they lack the charm of coded copies.

[Cat-Man_America]

11 hours ago, William-James88 said:

I came across this while looking at the worth of some of my books and grading Golden Age can be tough at times since there can be no wear and tear but still imperfections from the initial printing process.

Regardless, I have a tough time believing that the comic below with not one but 2 messed up corners + writing on the comic would get a 9.6. Is this because the comic got over graded due to it being a Mile High copy? Or is this an actual legit grade and if I send a comic in with the same imperfections I too would get a 9.6? Because so far with what I sent, it wasn't the case, hence why I am looking for more opinions and insights.

 

 

Bindery chips and marks that indicate original owner provenance (pedigree) usually don't get dinged in the grading process.  Now I've seen examples of books that clearly appeared to be over-graded (to me), but it's a judgment call.  There's no consistent pattern of over-grading or under-grading that I'm aware of.  

[jimbo_7071]

11 hours ago, William-James88 said:

Thanks! Though I still find it odd that your fiction house comic would get a 9.4 while the Captain marvel book above gets a 9.6 since it seems to have twice as many bindery defects as yours. These slight grade bumps can spell for a huge change in worth, especially for these golden age books.
Also, how does one know if something is a bindery defect rather than wear? I have one book where the only defect is something at the top left edge, will scan it later and post it. 

Thanks for all the responses.

BBM

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the hobby. For me, 9.6s are too indistinguishable from 9.4s to justify more than a slight price increase (which is why I don't own any 9.6s).

To answer your question, it does seem like Church books get grade bumps (and also blue labels when they should get purple labels). I can't say that I've noticed other pedigrees getting grade bumps.

[pemart1966]

18 hours ago, William-James88 said:

I came across this while looking at the worth of some of my books and grading Golden Age can be tough at times since there can be no wear and tear but still imperfections from the initial printing process.

Regardless, I have a tough time believing that the comic below with not one but 2 messed up corners + writing on the comic would get a 9.6. Is this because the comic got over graded due to it being a Mile High copy? Or is this an actual legit grade and if I send a comic in with the same imperfections I too would get a 9.6? Because so far with what I sent, it wasn't the case, hence why I am looking for more opinions and insights.

 

 

Or is it because Golden Age books are graded differently from other era books?

[Dark Knight]

33 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

Or is it because Golden Age books are graded differently from other era books?

They do actually.  One big one is how some GA books with small amount of color touch (I guess depending on size and location?) can still get in a blue label.  If it were a different era book, automatic purple.

[lou_fine]

14 hours ago, adamstrange said:

CGC did say early on that pedigrees would be given the benefit of the doubt on 'tweener grades.  A 9.5 in a pedigree would get a 9.6 whereas a non-pedigree would get a 9.4.

Based upon scans of many pedigree books which I have seen, it is rather obvious that CGC follows this rule. 

Of course, this is then offset by the fact that they seem to downgrade for books that have been restored.

So, if we complete your equation, a pedigree copy would receive a 9.6 grade, an unrestored copy would receive a 9.4, and oftentimes it appears that a restored book would receive a 9.0 or possibly even a 8.5 grade.  As if the PLOD label was not enough to impact the value of the restored book already.  

This is possibly why you can sometimes see fugly pedigree books relative to their assigned grades and yet can often see some gorgeous restored books relative to their assigned grades.  Of course, this is also possibly explained by the fact that CGC grades much more based upon the structure and technical aspects of the book which you tell by only having the actual book in hand, as opposed to the visual appearance which the graders tend to pay less attention to, but which scans are good for.  

[Math Teacher]

4 hours ago, Dark Knight said:

They do actually.  One big one is how some GA books with small amount of color touch (I guess depending on size and location?) can still get in a blue label.  If it were a different era book, automatic purple.

I have two Silver Age books (I know, wrong forum) with "small amount of glue on cover." One issue, Showcase #22, got a blue label, but Fantastic Four #6 got a purple label.

Honestly, it makes makes my head hurt trying to figure out these inconsistencies!

 

Joe

[Dark Knight]

23 minutes ago, Joe Ankenbauer said:

I have two Silver Age books (I know, wrong forum) with "small amount of glue on cover." One issue, Showcase #22, got a blue label, but Fantastic Four #6 got a purple label.

Honestly, it makes makes my head hurt trying to figure out these inconsistencies!

 

Joe

Same with me Joe and I'm sure the rest of us as well. I also have some confusion with regards to books being restored or conserved because I've seen the same notes on books but with both kinds of labels used after grading. So many inconsistencies.