Post by G on Jan 10, 2013 1:58:56 GMT -5
Being I'm working heavy on Ebay these days, I've graded about 800 comics in the past few weeks and most of the time it was pretty cut and dry and I felt pretty confident about my grading or at least, my grading is at least I feel consistent. By that I mean, it may not be up to CGC standards or a nitpicky person's standard, but what I mean is, by MY standards, I've gotten consistent I feel at seeing a book and applying a grade and I have seen and graded so many books lately that I feel depending on the level of damage, I am consistent on where I place said book.
Let me try and clear that up a little more. Lets say we have 5 books that are in reality 6.0 (by my standards). I'm feeling like there is a certain amount of damage at that (And all other) levels and when I see said amount of damage or defects, I think I am pretty consistent on where I place said book. I feel like I would place 4 or all 5 of those books at 6.0. If there is a variance or one or two I missed, I feel like I would be within point 5 (.5) of the other books. Either I would grade the one I missed a 5.5 or a 6.5.
To me, that is my ultimate goal. That when I grade, I think people's ideas about grading vary. So I have agonized over quite a few of my books. Yes, I'm a lot faster at it, but some books make me think hard what I should grade it. Usually if I wrestle between 2 grades, I'll opt for the lower grade and play it safe unless I can convince myself to do otherwise, which is rare. Anyway. what I'm leading up to, is my goal would be to be with .5 of customer's standards and if there is a complaint and I get a return, if I ever have it graded, my goal would be within .5 of what CGC would grade it.
Anyway, for the most part I breeze through most grades but there are times I am confused what I should grade it and I probably won't think of many examples now, but I'll try and give a few and if I think of more situations, I have this thread to refer to.
I think it's easier to grade straight up defects like creases, stress marks, rips, etc. That's when I get consistent. But let me give an example that to me is hard. Let me also say I do have an Overstreet grading guide and I reference it a lot. But some times things get vague. Or sometimes, I'm not sure I agree with what they are saying. Let me give some examples:
Say you're dealing with a book that looks high grade. Say VF+. The book is flat and clean, has no outward defects, it's basically pretty and then as you inspect the book, you notice a detached staple. I'm not looking at my book right now, but I do know when you look at the grading guide, it references a detached staple as something like a 3.0 maybe a 4.0 (Again, I'm looking at it at the moment, I'm going by memory).
So this is where I have a hard time. Because in reality, this book looks great. When I think 3.0 - 4.0, I'm thinking pretty beat up book. So lets say we have this VF+ looking book with a detached staple. Am I supposed to drop it down it 3.0 or 4.0?
That seems extremely harsh for a book that looks almost perfect otherwise.
Lets take the same book and lets say there is like a 1/2" rip on the back cover. Same thing, is this now dropped down to a low grade just because of it???
See, I think where the Grading Guide lacks is they don't give point values for defects. Instead they give you a grade and a overall description. And say for instance, they talk about 4.0. They give you all these things that can be wrong with it at that grade including (as an example) detached staple. Well, when you add up all the possible damage they reference for 4.0, I'd be quite alright with dealing with a comic that LOOKS 4.0 and it has a detached staple. But when a book looks almost perfect or is perfect otherwise, I don't feel like it's right to knock the book down that hard just because it has a detached staple and the rest of the book LOOKS ALMOST PERFECT! To me it doesn't make sense.
This is where I find the Grading Guide severely lacking. I think they should have a point scale for various defects. Says as an example, detached staple gets a (-2 or a -2.5) mark off. I'd say that is a lot more fair. Because now my 8.5 is going to end up either a 6.0 or a 6.5. It doesn't seem right to take a almost perfect looking book and drop it to say 3.0 because the staple is detached. It's just me. If the book looks 3.0 likewise and has a detached staple. No problem. It's in line!
I hope I'm making myself clear here. I'm not sure I am.
Other examples. High grade book and there is a moderate stain on the back.
High grade book and a 1" tear. Am I supposed to drop a near perfect perfect book down 6 or 7 points because it has one 1" inch tear and looks perfect otherwise?
I'd rather see a point scale something like this....
Tears
1/8" tear -.5
1/4" tear - 1.0
1/2" tear -1.5
1" tear -2
2" tear -3
4" tear -4
This is all hypothetical and I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass. I'm not saying this is the number mark offs I want. I'm just giving an example of what I'd like to see in a grading guide.
There needs to be better reference than an overall description and describing what lies within that grade. To me, its too vague. It works great when the rest of the book meets their description. Where it doesn't work, when the rest of the book is otherwise great or nearly perfect.
I remember a few years ago, I bought and old Silver Age book that was being described as something like FN/VF (7.0). The book was from like 1962. So I buy the book and I get it and I'm decently happy at first with the book. It's a pretty accurate description. And then I notice a detached staple. You know I could have bitched. But I didn't. Because I thought the book looked as described (if not better). And the Grading guide was saying something like this falls in the GD/VG to VG range. I just didn't feel that overwhelmed by this damage. So I didn't complain. Well now years later, I'm about to sell said book and it looks 7.0 - 7.5. It's pretty attractive. Naturally I'm going to tell a potential buyer in my advertisement that it has a detached staple. Damn, do I need to grade it now as a 3.0 - 4.0? It just seems too harsh on an otherwise well graded book. I'd feel more comfortable calling it a 5.0 - 5.5 now or something like that. But I'm sure if I sold it as such, someone would go ballistic about the detached stable and would expect some type of refund.
I hate using detached staple so much. I can think of other things in the same type scenario. Like clipped coupon. Bottom edge slight water damage (minor waving). Rips. Stains. Stress marks. Damn, wish someone would make a scale again....
Minute to slightly noticeable - .1 per each stress mark.
slight but with color break to moderate with no break - .2 per each stress mark.
moderate stress mark no color break to large stress mark no break -.3 per stress mark matching this description.
Large stress marks period -.5 per large stress mark.
Again, just an example. That's the problem with CGC. They dont reveal to you what they took off for. I've heard you can find out graders remarks, but they ain't going to break down for you how that factor's into their scoring system. The best way to figure it out is to pay attention to you defects and see how they grade it or pay attention to a LOT of graded books and take a lot of note of the defects and how their grade came out. I think there should be a lot more transparency there.
Any thoughts on what I'm saying here?
Let me try and clear that up a little more. Lets say we have 5 books that are in reality 6.0 (by my standards). I'm feeling like there is a certain amount of damage at that (And all other) levels and when I see said amount of damage or defects, I think I am pretty consistent on where I place said book. I feel like I would place 4 or all 5 of those books at 6.0. If there is a variance or one or two I missed, I feel like I would be within point 5 (.5) of the other books. Either I would grade the one I missed a 5.5 or a 6.5.
To me, that is my ultimate goal. That when I grade, I think people's ideas about grading vary. So I have agonized over quite a few of my books. Yes, I'm a lot faster at it, but some books make me think hard what I should grade it. Usually if I wrestle between 2 grades, I'll opt for the lower grade and play it safe unless I can convince myself to do otherwise, which is rare. Anyway. what I'm leading up to, is my goal would be to be with .5 of customer's standards and if there is a complaint and I get a return, if I ever have it graded, my goal would be within .5 of what CGC would grade it.
Anyway, for the most part I breeze through most grades but there are times I am confused what I should grade it and I probably won't think of many examples now, but I'll try and give a few and if I think of more situations, I have this thread to refer to.
I think it's easier to grade straight up defects like creases, stress marks, rips, etc. That's when I get consistent. But let me give an example that to me is hard. Let me also say I do have an Overstreet grading guide and I reference it a lot. But some times things get vague. Or sometimes, I'm not sure I agree with what they are saying. Let me give some examples:
Say you're dealing with a book that looks high grade. Say VF+. The book is flat and clean, has no outward defects, it's basically pretty and then as you inspect the book, you notice a detached staple. I'm not looking at my book right now, but I do know when you look at the grading guide, it references a detached staple as something like a 3.0 maybe a 4.0 (Again, I'm looking at it at the moment, I'm going by memory).
So this is where I have a hard time. Because in reality, this book looks great. When I think 3.0 - 4.0, I'm thinking pretty beat up book. So lets say we have this VF+ looking book with a detached staple. Am I supposed to drop it down it 3.0 or 4.0?
That seems extremely harsh for a book that looks almost perfect otherwise.Lets take the same book and lets say there is like a 1/2" rip on the back cover. Same thing, is this now dropped down to a low grade just because of it???
See, I think where the Grading Guide lacks is they don't give point values for defects. Instead they give you a grade and a overall description. And say for instance, they talk about 4.0. They give you all these things that can be wrong with it at that grade including (as an example) detached staple. Well, when you add up all the possible damage they reference for 4.0, I'd be quite alright with dealing with a comic that LOOKS 4.0 and it has a detached staple. But when a book looks almost perfect or is perfect otherwise, I don't feel like it's right to knock the book down that hard just because it has a detached staple and the rest of the book LOOKS ALMOST PERFECT! To me it doesn't make sense.
This is where I find the Grading Guide severely lacking. I think they should have a point scale for various defects. Says as an example, detached staple gets a (-2 or a -2.5) mark off. I'd say that is a lot more fair. Because now my 8.5 is going to end up either a 6.0 or a 6.5. It doesn't seem right to take a almost perfect looking book and drop it to say 3.0 because the staple is detached. It's just me. If the book looks 3.0 likewise and has a detached staple. No problem. It's in line!
I hope I'm making myself clear here. I'm not sure I am.
Other examples. High grade book and there is a moderate stain on the back.
High grade book and a 1" tear. Am I supposed to drop a near perfect perfect book down 6 or 7 points because it has one 1" inch tear and looks perfect otherwise?
I'd rather see a point scale something like this....
Tears
1/8" tear -.5
1/4" tear - 1.0
1/2" tear -1.5
1" tear -2
2" tear -3
4" tear -4
This is all hypothetical and I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass. I'm not saying this is the number mark offs I want. I'm just giving an example of what I'd like to see in a grading guide.
There needs to be better reference than an overall description and describing what lies within that grade. To me, its too vague. It works great when the rest of the book meets their description. Where it doesn't work, when the rest of the book is otherwise great or nearly perfect.
I remember a few years ago, I bought and old Silver Age book that was being described as something like FN/VF (7.0). The book was from like 1962. So I buy the book and I get it and I'm decently happy at first with the book. It's a pretty accurate description. And then I notice a detached staple. You know I could have bitched. But I didn't. Because I thought the book looked as described (if not better). And the Grading guide was saying something like this falls in the GD/VG to VG range. I just didn't feel that overwhelmed by this damage. So I didn't complain. Well now years later, I'm about to sell said book and it looks 7.0 - 7.5. It's pretty attractive. Naturally I'm going to tell a potential buyer in my advertisement that it has a detached staple. Damn, do I need to grade it now as a 3.0 - 4.0? It just seems too harsh on an otherwise well graded book. I'd feel more comfortable calling it a 5.0 - 5.5 now or something like that. But I'm sure if I sold it as such, someone would go ballistic about the detached stable and would expect some type of refund.
I hate using detached staple so much. I can think of other things in the same type scenario. Like clipped coupon. Bottom edge slight water damage (minor waving). Rips. Stains. Stress marks. Damn, wish someone would make a scale again....
Minute to slightly noticeable - .1 per each stress mark.
slight but with color break to moderate with no break - .2 per each stress mark.
moderate stress mark no color break to large stress mark no break -.3 per stress mark matching this description.
Large stress marks period -.5 per large stress mark.
Again, just an example. That's the problem with CGC. They dont reveal to you what they took off for. I've heard you can find out graders remarks, but they ain't going to break down for you how that factor's into their scoring system. The best way to figure it out is to pay attention to you defects and see how they grade it or pay attention to a LOT of graded books and take a lot of note of the defects and how their grade came out. I think there should be a lot more transparency there.
Any thoughts on what I'm saying here?
