CGC... please retrain "That" one grader you have. 3 3

[THE_BEYONDER]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Here's a version with "All Years" (the full CGC census) as its own columns (after 2020).

Could the ups and downs correlate to supply?  New collections, warehouse finds, etc? 

[valiantman]

18 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Here's a version with "All Years" (the full CGC census) as its own columns (after 2020).

Could the ups and downs correlate to supply?  New collections, warehouse finds, etc? 

It's possible, but with 22,000+ slabs in 20 years, that's 1,000 copies graded per year.  A couple hundred beautiful copies could certainly move the needle in a single year, but it would be less than 1% of the submissions.

[Mercury Man]

So the take-away from all of this, is that grading is subjective, and we use a 3rd party grading service (paying good money), to be the impartial arbiter, but now the arbiter is being questioned on their ability, to be consistent. 

9.9, 9.8, 9.6. 9.4, 9.2  says it all.  They created this scale, but now people bought into it.

[The Lions Den]

8 hours ago, The-Collector said:

My recent sub was fine (one book was actually quite a bit higher than I expected). Conversely, I did buy this book recently and the grade is a total head scratcher. Graders notes say that there is a large circular stain on the FC bottom right. I have looked at it every which way under strong light and can't see any stain.  

If it's in the notes, the stain should be there. I have seen light stains that were almost impossible to see even before the book was slabbed...  

[The Lions Den]

8 hours ago, joeypost said:

I'll post some scans of recent 9.4's and 9.6's I got back. I cant find a thing wrong with the books, yet the graders notes all say the same thing, which I know is not 100% accurate.

   I

[The Lions Den]

1 hour ago, Mercury Man said:

So the take-away from all of this, is that grading is subjective, and we use a 3rd party grading service (paying good money), to be the impartial arbiter, but now the arbiter is being questioned on their ability, to be consistent. 

9.9, 9.8, 9.6. 9.4, 9.2  says it all.  They created this scale, but now people bought into it.

  

[buttock]

I almost never send books in to CGC, but my opinion of books submitted & purchased over the past 2 years that were graded in that time frame: 2018 accurately graded, then around mid 2019 the clamps were tightened and most books I’ve seen are extremely tightly graded.  

But I’ve spoken to others who are getting results all over the place.  Now I’m buying exclusively pre-1964 and the reports of varying grades are 80s & up, so I would assume different graders. 

[90sChild]

On 7/15/2020 at 10:45 PM, Mercury Man said:

Ho hum.  I blame CGC.  They should never have come up with the nonsense 9. point 'whatevers'.   Should have been 10.0, 9.5. and 9.0.  

I agree with you, but they just wanted to copy the model they borrowed from NGC / coin collecting.
If you thought .2 was bad, the top 10 grades are all 1 point apart from 60-70.  
https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/

 

[kav]

1 hour ago, 90sChild said:

I agree with you, but they just wanted to copy the model they borrowed from NGC / coin collecting.
If you thought .2 was bad, the top 10 grades are all 1 point apart from 60-70.  
https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/

 

I wanna see 9.111 9.112 etc!! 

[The-Collector]

2 hours ago, 90sChild said:

I agree with you, but they just wanted to copy the model they borrowed from NGC / coin collecting.
If you thought .2 was bad, the top 10 grades are all 1 point apart from 60-70.  
https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/

 

Oh man. I hate the coin grading scale. Why is the top grade a 70????!!!!

[picon3]

4 hours ago, The-Collector said:

Oh man. I hate the coin grading scale. Why is the top grade a 70????!!!!

https://www.coinscarats.com/post/a-guide-to-coin-grading#:~:text=Coins are graded on a,while "Fine" is 12.&text=This coin is barely discernible.

All started with the Sheldon scale in 1949.  

Edited July 18, 2020 by picon3
Added link

[telerites]

I really don't understand how hard it would be to have more consistency.  I realize a level of subjectiveness but I assume graders go through a formalized curriculum and although not published some standards must be adhered to.  Also I would hope graders must have continuing education and performance evaluations that align with the KPIs they are employed for.  Grading checks should occur and even with turnover, consistency is not hard to achieve to a relatively high degree. 

Before I retired, I was Deputy Director of a state agency of nearly 1,000 people.  A good portion of our agency was responsible for unemployment compensation and accuracy and consistency in the review and decisions on claims was integral.  We had internal review, state audits and federal audits.  If we could do this effectively in the public sector, where change and agility occurs at a snail's pace and most of the workforce are classified, protected employees which are hard to remove even with poor performance, you would think it is easier in a private sector company.  

[L.E. Gill]

I do appreciate tightly graded 9.8s and consistency in general. I tend to grade my oen comics as harshly as possible. I just don't want to see a 9.8 become like the proverbial 9.9 in relative rarity. I guess one of the things I find interesting is that it seems to reportedly be running across copper age and modern age which almost suggests to me this hypothetical grader is being very consistent without any allowances for printing quality 40 years ago versus now? The kinds of things that I see on modern 9.6 or 9.8 as flaws are different in some cases than the kinds of flaws I see on really pristine comics from the early 80s for example. If I look at 3 or 4 copies of a cardstock cover just published, sometimes it comes down to this tiny bubble or a pin dent or an itty bitty scratch that might make that copy less than a 9.8, especially in comparison to others. Whereas some of those 40 year old comics have no spine creases or scuffs or real issues except maybe some shoddy cutting on the corners from when it was made, or maybe a weird ink spot on the back cover from printing, that kind of thing.

Maybe I'll put my next order in with a pre-screen just in case, but for my personal collection all these comics are the very best copy I have or could find, and they aren't valuable in general. I think a lot of them are 9.8 worthy but another set of eyes never hurts. 

Always interesting to learn more on the boards!

[Gaard]

I'm not very good at grading. Ok, I'll come right out and say it, I suck at it. But if I look over a book and don't see anything wrong with it (even under magnification), I feel pretty certain it's a 9.8. I've had said books rejected from a 9.8 PS and resubmitted them (without pressing). Sometimes they're rejected again, but sometimes they pass the second time around. Plus, also I'll do the same with a lower grade book (without pressing, again) and have it come back with a higher grade. Either I have a pretty good eye, or I'm very lucky, but I've never had a book come back with a lower grade.

Maybe if we lived in the 35th century we'd be dealing with machines, but we aren't and we don't. We deal with regular people, who do this 9 to 5.

[joeypost]

11 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

If it's in the notes, the stain should be there. I have seen light stains that were almost impossible to see even before the book was slabbed...  

Try a black light. Sometimes discolorations, water damage and foreign objects are easier to see under this type of light.

[1Cool]

1 hour ago, joeypost said:

Try a black light. Sometimes discolorations, water damage and foreign objects are easier to see under this type of light.

If you have to use a black light to see a defect then I see that as being too tightly graded.  It’s one thing to turn the book in 100 angles to see defects but if you have to use black lights and magnifying loops to pick out defects then you are trying too hard to see things.

[joeypost]

31 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

If you have to use a black light to see a defect then I see that as being too tightly graded.  It’s one thing to turn the book in 100 angles to see defects but if you have to use black lights and magnifying loops to pick out defects then you are trying too hard to see things.

I think ( and this is just an opinion of mine) that things like that are discovered during the restoration check. 

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, telerites said:

I really don't understand how hard it would be to have more consistency.  I realize a level of subjectiveness but I assume graders go through a formalized curriculum and although not published some standards must be adhered to.  Also I would hope graders must have continuing education and performance evaluations that align with the KPIs they are employed for.  Grading checks should occur and even with turnover, consistency is not hard to achieve to a relatively high degree. 

Before I retired, I was Deputy Director of a state agency of nearly 1,000 people.  A good portion of our agency was responsible for unemployment compensation and accuracy and consistency in the review and decisions on claims was integral.  We had internal review, state audits and federal audits.  If we could do this effectively in the public sector, where change and agility occurs at a snail's pace and most of the workforce are classified, protected employees which are hard to remove even with poor performance, you would think it is easier in a private sector company.  

And I like to think CGC would want to strive for consistency, but...

With all things subjective, there is going to be variances and when you take into account other factors, things can get even more inconsistent. I've had people deny it who work for CGC, but I always thought my books were much more favorably graded during on-site grading (and many people I've known have seen it the same way). You're talking about doing thousands of books over a weekend, in a hotel room (or hotel conference room or wherever - NOT at CGC) and having to work at a much higher pace than usual to get them all finished - how could the consistency possibly stay the same?

Didn't CGC recently go through a point where they were hiring for graders? Does that mean less graders were staffed for a time, doing the same amount of work (increasing their work load)? Humans aren't machines, and this would naturally affect their ability to perform at the same standard. And can you imagine - everyday - more books, more books, more books... It's an assembly line that never ends. Even a machine breaks down now and then. To expect a human to stay consistent...

And I hate to think of it like this, but... it IS business.... more 9.6's and 9.4's mean MORE re-submissions and thus more money for CGC. Just like the creators who sign your books, CGC COULD look at this as it's not just collectors who use the service, but RE-SELLERS and they MAY, naturally, because it's a business, see that as a market to try and exploit. If the harder they grade, the more their sales went up... wouldn't they instinctively do that? And then... why NOT capitalize on the Collectors as well and their obsessive desire for 9.8's. Isn't that the nature of the hobby in general? Why would we think it's any different than any other business?

If Joe's Baked Beans realized it could charge 25 cents more per can, without losing sales, and increase their revenue cleanly... its just basic economics - why WOULDN'T they do that?

Not knocking CGC at all. It's just the nature of business.

And lastly... no offense to the OP, he may be the best amateur grader on the planet, but even if you do this day in and day out, there's a subjective nature to your OWN graded opinion. Without specific examples that show the differences (and believe me, I've SEEN some pretty glaring examples over time from someone who has submitted and resubmitted a stunning quantity of books), it's difficult to get an objective understanding of a true issue vs a general 'feeling'.

Once again, not knocking his opinion at all - I've made the same generalized statement when I used to consistently submit - it's just that in looking at it from any angle, it is itself, subjective. 

That graph is pretty damning though. 

[VintageComics]

3 hours ago, 1Cool said:

4 hours ago, joeypost said:

Try a black light. Sometimes discolorations, water damage and foreign objects are easier to see under this type of light.

If you have to use a black light to see a defect then I see that as being too tightly graded.  It’s one thing to turn the book in 100 angles to see defects but if you have to use black lights and magnifying loops to pick out defects then you are trying too hard to see things.

I agree.

I've had many books come back with 'finger print' notations and yet when I look with the naked eye, no matter how hard I look after cracking the book out, there are no fingerprints to be found (and I'm using glasses that are magnified stronger than I need and good lighting).

I've had many books return with head scratcher comments (usually 'stains' that are not stains) and Joey's explanation of them seeing it under different lighting definitely might be the difference.

They haven't been too tight in my experience lately (although I did get a few head scratchers recently) but I generally submit under higher tiers and they likely have different graders at different tier levels. I would assume newer graders work on lower tier levels and if the grading is tighter in those tiers, it may be because new graders may also be more interested in finding defects with an eagle eye than actually grading the book as a whole (I've mentioned this several times over the years).

So it would be interesting to know which grading tiers people are experiencing grading tightness as this would probably be a clue that would help identify a trend.

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

but I always thought my books were much more favorably graded during on-site grading (and many people I've known have seen it the same way).

I think this is a myth that's been perpetuated. I've been using onsite grading since it's been around and in my experience it's just as hit and miss as Sarasota grading.

I've had extremely tight submissions come back onsite where I've had to crack the majority of books and resubmit them and I've had some good experiences as well. In fact my last few experiences were tight in my opinion.

I will say that I think Matt has helped consistency greatly - we've had conversations and I think I've noticed more consistency since Matt has been on board. Just an opinion though.