newshane

I am saying you have to HOLD THE BOOK IN YOUR HAND to determine the differences between 9.8s, 9.9s, and 10s. It is not something you can glean from a scan. It's easy enough to understand the definition of a 9.9. I think you get that. But your assertion that you don't have to actually see one to know one does not apply in this instance. You can distract with black holes and ancient's praising mastodons all you want. But it doesn't negate the fact that the differences are so freakin' minute, that you really do, honest-to-Thor have to make that determination by actually looking at the book...and looking VERY freakin' carefully. As for what's going on with the CGC, I can't answer for them, so why should I try? But EMPIRICAL observation and statistics tell that this doesn't add up. I thought it was given knowledge that there should be more 9.9s out there.

This might not be the right hobby for you then.

Truth. Oh man....

And I have no clue why you guys are talking about the relationship between rarity and value. That's a given fact and has NOTHING to do with this argument at all.

The problem is that their definition of a 9.8 over the years is too broad - spanning from color-breaking spine tics to nearly perfect (9.9) books. I don't think it's "artificial" or corrupt, although it could be. I think the problem is how they've been defining the top three grades over the years. I'm also confused as to why books with miswraps or off-white pages can get a 10.0...but whatever. Your belief doesn't alter the FACT that there should be far more 9.9s given. I've seen and held and graded books that came back 9.8...that were just as good if not better than some of the 9.9s I had in slabs. But you're a pro...even though you've probably never even held a 9.9. I've owned scores of them.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF CONTENTION.

Good luck spotting a 9.9 or a 10.0 based on a scan. The difference between a 4.5 and a 6.0? As long as there are no hidden defects or interior issues, that is quite a bit easier to do.

Grading from a scan is an exercise in futility. I guess it's better than nothing though.

If you don't submit, then perhaps you have owned a 9.9. How many? How can you make your assumptions without owning and observing books that have been awarded 9.9s? To run with your analogy, how can you make "pertinent observations" about basketball without attending games or watching them on TV? Of course people who submit and buy hundreds of high grade slabs are going to have the edge when it comes to these sort of observations. You are grasping at straws at this point.

I'm not arguing against that idea. Higher quantities would make them less valuable. Of course. The argument is that there SHOULD BE MORE 9.9s awarded. If that makes them less valuable, so what? It doesn't mean that the expectations for a 10.0 would be lowered. You can't lower the expectation for "perfect." Gem mint implies perfect. There is no such assumption with a 9.9, which can still show a single flaw.

Precisely.

I'm not sure if you are correct with this assumption.

They are not easing up on anything. A 10.0 is a 10.0. The argument is that more 9.8s should be 9.9s.

They aren't really that rare though. Not in reality.

It might work that way for you, but not for me. A 10.0 would be true flawless. It's either a flawless book, or it isn't. There is no more wiggle room to wish at that level of the scale.

Not at all. The expectations for a 10.0 would remain nearly impossible. The truth is simply that the CGC should be awarding far more 9.9s than they do.

I couldn't make it through the trailer.

RE: Overstreet Guide...they should make an electronic version with ultra-high res scans of their examples. The ability to zoom in and out would be so very helpful. My decaying vision makes it difficult for me to see the fine details on the page.

No. That's absolutely normal. I recommend The Overstreet Guide to Grading Comics. They don't line up perfectly with CGC's unpublished standards, but Overstreet's guidelines have been around much longer, and it seems to be the reference point for most dealers of raw comics. From there, you can start to figure out the differences as you buy more and more slabs. Make the appropriate mental adjustments, send in a few pre-screens or subs, and take notice of what happens. Over a few years, you will hone your skills to the point where you can land within at least a full point, if not a half a point, of where it will land in Sarasota. Follow the link below and invest the time and money. It's a great reference. Available at Amazon

Don't get me wrong...the way they are grading these days...it would probably not get a 9.8. I wonder if they've "adjusted their standards" to pump up their pressing service. *foil hat*(?) But, for a wide swath of their existence, they sensibly allowed a single, minute color-break on an otherwise perfect book to wear the badge of 9.8. That's a really tiny flaw...camera makes it look worse oftentimes. I'd say your good, especially if the rest of the book is clean. 9.8s may look perfect at first glance, but they are not.

I also think that the CGC is too shy about giving out 9.9s.

A 9.8 can absolutely have a "color breaking spine crease", particularly when the rest of the book is more or less perfect. It just can't have one in combination with a variety of other flaws.

BINGO! Plenty of 9.8s with those sort of breaking tics have rolled through the CGC, especially back in the day.

I live in Nashville...that's where the director grew up. Went to school with one of my best friends. Used some locals in that film. You know the scene where the two brothers start beating the out of each other? One of those dudes came to one of our gigs...bowing and beating his fists on the floor. There are a few others. There are some scenes which are EXTREMELY difficult to watch. Others are very amusing. It's a rough movie. He also did KIDS...which was a disgusting flick. All sorts of exploitation in his grotesque work. NOT SAFE FOR WORK