Get Marwood & I

Now, look at this picture below here. Has something in my life gone very wrong... ...or very right? After all, I could've collected comics that are actually worth something. In money, I mean. That seems to be a key preoccupation with the some, if not the many, in this hobby of ours. It's bad enough having boxes of Charlton UKPVs in the first instance, but two boxes of duplicates? Hmmmm OK, I've thought about it, and I've decided that this is a good thing.

Once again, not much I can do today. I've been stuck with a heavy cold for over a week now. Here's a few books that I spotted on the Bay, whilst aimlessly scouring this morning. A nine changed to a ten... ...a ten changed to a nine... ...a six versus a nine... ...and two five pee Marvel romance titles, which you don't often see, stamped five pee, by Tee and Pee. Yippee.

That's still pretty good going Andy. A one grade off average, taking everything into account, is really good. If you know how to grade, you get very close. From there on in, it's luck and, in the cases where you write an initial two grade range down, a coin toss

Hello all I'm just testing cut and paste tagging here. I've added all the original 109 participants, so don't worry if you have dropped out of the contest, or have already submitted your R3 grades. There was a little confusion at the start of the thread as to the deadline for your R3 submissions - it is: Tuesday October 31, 8:00 PM Eastern time Remember - the earlier you get your grades in, the easier it is for @CGC Mike to collate them. Good luck! @1Cool @2muchhorrorbusiness @AbsoluteCarnage @ADAMANTIUM @Ahsoka Tano Jedi Apprentice @AJD @apocalypse76 @ArcherC @Asianassassincomics @Axelrod @B3AST @batcollector @Batman Fett @bighairjer @boron @Brock @brumil190 @Cerebus3000 @ChrispyC66 @CJ Design @Cman429 @Cocomonkey @comicginger1789 @Comics4All @Crose87420 @Cushing Fan @davidtere @Deputy Dan @Doctor Dositheus @Dr. Ogie Porterhouse @EastEnd1 @ekaylor @Every Day A Story @F For Fake @FigaroToe @flashlites @frozentundraguy @GawkHawk @genrlzod @g-man @GradedGrails @Grendel72 @grendelbo @HighStakesComics @Howard Karpoff @Hudson @iXr184 @jas1vans @jbpez @jcjames @Jesse-Lee @Jfigs818 @John R @JohnH19 @JollyComics @JWKyle @Kramerica @Krismusic @KryptoMayor @Lninefingers @MatterEaterLad @mattn792 @Morganmi @Motor City Rob @Nearfall @ned @Nsschenks @Old Fashion PB and J @old_dano @Panda2 @paqart @pastandpresentcomics @Pickie @pmpknface @Point Five @Ride the Tiger @Ron C. @sagii @Sandflea @scburdet @silverseeker @skypinkblu @s-man @southern cross @spidermanbeyond @Stefan_W @Superman2006 @TC33 @TheApprentice @TheGeneral @thehumantorch @TheTallGuy @timfinz @Tom789 @topcat54 @topofthetotem @toro @trmoore54 @TTG @universal soldier @Warlord @WEBHEAD @WilliamLunt @Wipple @Withering Wind @Yorick @youfoundjake @zzutak

Put yourself in the shoes of some of the staff trying to manage this change Doug. It must be an enormous, extremely tedious, time consuming task and some of them may not even agree with the management-set principles, or the communication strategy. Speaking from experience, it doesn't pay to get too emotionally involved in these things. CGC are a private company, and they can operate how they please. All you can do is decide whether you want to be involved anymore as a paying customer. On the flip side, they will have to accept that they may lose previously engaged customers by changing things in this way, at this stage of the game. At the end of the day, it gets dark, and you've played your part with the feedback you've given. You've kicked the tyres, as they say, and you can't do anymore than that (unless you get very rich suddenly, and buy them out). Companies will always try to put themselves in the best possible light of course. One person's "thing's have evolved" is another person's "they got it wrong from the outset". I'd actually prefer for CGC to change course rather than stick with an ill judged strategy though, if that is what is happening here. My interest is how they are defining variants and reprints, as I have put a lot of clarifying effort into those areas down the years. I don't use the CGC service, and therefore the Registry, but I'd like to see CGC promote reasonable definitions as they are increasingly influential in the hobby and others will follow them and use their definitions. Would someone tag me when the final communication lands please?

Same here - 5 points made up of two bulls, two off by one and a 5.5 on the Prize to ruin it. I'm at 10 points so far, a one point off average. Not too bad seeing as I have no experience of grading Gold.

Quite right. I try to abstain from cherryade at least 24 hours prior to grading I'm off to the land of UK zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzs now gang. Good luck with your R2 scores. If Mike posts another five golds in R3, I say we storm the castle!

Think once. Think twice. Think: never change every single one of your grades that you set a few nights ago before submitting them to Mike. It'll probably be a mistake.

I don't think Mike has posted that anyone got 19 bulls and a score of zero yet He should wind us all up and say "So far 109 people have made a proper hash of it"

I'm getting Bale Batman voice again....

I'm reading that in a Christian Bale Batman voice.

No wonder they smell.

Your grades smell.

Yes, yes you are. They don't call it the 'Lumberjack's Axe of Death' for nothing.

What emoji did you get from the former lumberjack? I got a 'bring out your dead' sign.

I've actually gone one better, and gone forward to the end. You actually win the whole contest, Jolly! That's the good news. The bad news? Time can be rewritten.

Here is just one example. Here is how I present an argument. CGC management refuse to address the integrity of my argument. Their position is their position - my choice, as someone who has spent years researching comics, is to like it, or lump it. They will not explain why their position is the correct one, and why the points I make are wrong: So who is the arrogant one really? Me, or them?

Starring the Doctor.

Indeed. What I try to do, when I think I have a clear idea of what is right, is to present my rationale to those who disagree and then invite them to 'prove me wrong', so to speak. I don't mind when people give a reasonable explanation for their position on something, including when they arrive at a different conclusion to mine. Some things are clear - two plus two is four - and some things can be argued and debated. And then there are opinions of course, which some happily state in direct contravention of established fact. For example, I know that some people disagree with the term "UK Price Variant". I can see how that term encroaches on the purity of the US Price Variants, for example. I don't mind that kind of challenge, and I can see the other point of view. In those situations it's just a case of agreeing on the best possible terminology when it's clear that there is no one size fits all, short definition. You won't please everyone, but as long as the definition is explainable, and reasonable, and intuitive, then that may be the best you can hope for. What I can't stand is when people refuse to acknowledge fact or a water tight explanation of something. They keep avoiding the salient points that you make because they know that if they addressed them, their argument would fall apart. Once I've tried a few times, I'll admit I too can get a little snarky and that's usually the point that you lose them. So my advice - which I don't always follow myself - is to keep everything civil and, when it's clear that you aren't going to get them to respond to the central thrust of your position, give up. Life's too short to argue with CGC, a company that is full of good things, and good people, but which also has a tendency to generate an air of world domination and arrogance. CGC will do what a handful at the top of CGC have decided is the way. Sometimes, you can clearly see the influences in their decision making that go beyond doing the right thing by the hobby. By that I mean money. If CGC want two plus two to be a cat, then it will be so no matter how many calculators you put in front of them. Let's be clear here. CGC arrived on the scene 20 or so years ago. Comics, and the hobby of collecting them, have been around quite a bit lot longer. Slowly but surely, the CGC juggernaut is taking ownership of everything to do with the hobby from terminology to grading scales to restoration definitions and so on. There are few areas that they have not taken over, and then proclaimed themselves to be the world or market leader of. If everything that they do is right - or supported by the majority - then maybe that is OK. But is everything that they do right? Do the majority support them? Is anyone ever consulted when they decide to deviate from historic precedent? I have a very clear understanding of what a variant is, and what a reprint is. I believe it is possible to put clear blue water between them. There are those that agree with me, and those that disagree with me. I have been accused of arrogance. Why should my definition trump CGC's or anyone else's? I have never said that it does. All I do, is present my case, and invite a response. I rarely, if ever, get one. So it will be interesting to see how CGC are going to define variants and reprints. I may agree broadly, or disagree wildly. But it will be what it will be, because CGC always do, in the end, what suits them.

I've had some experience of that I best keep out of it - I've already caused enough trouble battling CGC regarding their positions on variant classifications and 'foreigns'. They'll always do what they want I find, regardless of the merits of your case. That said, civilised challenge is always a good thing, so keep at it Doug

I know

Does that mean a set like Ultimate Fallout was allowed to have the second print or a facsimile from ten years later for Ultimate Fallout #4 qualify to fill the empty spot, but now it doesn't? I'm always interested in fighting over the definition of variants. Has that part been locked down yet or are we still awaiting the detail (I cat-scanned the other thread and CGC seemed to keep saying "wait for the final announcement")?

Sorry! I had to tag everyone, as I don't know who has and hasn't sent them in. I've just worked out a new way of bulk tagging though, which Mike may be able to use going forward so it will be very quick for him to tag only those whose grades are outstanding. And that's outstanding as in 'not in' by the way, not outstanding as in any good (mine were not outstanding. If Mikes emoji was anything to go by, they were a pile of golden horsesht )