A Moment of Clarity399

Originally Posted by DrWatson
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stelbert_Stylton
Quote:

Originally Posted by spaulus
Quote:

Originally Posted by VintageComics
@comeaux

My man, I saw your post last night but didn't respond to it as I was pretty tired and wanted to think about my reply. It looks like the post was scrubbed.

The mods did remove a post in this thread. Posts are removed for vile language, personal attacks, or unacceptable behavior.

I saw the post. Which of the three reasons above was the post pulled? For criticizing CBCS or CGC?

Neither. It was more along the lines of a personal attack.

Originally Posted by Michael
That is the CBCS difference.

Originally Posted by DrWatson
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stelbert_Stylton
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrWatson
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stelbert_Stylton
Quote:

Originally Posted by spaulus
Quote:

Originally Posted by VintageComics
@comeaux

My man, I saw your post last night but didn't respond to it as I was pretty tired and wanted to think about my reply. It looks like the post was scrubbed.

The mods did remove a post in this thread. Posts are removed for vile language, personal attacks, or unacceptable behavior.

I saw the post. Which of the three reasons above was the post pulled? For criticizing CBCS or CGC?

Neither. It was more along the lines of a personal attack.

Ok Doc, I guess I'm not remembering the post that well. I was kinda baked when I read it.

There was a second post that got zapped as well. Again, a personal attack. I don't remember if it was in this thread or not.

Originally Posted by Nico
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc_1
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sqeggs
Mike,

It's great to see you make this public statement. There is a lot of useful information in your post.

Here's the thing, though: There's a widespread belief that CBCS consistently grades higher than CGC. A book that receives, say, a CBCS 6.0 will receive a CGC 5.0. A CBCS 9.6 might be a CGC 9.2.

To my mind, the gap between your grading and CGC's grading is the biggest obstacle to the growth of your company. Hardly anybody wants to deal in high-dollar CBCS books because they sell at a fluctuating discount to CGC books with the same grade. Not being able to get a fix on FMV of CBCS books makes me reluctant to buy them or sell them. For lower-dollar books, it doesn't make much difference. But for high-dollar books, it's a killer.

CGC is going through a major crisis because not only do their new slabs have presentation issues with Newton rings, but there is increasing evidence that they are actually damaging the books.

You have a heaven sent opportunity to expand your business.

But to do so I think you need to forthrightly address the grading issue.

I'd like to see examples that you are witnessing where CBCS is overgrading SA or GA books.

I know I have seen inconsistencies from both companies.

A couple of examples where I think CBCS was spot on with CGC.

Pedigree comics submitted a CGC Tales to Astonish 35 9.2. It came back graded a CBCS 9.2. Exact same grade,

The same thing happened with another book from that same collection from Pedigree comics. An Avengers 3 I believe. Same grade.

Where I believe CBCS is more lenient is on REMAINDERED books where the top 1/3 of the cover is off. They are higher than CGC on that.

Also, I recently saw a CGC .5 of a GA TEC that was split down the spine on all pages and cover and not held together....and it got a 1.8. That was shocking to me...I have to say.

But, I recall seeing books from CGC that have been graded 8.0 and they look like a 4.0.

Or a 9.8 that has multiple spine ticks.

Honestly, it's consistency for the most part. But both companies have their challenges on some examples i've seen. But with the majority of books i've seen from both companies they get the job done right.

I would like to know about CBCS stance on where they differ on CGC standards for items such as:

- CGC books that were .5s or NG that are now 1.5 or 1.8s...why or how does that happen?

- heavy extensive resto (like the recent Hulk 1 and SC4 9.8s). Why grade it when CGC won't. Curious.

Those are my main questions i'd like to see answered.

I believe That 0.5 That got an 1.8 has a sig on it, that was unvarified by cgc.
That suurely accounts for some of the bump in grade, 1.8 Seems High though. 1.0-1.5.
But we don't know the full graders notes of both companies.

Originally Posted by Stelbert_Stylton
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc_1
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sqeggs
Mike,

It's great to see you make this public statement. There is a lot of useful information in your post.

Here's the thing, though: There's a widespread belief that CBCS consistently grades higher than CGC. A book that receives, say, a CBCS 6.0 will receive a CGC 5.0. A CBCS 9.6 might be a CGC 9.2.

To my mind, the gap between your grading and CGC's grading is the biggest obstacle to the growth of your company. Hardly anybody wants to deal in high-dollar CBCS books because they sell at a fluctuating discount to CGC books with the same grade. Not being able to get a fix on FMV of CBCS books makes me reluctant to buy them or sell them. For lower-dollar books, it doesn't make much difference. But for high-dollar books, it's a killer.

CGC is going through a major crisis because not only do their new slabs have presentation issues with Newton rings, but there is increasing evidence that they are actually damaging the books.

You have a heaven sent opportunity to expand your business.

But to do so I think you need to forthrightly address the grading issue.

I'd like to see examples that you are witnessing where CBCS is overgrading SA or GA books.

I know I have seen inconsistencies from both companies.

A couple of examples where I think CBCS was spot on with CGC.

Pedigree comics submitted a CGC Tales to Astonish 35 9.2. It came back graded a CBCS 9.2. Exact same grade,

The same thing happened with another book from that same collection from Pedigree comics. An Avengers 3 I believe. Same grade.

Where I believe CBCS is more lenient is on REMAINDERED books where the top 1/3 of the cover is off. They are higher than CGC on that.

Also, I recently saw a CGC .5 of a GA TEC that was split down the spine on all pages and cover and not held together....and it got a 1.8. That was shocking to me...I have to say.

But, I recall seeing books from CGC that have been graded 8.0 and they look like a 4.0.

Or a 9.8 that has multiple spine ticks.

Honestly, it's consistency for the most part. But both companies have their challenges on some examples i've seen. But with the majority of books i've seen from both companies they get the job done right.

I would like to know about CBCS stance on where they differ on CGC standards for items such as:

- CGC books that were .5s or NG that are now 1.5 or 1.8s...why or how does that happen?

- heavy extensive resto (like the recent Hulk 1 and SC4 9.8s). Why grade it when CGC won't. Curious.

Those are my main questions i'd like to see answered.

I believe That 0.5 That got an 1.8 has a sig on it, that was unvarified by cgc.
That suurely accounts for some of the bump in grade, 1.8 Seems High though. 1.0-1.5.
But we don't know the full graders notes of both companies.

I don't think sigs on books that low grade affect the grade that much.

Originally Posted by VintageComics
It's been that way since Overstreet starting publishing grading standards. GA books were allowed larger defects than SA books in the same grade, etc.

Originally Posted by VintageComics
@comeaux

My man, I saw your post last night but didn't respond to it as I was pretty tired and wanted to think about my reply. It looks like the post was scrubbed.

I'm the dealer that has stated more than once that I've seen 1000's of CBCS books, and that I thought their early books were graded loosely and I still stand by my previous statement based on the high grade SA and BA that I saw at that time.

Bob Storms has also stated it on this forum last week and if you know Bob, he shoots straight as an arrow. We actually discussed it in detail two weeks ago in Orlando as we looked over many books together. I've also heard it from other reputable dealers.

I have friends at both companies but friendship and business are always difficult to separate.

I've been an exclusively CGC dealer because I have familiarity with the company (I've been submitting since 2003) and I believe in the product. But in running a business I have to use the service that I feel is going to make my business the most money.

You might find it amusing to learn that when I joined the CGC chat forum back in 2004 that I also stood up for PGX until I learned more about them. Everyone labeled me a PGX apologist back then too. lol

Since the higher end high grade CBCS SA and BA books I followed in auctions in 2014 - 2015 did not do as well as CGC books over all, I made a decision to stick with CGC early on. That being said, if i feel CBCS's grading has tightened up and I couple that with my concerns about the new CGC case, I may try them out. I've just been too busy lately to do some of my own research.

I don't follow auction results very closely anymore except for bigger books but I did hear about an Amazing Fantasy #15 CBCS 9.0 fetching over $230K in a recent Comic Connect auction. That's a monster result and speaks to how CBCS is being currently perceived and accepted in the higher end.

Originally Posted by nadabig
Was anyone else getting PMs from the trolls?

Originally Posted by comeaux

Well to be honest Roy, nothing in my post was directed at you at all. In fact since I’ve paid more attention to your posts at CGC forum, I’ve gained a lot of respect for you.

Originally Posted by comeaux

I do have a problem with people continuously stating that CBCS is loose when in fact there have been assertions from reputable members who claim just the opposite as they crack out their books and have found CGC to be VERY inconsistent while CBCS is more consistent.

Originally Posted by VintageComics
Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:

Originally Posted by VintageComics
Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown

But, no concrete examples of your "pressing as thread derailing theory", then?

"Team derail" was a commonly used term about a decade ago when pressing became the new hot button.

Some who were 'pro pressing' would regularly chime into pressing threads and 'derail' them using humor and other distractions and would take away from the actual discussion at the time.

It was well known and visible to anyone there at the time.

What Pov says has value. People with vested interests will weigh in on threads that contradict those interests and attempt to either stop them or curtail them.

And now that we've all derailed this thread.....

Ok, but that was over a decade ago, and that hasn't happened much since, because the pressing issue is relatively settled. Bringing up events that happened a decade ago, as if they're still a problem...is that realistic? Obviously, since I like to wander in conversations, I'm relatively sensitive to people complaining...and, thus, threatening my continued presence...just for being "off-topic." Really, if that's the worst offense someone makes, that's hardly worth getting upset about.

Yes, people try to derail. No doubt. But there's an easy solution to people trying to derail: you, the individual, just stay on-topic and don't get involved in the side chatter. Trying to get others to conform to what I think is or is not the "right way" to post is a surefire way of developing conflict.

And yes, there IS a difference between just being "off-topic", and purposely trying to divert a topic, but again, it's easily resolved by simply staying on-topic. Complaining about others being off-topic...as we are doing here...is just as effective at derailing a thread as the other derailers.

And, of course, there's the whole issue of perspective. What may appear to you to be one thing may not, in fact, be that thing at all.

Without wanting to derail this thread again,

The decade ago example was just one example.
It happens on various topics.
It still happens.

Originally Posted by VintageComics

Human nature doesn't change, just the situation.

Pov is a pretty perceptive dude with a wide range of perspective from what I know about him after posting 80,000 posts over 12+ years on the CGC chat forum.