RockMyAmadeus

I think we are at the point of the discussion (actually have been for a while now) where really, what we are discussing is are CGC able to tell the difference between 9.8 and 9.9. Not every time, but the majority of the time. That is what this entire thread boils down to. I say yes. I say that grades are not just dart board guesses (or gifts that are thrown out like raw meat to feed the hungry dogs) and that the majority of books, if they were to be cracked and resubbed, would come back in the same grades. I agree with you 100%.... But are you with me when I say that the rationale for paying a huge premium one grade over another begins to crumble if even ONE book comes back a different grade on reslabbing...? That whoever paid $97,000 for the Spidey #5 in 9.8 could have owned the exact same book, in the exact same condition, for about $60,000 less, had they simply bought it when it was a 9.6....? That's the crux, right there.

Untrue. But the overall point that there is subjectivity in the grading is true. It's not wholly arbitrary, and I agree with Roy that most 9.6s will grade the same, just as most 9.8s will. But there are some that won't make it because they were on the borderline to begin with. I already discussed this when I talked about weak, average, and strong grades. I didn't say every 9.6 could be a 9.4. But a weak 9.6 could easily be a strong 9.4 on another day. Most 9.6s WILL grade the same...but if even one doesn't (and we know that it's not just one, but hundreds), then the idea of paying a huge premium for one grade over another begins to not make much sense.

No, not at all. It is not a "dartboard guess." And neither is it an exact science. You prove my point. So "the majority" comes back the same grade...and I don't dispute this at all...but if even ONE book doesn't come back the same grade...what is the point of paying the huge premium for the one that has a higher label number...? What are you paying for? A book that is in better condition than all the 9.8s? Or just a label that says 9.9 (or 9.8, or 9.6, or insert whatever "one of one", or two of two, or whatever book there is)....?

That is the essence of what I have said (hopefully not in vain) this entire thread.... I'll disagree with John. He's saying that 9.0-9.8 is pretty cut and dry and then all of a sudden 9.8-9.9 isn't. I'd argue and say that 9.8-9.9 is the easiest to grade (besides 10.0-9.9) because you are dealing with the least amount of variables possible. I said 8.5 to 9.8 is cut and dry. I could give you ten books that got 9.9's and I bet you would call most of them 9.8's after I cracked them out for you to re-grade. Especially if Vodka was involved. ...but you know me I would give most books that CGC gives a 9.8 a 9.6 grade. I'd be willing to test that theory at a panel at SD next year. Same book, three different grades...9.8. 9.9. 10. Then, with a couple of independent, trustworthy witnesses, de-slab all the books, and have everyone pick which ones they thought graded what at CGC.... Then, after that's done, reveal what was what. Then, after that's done....send the books back, under different accounts (so you can keep track of which book was which), and see if they all come back the same original grades. It would probably work best with onsite slabbing, over a weekend.

Oh please. I've already said it, over and over again, but I'll say it yet again: Grading is subjective when you're dealing with half and quarter grades. What could be a 9.8 on one day could easily be 9.9 on another day, and vice versa. What could be a 9.6 on one day could easily be a 9.4 on another day, and vice versa. Conclusion: paying huge premiums for a difference in label designation, when the difference in actual quality is negligible, and in some cases, non-existent, is not wise. So long as the buyer knows this and accepts this, more power to them..but if they're being told "oh, yeah, there's totally a difference between a 9.8 and a 9.9...see, the label says so right here!", then we have a problem.

Smarty pants. But yes, you could call weak 9.8s "9.7" And eventually....they will. Not weak books just weak GRADERS. Once again you will never see 9.7 or 9.5, unless your that stupid company called Wizard. When the 9.7s and 9.5s come out...ignore Wiztard, that has nothing to do with this....will you come back and say "ok, RMA was right"....? (And whether it's a weak book, or weak graders, the end result is still the same.) It doesn;t make sense to break down the grading scale anymore. It's not going to happen. The book is the same the end result is determined by the grader. Sure, it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to the market...especially with the vast differences paid between the uber grades. MS61, MS62, MS64...those grades didn't make sense to a lot of people, either. Look, CGC didn't really HAVE to have a 9.9, did they? I mean, 9.8 and 10 would have worked fine, right....? So why do they have a 9.9? And wouldn't a 9.7 alleviate some of the problems with cracking and resubbing, hoping for 9.8s?

Smarty pants. But yes, you could call weak 9.8s "9.7" And eventually....they will. Not weak books just weak GRADERS. Once again you will never see 9.7 or 9.5, unless your that stupid company called Wizard. When the 9.7s and 9.5s come out...ignore Wiztard, that has nothing to do with this....will you come back and say "ok, RMA was right"....? (And whether it's a weak book, or weak graders, the end result is still the same.)

Smarty pants. But yes, you could call weak 9.8s "9.7" And eventually....they will.

That is the essence of what I have said (hopefully not in vain) this entire thread....

Nothing to see here, move along....

Yup, that's pretty much what I said, too.

As I sit here in the Mile High city and ponder the finer points of CGC as I nibble on sopapillas at Casa Bonita pounding on my Black Berry... Wait....Cartman? Is that you...? This is a given. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time we discuss these things. God is, after all, in the details... But you would have been okay sliding that one by... (thumbs u This is the wrong assumption to make. There are WEAK 9.8s. There are AVERAGE 9.8s. There are STRONG 9.8s. As a total guess, I would imagine there are maybe 10-20 STRONG 9.8s that could rival an average 9.9. Since I have not seen your book in person, it's not possible for me to tell if it is a weak, average, or strong 9.9. Well, sure, when you make them up to "fit" your argument. Try again. Let's try not to be silly, shall we? Intelligent people having a rational discussion can accept things as "given", especially when they bear no direct relevance to the topic at hand. (thumbs u

That's a sound analysis for ya.... Empirical evidence, exhibit A: Spiderman #5, previously graded 9.6, deslabbed, sent back through the grading process...having nothing done to it...receives a 9.8. Book is exactly the same book that went through the first time. The only difference? The opinions of the graders on that day. Empirical evidence, Exhibit B: New Mutants #98, out of my personal collection. Sent in in a lot of 8 copies at a 9.8 pre-screen. 7 pass, one rejected. Rejected copy sent back in at a 9.8 pre-screen, having had absolutely nothing done to it...it passes, and receives a 9.8 grade. Same book. Same exact condition. Do you want more examples? There are hundreds, if not thousands by this point. Very sound analysis, although obviously I didn't present it in this thread and since you joined long after I went through my intense CGC reverse-engineering phase on these boards, you probably haven't seen it. I've spent years here trying to reverse-engineer CGC's standards, but you can't do it without defect examination. I think you alluded to some analysis of defects allowable in the 9.9 and 10.0 grades...do you recall where you or others did it? Or do you mean you've examined the defects on 9.9s in person? I can do a keyword search for it myself if you saw others do it on the boards and you recall some titles and issues and if possible how long ago you saw it. There can be no discussion of whether or not a book is accurately graded without a defect inventory--to do so at all is to pull ideas completely out of your . So, if a book gets a 9.6 on the first go around, and a 9.8 on the second...ONE of those grades was "inaccurate"...? Rubbish. Provided the book is consistent with all other books in the same general state of condition, then whether the book gets a 9.6 or a 9.4....or an 8.0 or 7.5....or a 5.0 or 4.5....the book IS accurately graded. Doing a "defect inventory" is utterly meaningless when discussing FINE points of grading, because the exact same defect(s) on a different day to a different grader can and does have a different impact on the grade assigned to that book! That's absolutely absurd. ZERO PERCENT. Grading "in between" is SUBJECTIVE. The SAME book with the SAME flaws on TWO DIFFERENT DAYS can get TWO different grades, and, since both represent OPINIONS, they are BOTH correct! I'll tell you what....since I'm a big believer in "nothing is absolute:", I'll say CGC has "screwed up" and obviously misgraded...relative to all the other books in comparable states of condition....less than 1/10% of the time. Anything else falls under "subjective." There is no such thing as "this book is in this grade, forever and ever, Amen."

He's a great debater with clear thinking and I'm really glad he's here, but you're right. It's tough to debate with him because he's more than in love with his own thoughts, he's in absolute LUST with them. Threads get littered with the spooge from his mental masturbation, and everyone else's counterpoints are treated as fuel to be burned in the fires of his imagination. Or put more succinctly, he debates to be right more than to arrive at truth, which is too frustrating to participate in for long. If you'd actually respond to my points, instead of attacking me personally, maybe you'd find things a lot less frustrating. Or is this the part where the actual salient points get buried under an avalanche of ad hominem simply because we don't "like" the poster, or the way he posts, or what he has to say, etc etc etc...? Nothing "Stompy" said was "right"; it was just an ad hominem attack, so you agreeing with him puts you in the same boat. I honestly think you're better than that. And...your characterization of me is wholly incorrect, but you won't see that. Logic, reason, truth. Fact. Educated conclusions where no concrete fact can be ascertained. Those are the the only things that matter to me. I do not need to be RIGHT...I want EVERYONE to be RIGHT. Do NOT mistake tenacity with a stubborn refusal to "admit" the "truth", especially when someone doesn't accept YOUR idea of it. And what does that say for everyone else who keeps arguing THEIR points...? Hmmmm? Oh, but you agree with them, so that's ok. I see.

No, you really can't, because you're not capable of doing it. If you were, you'd do it, instead of just typing the online equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?" Fact: CGC's grading is subjective. Fact: CGC STATES that grading is subjective on the label of every single book it grades. Fact: Any random book on any random day can receive a (SLIGHTLY) different grade than it received on another random day, because of the two facts above. This fact is demonstrated by the countless examples that have obtained a different grade on a different day. If you wish to dispute this, FEEL FREE. If you wish to type "you're in error" til your fingers fall off, FEEL FREE. That doesn't make you any less wrong. Wow. Amazing. Denial runs deep in this one. in⋅trin⋅sic  /ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk, -zɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-trin-sik, -zik] Show IPA Use intrinsic in a Sentence See web results for intrinsic See images of intrinsic –adjective 1. belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring. No assumptions made, Stompy. No sentences misread, Stompy. Understand exactly what was originally said, Stompy. Otherwise, you'd be able to point to actual examples of your claims. ....? Please, tell me where you developed this amazing ability to read minds...? Point one out. Just one. Point out a SINGLE "error" that you're accusing me of making. I'll wait. (Oh, and nothing you've posted in this thread, or any thread, has ever made a lick of sense, ever. See how easy it is to type sentences like that? A bit more difficult actually proving it, though....)

BS on both of you. This discussion is not only important, it's VITAL to the health of the industry...ESPECIALLY the graded comics part of the industry....for years to come. You can beyotch and moan all you want about "pizzing on someone's cherrios", but as been said before....and you apparently can't understand this...this is but ONE EXAMPLE of a much LARGER, and far more important discussion. Great for Boston Corbett. He saw something he wanted, and paid what it took to get it. If he's happy, that's....as you said...all that matters as it regards THIS transaction. But that's not the point. Never has been the point. Never will be the point. Oh please. This sale will have very very little effect on the hobby. All it represents is an anomaly nothing more. Have you bothered to read anything that anyone has written? Or are you doing the typical CGC board knee-jerk reaction to a light skimming and what you thought somebody said...? This sale is not the issue. This sale, in and of itself, is not that important. Maybe if you read what people write, you wouldn't end up repeating back at them what they already said. Wow. It's like reading what I already wrote....mainly because I did. Yes, that's it....instead of having a reasonable discussion, just sit back and insult people you don't agree with, in an attempt to silence them. That's just disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. And the word you were looking for was "should" not "such", Einstein. My points remain, and they are valid. Sorry kids.

You have just done what you are complaining others are doing in this very paragraph. Awesome! If you use a word incorrectly, by definition, you don't know what it means. Inconceivable! By your logic, only "economics" professors should know what "intrinsic" means...? I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, though for I imagine quite opposite reasons. (thumbs u

BS on both of you. This discussion is not only important, it's VITAL to the health of the industry...ESPECIALLY the graded comics part of the industry....for years to come. You can beyotch and moan all you want about "pizzing on someone's cherrios", but as been said before....and you apparently can't understand this...this is but ONE EXAMPLE of a much LARGER, and far more important discussion. Great for Boston Corbett. He saw something he wanted, and paid what it took to get it. If he's happy, that's....as you said...all that matters as it regards THIS transaction. But that's not the point. Never has been the point. Never will be the point.

Yes. YES. MY GOD, YES! Nobody said that, or even implied it. You're coming at it from the wrong angle. It's not that "every book is over or undergraded" it's that if ANY book can be "over" or "under" graded, then ALL of them can!....and even those terms are incorrect! Grading at these levels is BEYOND subjective. I'm CGC and I've got a book that has four 1/32" impressions...not indentations, just IMPRESSIONS...marks you cannot even see unless you're tilted under a bright light...and one day I think "mehh...that's a 9.8" and another day I think "mehhh...that's 9.9" And you know what the real kicker is...? Neither grade is wrong. That's a sound analysis for ya.... Empirical evidence, exhibit A: Spiderman #5, previously graded 9.6, deslabbed, sent back through the grading process...having nothing done to it...receives a 9.8. Book is exactly the same book that went through the first time. The only difference? The opinions of the graders on that day. Empirical evidence, Exhibit B: New Mutants #98, out of my personal collection. Sent in in a lot of 8 copies at a 9.8 pre-screen. 7 pass, one rejected. Rejected copy sent back in at a 9.8 pre-screen, having had absolutely nothing done to it...it passes, and receives a 9.8 grade. Same book. Same exact condition. Do you want more examples? There are hundreds, if not thousands by this point.

God, I hope so.

1) I don't give refunds! Well, at least I got my money's worth. You think lower of your fellow man than I. A shame. But, your theory is still off. (thumbs u It's good that you cleared that up. It's not at all what you said the first time. It's still not quite right, but it's close enough. (thumbs u And you didn't purchase the book from CGC. You didn't purchase their opinion, either. The original slabber did. (thumbs u I know, details, details, who cares about the damn details? (thumbs u

Yes indeedy!

By the way, this guy buys some EXPENSIVE Charmin....

That one above doesn't qualify....? I think that one needs time to grow.

That one above doesn't qualify....?