trystero17

On 4/30/2022 at 6:40 PM, kav said:

Hope you get there too, but-

Serves me right for getting my hopes up.

(Mind you, I didn't really. Because, you know, Dunning-Kruger.)

On 4/30/2022 at 6:31 PM, Crops068 said:

I thought this was about a grading contest?

On 4/30/2022 at 6:23 PM, Axe Elf said:

What IS relevant is that many objective standards already exist out there,

Which one is the correct one?

On 4/30/2022 at 6:23 PM, Axe Elf said:

and that CGC needs to pick one 

Oh, so you mean they're arbitrary?

(So, so close to a breakthrough...)

On 4/30/2022 at 6:13 PM, kav said:

yours is, most likely-

I mean, one of us has to be correct, right? That's how it works, isn't it?

On 4/30/2022 at 6:10 PM, kav said:

as soon as you create an objective standard for a subjective analysis, lemme know.  I'd be very interested in an objective standard for 'art' for example.

I, for one, would love to be able to settle within my circle of friends, once and for all, objectively, whose taste in music is correct.

On 4/30/2022 at 6:08 PM, Axe Elf said:

On 4/30/2022 at 6:06 PM, trystero17 said:

Because there IS no "objective standard." None.

This would be the general substance of my objection, along with a plea for one to be developed to replace this current system of grade Yahtzee.

On 4/30/2022 at 5:55 PM, Axe Elf said:

Who cares how many people had it at 3.0?  I personally had it at 2.5, as I said before.

I'm more concerned with people getting it RIGHT--especially the people who get paid to ostensibly provide an "objective standard."

And that's the crux of it.

"Getting it right," by what standard? Because you have to pick a standard. Because there IS no "objective standard." None. There never has been and never will be.

All you can do is pick the arbitrary standard you're going to use, knowing full well that is IS arbitrary. Preferring one such arbitrary standard over another doesn't make either one correct or incorrect.

On 4/30/2022 at 5:53 PM, Axe Elf said:

On 4/30/2022 at 5:00 PM, trystero17 said:

It's a shame, isn't it, that we don't all have unclouded apprehension of the Platonic ideal of these grades, which evidently precede CGC's flawed attempts to implement them?

Exactly this.

I... I just want to pour chocolate sauce on the irony here and eat it.

On 4/30/2022 at 5:03 PM, kav said:

Irrelevant to the point I was making.  Elf was saying 'different companies grade different'.  Elf is that you?

No no, I'm agreeing with you. Just articulating it poorly.

Yes, Elf was saying different companies grade differently (which, as you point out, is at least debatable), but also that the way CGC does is "incorrect"... which to me implies that there's some sort of objectively "correct" grading standard independent of whatever an individual company happens to do.

On 4/30/2022 at 4:13 PM, kav said:

  The guy who started the other main company was previously head grader at CGC.

Maybe that guy is "objectively incorrect," too? 

It's a shame, isn't it, that we don't all have unclouded apprehension of the Platonic ideal of these grades, which evidently precede CGC's flawed attempts to implement them?

On 4/30/2022 at 2:09 AM, Axe Elf said:

Well, they're the ones who write grading guidelines.

I personally had it at 2.5, since those who write grading guidelines think Marvel chipping should be limited to the "Good" category (i.e., no higher than 3.0), and I didn't think the book was totally pristine even outside of missing the entire leading edge of the front cover.

CGC can just file it away under "learning experiences."

Except... they don't write the grading guidelines. Where are these guidelines that you're referring to? The only ones I've ever seen on the CGC site are broad definitions of each grade. The only detailed grading guidelines I can think of offhand are the Overstreet standards, and CGC doesn't use those.

If I'm mistaken and CGC has published a detailed set of rules for the way they grade, I'd love to see them, so by all means share. If they did, though, I can't imagine that they would note 3.0 as a maximum for Marvel chipping, because I've seen many slabbed 5.0's with Marvel shipping comparable to that Hulk issue. Hell, I could dig up a few images of 5.0's of that exact Hulk issue with more or less the same amount of Marvel chipping. Even a 5.5 or two with a bit less.

(Now if only I hadn't fussed so much over the Marvel chipping that I completely missed the reading crease...)

Count me in if there's room!