9.9... dare I say 10.0....!?

wallywest · Post by **wallywest** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:19 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
and there seems too be some "whiteness" along the top right edge of the back cover. FWIW (for what it's worth, ZWH),

I KNOW what "FWIW" means, *SQUEE*. But thanks for looking out for me.

Just giving you some crap over that "AR" comment from above

.

wallywest · Post by **wallywest** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:27 am

stumpy wrote:
wallywest wrote:I have heard people say things like this before, but doesn't this just negate CGC as a reliable entity?
Unforunately, the answer is yes, in my opinion.

I mean, isn't that what their existence is all about...consistency?
That's a fairytale they want you to believe. Truth is they grade by a modifed version of Overstreet's guidelines (flaws and all), and they have no intention of EVER disclosing how they arrrive at the 'uber-high' grades. They don't want to share that information because they are afraid that any criticism will undermine their credibility. If they are so credible, why do collectors and dealers like Doug Schmell resubmit high grade issues they feel weren't given a high enough grade? I have heard of books getting bumped up a complete grade before. Can you imagine the jump in price between a 9.2 and a 9.8? Astronomical, to say the least. How do you explain it? Sometimes it seems like their existance depends upon the ignorance of noobs and the collectors who don't know how to properly grade. Oh, and did I mention that they have been known to do special 'favors' for the comic-elite dealers who are their main 'bread and butter'?

Try posting your scan on the CGC board for a grade.

I don't know that I really care if they post their guidelines for grading. It would be nice, but I don't know that they need to disclose. However, the key is that if you send a NM book in you get a NM grade the vast majority of the time. Yes, there will be mistakes, there will be overgrades and undergrades. And yes, re-subs will sometimes garner different grades than the original sub. I don't think any other outcome is even possible. The question is, "Are they largely consistent?" The market has said, "Yes." Hands down, they have changed the way comics are bought and sold, so the market has - to this point - validated their grading. If some inconsistency like you claim comes to light (and I believe it absolutely will if it is there), I fell confident the market will dictate that CGC go away.

I just find it hard to believe that there is any kind of bias like your referenced way back up the chain here that the market has not caught on to. Maybe I am naive

. It wouldn't be the first time.

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:38 am

wallywest wrote:
stumpy wrote:It is run by humans. Your books are graded by humans. Humans make mistakes EVERYDAY.
I referenced (or at least tried to reference) human error in my post noting that I make changes in my own grading. When a company uses multiple graders, there HAS to be consistency issues. However, I believe these inconsitencies should be limited to a reasonable normal variance in grading. Ideally, a professional company should push that consistency to a new level.

The issue I am having a problem with is the notion that a Modern gets special treatment over a Golden Age book (I would expect the exact opposite if there is actually a difference), or that a Marvel would get preferential grading over a DC. That would have to be a company policy, and that would get out into the marketplace sooner or later.

I also believe that their inconsistencies should be limited, but WHO is holding them to it? It's not like you can watch or comment over their shoulder as they mishandle or misgrade your book. I spoke with Mark H. at CGC about his grading practices, and it made him very uncomfortable. He wasn't talking to some 20 year old bright-eyed kid. He knew I had a lot of experience in the field, and my questions clearly made him uncomfortable. Who's to say when they have a bad day? Have grading fatigue? Maybe if your book is the first to be graded that day, you might get a harsher (or easier) grade. What if they're so busy, they're getting behind, so they might 'zoom' through so books they find 'easy' to grade, Who knows? Also, is there a list anywhere of any mishandling or damages they've caused any books? I mean they've handled so many, there HAS to have been at least one bad mishap. Since they do all their work out of the public limelight, and their offices are behind high locked gates, you just have to trust them. And I have a slight problem with that. You see, they aren't going away any time soon, so you either play their game or you sell yourself short by selling raw books. Dealers have too much invested in slabs to shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) by complaining or pointing out flaws..they just resubmit instead of argue. Complaints by individual collectors don't hold the same weight, so that doesn't seem to bother them too much (yet).

I was told directly from Doug Schmell that CGC is harder on older books and easier on newer Marvels. He has about the most experience with CGC as ANYONE. He has dealt with them since 1999. I think he knows what he's talking about. So yes, coming from one of their biggest submitters, CGC is inconsistant...and we gotta live with it for now because they're the 'best' out there right now.

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:48 am

wallywest wrote: If some inconsistency like you claim comes to light (and I believe it absolutely will if it is there), I fell confident the market will dictate that CGC go away.

I just find it hard to believe that there is any kind of bias like your referenced way back up the chain here that the market has not caught on to. Maybe I am naive . It wouldn't be the first time.

If you haven't heard of complaints about CGC or any of the stuff I've mentioned, take note of it now. Unless they get more consistant or reveal their methods, it's only going to get worse, IMO. CGC is still relatively new to the hobby. Newer collectors accept them. Old farts like myself look at them with skepticism. Like I said, too many big name dealers have too much to lose to complain about CGC at this point in time. You have to look at the whole spectrum of the hobby, weigh CGC's pros and cons, and see how it reflects on your own collection. Do you feel good about CGC because you own slabs? What do you have to lose by not liking CGC? IMO, the jury is still out among knowledgable collectors.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:52 pm

stumpy wrote:
wallywest wrote: If some inconsistency like you claim comes to light (and I believe it absolutely will if it is there), I fell confident the market will dictate that CGC go away.

I just find it hard to believe that there is any kind of bias like your referenced way back up the chain here that the market has not caught on to. Maybe I am naive . It wouldn't be the first time.
If you haven't heard of complaints about CGC or any of the stuff I've mentioned, take note of it now. Unless they get more consistant or reveal their methods, it's only going to get worse, IMO. CGC is still relatively new to the hobby. Newer collectors accept them. Old farts like myself look at them with skepticism. Like I said, too many big name dealers have too much to lose to complain about CGC at this point in time. You have to look at the whole spectrum of the hobby, weigh CGC's pros and cons, and see how it reflects on your own collection. Do you feel good about CGC because you own slabs? What do you have to lose by not liking CGC? IMO, the jury is still out among knowledgable collectors.

Hey there....I'll ask you directly....are you the user formerly known as Vault-Keeper?

ckb · Post by **ckb** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:19 am

stumpy wrote:
wallywest wrote: If some inconsistency like you claim comes to light (and I believe it absolutely will if it is there), I fell confident the market will dictate that CGC go away.

I just find it hard to believe that there is any kind of bias like your referenced way back up the chain here that the market has not caught on to. Maybe I am naive . It wouldn't be the first time.
If you haven't heard of complaints about CGC or any of the stuff I've mentioned, take note of it now. Unless they get more consistant or reveal their methods, it's only going to get worse, IMO. CGC is still relatively new to the hobby. Newer collectors accept them. Old farts like myself look at them with skepticism. Like I said, too many big name dealers have too much to lose to complain about CGC at this point in time. You have to look at the whole spectrum of the hobby, weigh CGC's pros and cons, and see how it reflects on your own collection. Do you feel good about CGC because you own slabs? What do you have to lose by not liking CGC? IMO, the jury is still out among knowledgable collectors.

There can't be too many non-full time dealers that have submitted more books than me, and I don't need a jury. I have had the gamut of bad experiences with CGC, and despite it all, they are a fine organization that has changed the hobby. I don't see anyone doing it better anytime soon - making science from art is nearly impossible.

They make mistakes and pay for them. Would I rather they not make mistakes, or weren't sometimes apparently inconsistant, or had a system that does not take the age of the book into account? Sure. Maybe. Would I rather there was no CGC? Ummmm, no.

There are two base reasons not to like CGC.

(1) You are afraid to find the raw books in your collection are not as good as you think.

(2) You are a CGC-phobic seller and cannot believe that a snotnosed mouth-breathing fanboy will not trust you when you say, "but it's MINT".

I do not believe any of the hype about preferential treatment. If this happens it is with GA pedigree books far out of our league. One of the biggest submitters of normal book is Steve Mortensen (Colossus). Why don't you ask him about the preferential treatment he gets? Those scads of 9.9s and 10s he gets back all the time.... Just doesn't happen. Heck - he wasn't able to get me a 9.8 on a new book once...

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:23 am

I respect your point of view, Chris, and I'm not saying I hate CGC. It's just that they ARE human and prone to the occasional mistake in judgement. My personal experiences are mixed. I've used them and probably will again, but not without my personal observations and criticisms. I have been in their offices in Sarasota, and have had several hours discussing things with Mark H. So I'm not completely ignorant in my opinions. And I'm NOT making things up. Obviously, your milage may vary.

Brother J · Post by **Brother J** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:32 am

ckb wrote: There are two base reasons not to like CGC.

(1) You are afraid to find the raw books in your collection are not as good as you think.

(2) You are a CGC-phobic seller and cannot believe that a snotnosed mouth-breathing fanboy will not trust you when you say, "but it's MINT".

(3) You took a trip to the CGC offices trying to establish a new pedigree for a recently purchased collection and was told it was not significant enough to merit a pedigree designation.

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:43 am

My meeting consisted of much more than a discussion on pedigree designation. I had a long conversation about other pedigrees AND their grading procedures (at least as much as Mark would comfortably say). I am disappointed with some of my grades, but I was disappointed with what I saw and heard at CGC BEFORE I heard the grades. I handle my books with more care than they do. Period. And in my opinion, it shouldn't be that way.

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:49 am

Brother J wrote:
ckb wrote: There are two base reasons not to like CGC.

(1) You are afraid to find the raw books in your collection are not as good as you think.

(2) You are a CGC-phobic seller and cannot believe that a snotnosed mouth-breathing fanboy will not trust you when you say, "but it's MINT".
(3) You took a trip to the CGC offices trying to establish a new pedigree for a recently purchased collection and was told it was not significant enough to merit a pedigree designation.

Oh, and BTW, I have a lot to say about CGC's policy on pedigrees. It is VERY inconsistant, to say the least...

ckb · Post by **ckb** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:33 am

Brother J wrote:
ckb wrote: There are two base reasons not to like CGC.

(1) You are afraid to find the raw books in your collection are not as good as you think.

(2) You are a CGC-phobic seller and cannot believe that a snotnosed mouth-breathing fanboy will not trust you when you say, "but it's MINT".
(3) You took a trip to the CGC offices trying to establish a new pedigree for a recently purchased collection and was told it was not significant enough to merit a pedigree designation.

Yeah, that's probably the new #1...

Admittedly, such an experience would probably leave me very disappointed as well.

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:04 am

I think you're missing the point. Sure, I might appear to have an axe to grind, BUT there is a basis of truth in my opinions. I have no need to make things up in regard to the 'smoke and mirrors' behind CGC. Everyone wants to avoid discussing their practices like the big white elephant in the corner of the room that won't go away. Of course it might be easier for some to have a blind faith in something than I. My 40 years of experience tend to make me a bit more skeptical, especially when I've seen and heard things first hand that disappointed me. There could also be a big difference in your CGC experience if you've only dealt in Moderns. I haven't submitted any Moderns yet, so I don't know.

Jrdawg · Post by **Jrdawg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:55 pm

Jrdawg · Post by **Jrdawg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:58 pm

Just got the books back from that order.

Plat= 9.6 (oh well, I was planning to keep it anyways)

A&A 0 Gold= 9.6

EW#1 Gold= 9.8 woot! I may sell this one cuz I only wanted a 9.6

Only bummer I got was Xmen Annual 11, which got a 9.4. I need a 9.6 if anyone has a nice copy.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:20 pm

stumpy wrote:
wallywest wrote: If some inconsistency like you claim comes to light (and I believe it absolutely will if it is there), I fell confident the market will dictate that CGC go away.

I just find it hard to believe that there is any kind of bias like your referenced way back up the chain here that the market has not caught on to. Maybe I am naive . It wouldn't be the first time.
If you haven't heard of complaints about CGC or any of the stuff I've mentioned, take note of it now. Unless they get more consistant or reveal their methods, it's only going to get worse, IMO. CGC is still relatively new to the hobby. Newer collectors accept them. Old farts like myself look at them with skepticism. Like I said, too many big name dealers have too much to lose to complain about CGC at this point in time. You have to look at the whole spectrum of the hobby, weigh CGC's pros and cons, and see how it reflects on your own collection. Do you feel good about CGC because you own slabs? What do you have to lose by not liking CGC? IMO, the jury is still out among knowledgable collectors.

Hey there....I'll ask you directly....are you the user formerly known as Vault-Keeper?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:23 pm

Jrdawg wrote:Just got the books back from that order.

Plat= 9.6 (oh well, I was planning to keep it anyways)

That's a lonnnnnnnngggggg way from 9.9 or 10.

I hate to say I told you so, but......well, you know how the rest of that goes.

A&A 0 Gold= 9.6

EW#1 Gold= 9.8 woot! I may sell this one cuz I only wanted a 9.6

Flat? If it's flat, that's GREAT! That's a DAMN hard book to get in 9.8!

Only bummer I got was Xmen Annual 11, which got a 9.4. I need a 9.6 if anyone has a nice copy.

Annual 11 shouldn't be hard to find in 9.6 or 9.8. I'm certain I have a 9.8 around somewhere. I'll send it in, if you're serious about buying one.

Jrdawg · Post by **Jrdawg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:13 pm

Nope, its not a flat. I personally don't like the flat as much simply becasue it has a cover price. Odd, maybe but thats me lol.

I am 100% interested in the annual 11. Also a #10.

And I hope stumpy answers your question soon...before you have to ask again

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:15 pm

Jrdawg wrote:Nope, its not a flat. I personally don't like the flat as much simply becasue it has a cover price. Odd, maybe but thats me lol.

I am 100% interested in the annual 11. Also a #10.

Cool. I know I have 9.6 of Annual 10 and 11 (Annual 10 is one of my favs...Art Adams goodness....same with 9, 11, and 14.

)

I PROBABLY have 9.8s of both, too.

A 9.8 Embossed is still great!

And I hope stumpy answers your question soon...before you have to ask again

I already have my answer. I just wanted it on the record.

Jrdawg · Post by **Jrdawg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:14 pm

As far as the Platinum goes, although I'm a little disappointed it didn't get a 9.8+, its one of those books that most would look at and not be able to tell the difference between this and a 9.8 and since I wasn't grading to resell(unless it WAS a 9.9 or 10), it will be loved in my collection.

eternalwarrior · Post by **eternalwarrior** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:51 pm

The difference between a 9.8 and a 9.6 is such a magically thin line.
I only send in books that i cannot find anything wrong with. One little spine ding and it's out. One little corner blunt and it's out. If it looks like someone breathed near it once it's not going. Basically, Anything and it's out/
I recently sent in 10 books and 8 came back 9.8 ,1 9.6 ,and 1 9.4(must have been something on the inside that i missed)
I have never gotten a 9.9 or a 10.0. I think you have to slide a benjamin in the middle of the book to get a 10, and i can't justify the extra cost.

Jrdawg · Post by **Jrdawg** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:52 pm

wallywest · Post by **wallywest** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:07 pm

stumpy wrote:
wallywest wrote:
stumpy wrote:It is run by humans. Your books are graded by humans. Humans make mistakes EVERYDAY.
I referenced (or at least tried to reference) human error in my post noting that I make changes in my own grading. When a company uses multiple graders, there HAS to be consistency issues. However, I believe these inconsitencies should be limited to a reasonable normal variance in grading. Ideally, a professional company should push that consistency to a new level.

The issue I am having a problem with is the notion that a Modern gets special treatment over a Golden Age book (I would expect the exact opposite if there is actually a difference), or that a Marvel would get preferential grading over a DC. That would have to be a company policy, and that would get out into the marketplace sooner or later.
I also believe that their inconsistencies should be limited, but WHO is holding them to it? It's not like you can watch or comment over their shoulder as they mishandle or misgrade your book.

Who is holding them to it? The same person that holds every business in a free economy accountable...THE CONSUMER. If the product sucks, people won't pay. This is not an company like the power company or the airline industry where you can deliver a crappy product and still have a market. This is, dare I say, at the extreme end of discretionary spending. I can't believe a product that is that inconsistent from a company that seems corrupt would have any takers

Jrdawg · Post by **Jrdawg** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:09 pm

Wish I could change the title of this topic to "9.6...dare I say 9.8!??"

Chiclo · Post by **Chiclo** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:13 pm

If the option to edit the first post is available to you, you can.

When you edit the topic, you can edit the subject. I did that with my "Nuclear Option Revisited" which now languishes in obselescence with the title "The Nevermind Option Revisited". I still maintain my needs list in that first post.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:14 pm

Jrdawg wrote:Wish I could change the title of this topic to "9.6...dare I say 9.8!??"

You can.

Just edit the original post.