How is this CGC 8.5?

[magnus20009]

I was going to go hard after this book when I saw it listed. Then I looked at the scans

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-19 ... ids-101116" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How is this a CGC 8.5 given the spine ticks and more importantly the chip missing out of the top left hand corner. Is CGC getting more lax?

[myron]

Not a clue...there is writing on the front cover, chunks missing, multiple color breaking creasing on the spine...what are all those little circles up and down the back spine?...looks rough

[greg]

CGC doesn't officially state their exact grading criteria anywhere, but from 20 years of their existence (and millions of slabs), it seems clear that they grade books at least partially "according to their age". Books from 1945 (and earlier) seem like they are generally compared to other books from the same timeframe... and graded with those others in mind. Basically, all kinds of defects are overlooked (for the most part) when the book looks "very nice" (not an official grade) for its age.

This book has many defects (compared to a book from the 1980s, for example), but compared to other books from the 1940s, this one is above average. I agree, though, it's probably not a CGC 8.5 every time it's graded. Seems like it would easily be a CGC 7.0 some other day. The cover colors are great, the most areas of the front cover and the back cover are very clean and sharp. The pages are probably very clean. The writing on the cover is a common marking from sales techniques in 1945 and probably was put there before the book had its first owner. If the top left edge of the front cover was also as clean as the rest, it would probably be a CGC 9.0+ for a 1945 book. All that being said, it would probably be a CGC 6.0 if it was from 1985... but it's not.

If I was bidding on this book, I'd want to get it for about the price of a CGC 6.5.

[nycjadie]

I watched a CGC interview on grading some months ago, and they claimed that a 7.5 gold or silver age book should be the same as a modern book. I’ve noticed some leniency on older books on some days and not others, as Greg suggests. I think it looks closer to an 8.5 than a 7.5, but you never know without seeing it in the flesh.

[nonplayer]

Its a scam. They just invented something to create another level of collecting. a monopoly they created.
Ive never been excited about grading.
Jmo

[magnus20009]

I watched a CGC interview on grading some months ago, and they claimed that a 7.5 gold or silver age book should be the same as a modern book. I’ve noticed some leniency on older books on some days and not others, as Greg suggests. I think it looks closer to an 8.5 than a 7.5, but you never know without seeing it in the flesh.

It does seem to me that CGC is more lenient these days on older books. I had a Four Color 9 (First Barks) in CGC 8.0 and it was much nicer than this book.

I have even found that some of the more recently graded Doctor Solar, Magnus and Turok books that I have purchased do not seem to be graded as tightly as the previous graded books I have from the 40s-60s.

It really is buy the book, not the label now.

[ckb]

It's always been "buy the book, not the label"!!!

It's important to remember that not all defects are created equal. The chip at the top left is a bindery defect and the book looks very clean with sharp edges. At the end of the day there is some scoring system going on at CGC, and when a 70 year old book does not have all the normal deductions because its a crisp clean glossy copy, and there is no "defining defect" that holds back the grade, the spine ticks do not add up to much! And yes the window for the scores is probably shifted down the older the book is.

I do admit it looks to be at the top end for an 8.5. But I bet the book, out of the slab, in hand, feels like a file copy. Well I hope it does anyway!

[nycjadie]

I just got back my boxes of silver and bronze age books from CGC yesterday, and I started poring over them. I have to say, they graded my old books incredibly hard. The 9.4s are graded very harshly, and I think could be 9.6s on a different day. I was looking at a 9.2, and thought it could easily be a 9.4. I'm extremely happy with the way the books look, but a bit surprised at the grading. They were very tough.

My Gold Key Magnus coming back 9.8 though, that was pretty awesome!

[slym2none]

Its a scam. They just invented something to create another level of collecting. a monopoly they created.
Ive never been excited about grading.
Jmo

No, they filled a niche, as ever since slabbed 3rd-party grading came up and we as a community accepted it, it became a lot easier to buy comics online and get a grade near what we expect for the most part.

OFC, it will cost you more for your 9.x and above if you want it slabbed, but you can just about (key words) guarantee it will be very close to what they claim - not saying the comic is a raw 8.0 and you get a 3.5.



-slym

[magnusr]

My Gold Key Magnus coming back 9.8 though, that was pretty awesome!

/Magnus

[michalward]

I wish CGC graded 2000AD, because I just got a real beauty of a copy of prog 2 (first Judge Dredd). Newsprint is a whole other game I suppose.

[maraxusofkeld]

CGC IHMO grades the different era's based on a different set of standards and allows more defects for grades on the older eras. If that was a copper age or modern age book it would be something crazy like a 7.0.

[kjjohanson]

I just got back my boxes of silver and bronze age books from CGC yesterday, and I started poring over them. I have to say, they graded my old books incredibly hard. The 9.4s are graded very harshly, and I think could be 9.6s on a different day. I was looking at a 9.2, and thought it could easily be a 9.4. I'm extremely happy with the way the books look, but a bit surprised at the grading. They were very tough.

My Gold Key Magnus coming back 9.8 though, that was pretty awesome!

A while back I sent some Silver Age ASMs that I thought were in the area of an 8.0 that came back 6.0. I still don't get it.

[magnus20009]

Well I will be able to inspect the book in hand as I won the auction. Unfortunately not for anywhere near a 6.5 price. It is a pretty rare book that does not come up for sale often.

[IMJ]

Its a scam. They just invented something to create another level of collecting. a monopoly they created.
Ive never been excited about grading.
Jmo

A scam implies something is sold where only the seller receives value and the buyer does not.
Also, grading exists and has existed independently of CGC.

And so, offering professional grading with a product enhancement is not a scam because buyers routinely see the value of their grading services.
Also, CGC standardizes grading more for the hobby than was done before CGC existed.

It might be a more accurate observation that CGC needs to do something to improve it's overall consistency. But that's another topic entirely.

It's always been "buy the book, not the label"!!!

It's important to remember that not all defects are created equal. The chip at the top left is a bindery defect and the book looks very clean with sharp edges. At the end of the day there is some scoring system going on at CGC, and when a 70 year old book does not have all the normal deductions because its a crisp clean glossy copy, and there is no "defining defect" that holds back the grade, the spine ticks do not add up to much! And yes the window for the scores is probably shifted down the older the book is.

I do admit it looks to be at the top end for an 8.5. But I bet the book, out of the slab, in hand, feels like a file copy. Well I hope it does anyway!

This post for the win. It's many factors deep.
For the actual grade here, I can say that it's been my experience that most books with several spine ticks and maybe a minor, non-color breaking indentation (like a finger nail press) land on 8.5, and that example isn't focusing on other nuances that might be present. There's a wide birth for that 8.0 to 8.5 grade. The numerical separation alone commands this. For example, there allowed flaw rate between a 9.2 and 9.4 is very small (2/10ths) as compared to the flaw rate allowed between 8.0 and 8.5 or 8.0 to 9.0 (5/10ths to a full point in variation).