Across The Street, They're Giving Out 9.9's & 10's Like Candy At Halloween20950
 I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers).Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Jgwalters100 Strange is ok. A statement that they want a Walt Simonson "The Thing" sketch on a sketch cover; but worried it wouldn't come out right because not sure walt ever drew the Thing is ... ummm.... yea. Nevermind. Be nice |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
 Please continue to ignore anything I post.
|
southerncross private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Pre 1975 books in at least 9.8 grade are extremely hard to find. I've looked at multiple copies of the same book, unread and uncirculated and stored in one place for decades and finding a lone 9.8 is almost impossible out of a stack of 30-60 copies. To find a supposedly 9.9 is humanly impossible. All have slight flaws such as not all corners are sharp, Some with a slight bump or corner break putting the book to a 9.2-9.4. Manufacturing defects like a mis wrapped cover or the printing finishes just short of the cover. Staples not shiny and a little opaque. Copy after copy I see flaw after flaw. Don't get me wrong, they are pretty books and if they're like this. What's the odds these books were sent to a newsagent instead of bought off the distributor and accumulating more damage from shipping and then finally handled in the spinner racks.  So out of 40 books I found this.   Now I didn't press it. Maybe others may have got that with a clean press and starch but in the end it's what a grader sees with flaws. That Giant size X-Men 9.9 has a miss wrapped cover which is a manufacturing defect. The highest grade a manufacturing defect copy can ever get is a 9.8. I'm sure there are runs of issues off the printers that may all have a manufacturing defect so no copies ever can grade higher then 9.9. The sad thing is comic books in 9.2 are in very high grade when you think about it. A non comic book collector if shown a raw 9.2 would ithink the book has either been just printed or it's been very well cared for and is perfect. Combination of bragging rights of having the highest grade and having a comic book registry set to compete against other collectors has caused insane prices in the highest grades and the lone highest grades. When money is involved the sellers will be happy with prices realized and grading companies will be happy for the extra work and the higher the value the more they charge for grading. If the hobby begins to think maybe 9.9s can be attainable at cgc then how many 9.8s will make it back to them to be graded and gambled for 9.9s |
||
| Post 27 • IP flag post | ||
 Not trying to be an ass since February 12, 2020.
|
HulkSmash private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GAC I’m one of the least experienced here and I don’t get it. I do have a CBCS 9.9 (which is awesome), but I literally cannot tell the difference between the same book I had in a 9.8. Honestly I think it’s either mint condition or not. If we are going to have grades higher than 9.8 then it should be reserved for the cream of the crop and truly rare. IDK I give up. |
||
| Post 28 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
BrianGreensnips private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DrWatson That's a great book! |
||
| Post 29 • IP flag post | ||
 I've spent years perfecting my brand of assholery.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I wonder who bought the 9.9? I wouldn't be surprised if Metropolis didn't buy it themselves. | ||
| Post 30 • IP flag post | ||
 You think I'm joking, I'm not.
|
earthshaker01 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Normally, I only collect pre-1970, but there are rare circumstances I get something newer. In this case because I collect old Gold Key comics, that when the company started up again in 2023 and they were paying homage to the 1966 title, I bought their first new series and their variant covers. Keep in mind although new, I still pressed these books before they left my house. Would they have gotten these grades without a pressing, who knows?  |
||
| Post 31 • IP flag post | ||
 would be nice to have a snugger fit.
|
Sigur_Ros private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by southerncross Not true. You're describing a 10.  |
||
| Post 32 • IP flag post | ||
 I like bean sprouts.
|
James42 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So CGC used to have one sliding scale where, based on the age of the book, the more defects they would ignore. Now they seem to have another based on how good a customer you are. I am so glad not to be obsessed with grades (graded books in my collection range from 3.5 to 9.8), as it makes collecting books I want much cheaper. Does it present well? The I'll take the 8.5/9.2/9.6 at a huge discount. Or the 4.0, really. |
||
| Post 33 • IP flag post | ||
|
I've spent years perfecting my brand of assholery.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Sigur_Ros That's not the way it used to be. Of course it's easy to change the rules when you're the one writing the rule book. Steve Borock has said many times that one thing that distinguished 9.9s and 10s from 9.8s was the absence of manufacturing defects. Steve Ricketts has even said the same thing in regards to CBCS grading. Allowing manufacturing defects in those grades is just another way to flood the market with incorrectly or overgraded books for short term gain. The sole purpose of looser grading standards on 9.9s and 10s is to increase submissions. That was point of the GSX #1 9.9 drama from the outset. |
||
| Post 34 • IP flag post | ||
|
I like bean sprouts.
|
James42 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Overstreet allows manufacturing defects in a 10.0, but they must "be imperceptible on first viewing." They are similar on a 9.9. One of the issues we as collectors face is that there is no one standard between the accepted experts in the field of grading. It could be argued that there isn't one standard at CGC. You need to determine what you are willing to pay based on the trust in the organization and your own determination of what the grade of the book should be. I don't trust CGC. I don't think the 9.9 GSX deserved a 9.9. I don't think I will be buying any 9.9 CGC books in the near future, simply due to that lack of trust. |
||
| Post 35 • IP flag post | ||
 I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
| With the influx of 9.9s and 10s from CGC....(and apparently only CGC)....obviously something has changed there.....looser grading standards or grades being purchased from specific clients with a dabble of gift grades to commoners so not to appear favouritism is at play....either way, something changed there. | ||
| Post 36 • IP flag post | ||
 " . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Sigur_Ros Correct, and also somewhat obvious as applied in other collectibles since “mint” denoted (within coin collecting) the state of the coin prior to circulation. Within coin grading, an error will of course not hurt its grade. A defect from the striking process will still result in a mint condition coin, but can result in a lower sub-grade within mint. There are differences between coins and comics, but the same logic applying makes sense. So it makes sense for some minor printing defects to be allowable in the two “mint” grades. I believe this is, or borrow’s from, Overstreet’s scale. Not new in any event, so this isn’t some new CGC “thing”: 10.0 GEM MINT (GM): An exceptional example of a given book - the best ever seen. Only the slightest bindery or printing defects are allowed. Cover is flat with no surface wear. Inks are bright with high reflectivity. Corners are cut square and sharp. Spine is tight and flat. Staples must be original, centered and clean with no rust. Paper is white, supple and fresh. No interior autographs or owner signatures. 9.9 MINT (MT): Near perfect in every way. Only subtle bindery or printing defects are allowed. Cover is flat with no surface wear. Inks are bright with high reflectivity and minimal fading. Corners are cut square and sharp. Small, inconspicuous, lightly penciled, stamped or inked arrival dates are acceptable as long as they are in an unobtrusive location. Spine is tight and flat. Staples must be original, generally centered and clean with no rust. Paper is white, supple and fresh |
||
| Post 37 • IP flag post | ||
 It gets old smelling it everytime I go outside my door.
|
Nearmint67 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DrWatson This is where the rubber meets the road. Steve was one of the founding fathers if you will regarding the standards in comic book grading. He and Marc Haspel interviewed many of the biggest dealers asking them what they would grade a variation of books from poor to mint. After compiling the consensus, he and Marc created the standards in comic book grading when they began CGC. When Steve left and started CBCS the standards went with him and were no longer present at CGC. He strived for a better product for our hobby. Thus CBCS has the best comic holder in the market. And he imparted the established grading standards to the CBCS graders there today. It is sad that CGC has fallen to this new standard of their own. And for no other reason except greed for money that will only harm our hobby. Those without knowledge in our hobby will be taken for unwarranted amounts of money that most will never recoup. |
||
| Post 38 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I really don’t think there is an issue with allowing minor mfg defects in a 9.9… the criticism would be on consistency. Then the question becomes a) the application of the standard (are they adhering to it) and b) consistency of the standard. Both are implicated now with CGC. They were not (apparently) adhering to that standard and had created false scarcity for 9.9 and 10.0 books, by not applying their own criteria properly. Now they’re applying the standard, which means there are 9.8s that “should be” 9.9s or 10.0s. The cynic (and most here rightfully are) points to the business implications - more $ for resubmits. At a time when subs have dropped significantly as the flipper/spec market cooled. The other piece is the rigor of the grading itself. Especially because now we have an intersection of modern books with 9.9/10.0 potential… and we know they will be graded by the least experienced graders and in the largest quantities. Personally, I think the ultra high grade area of the market is generally silly. Especially for modern books. False scarcity. Buyers of these books at those big premiums, that’s on them. There are many vested interests who will also raise concern, often unfounded, because now their high grade books will be overshadowed as books get regraded at these higher levels. But this is just noise as well. |
||
| Post 39 • IP flag post | ||
|
It gets old smelling it everytime I go outside my door.
|
Nearmint67 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Davethebrave This..... |
||
| Post 40 • IP flag post | ||
|
Please continue to ignore anything I post.
|
southerncross private msg quote post Address this user | |
| The problem is the 9.8 grade. Other grades are pretty much cut and dry. On a perfect book that has just one or two very very minor wear flaws the book is a 9.8. Except when the book only has one very very minor wear flaw. That puts it at the borderline 9.8-9.9 In the past I'm assuming that CGC erred on the side of caution and assigned the 9.8 grade. Rarely assigning the 9.9. Maybe this will change or maybe it won't but for submitters the perception to them maybe be more 9.9s. The other grades are a lot easier because once a perfect book with say three very minor wear flaws is automatically a 9.6. And from there down the grades are easily and more transparent to see when graded correctly. Now if a unicorn appears in the form of a giant size X-Men That has one very very minor flaw and gets the 9.9 nod with a perfect square bound wrap. This book will be more pretty looking and... Well the cycle of third party grading continues |
||
| Post 41 • IP flag post | ||
|
HAmistoso private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Post 42 • IP flag post | ||
|
I like bean sprouts.
|
James42 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Davethebrave I disagree with the "false scarcity" assumption. I don't agree with Matt Nelson's assumption that there "should be" more 9.9 and 10.0 books in existence. One, because there are too many variables to consider, and two, because the production process for comic books is not now and never has been designed to produce "perfect" books. I have no problem with the assumption that instead, there are books out there where no copy is a 9.9 or 10.0 (or even 9.8, 9.6, whatever). Whatever we may think as collectors, comic books are meant to be disposable items. They get treated that way right until the point we get our hands on them. |
||
| Post 43 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by James42 Of course there should be more 9.9 and 10.0 books. Based on the criteria you would expect more books that are as they came from the printer. Especially once hoarding books and storing them carefully became a thing. There is a very good reason a grading company would prefer to give out fewer 9.9 and 10.0s… because eventually the supply of vintage books that have true scarcity and a wide range of grades, will be largely exhausted. By having a smaller number of 9.9 and 10.0 grades, you create scarcity and thus value. It becomes a bit like a lottery, encouraging people with modern books to submit not on the basis of protecting a valuable “thing” but on the hopes of getting a windfall… if there were more 9.9 and 10.0 grades, the lottery aspect diminishes. In any event - I agree with the idea there should be many more 9.9 and 10.0 graded modern books. Especially 9.9 graded, as you would expect many books out there in a condition matching when they were printed (equivalent of a coin being “minted”)… |
||
| Post 44 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Nice work CGC, doing the "right thing" 25 years later. I'm sure your customer base is thrilled. Why would anyone care their 9.8 from 1999 to 2023 is not necessarily accurate. . . . . . Jackasses |
||
| Post 45 • IP flag post | ||
|
I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This is all about CGC keeping books in their pipeline. They must have had signs of incoming business dropping off. This is why they authenticate signatures now as well. It brings previously graded books back...Qualified labels due to signatures can now get Universal label/grade and all those 9.8s that now have a higher chance of 9.9s or higher. | ||
| Post 46 • 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 Davethebrave I agree with most of what is said above but I will nuance it further. IMHO there is a huge difference between the early 1970's and the late 1970's. Until there were a good number of comic book stores and a direct distribution of comics from publisher to store, then I don't see much difference between book published in 1973 vs 1969. The first Overstreet Price Guide was 1970. The comic collecting hobby (and number of collectors) was still very small through 1974-1975. Around 1978 there were indeed collectors and dealers buying substantial number of books on spec - just to put back and wait. But before that there was no easy way - for most collectors or speculators - to order large numbers of new comic books. Nearly all were distributed they way they had been forever. From the publisher to regional distributors to grocery stores, drug stores and newsstands for sale on a returnable basis. There was a comic book store in here in Evansville Indiana in 1975. I remember the owner of the store - his mother in law was high up in management at the regional distributor. When X-men 94 came out it was instantly a $15 book at comic book stores. She let Steve in a night - for weeks -so he could go through the returned books looking for X-men 94. So.... the closer to 1970 the more it's like the 1960's and the closer 1980 it's more like the 1980's. |
||
| Post 47 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by IronMan Agree 100% |
||
| Post 48 • IP flag post | ||
 It's like the Roach Motel for comic collectors.
|
chester15 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| New month, new comparisons https://www.keycollectorcomics.com/category/categories-16,2370/issues/ |
||
| Post 49 • IP flag post | ||
 Masculinity takes a holiday.
|
EbayMafia private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by chester15 Do they ever explain the methodology by which the comparison books are chosen? Before results are known, or after? I’m not disputing the general premise, but I’m wondering if there is some mechanism in place that prevents specific cherry-picking after results are known. Because that would be like being both judge and contestant in a beauty contest. |
||
| Post 50 • IP flag post | ||
|
It's like the Roach Motel for comic collectors.
|
chester15 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by EbayMafia I don't see anywhere what the methodology is. I suspect the activity of the top contenders is ringing some bell of performance. Key Comics would probably consider their analytics to be proprietary, not likely to share. As it stands, it's only 1 company's opinion. |
||
| Post 51 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by EbayMafia There are data integrity and consistency issues throughout keycollector (and similar sites). An example in the Invincible 1 commentary: The highest CBCS 9.8 sale was $2,899 vs CGC 9.4 of $3,800, a difference of $901 (31%) |
||
| Post 52 • IP flag post | ||
|
It's like the Roach Motel for comic collectors.
|
chester15 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DavethebraveI'm wondering if that involved a typo, cuz they seem to go out of their way otherwise to find direct comparisons. |
||
| Post 53 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by chester15 Typo or not, it’s an error. They (and gocollect) have inconsistent data … consistently. |
||
| Post 54 • IP flag post | ||
|
It's like the Roach Motel for comic collectors.
|
chester15 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DavethebraveThat's on par with just about every company in recent times. No oversight, no proofing, no accuracy to begin with, and no accountability. Everyone just chalks it up as 'My bad". |
||
| Post 55 • IP flag post | ||
This topic is archived. Start new topic?