CBCS vs CGC1957
 Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer I've looked at many of them, and I'm aware of what you're talking about. Again: you cannot accurately assess the condition of comics...especially comics with reflective plastic covers like these...from a scan or picture. These pictures cannot accurately depict the condition of plastic through two more layers of plastic and then a layer of glass (either the camera lens or the scanner bed.) I assure you, these books aren't being "gift graded" throughout the entire print run, despite how the pictures look. |
||
| Post 226 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Granted all these pics have different lighting. But you're telling me that there's a chance its just all in the picture, and that these books covers could be in the same condition? That it could be plastic reflection? An artifact on the slab? I enjoy arguing with you Doc, but thats going a bit far on this. I'll take the book on the right every time    |
||
| Post 227 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Yes. That's exactly correct. No one should be making judgments about the relative conditions of these books if they're not in hand. If you're interested, you can go to the Collector's Universe (PCGS) site and explore around...you'll find some interesting topics on the difficulty of photographing metal and metallic objects. Quote: Originally Posted by sb The pictures on the left are from scanners. The pictures on the right are from cameras. That's 95% of the difference, if not all of it. |
||
| Post 228 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So what is glarigly obvious to me, you see as nothing; and the only way to know for sure is to hold the books. Given that this started with a statement that CBCS would not overlook defects where CGC would, the only other way to know for sure is find a CBCS foil book that looks battered like this in high grade. I contend that there arent any, and would gladly concede the entire argument should anyone produce one. |
||
| Post 229 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer That is not an accurate assessment of what I've said. I didn't say it was nothing; I said it is likely nothing, but that you really cannot tell without having the slab in hand. I've scanned thousands of books, including hundreds of chromium/foil type books. Those covers which are reflective present a special problem, because they alter the scanner light in unintended ways, highlighting and magnifying some flaws, and hiding others. Here's an example of how the scanner glass can affect the image:  Awful looking, right? That slab is sitting right here, as beautiful and pristine as can be. But the scan looks like crap (mainly because my assistant didn't check.) You're not seeing books that are battered. You're seeing pictures of books that are a function of the limitations of scanning. Quote: Originally Posted by sb First completed result under "rebirth foil CBCS 9.8":   |
||
| Post 230 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I dont see the spine damage on the cbcs as I do on the cgc. However, in regard to the "scratches" and general beat look, point taken! |
||
| Post 231 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer On that note, why anyone would try to sell a book using beat pictures like that if the book is actually clean, is beyond me  |
||
| Post 232 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @shrewbeer One of the reasons I still don't own any of these books. Do they look awful in hand? I have no idea. Do they look awful on eBay? Yes. And since as an internet buyer that is all the information a have to go on, I'll pass. If the sellers want to move these books they need to figure out and overcome the limitations of their imaging techniques (if those limitations exist). | ||
| Post 233 • IP flag post | ||
 I live in RI and Rhode Islanders eat chili with beans.
|
esaravo private msg quote post Address this user | |
| In my opinion, just another reason to avoid foil covers. | ||
| Post 234 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Kaleljll private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I actually have one of the superman #1 foil that's a 9.8 from cgc. It looks pretty damn good to me. I will post a pic of it later. I'm going to a movie right now otherwise I would do it now | ||
| Post 235 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by esaravo The Do You Pooh foil books don't have issues. Of course, those variant covers had much lower print runs. I currently have one in at CBCS being graded. Considering sending in another one once I get the 2 orders I have "processing" back. |
||
| Post 236 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
JWKyle private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Jesse_OI just want to get back to this point real quick. I would love to hear or watch a panel with CBCS going through a grading seminar. This is something that should be recorded and put on the web page or youtube channel. |
||
| Post 237 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
dpiercy private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Those DC Rebirth foil variants from the 2016 look like excrement. I have not heard from anyone who has good, clean copies. I have owned one and seen dozens...excrement. | ||
| Post 238 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Kaleljll private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I don't know if this question has been asked yet but I want to get back to the point of this thread, CGC vs CBCS. What is it that makes the CBCS cases different from CGCs that you don't have to re-slab the CBCS books every 7 years? | ||
| Post 239 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Kaleljll The 7 year reslabbing was all about refreshing the Microchamber Paper. CBCS has never used it, and as far as I've heard CGC has also stopped using it in their new slabs. | ||
| Post 240 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Resurrection private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrownThis is absolutely insane. |
||
| Post 241 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Resurrection Only to the slabbing generation. If you think that is "absolutely insane", I'm not sure I'd want to know what you consider worse. Over the top hyperbole aside, the reality is as I've explained already, that the flaws which make up a 9.0 aren't substantially different from the flaws that make up a 7.5...especially if those flaws are not viewed as major by one set of graders, and are considered "grade killers" by another. In other words, a weak 9.0 vs. a strong 7.5. VF/NM to VF-. That's all we're talking about, here. Frankly, nearly 18 years into the slabbing era, I'm amazed that there's even controversy about that. The real controversy is the price differences paid, which quite obviously greatly exaggerates the perception of differences in grade. |
||
| Post 242 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
 |
||
| Post 243 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It's a three grade difference by today's standards. We aren't living in the past. | ||
| Post 244 • IP flag post | ||
 I had no way of knowing that 9.8 graded copies signed by Adam Hughes weren't what you were looking for.
|
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Resurrection The differences between a 9.8 and a 9.6 could be limited to a single tiny defect. The difference between a 9.6 and a 9.2 can also be very subtle. However, the differences that drop a book below the 8.0 Very Fine level include some fairly significant flaws that would not be acceptable on a 9.0 book. To say that it isn't a big difference between a 9.0 and a 7.5 book (especially when buying raw books) would seem to indicate that you are going to lose money on quite a few of your acquisitions. |
||
| Post 245 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DarthLego 1. Those aren't "grade" differences. They are grade intervals, A grade is "Very Good" or "Very Fine" or "Near Mint." As such, it is a 3/4 grade interval, not "three grades." 2. I'm not sure who your "living in the past" comment is directed at. Those are the standards, today, as defined by the OPG and the major grading companies, and which have essentially been the same since the mid to late 90's, when Overstreet abandoned the 100 point scale, in favor of Zurzulo's 10 point scale, which CGC adopted from the outset. Listen...I sympathize with those of you who have allowed the sometimes lunatic price differences influence your perception about grade differences. I really do. A single color breaking spine tic on an otherwise flawless book does not, logically, mean that book is now worth half (or less) what the same book without that spine tic. I get it. The market, unfortunately, likes things easy, and those numbers are what people react to. That's a shame, because it creates an imbalanced perception of the differences in actual condition that make up those grades. That's been true since slabbing really became legitimate in the mid-80's. |
||
| Post 246 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by drchaos Again...while ADMITTEDLY BROAD (emphasis added), the difference between a 9.0 and a 7.5...especially a WEAK 9.0 and a STRONG 7.5...as evidenced by the Showcase #55 which started this discussion...is just not that great. A weak 7.5 vs. a strong 9.0? Now we're talking different ballparks. |
||
| Post 247 • IP flag post | ||
|
I had no way of knowing that 9.8 graded copies signed by Adam Hughes weren't what you were looking for.
|
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Different sport altogether |
||
| Post 248 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
| And...while many of you may not be aware of this, not having had a legitimate competitor for most of CGC's existence, there is a sub-market that develops when people get a real handle on the differences between one grading company and another, and play to those differences to their advantage. That is, someone may take that 7.5 Showcase #55, cross it to CGC, and get a 9.0, and do quite well. Now, granted, this is mitigated to an extent by the fact that Steve Borock was the principal at both companies from their founding...but, Steve hasn't been at CGC since 2008, 9 years, and Litch and Haspel and others have certainly drifted away from Borock's particular views. Doesn't make anybody wrong...it just means knowing what bothers one company that wouldn't bother the other, and vice versa. With coins, this happens all the time. Again, it's a function of the unreality that the market exists in. |
||
| Post 249 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by drchaos I guess. lol Sports analogies aside, it would definitely be to one's advantage...either as a collector, or a flipper, or investor...to keep an open mind about grading differences, and realize that, because it's subjective, there really can be (and are) books that are graded 9.0 by one, and 7.5 by the other, nothing having happened in the interim, and neither are wrong. Closing one's mind off, and saying it's "absolutely insane" to say that the difference between a 7.5 and a 9.0 isn't THAT great assures that one will always have to rely on what other people say his book is, rather than knowing for himself. I've subbed thousands and thousands of books, both raws and CPRs. I've subbed to CGC, and I've subbed to CBCS. The amount of times I've had books go down in grade upon resubmission I can count on one hand. The amount of times I've had books just stay the same I can count on the other. I've got dozens that have gone up, and sometimes quite substantially. 8.0s that became 9.4s, and 8.5s that became 9.6s. Why? Because I'm magic? No...because I recognized STRONG books, with easily repaired "flaws" that had a tremendous upside potential. The great deal of success in this market is knowing what the graders look for, and playing to those to your advantage. |
||
| Post 250 • IP flag post | ||
|
I had no way of knowing that 9.8 graded copies signed by Adam Hughes weren't what you were looking for.
|
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I am not saying that a 9.0 book in the eyes of one person could not be a 7.5 book in the eyes of another person but at the end of the day the true grade of the book is what it is regardless of perception. With that being said a 7.5 book graded accurately should not be mistaken for a 9.0 book by a knowledgeable grader. |
||
| Post 251 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by drchaos What is the "true grade" of a comic book? Who determines that? All grades are arrived at by consensus. The graders have to agree, and the customers have to agree. If the customers don't agree...whether the submitter of the buyer or the slab....then it doesn't matter what the graders think. The "true" grade is whatever the current owner thinks it is, right...? Quote: Originally Posted by drchaos I'd say 87% of the time, you're absolutely correct, and the general consensus agrees with that. But there exists in that 13% a reasonable subjectivity, for strong 7.5s (which certainly exist) and weak 9.0s (also extant), and the personal foibles of the people grading the books. Ultimately, it's what makes the madness of paying these price differentials so stark. It's not the grading that's out of whack...it's the prices. |
||
| Post 252 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Just gonna leave this here for sh*ts |
||
| Post 253 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'm still not sure why some of you are talking about "the past." These are issues as they stand, today, and going forward. Can anyone explain why they think someone is "living in the past"? What past? How so? |
||
| Post 254 • IP flag post | ||
|
I had no way of knowing that 9.8 graded copies signed by Adam Hughes weren't what you were looking for.
|
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Back in the 1980s and before we had Mint, Near Mint, Very Fine, Fine, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor as the grading levels anyone cared about. I think VF/NM. VF/F, and VG/G may also have been grades then as well. Anything from a 9.2 to a 9.6 was considered Near Mint and people were very happy to have those 9.2s in their collection. Now everyone wants 9.8s and perhaps 9.6s or even 9.4s depending on the book. Those 9.2s that were help dear in the 1980s are now red headed the stepchild from the viewpoint of the modern collector. I think that is what the other poster means by you "living in the past". |
||
| Post 255 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.