Interactive Visualization of CGC Census 1930s-1940s? YES! 1 1

[valiantman]

Since the 1930s and 1940s are hard to find in the 1930s-2010s interactive visualization over in Comics General... 

1930s-1940s INTERACTIVE VISUALIZATION - 20 YEARS OF CGC GRADING

 

Here's the 1930s-1940s group by itself in an interactive visualization just for the Golden Oldies:

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1769285/

Submissions to CGC by comic in a visualization that steps through the first 20 years of CGC grading. See how the list changes when you remove (click) the 1940s D.C. (or any other group).  Then just click on 1940s D.C. to put it back in the graphic. The graphic is on a loop, and will restart by itself after 2020 grading totals have displayed a few seconds. Use the pause/play button on the bottom left to start and stop the graphic. You can pause and jump directly to any year by clicking on the year in the timeline at the bottom. Then play again to restart.

Edited April 2, 2020 by valiantman

[lou_fine]

Well, I guess this definitely goes to show that GA DC Supes and Bats are not where you want to be if you are looking for rare HTF GA books.    

[Cat-Man_America]

Now all we need is an interactive crack out, press and bump for higher grade in census visualization!  

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Cat-Man_America

[Tri-Color Brian]

I wonder how many of those totals include books that were cracked out and then re-subbed...  How padded are the CGC census totals?

[Cat-Man_America]

57 minutes ago, Tri-ColorBrian said:

I wonder how many of those totals include books that were cracked out and then re-subbed...  How padded are the CGC census totals?

The higher the grade and demand the more likely there are duplicate entries of cracked out resubs.  If books aren't resubmitted with labels how would graders know? 

A good estimate would probably be 25% or more of some higher value keys 8.0 and above, but that's just a guess.   

[ender]

What was the deal with the Mighty Midget 11?  I knew you could have them graded of course but was the demand for them really that high in the early 2000s?  I am just surprised out of all the possible Fawcett books that one spent so much time in the top 20 or so.

[Crowzilla]

7 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

The higher the grade and demand the more likely there are duplicate entries of cracked out resubs.  If books aren't resubmitted with labels how would graders know? 

A good estimate would probably be 25% or more of some higher value keys 8.0 and above, but that's just a guess.   

I think the boogeyman of duplicate subs is more of a myth than a reality - especially at higher grades.

Take the most-submitted 1940s book for instance - Batman #1. If you had one of the 5 CGC universal 8.0 copies, cracked it out an submitted it, what possible reason would you have for not returning the label afterwards and having the original grade removed?

If it came back as still an 8.0, you'd want it to be 1 of 5 still and not 1 of 6, if it came back a 7.5, you would definitely want to remove the 8.0 from the census (even as you send it back for another resub), so that it doesn't look even more plentiful in grades higher than yours, and even if it came back 8.5 (or better), the incentive is still there to remove the original listing so that you can talk of how in general there are few copies in high grade.

The dollars dictate that if less copies are available in higher grades, the more each is worth. So the incentive is actually to remove copies from the census, not to have padded numbers.

[Gotham Kid]

50 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

So the incentive is actually to remove copies from the census, not to have padded numbers.

I have had almost a dozen early Batman books removed from the census (over the last year) as former labels were never submitted.

[Chicago Boy]

2 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

I have had almost a dozen early Batman books removed from the census (over the last year) as former labels were never submitted.

Being the Bsts go to around here what are your guesses for total surviving copies of the Big Bat books ?

let’s go with Tecs 27  29  31  33  38  and Bats 1 

 

 

 

[Gotham Kid]

32 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

let’s go with Tecs 27  29  31  33  38  and Bats 1

Countless copies. Practically worthless. Owners should start selling them off. Dirt cheap. Give them away if they feel inclined.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Gotham Kid

[Bat34]

13 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

Countless copies. Practically worthless. Owners should start selling them off. Dirt cheap. Give them away if they feel inclined.

I agree with Peter as usual.  As a service to my fellow collectors, I'd be happy to have you send me this worthless drek.  I'll even pay for shipping to make it easier.:)

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, Crowzilla said:

I think the boogeyman of duplicate subs is more of a myth than a reality - especially at higher grades.

Take the most-submitted 1940s book for instance - Batman #1. If you had one of the 5 CGC universal 8.0 copies, cracked it out an submitted it, what possible reason would you have for not returning the label afterwards and having the original grade removed?

If it came back as still an 8.0, you'd want it to be 1 of 5 still and not 1 of 6, if it came back a 7.5, you would definitely want to remove the 8.0 from the census (even as you send it back for another resub), so that it doesn't look even more plentiful in grades higher than yours, and even if it came back 8.5 (or better), the incentive is still there to remove the original listing so that you can talk of how in general there are few copies in high grade.

The dollars dictate that if less copies are available in higher grades, the more each is worth. So the incentive is actually to remove copies from the census, not to have padded numbers.

No myth, I know this to be a fact.  The only thing I don't know is the actual numbers.  How do I know this is a fact? Well, I know folks who've submitted books for grade bumps and did so without sending in labels.  

The theory seems to be: If you crack a book out yourself, then why submit it with a label that might influence the grader's opinion?  

So, to extrapolate from that: In resubmitting the raw book ...usually through the pressing service... it arrives as a "virgin" ungraded book.  Who's gonna know whether it's already listed in the census?  That's how you end up with duplications.

Yes, if you think it through the more copies added to the census the less rare books appear to be, not to mention the higher grade number increases, but most folks don't consider that when submitting.  They're looking for bumps to increase the value of their book(s).  The assumption is that their book(s) will come back in higher grade, not a lower one.  And if it doesn't, some folks will just roll the dice again, crack-out, repress and regrade raw books over and over again hoping for a better outcome. Yes, this is selfish of the submitter and self-serving to the grading service and it's fair to describe the process as insane, but that's where we are.  

Obviously, there are folks who don't want graders to know in advance what their book(s) were graded before. It takes neither a brain surgeon nor lobotomy patient to figure out that this isn't good for the hobby, but it is what it is.  

I recently watched a video of a popular comics blogger ...who shall remain nameless... comparing grading services.  In determining which service was superior he used the CGC census as an example of a valuable tool which sets the CGC apart and adds a level of confidence.  My jaw dropped in amazement at this assertion.  All I could do was roll my eyes in disbelief that he thought the census can be taken literally, as if it's 100% accurate.  I kept thinking to myself, is he that gullible or just shilling? I still don't know the answer to that one, but I do question his expertise.

But in order to remain entirely objective, here's the CGC's Official statement on the census (you be the judge):

CGC Census Disclaimer

The utilization of this report as a tool for assessing the population and value of certified comic books in any character or grade is unreliable. The following characteristics inherent in the marketplace undermine the accuracy of this report:

• Inexpensive comics, which are not generally submitted for certification, may appear scarce but are not
• Comic certification services are predominantly utilized for higher-grade comics
• Certified comic books are often removed from their holders without notifying the grading service; therefore, computer tallies utilized to provide population reports may be misleading
• Rarity is only one factor that must be weighed in determining the market value of a comic book

CGC encourages all collectors to seek the counsel of qualified professionals familiar with the certified comics marketplace before making any purchase based on this report.

 

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, Cat-Man_America said:

But in order to remain entirely objective, here's the CGC's Official statement on the census (you be the judge):

CGC Census Disclaimer

The utilization of this report as a tool for assessing the population and value of certified comic books in any character or grade is unreliable. The following characteristics inherent in the marketplace undermine the accuracy of this report:

• Inexpensive comics, which are not generally submitted for certification, may appear scarce but are not
• Comic certification services are predominantly utilized for higher-grade comics
• Certified comic books are often removed from their holders without notifying the grading service; therefore, computer tallies utilized to provide population reports may be misleading
• Rarity is only one factor that must be weighed in determining the market value of a comic book

CGC encourages all collectors to seek the counsel of qualified professionals familiar with the certified comics marketplace before making any purchase based on this report.

 

CGC should point out that the CGC Census represents the "highest possible number" of CGC graded copies.  People like to put a blanket statement out that the CGC Census isn't accurate, but it's always inaccurate in the same direction.  If the CGC census says there are 24 CGC graded copies of a book, it might be 24, or 23, or 18, but it's not 25.  If you're in the market for a book that only has 5 CGC graded copies and one comes up for sale, there might only be 2 or 3 others, at most 4 others, but there aren't 5+ others.

Edited April 2, 2020 by valiantman

[Crowzilla]

4 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

 

The theory seems to be: If you crack a book out yourself, then why submit it with a label that might influence the grader's opinion? 

I understand that, and there is probably something to it. But you likely glossed over the part of my post that said " returning the label afterwards ".

Certainly there aren't extra examples of Action #1 in 8.0 and 8.5 as it climbed it's way up the ladder to 9.0. There are no ghost remains of the Windy City Marvel #1 still on the census, etc. etc.

Time and time again, it behooves the submitter to have the original grade removed from the census after you have resubmitted your copy.

Again, using the most populous GA book - Batman #1, there are 11 copies graded 8.0 or higher. Using your suggest percentage, that means 3 of them are ghost copies that don't exist? Sorry, not correct.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Crowzilla

[batman_fan]

21 hours ago, valiantman said:

Since the 1930s and 1940s are hard to find in the 1930s-2010s interactive visualization over in Comics General... 

1930s-1940s INTERACTIVE VISUALIZATION - 20 YEARS OF CGC GRADING

 

Here's the 1930s-1940s group by itself in an interactive visualization just for the Golden Oldies:

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1769285/

Submissions to CGC by comic in a visualization that steps through the first 20 years of CGC grading. See how the list changes when you remove (click) the 1940s D.C. (or any other group).  Then just click on 1940s D.C. to put it back in the graphic. The graphic is on a loop, and will restart by itself after 2020 grading totals have displayed a few seconds. Use the pause/play button on the bottom left to start and stop the graphic. You can pause and jump directly to any year by clicking on the year in the timeline at the bottom. Then play again to restart.

Batman represent !

[lou_fine]

On 4/2/2020 at 1:02 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

No myth, I know this to be a fact.  The only thing I don't know is the actual numbers.  How do I know this is a fact? Well, I know folks who've submitted books for grade bumps and did so without sending in labels.  

The theory seems to be: If you crack a book out yourself, then why submit it with a label that might influence the grader's opinion?  

 

I believe Sean answered this correctly with his response that the overwhelming majority of labels would be sent back in afterwards, as opposed to being sent in with the book:  

19 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

I understand that, and there is probably something to it. But you likely glossed over the part of my post that said " returning the label afterwards ".

 

Time and time again, it behooves the submitter to have the original grade removed from the census after you have resubmitted your copy.

As a GA collector, I would be a lot less worried about this factor as compared to a more recent BA or SA collector where it seems to be so much more about the CGC label, as opposed to the underlying book itself.  From a percentage increase point of view, there appears to be so much more incentive to getting a bump in grade on a BA or SA books, as opposed to a GA book where you don't necessarily see the same type of percentage increase.  

Perfect examples being that CGC 9.9 graded copy of Tomb of Dracula 10 that sold for $85K when a similar copy in CGC 9.8 would sell for a fraction of that amount, or even a common book like Eternals 13 which can fetch over $4,100 and yet only around $100 when it's one grade lower.  Then you take a look at a book like the CGC 9.0 graded copy of Action Comics 13 which sold for something like $156K when it was the second highest graded copy, but yet only managed to fetched $166K (i.e. big loss after factoring in regrading and auction fees plus whatever else to maximize the potential of the book) when it was upgraded to a CGC 9.2 copy and then tied for the highest graded copy.  

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by lou_fine

[Cat-Man_America]

2 hours ago, lou_fine said:

 

I believe Sean answered this correctly with his response that the overwhelming majority of labels would be sent back in afterwards, as opposed to being sent in with the book:  

 

I'm not differing with Sean, but any speculations ...including my own... on what I'm sure the CGC regards as proprietary information are still opinions that remain unverified.  

It also fails to take into account any books resubmitted to another grading service.

5 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

I understand that, and there is probably something to it. But you likely glossed over the part of my post that said " returning the label afterwards ".

Certainly there aren't extra examples of Action #1 in 8.0 and 8.5 as it climbed it's way up the ladder to 9.0. There are no ghost remains of the Windy City Marvel #1 still on the census, etc. etc.

Time and time again, it behooves the submitter to have the original grade removed from the census after you have resubmitted your copy.

Again, using the most populous GA book - Batman #1, there are 11 copies graded 8.0 or higher. Using your suggest percentage, that means 3 of them are ghost copies that don't exist? Sorry, not correct.

While never intending to gloss anything over, I'm just not convinced that most labels are returned afterwards.  I agree that it would behoove the submitter to do so, but I strongly suspect this is the rare exception.

9 hours ago, valiantman said:

CGC should point out that the CGC Census represents the "highest possible number" of CGC graded copies.  People like to put a blanket statement out that the CGC Census isn't accurate, but it's always inaccurate in the same direction.  If the CGC census says there are 24 CGC graded copies of a book, it might be 24, or 23, or 18, but it's not 25.  If you're in the market for a book that only has 5 CGC graded copies and one comes up for sale, there might only be 2 or 3 others, at most 4 others, but there aren't 5+ others.

Overestimating numbers is just as bad as underestimating.  Hypothetically someone looking at the census of a specific book in high grade might be dissuaded from risking capital thinking that there are too many in the marketplace.

[Crowzilla]

12 hours ago, lou_fine said:

As a GA collector, I would be a lot less worried about this factor as compared to a more recent BA or SA collector where it seems to be so much more about the CGC label, as opposed to the underlying book itself.  From a percentage increase point of view, there appears to be so much more incentive to getting a bump in grade on a BA or SA books, as opposed to a GA book where you don't necessarily see the same type of percentage increase.  

 

Yes, and just much easier to hide the bump when you have one of the 123 CGC 9.8 Hulk 181s, or the 635 CGC 9.2 copies.

The recent 9.4 Marvel #1 offering showed how difficult it is to hide this sort of practice (at least from the astute members of this forum). The idea that a minimum of 25% of 8.0 and higher graded GA keys are ghost copies is really laughable. The public sales are easily tracked and far too many people here keep note on the different high grade copies that surface.

The copies of most every GA major key in 8.0 or higher can still be counted on two hands or less, even for the more plentiful #1 issues (All-Flash or Young Allies for example) we are looking at maybe 15-16 copies graded 8.0 or better. Sorry, but four of those are not ghost copies from resubs with unreturned labels.

[Cat-Man_America]

On 4/3/2020 at 12:15 PM, Crowzilla said:

Yes, and just much easier to hide the bump when you have one of the 123 CGC 9.8 Hulk 181s, or the 635 CGC 9.2 copies.

The recent 9.4 Marvel #1 offering showed how difficult it is to hide this sort of practice (at least from the astute members of this forum). The idea that a minimum of 25% of 8.0 and higher graded GA keys are ghost copies is really laughable. The public sales are easily tracked and far too many people here keep note on the different high grade copies that surface.

The copies of most every GA major key in 8.0 or higher can still be counted on two hands or less, even for the more plentiful #1 issues (All-Flash or Young Allies for example) we are looking at maybe 15-16 copies graded 8.0 or better. Sorry, but four of those are not ghost copies from resubs with unreturned labels.

I totally agree with your first sentence, respectfully differing a bit with other conclusions.  

The 25% figure is speculation, but the idea isn’t laughable because the percentage of “ghost” copies can't be verified with any degree of certainty even by the eagle eyed observers here given the amount of cover manipulation that can occur in pressing and cleaning.  The number could be greater than 25% or less.  It certainly varies based on issue and title dependent upon a book’s estimated value and how many times it’s been cracked out, pressed and resubmitted for grading.

What constitutes a key or major key is debatable, but what one does with the labels and the reasoning behind it comes down to dollars.  It's impossible to know the rationale an owner would have in submitting books without labels and withholding labels from later census correction, but full disclosure isn't always a paramount concern for sellers since auction sales are tracked and private sales are not.

For the purposes of this discussion a better way of defining keys would be any books which demonstrate high dollar value in a run.  If a book generates thousands of dollars from an incremental bump, it’s a prime candidate for cracking, pressing ...rinse & repeat... over multiple listings as needed to get the required grade.

One other factor not touched upon is the responsibility for removing a listed book from the census after the grade label is returned, assuming of course that it has been returned.  I’d think it’s much easier to follow a policy of adding newly graded books to the census than to insure entries with returned labels are cross-checked in a timely manner to remove redundant copies.  From a business perspective, the latter would be of lower priority.

Personal anecdote: In my collection are two very rare books with only two known copies 8.0 or above as indicated in the census.  Both should be removed from the CGC census.  They’ve been regraded, but the label wasn’t returned because regrading and re-holders weren’t done in house.  These aren’t ghost copies, but they aren’t CGC census copies either.  

In this instance, the census is technically correct since those books are graded and in holders, but inaccurate from the standpoint of being CGC certified.  They did receive incremental grade bumps which were well deserved, but failure to communicate the label change is more complicated.  Having copies removed from the census shouldn't be a problem because I have before and after scans of both books, but CGC takes such a dim view of their competition that I’m hesitant to raise the issue with them.

This brings up another point about prospects for future census consideration.  For the health of the hobby any serious census should reflect all known graded copies regardless of the grading service (well, excluding PGX).  The actual numbers of graded comics shouldn’t be proprietary.  Right now there’s just one census, but I'm guessing there'll be another soon and somehow those numbers will need to be reconciled.

I'd enjoy reading other perspectives on this.  

Edited April 5, 2020 by Cat-Man_America
Refining the crude.

[Cat-Man_America]

On 4/1/2020 at 10:52 PM, valiantman said:

Since the 1930s and 1940s are hard to find in the 1930s-2010s interactive visualization over in Comics General... 

1930s-1940s INTERACTIVE VISUALIZATION - 20 YEARS OF CGC GRADING

 

Here's the 1930s-1940s group by itself in an interactive visualization just for the Golden Oldies:

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1769285/

Submissions to CGC by comic in a visualization that steps through the first 20 years of CGC grading. See how the list changes when you remove (click) the 1940s D.C. (or any other group).  Then just click on 1940s D.C. to put it back in the graphic. The graphic is on a loop, and will restart by itself after 2020 grading totals have displayed a few seconds. Use the pause/play button on the bottom left to start and stop the graphic. You can pause and jump directly to any year by clicking on the year in the timeline at the bottom. Then play again to restart.

Irrespective of real world census accuracy, this interactive visualization is an amazing achievement! 

Big thumbs up from yours truly.