Off Panel

I was one of the crazies battling for that book. There are only 13 in 9.8 and most I've seen either have OW/W pages, bad centering, or both. That is without question the most gorgeous copy I've seen of ASM 106. I think I cast the penultimate bid on the book but when the lead bidder came back AGAIN, I simply couldn't cross the psychological barrier of $10k before the Buyer's Premium. Congrats to the winner for adding a gorgeous book to his collection and for having the steely nerves to ride that rocket all the way up to $11,400! (I didn't get the book, but on the bright side, I will probably stay married another year. )

Howdy, @Yorick. I'm what is known as an "unpaid consultant." (In other words, a busybody.) I feel your pain, buddy. I truly do. Still, nothing beats the kick of seeing a nice run of high-grade books in a set with no open slots...

There is a change in thinking that needs to happen at CGC (and CGC isn't alone -- A LOT of companies need to make this change). Stop approaching problems from the perspective of "how can we make this less work?" and start approaching them from the perspective of "what do our users really want?" Every single problem CGC has right now is some variation of cutting corners: Quality Control issues, grading inconsistencies, PR disasters, etc. Every instance started with somebody at CGC saying "How can I take a shortcut here?" First, figure out what the people who pay for your services want most and then think about how you can get it to them. You have, in these boards, a resource that most companies would kill for. Yes, we are tremendous pains in the butt -- no argument there -- but every day we communicate clearly what you're doing well as a company and what you're messing up. For a company that listens, that is absolute gold! Once you have a list of what your clients want (not what the suits want, not what the influencers want, not what some sketchy company will pay you to do -- what your clients want), create a roadmap to get there. It may take a few iterations. That's okay. That's how successful companies build things. (The first iPhone couldn't even copy and paste.) If you don't have the skills to get there, hire the people with the skills. If you need to license a data feed, license a data feed. If you have a bunch of employees that don't want to change or do the work, set them free to follow their dreams at the DMV. You may say, "But it's not as easy as that." It isn't easy at all. Go back and start reading from the top. The theme here is "stop trying to take the easy way." Ironically, once you start working to do the right thing, rather than the expedient thing, it eventually does start getting really easy. Because you are fixing problems. Because your quality control isn't a crisis and your grading isn't a crisis and your PR isn't a crisis. Look how much time you have now to create something cool and new and amazing. None of this is targeted at you, Wytshus. This is an unfortunate theme I see at CGC, which is a good company, but several attitude adjustments away from being a great one.

I think there is a simple solution to your problem: There can be two different types of "top sets." There can be a top point-scoring set, which is just a factual list of 'this member has these books in these conditions and they are worth this many points.' There can also be a "best set" which speaks to the care the member has taken in cataloging and presenting a set (% of comics with images, % of comics with descriptions, related journal entries -- go wild). 'Set completion percentage' would be a factor in either type of set. Does the top point-scoring set have to be the Best set? Nope. Does the Best set have to be the top point-scoring set? Nope. As a member who is unlikely to find myself in either position, I would be interested in viewing BOTH types of set. I like to know who is ahead of me in points and what books they've got and in what conditions. (I'm just competitive enough that it will push me to acquire that next book.) However, if someone has a well-curated set with pictures, recollections, and reflections, I will read the spoon out of that. (I love Thomas' You look MAR-VELL-ous set and I would love it even if it didn't score the most points.) To a degree, you've already got this dynamic in place with the Awards, but you need to let go of the idea that only points can determine the best set. (That thinking causes you to keep futzing with the point system until the "best" set "wins." At some point a user with fewer points is going to create a set where every book has its own haiku and it will be so beautiful that it will make the boards collectively weep. When that happens, don't rewrite the points system again to add "% of haikus"; just announce that member PointsGoblin has the Top-Scoring set and member Haiku4U has the Best Set. EasyPeasy.)

That would be true if scarcity in the census were the ONLY factor used to assign points. By the same token, if scarcity in the census were the only factor used to price books, Hulk 181 would probably be worth about $25 dollars (and Amazing Spider-man 300 would come free with your Happy Meal). We can assign "value" to a book using either points or dollars, but I think the basic criteria in either case would be the same: Supply (number on the census; number in grade; number of a particular price variant, double cover, pedigree, etc) and Demand (desire for the book; historical significance of the book; aesthetics of the book; desire for a particular price variant, double cover, pedigree, etc.). People argue that the price of a book shouldn't determine the points for a book, and I agree, but I don't think that's what is happening. Rather, I think the same things that make a book worth a lot of dollars also makes it worth a lot of points and vice versa. I would love to see census numbers factored into the registry score calculations because I'm a run collector and I end up buying high grade copies of a lot of non-key books that "no one cares about." A lot of times the prices are crazy because there are less than ten copies in grade on the census. In that case, you don't need a thousand people clamoring for the book to drive the price up; you only need eleven people. The two biggest problems I see with using census numbers in figuring points for a book are: I don't really want to manage my points eroding over time as census numbers for each book slowly creep up, and We all know the census numbers are only an approximation of reality at this point. How many 9.6s have been cracked, pressed, and submitted and are now 9.8s? (Or CGC had a bad day and now they are 7.5s?) Either way, they are ALSO 9.6s in the census right now. How many 9.8s were destroyed in Hurricane Katrina? Zero? One thousand? The world will never know... Having said that, if CGC found a way to incorporate census scarcity into the points algorithm (maybe as a percentage of the average CGC Census book population), I'd be in favor of it. However, this would have to be one factor of the equation; not the only factor.

Waviness in and of itself shouldn't hit you too hard. I've got a 9.8 Amazing Spider-man 137 and the only grader notes are: Whole Book Lite Rippling/Warping I think it's the extent of the waviness that is hurting your grade. I had a buddy who kept his books in a damp basement and they all looked like the top of that Lobo. Despite the dire-sounding grader's note on my 137, the edges still look straight in the case. In fact, I can't see any rippling or warping at all, but I'll take CGC's word for it that it was more apparent before being encapsulated.

I notice, especially on Metropolis and ComicConnect, that sellers are spelling out the exact QES criteria that a book meets. For example: "Preferred staple placement," "Perfect Spine," "Exceptional Cover Whiteness," etc. It doesn't seem like books have to meet all criteria and I'm not sure what minimum number must be met to earn the sticker. One perhaps? "This book was ripped in two; but both halves feature preferred staple placement. Exceptional!" Can you imagine if everything in life worked that way? "Your upcoming blind date has met the criteria to be certified Truly Exceptional!" (Criteria met: Good personality.) I guess my question is (and I truly don't know the answer) do these companies ever decline a book or do they somehow find something nice to say about every book that is submitted?

@Brock You are the man! (Not "the man" that the blexcroid counter-culture was rebelling against, but "the man" who has mad detective skills and comes through in the clutch!) Thanks for tracking down a member of the blexcroid movement of the time and getting a first-hand account. I had kinda reached the conclusion that blexcroid was a nonsense word created to make people curious and an experiment to see how far this early meme could spread. While I still think there are elements of both of those things, RJB's explanation is much more satisfying. I also love the comparison to Kilroy. In both cases, people seeing the mysterious message crop up more and more in random and unusual places must have reacted with confusion/curiosity/annoyance/uneasiness, depending upon their fundamental natures. Thanks for taking my quest a step further and answering the question like a champ. I have often heard it said that "the boards know everything." Case in point!

Hey, @Cat. Sorry you had such a rough night (and your aunt, too)! Hope you are both feeling better quickly and can get some good rest. My dad bought me my first comic book one day when I was home from school sick, so I know they have curative powers. I prescribe a Moon Knight or something fun for yourself, and get your aunt a Betty & Veronica Double Digest. — Dr Off Panel

So, so, so much easier. (I mean, if you don't want to take the scenic route...) Thanks, ADAMANTIUM!

I can’t answer that, but I suspect that if 9.8’s start surfacing, 6.5’s won’t sell for $35k anymore.

Okay, I have answered my own question and I now have a very tedious work-around for people who can't view their Control Panels. Here's what you do: Enter the Registry and select "Control Panel" from the navigation. You'll get the "error-occurred-you're-SOL" message. Say your favorite swear word. (Don't skip this step!) Select My Collection from the top nav and then choose Set Manager. (All credit goes to ADAMANTIUM here; I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.) From the Comic Set Manager page, pick any set and note what your rank is. Then click on the set link from the Set Type Name column. (Example: I'm ranked 23rd in the Daredevil #1-#380 set, so I click on the Daredevil #1-#380 link.) On the Set: <x> page, remember your rank and scroll down to that line. (E.g., I'm rank 23, so I scroll past all the higher ranked sets until I get to 23 and see my personal Daredevil set: "The Span Without Peer.") The first column in this row will be your boardie name as a link. Click on it. You'll see a modal that has your name and a button that says: View Full Profile. Click this button. Voila! You are now at your Control Panel page! (Actually, you're on your profile page, but you can see your information and do almost anything here that you would normally do on your Control Panel page. Doesn't look like you can edit your Bio, but pretty much everything else.) Hopefully this lets you do what you need to do until the bigger issues are resolved.

I've been able to add new books using the Set Manager work-around, and I can also see the points and rankings for my individual sets. Does anyone know a work-around for seeing your overall Registry Rank? Does that appear anywhere other than on the Control Panel page? Thanks!

Okay, if this is a recurring problem rather than a continuous problem, that's a little better. But even if the functionality is down for a full week rather than a full month, it's not a great look.

I'll add my voice to the chorus. I went in this morning to update my registry and the Control Panel page is down for me, too. I'm using the Set Manager work-around for now (thanks, @ADAMANTIUM), but not being able to use the Control Panel is a huge pain. I've got to say, I'm a little bit amazed at how casually the Web Help team is taking this. If you don't mind my asking, are these CGC employees or external support? At my company, if we have a customer-impacting outage that lasts for more than 15 minutes, the Web team is on the phone with our Chief Product Officer until everything is fixed. I've been on those calls as an SME and I can tell you that people are moving as fast as they can to isolate and solve the problem. No one wants that call to go a minute longer than it has to. It looks like ADAMANTIUM started this topic on October 31, so this has been unresolved for, what, 29 business days now? I really can't get my head around that.

Comic book collector confirmed.

If I could react with the Laughing face AND the Sad face AND the Confused face, I would. Nothing else really seems to up to the challenge of your comment.

Thanks for highlighting this, ak47po. I’m all renewed and ready to bedevil the boards for another year. I had turned off my auto-renew during the acetate scandal where CGC was blue-labeling books that had aftermarket things STAPLED to them, and had decided I would not renew unless they changed course. I’m glad they eventually did — I would have missed this place.

I want to understand this better. Here is my question: Boardie A has 7 issues of The Amazing Spider-man in 9.8 condition from 1967, and Boardie B has 7 issues of The Amazing Spider-man in 9.8 condition from 2019. Neither set of books has any "keys." Do both sets score the same?

My vote would be to continue this approach. Basing modern comics on the prevailing cover price makes sense to me, but I can’t see modern and vintage comics treated the same. I’m in complete agreement with your observations on volitility and FOMO, and personally I don’t expect CGC to chase prices up for a few months before the next Disney+ streaming show only to chase them back down again after. (I have a vision of wytshus standing in front of an old-fashioned stock ticker, reading the tape and yelling out “Young Avengers 6 UP 0.875!” She-Hulk 1 DOWN 0.125!”) Maybe it’s just setting expectations that CGC registry points are more of a 12-month trailing indicator than a “last sale” affair. Maybe your update cycle should be more Overstreet and less GPA. Maybe that takes a little oxygen away from all the FOMO right now. Also, I don’t want to constantly chase my registry points up and down on the latest rumors from self-serving YouTube speculators. What if you guys licensed Overstreet’s data for the sole purpose of calculating registry points with your algorithm? Somebody doesn’t like the points for a book? Take it up with Overstreet. Your labor savings would probably cover the licensing cost (especially if you only need the 9.2 data).

I still think of those two as the pinnacle, even though others are worth more money today.

I agree that registry points should not be determined solely by the price of a book, BUT price and registry points may be driven by many of the same factors, including demand and scarcity. In the end, both price and points are trying to measure the "worth" of a book, so while registry scores should not equate to market dollars, they are probably highly correlated to market dollars. If I may ask, what factors were used to determine the points for each book when the registry was first rolled out? That may be a good starting point for our discussion.

Wait, are you saying you would set the 9.0 Universal Score on ALL books to 4 points? If so, that wouldn't make sense to me. I appreciate the differentiation that various ages and types of books enjoy today. For instance: Today, the score for an Amazing Spider-man legacy 894 from 2022 is 4 points. The book just came out a few months ago and I could have picked it out of a stack of 894s for four bucks. It would actually be hard to get a 9.0 because most issues are going to be nicer than that, but let's assume I'm an enthusiastic reader. That definitely feels like it's worth 4 points. The score for an Amazing Spider-man 109 from 1972 is 60 points. This book is never going to be a key, but it's a 50 year-old gem written by Stan Lee and penciled by John Romita. My LCS probably doesn't have this. I might have to do some searching to find a 109, and unlike with the 894, 9.0 condition is a plus rather than a minus. I had to pay a little money for this but I didn't break the bank. This doesn't feel like a 4-point book. It feels more like 60 points. Then there's the Amazing Spider-man 129 from 1974. This book is a grail. I had to work hard for this book. I had to compete with other collectors to score this. Maybe I had to budget carefully to buy this book or maybe I had to trade some other big books to get it. There was some sacrifice involved to get this book in a 9.0! 3,133 points doesn't feel crazy for this one. Points-wise, the current system "feels" right to me. If I understand the proposed approach, these books would now look like this" The 50 year-old book and the 5 month-old book are equals now. If I bust my hump all over town and the Internet to find a 9.0 issue of 109, I'll have the same score as the dude who skipped down to his LCS and dropped 4 bucks on a 894. (Actually, I'll trail behind him because his book will probably be a 9.2.) That feels broken out of the starting gate. (Consider this: How many grumpy old dudes on this board like to loudly proclaim that they "haven't bought a modern book since aught-seven when that Quesada fellah broke Spider-man"? They'll be none too pleased when their carefully curated Silver Age collections start getting out-scored by guys who had a big day at the Modern dollar boxes.) I don't know how you'll calculate the "key" bonus, but let's say you calculate it at 3,133 points (or something in that neighborhood) and I've got no beef with you. You have maintained a status quo that works well on that book without fixing the issue you're trying to avoid. All the annoying guys who want you to add points because She-Hulk #1 just sold on Comicconnect for $2,300 will now want you to add points because Comic Tom told them that Daredevil-25-first-appearance-of-Leap-Frog is a major key now! I guess what I'm saying is that I think the current scoring system works pretty well. I can see how it wouldn't work well for you, whytshus, and I'm not unsympathetic. That's not an easy job you've got. We need to find a way to make it easier without destroying the point system. P.S. - Qalyar, I'm in awe of the thought you've put into how to manage the sets, and I find myself agreeing with your approach.

This has been the narrative with Hulk 181 for 30 years: