Grading Companies3754
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 I would appreciate it very much if you would stop trying to interact with me. You don't post in good faith, and everything you post with respect to me is disingenuous, designed only to cause trouble. Thanks. |
||
Post 226 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by comic_book_man Ah, that's right...that's the book you're selling, right? Big difference between 9.6 and 9.8 for that book. I wouldn't worry too much about online assessments. It's impossible to grade a book from pictures/scans, even the best scans/pics. I believe that this book would do best as a CBCS VSP candidate. |
||
Post 227 • IP flag post |
![]() |
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Would you prefer I talk about you behind your back like you do about other people here on other message boards? |
||
Post 228 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown I concur. To quote Jean Luc Picard, "Make it so." Seriously, that PGX slab is wack dog. ![]() |
||
Post 229 • IP flag post |
![]() |
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 I'm guessing the answer to my question is a "no". Interesting, but not at all surprising. |
||
Post 230 • IP flag post |
![]() |
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by poka Maybe, but I'm just wondering if he advised his client to give full disclosure. It's an honest question and I'm a little surprised I was the first to ask it. |
||
Post 231 • IP flag post |
![]() |
comic_book_man private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by DarthLego Yep, that's the one! I have a few other PGX in my collection I should be selling off soon before I move on to my CGC/CBCS, and my whole lot of rare Pokemon cards from the 90s - at least a couple thousand $ in there from my early price checks. Thanks mom for buying me cards!! ![]() I thought about getting it CBCS graded(which I imagine would be 9.6 - 9.8 range - prob 9.8 IMO), but CSA just can't validate the Trimpe signature - it's way to unique from the backing board cut out that if it wasn't witnessed by PGX(or any 3rd party for that matter) at the Comic Cons I don't think anyone could validate it. I mean it has a section that is literally cut off and he had to write his last name below his first name. It's obviously not a forgery as I could probably do a Herb Trimpe "traditional" signature with a sharpie right now better than that LOL - but it's just unmistakably unique. Len Wein is also a little scrunched from the board. The original owner had a 9.8 he cracked out...so he didn't leave much space on the backing board cut out for rough signer fingers - let alone want anyone to breath on it or even look at it funny. ![]() Had I been the original owner I would of given ample space for signing and probably gone with CGC at the time, even if it cost me $1300+ for pressing and grading. CBCS was too new back then, so I can see how he didn't really consider them quite yet. I don't know if I buy into the whole VSP thing personally(at least for high grade collecting) - if I'm going to get a signature it'll always be witnessed to remove any doubts. But then again, I'm not a big signature collector in the first place, so witnessed or not I don't really care a ton. I enjoy the art more than anything. Other than a high grade Captain America #3 signed by Stan Lee - that's my wet dream book. ![]() I think it's cool that PGX and CBCS offer signature validation services, and I don't want them to get rid of it, but I've just read to many stories about how "validating signatures" had negative impacts on other markets like sports and such. A signature is to easy to fake, and then for all the bad guys you catch, you also lose out on some authentic ones...like when Tom Brady sneezed while he signed it, or maybe he had an itch on his nose, etc. LOL ![]() ![]() ![]() I've seen probably like 30 Stan Lee signatures in my day, that if they weren't witnessed...Jesus they were so so so so sooooooooooo terrible. No way they pass any authentication anywhere. I even remember seeing a CGC SS one that was missing Lee! LOL it just said "Stan" with a line under it. Where Lee went, nobody knows...and once they screw up...that's that. They aren't going to write their name twice unless you paid for it, let alone try to write over their first screw up and make things worse. Speaking of Len and Herb... I can't remember which one it was, but my brother-in-law and I were talking to them both back in 2012 at an Albuquerque Con while they were signing our Hulk 181s(some mid grade 6.0 - 8.0s)...one of them HATES, not dislikes, but HATES people who are just there for his signature - which I can't blame him whichever one of them it was. That's all he talked about, lucky for us we didn't care if he handled our books, we were just fanboys with smiles on our faces "seeing legends". He said he only did it for the money, and didn't care if he roughed them up a bit. GAH I WISH I COULD REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS. I'll ask my B-I-L this weekend... driving me nuts right now. ![]() Anywho, time for bed. Night all. ![]() |
||
Post 232 • IP flag post |
![]() |
poka private msg quote post Address this user | |
@comic_book_man cbcs has outsourced the signature verification part to another firm - not sure whether they work exclusively for cbcs though. http://www.csacomics.com/cbcsabout.htm |
||
Post 233 • IP flag post |
![]() |
poka private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 Well - that comment earned me a red card in the form of 4 PMs with increasingly interesting language - well to be fair, 3 of them were in response to my reply lol - from the person who needs to chill out, go to bed and hopefully have a better day tmr |
||
Post 234 • IP flag post |
![]() |
comic_book_man private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Odvar But anyway, we can discuss my comic for sale back in the Hulk #181 9.9 thread if anyone has interest. We should probably get back to @Odvar original post - have we discussed the companies in depth enough to give you some ideas? ...and to answer your questions specifically yes, PGX's old labels are the worst in history - however, their new ones are a nice copycat of CBCS/CGC(a lot more professional, cleaner, appealing). The community will agree that CBCS/CGC are the most trustworthy and professional, so stick to them if you got the cash. As for PGX...they offer new similar services to CBCS, cheap pricing, and fast turn-times...but they have a questionable past in regards to restoration detection and bias grading for some guy named Leder - you'd have to google him for more details - or read the posts about it in this thread(believe or don't as you see fit). CBCS and CGC services, pricing(CBCS a little cheaper), and turn-times are about the same. CGC offers Magazine size grading(CBCS doesnt), but CBCS has a signature authentication service(CGC doesnt) - so it sort of balances out depending on your need. |
||
Post 235 • IP flag post |
![]() |
poka private msg quote post Address this user | |
@comic_book_man I have bought PGX in the past and will continue to do so going forward. I always apply a risk discount though - taken it for granted that they overgrade and for a period allowed restored books to pass. To be fair to @DocBrown - once you have got caught with your pants down - very difficult/impossible - to rebuilt your reputation - so doesn't really matter that I am seeing an increasing number of pgx books where restoration is declared - I will always suspect a pgx book to have been restored whether declared or not | ||
Post 236 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by comic_book_man There's a lot to be discussed about grading in general, and its various ins and outs. It's a fascinating subject, full of endless side avenues and issues. For example: the prices achieved during the 2006-2009 period for graded books...especially the ultra high grade late Bronze books...weren't real. ![]() That's a topic that probably deserves its own thread, though. |
||
Post 237 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by comic_book_man That would be Len. Herb never had a problem signing books. Len doesn't understand that people who are "just there for his signatures" can also be fans. He thinks anyone getting a book slabbed is just doing it to sell the book and profit off of his signature, which is quite obviously not true. |
||
Post 238 • IP flag post |
![]() |
comic_book_man private msg quote post Address this user | |
OK OK OK! NOW I REALLY NEED TO GO TO BED...I mean it this time. @odvar - please let us know if you have any other specific questions not already addressed by this 10 page thread! ![]() |
||
Post 239 • IP flag post |
![]() |
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 This really is a valid point. Presenting what "was" CGCs opinion rather than what "is" CGCs opinion in order to maximize profit is certainly deceptive practice. It suggests to the buyer that they could get a 9.0, while knowing its not a possibility. |
||
Post 240 • IP flag post |
![]() |
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer While the seller omitted valuable information from the buyer (yes seller did something wrong) I have to give more of the blame to CGC on this one. If their grading on the same books is between a 7.5 and 9.0 they are not providing a valuable service. Perhaps the book was damaged in this time and is not longer a 9.0 but if any of that damage was caused by CGC it would also be a failure to provide a valuable service. |
||
Post 241 • IP flag post |
![]() |
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by poka PGX has been caught self dealing (giving themselves inflated grades). There were multiple threads with the details on the CGC forum. If you do buy a PGX book, look at it and buy it as though it were a raw book. Keep in mind that you also bear the risk of undisclosed errors to the interior of the book or incomplete restoration check. |
||
Post 242 • IP flag post |
![]() |
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by drchaos I think it was said that CGC changed their opinion on tanning, thus the lower grade now |
||
Post 243 • IP flag post |
![]() |
CFP_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Not just tanning, you can add stains and foxing to the list. That's why you cannot just look at the structure of a book, you have to take into account every issue. I would like to add CBCS has also taken this same hard line approach, which every grading company should. |
||
Post 244 • IP flag post |
![]() |
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CFP_Comics Absolutely agreed. CBCS currently has two GA books of mine that would be high grade (If we ignored the foxing and sun shadows). They are considerably less desirable to me, and they deserve to get hit hard on the grade. |
||
Post 245 • IP flag post |
![]() |
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer I know that I personally wouldn't advertise or sell a book in that fashion. It really seems kind of ( for lack of a better word ) sleazy. |
||
Post 246 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Here's the relevant post that addresses this, post #200 earlier in this thread: Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown And, of course, this same overreaction can be seen today. What changed about the book that would affect the grade downward? Nothing. The book was structurally better than before, and had the same tanning it had when the book was in its 9.0 slab, and, more importantly, when it was originally graded a 9.0. Yes, of course, one has to consider ALL aspects of a book, not just its structure, and no one's said any differently. However...as mentioned above, it is not only TOTALLY OK to disagree with a grading company's grade, it is ESPECIALLY so when they don't even agree with THEMSELVES. If you have a book you think is overgraded...is it unethical to sell it, without disclosing YOUR opinion...? Of course not. In that case, you're selling the grading company's opinion. Is it unethical to crack a book and then sell it for the grade YOU think it is, without disclosing what a grading company's opinion may have been? Nope. Not in the slightest. Is it unethical to crack a book and offer it for the highest of the three different grades a grading company gave it, without disclosing the two lower grades? No. Not at all. That's because they are opinions, not laws of physics. Remember: the book WAS a 9.0 already, as it existed, in the state it was in, tanning and all. If CGC changes their stance on a flaw...and they have in their history, several times...that doesn't therefore render that original opinion invalid. Which was "the right" grade...? 9.0? 7.5? 8.0? 9.2? The answer is all of them and none of them. They're OPINIONS, not mathematical formulas. And there's nothing to say that CGC, or anyone else, won't change their standards again...that's the evolving nature of grading, especially over a span that is now nearly two decades. I see 9.8s now that have color breaking spine tics. That wasn't the case before, but apparently, the standard has been loosened (and I don't just mean "and the book is otherwise perfect", either.) I have books that are in 9.6 cases that I think are 9.8s. I have books in 9.8 cases that I think are 9.6s. I have books that went from 9.4 to 9.8, having nothing happen in between but a different set of eyes on a different day (in this case, a couple of years apart.) I've had books that went from 9.6 to 9.4, despite having subtle flaws pressed out. Again, different eyes separated by a couple of years. Are any of those wrong? Nope. They're just opinions. Would I like the best possible outcome all the time? Of course. Only fools wouldn't. But I recognize that these are just opinions...and, occasionally, I have challenged those opinions, and sometimes they agreed with me (most of the time; one must, as in football, be judicious with one's challenges) and sometimes they didn't. That's because they are opinions, not Commandments. When you are a slave to labels, you get hung up on these sorts of things, and don't understand that when you're dealing with opinions, it's OK to disagree, and not be "unethical", or whatever other character slur one may wish to cast on another. By the way...the buyer of the copy, I am told, was thrilled with his purchase, as he should be, as would I be. It was a stunningly gorgeous book. |
||
Post 247 • IP flag post |
![]() |
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
It is unethical to only disclose the high grade when you know that standards have changed and that grade is no longer the opinion of CGC. Unless a buyer is told the situation with standards changing, only disclosing the 9 is fraudulent, knowing that it wasnt possible for it to get that grade from them under current standard. If a book was graded thrice under the same standard, sure, only show the high grade. |
||
Post 248 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Why...? Because here's the fact: if the book was in a 9.0 slab, and CGC's standards changed, then that book moved from being accurately graded to OVERgraded...in CGC's current opinion...while in the slab that certified their opinion. Is it unethical to sell a slab that you believe would not grade the same at CGC today, because of CGC's changed standard...? No. Of course not. Because they are just OPINIONS. And that happens all. the. time. Books get entombed, and their sellers know there's no way on earth that same grade would be achieved on another go-round...so, the book ends up where it is, and no one touches it. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer How do you know it's not possible for it to get that grade from them? It's an opinion. Another set of graders...to whom tanning isn't that big a deal...could grade it that 9.0 again. So, do you know what the REAL solution to all of this is, the thing that will protect ALL buyers of slabs from being "deceived"...? Learning how to grade for themselves. If you learn how to grade, YOU can make the decision FOR YOURSELF if a book is overgraded, undergraded, or just right. You can make your OWN informed opinion about it. You won't have to use the grade on the label as a crutch, and the relationship between buyer, seller, and grading company becomes equitable. And I think that's a stellar goal. |
||
Post 249 • IP flag post |
![]() |
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Plain and simple, because by disclosing only the 9.0 it implies to a potential buyer that they could currently get that grade from CGC, which is false; CGC changed the standard. It's fraudulent. Though we are completely agreed, that all should do their best to learn to grade for themselves. |
||
Post 250 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer And here's another "ethical dilemma": if I get a grade I don't like...and I have...and I call up CGC and have them review it...and I have...and the book ends up in a higher grade slab than it was originally graded...am I now bound to disclose that it originally graded, say, 8.5, and I asked them to review it, and they changed the grade to a 9.0...? Shouldn't I have to disclose to any potential buyer that "CGC thought this book was an 8.5, but I convinced them to change their minds and make it a 9.0"...? After all, if the buyer cracked the book, and sent it back in to CGC, it could easily be graded the 8.5 they originally gave it, right...? Since that was their opinion in the first place...? Since, under the current standard, it probably won't grade the 9.0 it is now...? Obviously, the answer is no, it need not be disclosed. The book being discussed above was a RAW book. It was NOT in a slab. That carries with it the express idea that the grade it once received is no longer valid, and the book must be carefully examined by any potential buyer. And, to go down the rabbit hole even further, who's to say that that label belonged with that book...? Or, that the book didn't have some new hidden damage that wasn't obvious on sight, like an interior page torn...? By virtue of the fact that the buyer can SEE with his own eyes that the book is no longer in the slab, he'll have to inspect the book for himself, and form his OWN opinion. The old label serves only as it should have the entire time: a data point from which the buyer can make his own conclusion. "This is what CGC thought of this book at some point in its past. It's no longer a certified grade, but it gives you a starting point from which to form your own opinion." And that's what the buyer did, as I understand it: inspected the book, saw all its problems, considered the old label, and then bought the book at the price the seller accepted. The buyer could see the tanning with his own eyes (which, I will point out, isn't possible a lot of the time when a book is slabbed), and decided it wasn't a problem TO HIM. And that's how all transactions should work. |
||
Post 251 • IP flag post |
![]() |
conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user | |
A lot of y'all are going to look foolish when empty slabs start being bought and sold, for what they USED to hold. Ha Ha I mean, an empty slab, or just a label, with a label that states "CGC 6.5 Detective Comics #27 with off white pages" fets auctioned on Ebay and goes for $250.00 I say this over the top scenario, because I believe slabs do have an inherent value. I would pay more for the same book in a slab, as that book out of the slab. And cracked out books are sold quite often. Yes, I am paying for the grading companies opinion about the grade and the restoration check. But I am also paying more because the book is in a protective slab, and I don't have to go through the trouble of sending it in for that, and taking another chance on it being damaged during the two transits. And also, a pedigreed Church copy designated so in a slab, is more desired than a Church copy (insert whatever pedigree floats your boat) raw. Slabs have value, above and beyond the confidence you receive because they are slabbed. |
||
Post 252 • IP flag post |
![]() |
conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user | |
Another moral dilemma: If I sell a book raw, that was previously graded by PGX as an 9.4 Do I need to disclose that information, if I advertise it as "raw 9.2/9.4"? I haven't done that yet (I have never cracked out a book from anyone's slab), but it has crossed my mind as something I might want to do, because of the stigma attached to PGX in this hobby. |
||
Post 253 • IP flag post |
![]() |
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer That's demonstrably not true. How? Because having an old 9.0 label doesn't imply anything about the book as it stands at that moment: the book is RAW. The book is NOT SLABBED. Therefore, anything could have happened to the book...both positively AND negatively...that would render any such implication moot. Such an implication, if it ever existed, went right out the door the minute that slab was cracked, and buyers generally understand that. Once the slab is opened, any "guaranty" as to the certification of that particular grade for that particular book, express OR implied, is gone. IN FACT...there's no such implication even while the book is still IN the slab. SCS, water damage, heat damage, light damage...many things can happen to a book while still in the slab that have a negative impact on its condition. Certification only means one thing: that was their opinion of the condition of that book on that day it was graded. There is no guarantee that any book will grade the same upon resubmission, regardless of why. Once it's cracked, the label merely becomes "this is what the grading company thought of this book at a specific time in the past." There is NO implication that it would grade the same now, because we're dealing with opinions. And every buyer of every slab should know and understand that before buying. If a buyer believes that the book COULD grade the same, that's their choice, and their right...but there is no guaranty, express OR implied, that covers that. If the buyer INFERS that it would grade the same upon resubmission, they don't understand how certification works, and are acting in ignorance. The back of the labels say (or said) this grade represents an OPINION. If it is only an opinion while ACTUALLY IN THE SLAB, how can anyone reasonably say that a label from an OPENED slab implies anything about how it would subsequently grade? |
||
Post 254 • IP flag post |
![]() |
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer It's really amazing to watch people jump through hoops to justify what most would consider unethical sales tactics. If the label is only an opinion and doesn't matter, why use it to aid in the sale of the book? If I were the buyer and I found out about its history I would be pretty upset and would never do business with that seller again. How far a jump is this from the people who crack out plod's and sell them as unrestored? |
||
Post 255 • IP flag post |
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.