New CGC

whetteon · Post by **whetteon** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:31 pm

My first ever cgc copy of Magnus #8 arrived in the mail today

It's quit beautiful to look at. I didn't realize they were so freaking humengous! It looks like the only way to complete a new cgc pre-unity set is to submit them myself. I can't seem to win a bid these last few days to save my life.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... RK:MEWN:IT

BodaZoffa · Post by **BodaZoffa** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:54 pm

whetteon wrote:My first ever cgc copy of Magnus #8 arrived in the mail today It's quit beautiful to look at. I didn't realize they were so freaking humengous! It looks like the only way to complete a new cgc pre-unity set is to submit them myself. I can't seem to win a bid these last few days to save my life.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... RK:MEWN:IT

It gets expensive at $16.00 a pop. But nothing beats the feeling of getting your favorite issue back in 9.8, if you get lucky enough.

Makes me feel all warm & fuzzy all over. *ahem*

Boda

whetteon · Post by **whetteon** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:39 pm

poop. Looks like I close the night without a single win on the bazillion eBay cgc's. Sokay because what these other guys bidding higher then me don't realize is that the market will soon be flooded with them. They are the highest growing modern cgc book right now and I suspect that will remain the same for a bit. We already know 3 serious daily cgc valiant dealers and a handful of first timers making the rounds.

I have my eye on you 5 that dared to bid against me. Your day will come. I'll be waiting in the shadowm so just when you think you get that unity 0 red for 10 dollars, I'll be there hitting BIN 1 second before you! Oh yes, your day will come. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

..*a hem*.. I transgressed again didn't I?

ikcizokm · Post by **ikcizokm** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:00 pm

whetteon wrote: ..*a hem*.. I transgressed again didn't I?

"Digress". But that's OK... your sins are forgiven.

kryptonitecomics · Post by **kryptonitecomics** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:21 pm

I agree that the slabbed copies below 9.8 aren't going to hold much value going forward. I own one graded Valiant and I am not planning on sending any of my raw copies in..........

soundoftheuniverse · Post by **soundoftheuniverse** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:26 pm

Since there are a finite number of these books (No more are being made) and the ones out there by in large are in the VF range it will be very interesting to see where these NM+ graded books go moving forward. From Gregs newly updated CGC page it's clear for the most part that we're still in the middle of an upward trend with no signs of slowing.

I guess it all depends on if the added exposure causes shops and private collectors to send books in to be graded, which seems to be the case. Or if demand will match or exceed the supply. In which case Whet and the rest of us will be delighted to snag those last pristine books.

I have one question about CGC grading.

Bear with me here.

Say I submitted a Harbinger 1 eight years ago and got a 9.4. Could it be that the graders back then were tougher on the books and the same book today may get a 9.6? Or is it a safe bet that CGC is soo good at what they do that a 9.4 graded eight years would get the same grade today?

Does CGC's standards ever drop to the point where they make sure to give at least one 9.8 out of a batch or do you think that if at some point in time there are NO MORE 9.8 Valiants left in the whole world ungraded that CGC is soo good that NO MORE books would get a 9.8?

I wonder this because for the sake of making money I can see a company like CGC "manufacturing" grades to meet the demand. Which leads to my next thought.

If CGC did compromise their grading to include lesser grades as 9.8's how badly do you think it would adversly affect the market. Would we really care or would we still be stoked to get a 9.8 even though it was a 9.4 or .6?

So far I'm extremely pleased with all my CGC's and think they're just beautiful specimens I've found to date, it just makes me wonder if it could all collapse due to greed. We all know what Shooter says about Greed. "IT KILLS!"

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:27 am

soundoftheuniverse wrote:Since there are a finite number of these books (No more are being made) and the ones out there by in large are in the VF range it will be very interesting to see where these NM+ graded books go moving forward. From Gregs newly updated CGC page it's clear for the most part that we're still in the middle of an upward trend with no signs of slowing.

I guess it all depends on if the added exposure causes shops and private collectors to send books in to be graded, which seems to be the case. Or if demand will match or exceed the supply. In which case Whet and the rest of us will be delighted to snag those last pristine books.

I have one question about CGC grading.

Bear with me here.

Say I submitted a Harbinger 1 eight years ago and got a 9.4. Could it be that the graders back then were tougher on the books and the same book today may get a 9.6? Or is it a safe bet that CGC is soo good at what they do that a 9.4 graded eight years would get the same grade today?

Does CGC's standards ever drop to the point where they make sure to give at least one 9.8 out of a batch or do you think that if at some point in time there are NO MORE 9.8 Valiants left in the whole world ungraded that CGC is soo good that NO MORE books would get a 9.8?

I wonder this because for the sake of making money I can see a company like CGC "manufacturing" grades to meet the demand. Which leads to my next thought.

If CGC did compromise their grading to include lesser grades as 9.8's how badly do you think it would adversly affect the market. Would we really care or would we still be stoked to get a 9.8 even though it was a 9.4 or .6?

So far I'm extremely pleased with all my CGC's and think they're just beautiful specimens I've found to date, it just makes me wonder if it could all collapse due to greed. We all know what Shooter says about Greed. "IT KILLS!"

There are tons of these books...None of them are rare...many of them have never been read but have been in storage for years...I think that it will years and years, if ever, before we reach that level of grading. You are talking about have 1000's of books graded for each valiant out there...i just dont think that is going to happen in the enxt 5-10 years...Of course all of the books could be grade since it is a finite number of books, but this is true of most comics...

Yes CGC grading was tougher back in the day. A red label modern is probably graded harder than a blue label one which has lead to resubs with the red labels...

I doubt that they make sure that there is a 9.8 in every "batch" Look at the Wizard First program. They took quite a while to get a 10.0 book and if ever there was a reason to make sure someone got a high grade that was it. Clearly CGC can and do make mistakes. Books can get over/under graded...that is why people do resubs.

If it was ever proved that CGC "fixed" their grades it would destroy the value of CGC books and it would destroy that company. They sale their integroty. If they dont have any integrity, in the eye of the consumer, then they dont have a product. No product equals to company...and "would anyone care?" Have you seen the crazy multiples that people pay for a 9.8 v 9.6 or a 9.4? do you think people would care if they paid 2-3 times as much for a book in w/ a 9.8 label if they found out it was really a 9.6? do you think that these people would continue buying CGC books? I doubt it...

whetteon · Post by **whetteon** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:17 am

9.8 valiants go for crazy money and even though a few board members whose opinions I highly value tell me otherwise, I think a 9.6 and depending on the book, a 9.4 are perfectly suitable copies to own. At a certain point passed 9.4 your're looking for microscopic flaws and I can honestly say, "WHO THE FREAK CARES". So make sure you sale me your pre-unity 9.6's for under $25.00!

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:20 am

I was thinking about this situation the other day...
Here's what I've decided (by no means factual, just "the way I see it")...

Because we know that CGC uses .2 difference between 9.0 and 9.8,
we can assume that books which are graded as 9.2
could, in fact, be worthy of 9.1 to 9.3 on a "finer detailed scale".
Now, you can see where there would be some overlap between CGC grades.

9.2 - book is about 9.1 to 9.3
9.4 - book is about 9.3 to 9.5
9.6 - book is about 9.5 to 9.7
9.8 - book is about 9.7 to 9.9

So, let's say you've got a book that is CGC graded at 9.4.
There is a POSSIBILITY that it is actually "about a 9.5"...
so if you resubmit it... you could get CGC 9.6 the next time,
because 9.5 is in the range for both 9.4 and 9.6.
It's not an exact science, after all, so it's likely that grades
can move +/- 1 notch in either direction...

In other words, it is entirely possible that your CGC 9.6 and my CGC 9.4
for same issue can be identical in almost every way...
Especially if both books are worthy of "about a 9.5".

Should the 9.6 cost "double" what someone would pay for the 9.4?
It seems ridiculous if they're the same in almost every way, right?
Hmmm...

On the other hand, your CGC 9.6 might really be "worthy of about 9.7",
and my CGC 9.4 might really be "worthy of about 9.3".
So, all-of-the-sudden, the price difference is a little more justified.

Basically, it boils down to this...
CGC graded books have the POSSIBILITY of changing grades if re-submitted.
From what I've heard, a few people are getting higher grades
when they resubmit older CGC books for newer slabs/grades.

HOWEVER, it would be very rare for any MODERN book to jump
more than 1 notch in CGC's grading because grades are so high
to begin with. Defects don't "go away". If anything, defects get worse.

But it's not surprising that resubmitted books can get higher grades.
Those older CGC books were graded earlier...
They could have been one of the first copies of that issue ever graded.

If you're in a talent competition, do you want judges to see you first or last?
You want to be last... you want them to see a bunch of "bad ones" so they
can recognize you as outstanding among your "peers".
CGC is more of a "talent competition" than a "hard science"...
That's why, in my opinion, Silver and Golden Age books get such lenient grades.

Clearly there is a difference between Golden Age 9.4 and Modern 9.4,
with differences for Silver and Bronze age books at 9.4, too.
So, no doubt at all, there is a difference between CGC 9.4's.
But, as long as CGC is fairly consistent "within an age", it doesn't bother me as much.

CGC 9.4 for Amazing Spider-man #1 would probably be CGC 8.0 for Rai #1...
but it's because the Amazing Spider-man #1 is "outstanding" compared to
other copies of Amazing Spider-man #1. There's a "playing field" for that book,
and a different playing field for Rai #1... different peers.

Modern collectors may have it in their minds that they want 9.8 or nothing.
That's fine... but they need to understand that 9.8 for X-O #0 and
9.8 for Harbinger #1 are two very, very different things.
Print runs are different by more than 10x.
Covers are different materials.
The process was of different qualities during manufacturing.

For those who can't stand the idea of CGC... it's true...
books in CGC 9.4 to CGC 10.0 might be nearly IDENTICAL.
And, it's also true that a CGC 9.4 might get a CGC 9.6 if you resubmit it.
And, it's also true that you can't READ the book when it's in a slab.

So, clearly, CGC isn't for everyone.
(Or any other professional grading company for that matter.)

But, in 7 years on Ebay, I've seen it all:
1) Sellers who don't know how to grade and admit it
2) Sellers who think they know how to grade, but clearly don't
3) Sellers who think they know how to grade, but ignore "little defects"
4) Sellers who think they know how to grade, and do an OK job.
5) Sellers who are fantastic graders
6) Sellers who use CGC

Since CGC is more consistent than guessing whether you're dealing with
a seller who is #1 through #5... I'm happy to buy my books from #6.
(Even if CGC isn't perfect, they're better than #1-#4... so they're worth it to me.)

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:54 am

Doesnt having it be subjective mean that not all 9.8s are not the same and doesnt that defeat the entire purpose of CGC? I bet if you asked CGC they would say that the grading of one book does not depend on the last book graded. I understand what you are saying, and agree that it probably does happen, but I think if it was CGC stance that they graded like that people would be much less likely to spend big bucks on these books. Honestly would you want your mid grade FF coming in after a group of warehouse find ASM 33s? Probably not. But you would want that mid grade FF #1 coming in after some FNG sends in a pile of POS books...I think that the second FF would get the better grade...and it is the same book and that is against what CGC is supposed to be doing, right?

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:13 am

DawgPhan wrote:Doesnt having it be subjective mean that not all 9.8s are not the same and doesnt that defeat the entire purpose of CGC?

The purpose of CGC is to assign an "independent, third-party" opinion of the grade.

Some 9.8s are more like 9.7s and some are probably closer to 9.9.
They're not all the same. That's because books aren't the same.
But they can have the same CGC 9.8 grade. What else would they be?

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:23 am

greg wrote:
DawgPhan wrote:Doesnt having it be subjective mean that not all 9.8s are not the same and doesnt that defeat the entire purpose of CGC?
The purpose of CGC is to assign an "independent, third-party" opinion of the grade.

Some 9.8s are more like 9.7s and some are probably closer to 9.9.
They're not all the same. That's because books aren't the same.
But they can have the same CGC 9.8 grade. What else would they be?

Well there are 9.9 grades...but anyway what I am talking about is that you think that the grade that a book gets is based on the books that went before it, like in a ice skating contest. While this may be true I think CGC promotes there grading as more like "Target Shooting" If you hit certain spots you get a certian grade. Anyone that steps up to the line and fires their gun can get the same grade as anyone on any given day for the same performance. In Ice Skating if I am skating against 2 people who give 9.9 -10.0 performances my performance will be graded lower. Especially if I go last. If I am the last skater and everyone in front of me falls then I will get a higher grade even if the other performance was better when I went against the better performers. The bar was set higher. Saying the the grading is like ice skating I think takes away part of CGC's integrity, which is what they are selling. That grade means nothing with out integrity. That is why a NM on ebay means nothing. Integrity. I would bet dollars to donuts that if you asked CGC if the last book graded had anything to do with the grading of the next book they would say NO, emphatically. NO way, NO how. It only makes sense that they would say that because it would defend the product that they sale.

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:18 pm

I think we're talking about two different scenarios.

You're talking about:

July 30th, CGC might grade...
Low grade book w
Low grade book x
Low grade book y
Mid grade book z
...and you don't believe books w,x, and y affect the grade of z.

I agree. 100%.

What I'm talking about:
"of all the Amazing Spider-man #1s" that CGC has ever seen...
2000 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2001 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2002 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2003 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2004 Amazing Spider-man #1s
...they MAY grade Amazing Spider-man #1 differently TODAY than they
might have graded the same book in 2001,
when they'd only seen a few copies of THAT book.

I'm saying that history teaches them something about each book,
and their grading could potentially be different today than years ago.
They might be able to say...
"When we'd seen 20 copies of ASM #1, that book was a 9.2 in our opinion,
but now that we've seen 1,000 copies... it's closer to what we regularly consider as 9.4."

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:35 pm

greg wrote:I think we're talking about two different scenarios.

You're talking about:

July 30th, CGC might grade...
Low grade book w
Low grade book x
Low grade book y
Mid grade book z
...and you don't believe books w,x, and y affect the grade of z.

I agree. 100%.

What I'm talking about:
"of all the Amazing Spider-man #1s" that CGC has ever seen...
2000 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2001 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2002 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2003 Amazing Spider-man #1s
2004 Amazing Spider-man #1s
...they MAY grade Amazing Spider-man #1 differently TODAY than they
might have graded the same book in 2001,
when they'd only seen a few copies of THAT book.

I'm saying that history teaches them something about each book,
and their grading could potentially be different today than years ago.
They might be able to say...
"When we'd seen 20 copies of ASM #1, that book was a 9.2 in our opinion,
but now that we've seen 1,000 copies... it's closer to what we regularly consider as 9.4."

ah...ok...

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:43 pm

DawgPhan wrote:ah...ok...

Cool.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:57 pm

greg wrote: "When we'd seen 20 copies of ASM #1, that book was a 9.2 in our opinion,
but now that we've seen 1,000 copies... it's closer to what we regularly consider as 9.4."

This is natural, and precisely what NGC and PCGS encountered in their first few years of grading. After years of 'well, I dunno, what do YOU think it is?' the coin graders could finally establish a pattern with their personal experience, company experience, and specifics of each coin they graded. It's just the nature of the beast, and early books, if the grade is disagreed with, SHOULD be resubmitted...they did it with coins, there's no reason not to do it with comics.

It's not that CGC was being dishonest THEN or NOW....it's that they just had nothing to compare them to, back then, and they were NECESSARILY STRICT to prevent any accusation of malfeasance. Would anyone respect them if they'd been necessarily LOOSE? Of course not.

In a perfect world, a 9.8 will have a calculated number of defects down to the micromillimeter, and will be generated by a computer, with mathematical averages all weighed up. But it doesn't work that way, at least not yet.

And...with re: to the 9.7 to 9.9...we're talking an INFINITESIMAL difference, here. It's the nature of books, between Spiderman #266 and Witchblade #34 there's a VAST GULF of differences, and even between Harbinger #1 and Harbinger #1. The point is, and this is where the REAL subjectivity is appropriate, is 99.99999945% of all people are going to look at that book and say 'yup...it's definitely within there.' And you're not going to get MUCH disagreement.

And THAT is what I've been crusading for for YEARS. No reasonably intelligent, educated-in-grading person is going to be WILDLY different in assigning a grade from the next person of the same circumstance. I've had morons tell me over and over and over 'well, grading is subjective, so your 'Fine' can be my 'NM'."

Wrong. It doesn't work that way. As we tighten grading standards, the days when someone can HONESTLY make that claim are long gone. If you are an honest person, and you look at a book with a 4 inch crease in the cover...you're not going to be able to call it 'Near Mint'...based JUST ON THE MEANINGS OF THOSE WORDS...with a straight face. It just won't happen. Therefore, my 'Fine' will never, EVER be an honest person's 'Near Mint'.

But, the same two people mentioned above, who are being honest in their assesment, won't be more than, say, 1/4 to 1/2 grade off. And I CAN LIVE WITH THAT (and I believe most everyone else can, too.) They're not going to vastly disagree, EXCEPT UNDER special circumstances wherein, they then become the exceptions that make the rule.

Beautiful how that works, huh?

soundoftheuniverse · Post by **soundoftheuniverse** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 7:47 am

greg wrote: So, clearly, CGC isn't for everyone.
(Or any other professional grading company for that matter.)

But, in 7 years on Ebay, I've seen it all:
1) Sellers who don't know how to grade and admit it
2) Sellers who think they know how to grade, but clearly don't
3) Sellers who think they know how to grade, but ignore "little defects"
4) Sellers who think they know how to grade, and do an OK job.
5) Sellers who are fantastic graders
6) Sellers who use CGC

Since CGC is more consistent than guessing whether you're dealing with
a seller who is #1 through #5... I'm happy to buy my books from #6.
(Even if CGC isn't perfect, they're better than #1-#4... so they're worth it to me.)

HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! Amen, preach it brotha Holland!

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm

Just got off the phone with CGC and they are working on books recieved May 14th. They got my books on May 20th so I should know very soon what my 28 books got. Can't wait to see what my CEAR gets.

Shakespeare · Post by **Shakespeare** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:23 pm

It's not that CGC was being dishonest THEN or NOW....it's that they just had nothing to compare them to, back then, and they were NECESSARILY STRICT to prevent any accusation of malfeasance.

This bothers me a bit. If they were all professionals who started the business, shouldn't they have already handled a dozen copies of ASM #1 each? And they don't really need anything to compare it to, as the only rules they need to go by are their modified OGG. For instance, they've never seen a copy of Bloodshot #52, but if it comes from the presses next month, they shouldn't have to see a dozen before they get their opinion right. I've never held an ASM #1, but I could grade it even if I hadn't seen 100 copies of it.

Two other things that bug me about CGC, since I'm here.

1) If they don't have a pristine copy of a comic in front of them, how do they know if the comic is faded? I don't think that they could tell a 10% fade if they weren't comparing it to a perfect example.

2) The OGG tells us not to grade for long periods at a time. I can see why, as you start to get 'mushy' at your grading. But I'm guessing CGC workers work 8 hour days. Certainly, this causes some human error. Having more than one person look at a book helps, for sure, but perhaps they should always have a 'fresh' person checking it out.

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:38 pm

Shakespeare wrote:
It's not that CGC was being dishonest THEN or NOW....it's that they just had nothing to compare them to, back then, and they were NECESSARILY STRICT to prevent any accusation of malfeasance.
This bothers me a bit. If they were all professionals who started the business, shouldn't they have already handled a dozen copies of ASM #1 each? And they don't really need anything to compare it to, as the only rules they need to go by are their modified OGG. For instance, they've never seen a copy of Bloodshot #52, but if it comes from the presses next month, they shouldn't have to see a dozen before they get their opinion right. I've never held an ASM #1, but I could grade it even if I hadn't seen 100 copies of it.

Two other things that bug me about CGC, since I'm here.

1) If they don't have a pristine copy of a comic in front of them, how do they know if the comic is faded? I don't think that they could tell a 10% fade if they weren't comparing it to a perfect example.

2) The OGG tells us not to grade for long periods at a time. I can see why, as you start to get 'mushy' at your grading. But I'm guessing CGC workers work 8 hour days. Certainly, this causes some human error. Having more than one person look at a book helps, for sure, but perhaps they should always have a 'fresh' person checking it out.

But think about if they were grading the first book with "valiant corners" I bet they would grade pretty hard on that, but then after seeing a bunch of books with that defect and doing a little research they might lighten up on them a little bit...see what I mean...If a book has a particular defect the first books seen probably get graded a lot harder on that defect than the books later on...

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:26 pm

"valiant corners" is binding defect. This type of corner is know to happen to other publishers as well and is not limited to only Valiant. Graders that have been in the business a long time can tell the difference between damage caued by wear and damage caused by the printing process. Many of this type of defect are pointed out in the OGG. You would not need to see 10, 100, or 1000 of a book to know this.

What would not be known would be miscuts like Rai 3. But the miscut on Rai 3 would not affect grade unless very severe. It would effect eye appeal but is not a factor in grading the "wear".

BodaZoffa · Post by **BodaZoffa** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:54 pm

The one good thing about this CGC craze over Valiants, is that there are a lot of slabbed Valiants that will be around for a long time. Issues that were getting tore apart in the $.25 bins are now well protected behind plastic.

Boda

ValiantFans.com Board - Since 2004

New CGC

New CGC

Re: New CGC