CBCS vs CGC1957
 Ima gonna steal this and look for some occasion to use it!
|
IronMan private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by poka Well - people might be happier now with CGC grading notes. Now that CGC has caught up and even surpassed their TAT, they are doing lots of grading notes. The disadvantage with CGC vs CBCS on grading notes is that they are only available - for free - to the submitter. If you didn't submit the book - under YOUR CGC account - then notes are not free. They are available for purchase. CBCS has grading notes for free to anyone online. BTW - I'll introduce another thought here. Almost every positive has an unintended consequence that isn't always so positive. I've seen both grading companies - CBCS since they opened their doors and CGC when they are either caught up or have hired new graders - do more lengthy grading notes on 9.4 and better books. IF YOU ARE SELLING such books, this isn't always a positive. What appears to be a long'ish list of very tiny defects on a NM(+) slab makes it look less desirable to potential buyers. "Look at all those defects...clearly overgraded". I've observed this phenomenon several times now at CL auctions where a CBCS book in 9.8 with graders notes that list a 2-4 tiny defects sells for less than the CGC 9.8 with no notes (common on CGC books) literally 15 seconds apart. |
||
| Post 201 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
fingfangfoom private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Right now, until this issue is resolved clickable text I wouldn't even consider utilizing CGC. |
||
| Post 202 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by fingfangfoom "What I don't understand is that I have NEVER seen the prism effect on PGX or Voldemort slabs." They call CBCS slabs "Voldemort"?!   .. nothing short of awesome, total compliment LOL I know I digress but thanks for the link and the laugh  |
||
| Post 203 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
fingfangfoom private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Forum rules do not allow for CBCS discussion or images to be posted so the "Voldemort" pseudonym was adopted. | ||
| Post 204 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @shrewbeer CGC banned the name CBCS from their forum, so the members came up with the code word Voldemort (he who shall not be named). | ||
| Post 205 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Maybe Im too much of a nerd but Im finding that funny on so many different levels | ||
| Post 206 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @shrewbeer it's hilarious, which is why they do it. | ||
| Post 207 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by IronMan This is a fantastic point; as we move further away from entire generations of people learning how to grade on their own, and relying entirely on the grading companies to tell them what grade these books are in, you will see this more and more. Example: Silver Surfer #35 (1990) "That's a 9.8? The notes say it's got rippling!" Not knowing that many newsstand Marvels from that era (1989-1992) have rippling to one degree or another, because that's how they were made. A perfectly flat Silver Surfer #35, for example, probably doesn't exist outside of a press. But, because of grader inexperience, and buyer inexperience, they'll see such a note and say "wha...?? How could that book be a 9.8?? It's rippled!!" and we arrive at these problems. |
||
| Post 208 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown I think it could be.....if one were to deduct ".2" points with each defect found. Ex. I submitted a "stand alone" Valiant Heroes Special (1996) to CGC and rcvd a 9.6. Why? Clearly, I found at least two defects on the book....and those could have probably been pressed out....but that was before I heard of the technique being used before grading. Anyhow....I do believe the "rippling" defect could only be a ".2" and if the only defect....resulting in a 9.8 grade. IMO - the more different defects found, the lower the grade. It sort of is an easy method to "subjectively" grade from a personal perspective.....gearing towards "that will be the grade assigned if I were to submit." Cheers! |
||
| Post 209 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by ZosoRocks Right, but do you see the problem there? What is a "defect"? Is a 1/16" spine tic a defect? Sure. Is a 4" CB crease a defect? Oh yeah. The degree of defects is the issue, not the amount of defects. And the rippling I mentioned above isn't a defect. That's how they were made. |
||
| Post 210 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
OrbitCityComics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Just because it was made substandard does not make it mint. If all books show the same defect, and none grade above a 9.6, then that's the best book out there. |
||
| Post 211 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics Well, now we get back to opinion. If that's how all the books came...and they did...check out an X-Men #282 when you get a chance...then it's not wear, and it's not damage. Granted, I hear what you're saying...but that's not what the market says. |
||
| Post 212 • IP flag post | ||
 -Our Odin-Rest in Peace |
Jesse_O private msg quote post Address this user | |
Back in January, 2014, CBCS held a grading seminar down in Florida. It was attended by 20-30 people from across the USA and one guy from Spain. Reading this thread the last couple days reminded me of an article one of the attendees, Stephen Bagley, wrote for a newsletter that we did on the event for the Facebook Club. I think some of you will find it informative.  |
||
| Post 213 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jesse_O Thanks Jesse, that was quite informative. | ||
| Post 214 • IP flag post | ||
 I've spent years perfecting my brand of assholery.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
| That wasn't the throwing rocks I had in mind. | ||
| Post 215 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
| A big difference is the style of posting that is allowed on each company's forum. An example would be how NOOB's are treated. At CGC expressing an opinion as a NooB or asking a question that might have been asked 10 years ago will end up with a pile on of posters going after the NooB. That doesn't happen here. People seem more civil to one another here and the style of moderation has moved people in that direction if they stray from that path. I find that refreshing. |
||
| Post 216 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater +1 on that Tow. I'm relatively new and although very outspoken, most of the vets here have treated my lack of knowledge in some areas with respect rather than contempt. No reason for anyone to have contempt for each other; its bad for the hobby and there's relatively few of us that love books as it is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the mods here are great about keeping that theme in line (even if it means nuking my posts once in a while, its all good by me  ) |
||
| Post 217 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater Another great point Towmater..... We all were beginners at one time, having questions answered by seasoned vets is very helpful and should NEVER be looked down upon....especially when someone is only trying to learn something new. Shoot....even after 30+ years, I'm still learning, does that make me a "newbie"? If that is the activity on those forums - I don't even need to sign up....I already know I won't like it. Doesn't sound like people are willing to help others. That gets a "poor" mark from me. |
||
| Post 218 • IP flag post | ||
|
Ima gonna steal this and look for some occasion to use it!
|
IronMan private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Jesse_O All of that is good and excellent insight as to how CBCS looks at grading books from different eras. But that entire "throwing a rock and hit a copy without a miswrap has another side: Some books - modern books - are notorious for almost all copies having a particular defect. It is almost impossible to find ASM 361 that does not have cutting tears along the bottom of the book. I mean almost impossible. Look on eBay - lots of 9.8's with small tears along the bottom of the book. The Silver Surfer 35 was mentioned. Silver Surfer 44 is another. The book has a centerfold advertisement that is printed on completely different paper (glossy, close to cover stock) As a result no copy lays flat. Even pressing them it's hard to get them perfectly flat. And look at new comics today, right out of the box. Hardly any lay flat. Too much ink, full bleeds, paper to light weight. Light rippling from the moment the ink dried at the printers. So in situations where virtually the entire print run has a defect - the grading companies tend to give those a pass. IMHO - for the most part - I think it is correct to do so. |
||
| Post 219 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
dpiercy private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Where does it end on the production defects, though? The DC Rebirth foil variants from the cons that have all those spine dings and bends getting 9.8s is just ridiculous. | ||
| Post 220 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
jrs private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by dpiercy I haven't seen those books, but agree with this sentiment. |
||
| Post 221 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by dpiercy Excellent point! There's a line somewhere and the correct location of it is NOT here   ... I think CGC is considering "initial shipping and handling" defects here rather than production defects. And there are plenty of books that look MUCH nicer in the same grade. Eye appeal anyone? |
||
| Post 222 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Looking at a scan/pic is not an accurate method of assessing a book's condition. There are several factors involved which can affect a book's appearance in scans, especially books made with reflective metallic plastic covers like this: 1. Is what you're seeing an artifact of the scanner glass? 2. Is what you're seeing an artifact on either the outer slab or the inner well? 3. Is what you're seeing a function of light bouncing off a reflective surface? 4. Is what you're seeing a function of the book's manufacture, i.e., reflective plastic being folded, resulting in stress distortion, particularly at the staples? These books can really only accurately be judged in hand. |
||
| Post 223 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by dpiercy *holds his head in his hands* It just isn't FAIR!!! :o) |
||
| Post 224 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DocBrown look at a few on ebay, you'll see what we're talking about. There are some in 9.0-9.2 that look like they were dragged down a gravel street compared to others | ||
| Post 225 • IP flag post | ||
|
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 | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.