Lunchbox-migration

Why not? There you go big guy.

You've never heard me speak in your life. You'd love my accent. Latah!

Are you saying that you'd rather have letters than numbers represent the grades? No, I'd have both, like CGC used to. Why? (Obvious question) So obvious, in fact, there's no need to take the bait. It's obvious now that you think I'm baiting you but I'm not. You likely think so because that is the way you have discussions with people. With people like you, you mean. Go ask someone like Sha if this is how I have discussions with her. I believe I specifically said I'd have both numbers and letters on the label? Are you using a Senko rigged wacky style or a jig here? Did you mean Alpha here?

It's not heresy. It's simply not reality. There is an obvious visual difference between 9.0, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8. ..... Important note to myself: Never buy high grade books from anyone that thinks there isn't a need for a two point system above 9.0 How would my scale be any different? Two ways: get rid of the Gem Mint B.S label, Mint is fine, and I'd get rid of the split grades. Obviously accepting the removal of split grades would be the big problem. But if you were to accept it, nothing much else would change. You'd still have NM+ (9.6), NM (9.4) and NM- (9.2). They just wouldn't be actual tenths of grades anymore, they'd be regular ("lower") grades. But they're still basically the same thing. Your scale is fine till you get to higher grades (9.0) and at that point there is a need (at least in my opinion) for a finer division of grades. It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly". You can stand back and say how far do you think that is? Someone might say "about a yard". Get a little closer and it might be "two and half feet plus or minus" and so on, but as it gets more refined it's going to get down to "Two feet seven and 7/8"" Of course if it's something that can be measured more precisely it should be. That's where I'll give Bookery some credit. It's a paper product. The scale should only be so fine. Once there was a 100 point system. It was way to fine for comic books, but to say there should only be three grade points in the higher end is not logical. It is finer than that and physically measurable. Good post. I don't totally agree, but that's... okay.

Are you saying that you'd rather have letters than numbers represent the grades? No, I'd have both, like CGC used to. Why? (Obvious question) So obvious, in fact, there's no need to take the bait.

Are you saying that you'd rather have letters than numbers represent the grades? No, I'd have both, like CGC used to.

It's not heresy. It's simply not reality. There is an obvious visual difference between 9.0, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8. ..... Important note to myself: Never buy high grade books from anyone that thinks there isn't a need for a two point system above 9.0 How would my scale be any different? Two ways: get rid of the Gem Mint B.S label, Mint is fine, and I'd get rid of the split grades. Obviously accepting the removal of split grades would be the big problem. But if you were to accept it, nothing much else would change. You'd still have NM+ (9.6), NM (9.4) and NM- (9.2). They just wouldn't be actual tenths of grades anymore, they'd be regular ("lower") grades. But they're still basically the same thing.

I'm guessing you don't own any Wizard First slabs?

It's obvious a real 10 point system (20 point system) doesn't really work for CGC, as they had to manipulate it to fit their business model and add 5 more grades. The tenths of a point you mention, the awkward 1.8 grade crowbarred in, and the ignoring of the lower grades (Fair+ is a real grade folks) are a few examples. My problem is also with split grades, and using them in conjunction with the "+/-" grades. Split grades were invented in the 90s by dealers who either a) couldn't grade that well or b) were trying to get more for a book than it was worth. Every time I saw a "VF/NM" grade in CBG I'd laugh. There is (was) no grade between VF+ and NM-. If you can't decide if a book is a NM- or a VF+, it's a VF+. Before CGC, if you bought a book that was VF/NM, it was usually closer to VF(+) than NM(-), no? Yes. Just another way for a dealer to "hype" his book by getting the term "NM" into the grade somewhere/somehow. I'd much rather have a 20 point system like this: 10.0 Mint 9.5 NM+ 9.0 NM 8.5 NM- 8.0 VF+ 7.5 VF 7.0 VF- 6.5 Fine+ 6.0 Fine 5.5 Fine- 5.0 Very Good+ 4.5 Very Good 4.0 Very Good - 3.5 Good + 3.0 Good 2.5 Good- 2.0 Fair+ 1.5 Fair 1.0 Fair- 0.5 Poor Makes much more sense to me, but then again, I'm a collector and don't profit at all from selling any comic-related product.

Only because they were stupid. Yes, multiple instances of solid 'shilling' evidence by a major hobby player is stupid. Yes, stupid. Your moral compass is wound too loosely. compass' get wound? u don't know bedrock very well, do you? You don't know that post was a parody of Matt Nelson's classic "your moral compass is wound too tight" do you?

Only because they were stupid. Yes, multiple instances of solid 'shilling' evidence by a major hobby player is stupid. Yes, stupid. Your moral compass is wound too loosely.

Confirmed on these Boards by Halperin himself: "My partner Steve Ivy and I own a minority position in CGC -- entirely non-voting stock." http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=34395&Number=625815

And when is lou_fine going to show up? This thread is tailor-made for him!

We all know Doug had them. And, as I said, the assumption is that they were pressed. But Masterchief's chart offers no definitive proof of which specific ones were pressed or unpressed. It only shows the before and after grades. And a large percentage of the grades did not change. So, again, what purpose does it really serve other than to show that Doug resubmitted those books? If CGC hadn't nuked the relevant threads, you'd be able to put this info into a better/larger context. We both read those threads. Why don't you put it into a better/larger context for the newbs? Heck, I'd love to see what better/larger context it could be put into. Yes, let me summarize a thread that went for months and contained huge amounts of data and hours of hard work into a nice little one-post package for you. As I mentioned, I could do what you ask if CGC hadn't nuked the threads.

We all know Doug had them. And, as I said, the assumption is that they were pressed. But Masterchief's chart offers no definitive proof of which specific ones were pressed or unpressed. It only shows the before and after grades. And a large percentage of the grades did not change. So, again, what purpose does it really serve other than to show that Doug resubmitted those books? If CGC hadn't nuked the relevant threads, you'd be able to put this info into a better/larger context.