I purchased a Venom 3 PGX 9.8 last year on ebay. I cracked it open to eventually reslab with CGC. The cracked PGX slab had 2 tiny creases which broke color and I thought the best i could do was probably a 9.4 or 9.6. The CGC grade of the book just showed up on the website and it is a CGC 9.8. I didnt know you could get a CGC 9.8 if there are color break. Interesting result.
Because CGC is horrible at sticking to their own grading standards…
As long as you don’t get invisible “light bends”, then spine tics are absolutely fine for 9.8.
The invisible light bends will drop you down to 9.2
If that book in the PGX slab was 9.8 already, CGC would have given it a 11.0
I get that CGC want to keep some of their standards propriatry, but the lack of transparency causes so much confusion and bad press I wonder if they could be a little clearer. I, for example, probably wouldn’t bother submitting a modern with two colour-breaking tics unless it had some super-high value - as I would assume it would be 9.4/6 max
I got a 9.4 from CBCS with a “check make” because of a very light bend along the back cover…not color breaking only visible in bright light at the right angle…
If I crack it and send to CGC or PGX bet I get a 9.8…tempting to try.
CGC you might get a 9.9 or 10.0… do it!
The recent problem with CGC is not necessarily they grade higher or that they grade lower. It’s as if they throw a dart at a dartboard to determine grade. You can get a CGC 9.8 on that CBCS 9.4; or you can get a CGC 9.0.
One has no idea what you’re going to get other than reasonable and within a reasonable range. That is the problem with them as of late imo
I watched an unboxing video the other day of a CBCS submission. On a few of his Silver age books, CBCS had ‘exceptionally white’ on the label, describing the pages. Have you ever seen that before, DRog?
Edit - here is the video with the CBCS ‘exceptionally white’ labels. I’m not sure where the first one is, but the second one is at 44:00, near the end of the video…and no, I don’t watch 45 minute unboxing videos, I fast forward to the grade reveals.
Sounds like a toothpaste ad. “Get your comics and teeth exceptionally white!”
Could the decline in CGC standards have anything to do with Steve Borock leaving CGC for CBCS?
Hmmm… an investigation worthy of Batman…
There shouldn’t be color breaking anything on a 9.8.
One very subtle bindery defect is the only thing permissible in a 9.8.
They added this a few years back, it’s mainly for older comics (pre-1975) which used newsprint and are now really rare to find with true white pages.
Borock left CGC 13 years ago. That wouldn’t give CGC an excuse for the most blatant mess ups they have pushed out over the past few months…
You got lucky, which really shouldn’t exist in the grading world. All my submissions have been spot on though and I sometimes wish they would overlook a tick here or there
My Teen Titans #12 for example has a colour breaking spine tick you can barely see that came back a 9.6 and the difference in value between a 9.6 and 9.8 is huge but that grace grade could also be an issue if I decide to sell one day.
Many people are now ignoring the grade on a slab and looking at the book themselves so even if it says 9.8 on it but the book has a colour break tick or other defects you could lose out on a sale or get a low ball offer which I’m in agreement on, I’ve passed on purchases of 9.8 books due to similar issues. While CGC says its a 9.8 it’s not to me and so I’ll rather buy a book I feel is worthy of a 9.8
Had an interesting debate with a guy recently about what is and isn’t permissible on a 9.8
The conversation took a turn where we were discussing the degree of variation within the grade, which can be exaccerbated by manufacuting defects .e.g. spine burn. On reflection though, in practice how much variation should there really be when the gap between 9.0 and 10 has been subdivided into .2, .4, .6, .8, .9 and 10. Surely with that degree of precision we should all know that a book at a particular is or is not allowed to have certain defects.
I see see people referring to the Overstreet guidance about allowable defects. I think these people forget that CGC, CBCS and PGX have not indicated that their grading system conforms to the Overstreet guidance.
I 100% agree.
I was being facetious at CGC’s expense