VintageComics

That's a pretty good answer and one I hadn't thought of. Maybe that tradition does have a place for the time being.

You mean like, "Why stop noting things on a label that you used to?" Since when is more information a bad thing? No, that's not what I meant at all. Now you're adding fuel to a fire that doesn't exist to stir something up. Even though it's not relevant to this discussion at all, we already know why those notes were removed. They were not consistent creating a disparity between books, and are usually available (probably the majority of the time) through grader's notes anyway. In regards to Alpha/Numerical I'm asking, why be redundant? Tradition is the only answer I can come up with.

To touch on this and add a little perspective, the hobby has always been incestual that way. It's a very small hobby and it's tough to find new, outside people with money to invest who also have a lot of experience in comics. We were at the blunt end of nerd jokes for decades. Finding an investor, a grader, a resto expert is not as easy as finding an accountant. You don't have a stream of college graduates to choose from. When CGC came around, the internet was in full upward swing. eBay was exploding, online stores were exploding and collectors were doing person to person transactions at a rate far faster than snail mail used to allow. It was just a matter of time before someone started a grading service that facilitated internet comic book sales. Finding an investor like Donald Trump would not have happened. "You want how much money for a company that puts comics into plastic cases?". Remember, we were the comic nerds back in the 1990's. Finding a competent grader to work for a booming internet auction house who could purchase effectively would have been difficult (by the way, I applied for that job a few years ago when Heritage advertised an opening on this very forum) Finding a person who can expertly detect restoration would have been difficult. The reality is that we're still a relatively small hobby and keep in mind that we are now much larger than we were 12 years ago. Ultimately, most money and experience has to come from inside initially and with relatively few players to choose from your options are limited. That is the reality of any small community. If the "Chinese Wall" stands and an investor has no "voting rights" and can not affect the grade outcome of a book, if the Senior consignment director at Heritage who used to be President of CGC can not have any more effect on the grade outcome of a book than his current employer and if the resto expert can not have any more or less affect on the grade of a book than he did when he pressed and removed restoration in Texas, then is it a conflict of interest in reality? I am concerned about the integrity of the system because I have a vested interest in it. I guess that all depends on how secure that wall is.

Er, not in 95% of the back issue market, it's not. So why can't the 5% actually fall in line with the rest of the hobby? Get back to Alpha and if you really need it, throw some big numbers on there too. Much like Alpha is outgrown in most cultures and turning to numbers for conveying scales (it died in Ancient Greece a long time ago) it is going through a transition in this hobby. It's a natural progression to convey something qualitative in numbers rather than letters. It might be alive and well in the ungraded back issue market (which is admittedly large) it is slowly petering out in the graded market. For those that think both are relevant, and yet both convey the same thing, I have to ask: "Why have more information on a label than you need?"

Why not? There you go big guy. I've already explained (with typos) why not? I'm over all a conservative person. I don't generally like change, but if change is going to be for the better than I'd rather have it happen sooner so that I can adjust for it than later. Numerical is easier to read and understand than Alpha, and definitely less complicated than Alpha and Numerical. While Alpha is traditional it's quickly being outgrown, hence why I think the change to Numerical makes sense.

And there goes Stu not answering the simple question of "why".

Yes, I meant Alpha. Typing out many posts and made an error. But you know what I meant. I know how you talk. You enjoy spewing venom at Borock and CGC and you avoid and evade when questioned, or better feel cornered. Just like now when you won't answer my simple question. (thumbs u

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. The only thing I will disagree with is that they didn't have to make the fine divisions in the 9's. The could have done anything they wanted - 8.0/8.3/8.9/9.2/9.5/9.8/10.0 - whatever. They just chose to loosely base it on Overstreet's previous scale. How the numbers are divided isn't nearly the point. The point is that we are at that time period in comic collecting where the numbers needed to be divided because someone holding a book where the next increment might be a 5 or a 6 figure $wing is going to want a little more detail before selling their book. The collector who doesn't care about $ might not care or see the need for incremental grades but the market is comprised of people who do and don't care, and since you can't please everyone you need a set of rules to try and cover most bases all at the same time. Anyone can bemoan the values of comics all you want [it's been going on for decades) but the reality is that this is the teething of the hobby and it's something it has to go through.

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 bating you but I'm not. You likely think so because that is the way you have discussions with people. I have no idea what you're getting at. I'm asking why you'd rather have numbers than letters. To me, the numbers are easier to read than short hand letters with pluses and minuses. They're also easier to understand by the general public. Anybody above the age of 6 years of age understands a graduated scale of 1-10. Only people who have learned how to grade understand a numerical grading scale. It's like a secret code.

See my recent post, a few posts above, about Overstreet and the changes he made to the grading scale.

Winnah and new world record! This is the fastest response yet with the ol' "you dare to have a different opinion than me so I'll never buy books from you" knee-jerk. Congratulations!!! (Not to mention it's not very bright... if I'm grading my books as a 9.0 and you can get a 9.2 or a 9.4 out of them from CGC... wouldn't it behoove you to especially buy books from me???). You are welcome to your opinion. I'm glad you have one. Mine is just better and based in facts and logic. Which you demonstrated with your snarky comment. Why would CGC (or anyone else) give your 9.0s a 9.2 or a 9.4? Is it because they are better than 9.0? Do they have less defects? BTW, I doubt it's a record. I've just seen this "opinion" from you before, and it was just as senseless then. I think Bookery is a cool dude. Just a little more old school than you, you progressive youngin'. Honestly, if someone doesn't think a book should grade above 9.0 I'd buy those all day long. Might be plenty of 9.+'s in there.

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)

Are you saying that you'd rather have letters than numbers represent the grades?

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. At least for most people experienced in higher grade comics. The difference or combination of defects aren't always the same, but in higher grades there are few enough defects to easily discern the difference in grade in most cases. It doesn't work as well below 9.0 because the accumulation of defects and different possible combinations of defects is too great in lower grade ranges. I would also say that once dollar values become large enough the need to divide grades on a more fine (less coarse) scale becomes necessary because of the price differences. It's just a simple evolution from the original Good-Fine-Mint that Overstreet had in 1970. Did someone, heck did anyone accuse Overstreet of collusion and attempting to create when he went from G-F-M to G-VG-F-VF-Mint? I don't ever remember hearing anything about it. How is evolving from a 3 to a 5 to a 6 to a 20 to a 25 point grading scale any different. Anybody who's read a little history and knows a little physics is going to realize that the more involved you get with something the greater the detail needed. It's just a natural progression. There's nothing nefarious about it. So if nobody cursed Overstreet for increasing the steps in the grading scale why single out CGC now?

When CGC started out they had a small group of graders. It took them about 8 years to slab the first MIL. CGC has many more graders now. It took them about 4 years to slab the 2nd MIL.

That's always good. That's a stretch for some people. I prefer to lead with the premise that I'm a screw up. It's easier to impress and satisfy people that way. Managing expectations. It's the way to roll. (thumbs u We should integrate this theme into every thread on the first page of CG, I'm always eager to please.

That's always good. That's a stretch for some people. I prefer to lead with the premise that I'm a screw up. It's easier to impress and satisfy people that way. Managing expectations. It's the way to roll. (thumbs u

That's always good. That's a stretch for some people.

What no? Oh, that no.

What no?

If you have money invested in a company but have no say in how that company is run (or in this case are not a grader or have influence on the grades), can you be accused of having a conflict of interest? It's not mental gymnastics, it's simple business. Wiki description of a Chinese Wall In business, a Chinese wall is an information barrier implemented within a firm to separate and isolate persons who make investment decisions from persons who are privy to undisclosed material information which may influence those decisions. This is a way of avoiding conflict of interest problems. In general, all firms are required to develop, implement, and enforce reasonable policies and procedures to safeguard insider information and to ensure that no improper trading occurs. Although specific procedures are not mandated, adopted practices must be formalized in writing and be appropriate and sufficient. Procedures should address the following areas: education of employees, containment of inside information, restriction of transactions, and trading surveillance.

I'm glad your books got the grade (you think) they deserved, but being able to talk to CGC face-to-face to lobby for a grade change (and succeeding!) is sort of scary. I remember the AF 15 episode mentioned above, and recall a similar discussion concerning one of Doug's HG FF 1's, maybe even one of the pedigree copies? If you can do it, Doug can do it, the AF 15 guy can do it, then dagnabbit, so can I! But Matt or Kenny walking down the hallway and banging on the door yelling "Haspel, get out here!"? No, 'cause that would be a conflict of interest, right? CGC has always allowed for reviews of individual books - I'm sure if you tried to do it with every single book you subbed, they'd politely tell you to *spoon* off after a while, but I've also had a reviewed book that was bumped up (and another one that was left as is). Sometimes CGC screws up on the grade :shrug: Yes. They are human and admit it. They do make mistakes. I've argued with them on grades that I thought they were incorrect and they wouldn't budge on the grade no matter how much I yelled (and I am an above average submitter). I've also had books reviewed and the grade did change - sometimes up and sometimes down. While I am not 100% sure how the review process goes (we did discuss on here a year or two ago) I believe that the book is passed to several graders who have not seen the book and asked for their opinions - so it's not like you are talking to the head grader, convince him it should be a certain grade and they print out a new label.

I have no idea. Matt was already pretty good at reverse engineering CGC's grading model (as many people are who handle a lot of books). I'm assuming they might learn more about the system. I'm more curious as to why a thread stops dead when I post in it.

I think what most people are worried about is that the conflict arises from a grader knowing: a) where the book comes from (ie. from CI down the hall) b) who personally owns the book If all the grader sees is a bar code on a mylar, is there a conflict on interest in reality? It's fairly well established that either Jim Halperin or Heritage have a small piece of the pie owning CGC (or CCG) or whatever. If JH or Heritage have zero influence over what their books are going to grade out as, is there a conflict? It's obvious now that Matt's former company will be pressing books before they get graded. If the graders have no idea who owns the book and where it comes from (ie. all they see is a bar code on a mylar) is it an actual conflict of interest? Yes there is a perception of impartiality but that perception of impartiality disappears once the grading process is explained. I suppose as long as that "Chinese Wall" is in place, and the graders only see a comic with a bar code on it for identification, I see it as nothing different than what we've been used to for 12 years now. Impartial graders grading books impartially.

The chart doesn't tell you that the books have been pressed again and again. You can assume they've been pressed once, but I would hope that Schmell and Brulato are smart enough to realize that there's no reason to press a book with no pressable defects. They may resub them repeatedly, but I highly doubt that they're pressing them repeatedly. Agreed, and that is why that chart is so flawed. It only conclusively shows re submissions. Nothing more, nothing less.