zzutak

On 5/1/2024 at 12:11 PM, Ride the Tiger said:

Three people with the score of 11 are tied for 1st. Two people with the score of 12 are tied for 2nd 4th. Which means the three people with the score of 13 points are tied for 3rd 6th.

Fixed that for ya! 

On 5/1/2024 at 8:20 AM, Ride the Tiger said:

It would be interesting to send the same book to all 3 grading companies

Three grading companies?  I personally would not honor PGX by placing it in the same category as CGC and :censored:.  PGX has whiffed more than once on issues like completeness, condition grade, and well-established pedigree markings.  But maybe you're not thinking of PGX. 

The thing I found most interesting about Book #13 (Secret Wars #8) was the distribution of rust/staining at the bottom staple -- clean at the cover but heavy at the centerfold.  In my experience, quite unusual.

On 5/1/2024 at 5:14 AM, CGC Mike said:

I would like to hear others thoughts regarding this.

Why not just use the same set of books, but specify that these x1 folks will be competing for spots 1, 2, and/or 3, and these x2 folks will be competing for spot 6 (where x1 and x2 represent specific rosters).  Two "tiebreakers" simultaneously run with the same set of books (and the same "in case of a tie" rules that you've always used in the past, but applied independently/separately to the 1-2-3 group and the 6 group).  For example, let's assume the top scores after Round 4 are as follows:

Players A & B would complete the tiebreaker to determine 1st Place and 2nd Place, while Players C thru H would simultaneously complete the exact same tiebreaker to determine 3rd Place and 6th Place.  Here's a second example:

Players B, C & D would complete the tiebreaker to determine 2nd Place and 3nd Place, while Players F, G & H would simultaneously complete the exact same tiebreaker to determine 6th Place.  Player E would not play (since he/she is guaranteed to be in 5th Place).  I haven't had my coffee yet, and my brain still feels a bit fuzzy.  So, feel free to point out (with an actual example, if possible) why this approach would NOT work. 

More gloss and camera glare!     

Actually, that was my reasoning as well.   

On 4/30/2024 at 5:28 PM, WilliamLunt said:

I'd need a copy of that book to confirm my suspicion

I just checked the two scans available on Heritage.  I was wrong -- both copies have this same blemish! 

Would the WWII Era be possible?  Specifically, a rendition of a camp that held German POWs on U.S. soil.  From what I can see, the prisoners don't look "cartoonishly" Asian (North Korean or Chinese), and the PW stencil on one prisoner's shirt is typical of those placed on the clothing worn by the German prisoners held in these U.S.-based camps.  A pretty good summary may be found here.  But WWII Era could easily be wrong, as German prisoners were generally not strongly motivated to mount escape attempts from these U.S. camps.  In any event, I think a close-up of the prisoners' facial features would tell the tale.

On 4/28/2024 at 4:44 PM, CGC Mike said:

If there is a tie, I may have 2 books stashed away somewhere.  If there is still a tie after that, we could use this like we do to determine our 3 winners for the contest.

I'll repeat what I said here: this race is gonna be all peloton, no breakaway, unless we see some low/mid-grade specimens.  Hence, I think it's entirely possible that 6~12 contestants are tied for the lead just prior to the Tiebreaker Round.  Maximum bunching is a feature common to most contests that test only one or two skills (like counting spine ticks and color breaks).  Think Tour de France, but with no mountain stages that test the full range of each rider's fitness/skill.

At the half-way point, we have 27 contestants within 3 points of the lead (     ) and 58 players within 6 points of the lead (which I believe is an all-time high).

According to Mike's grade distribution table, 107 players completed Round 2 (down from 113 in Round 1 and 125 at sign-up).  Here are the key measures of central tendency for this round (Mean = the average grade; Median = the middle grade in a numerically rank-ordered list; Mode = the most common grade):

The Board scored 104 bulls-eyes in Round 2 (19% of all grades submitted, compared to 24% in Round 1).  Here are a few other notable observations based on the data reported above:

• Book #06 (JLA #42):  An average-difficulty book for the Board as a whole, with 19% at the same grade as CGC and 59% within one grade increment of CGC.  Collectively, the Board was about one and one-half grade increments more critical than CGC (8.7 vs 9.2). 
• Book #07 (Marvel Spotlight #6):  The toughest book for the Board as a whole, with only 3% of the contestants at the same grade as CGC and only 18% within one grade increment of CGC.  Collectively, the Board was three and one-half grade increments more critical than CGC (8.7 vs 9.6).  In my opinion, this specimen was waaaaay overgraded by CGC.  A monumental whiff on their part. 
• Book #08 (Strange Tales #180):  The second-easiest book for the Board as a whole, with 24% of the contestants at the same grade as CGC and 64% within one grade increment of CGC.  Collectively, the Board was about one-half grade increment more critical than CGC (8.8 vs 9.0). 
• Book #09 (Transformers #1):  The easiest book for the Board as a whole, with 33% of the contestants at the same grade as CGC and 71% within one grade increment of CGC.  Collectively, the Board was one grade increment more critical than CGC (9.2 vs 9.4). 
• Book #10 (Superman #50): Another average-difficulty book for the Board as a whole, with 19% of the contestants at the same grade as CGC and 52% within one grade increment of CGC.  Collectively, the Board was about one-half grade increment more lenient than CGC (8.2 vs 8.0). 

If I never see another "glossy" book, it will be too soon. 

On 4/27/2024 at 4:05 PM, The Lions Den said:

So, if it's the 10th page, they would say "10th page missing" or "10th page trimmed". They wouldn't say "10th 19th and 11th 20th page missing" or "10th 19th and 11th 20th page trimmed."

Alternate explanation:  CGC incorrectly describes a "leaf" as a "page" (so, when the label says "page", you should think "leaf").  For example, if the label says "Page 16 missing", then what is actually missing is interior leaf 16 (aka interior pages 31 and 32).  

Don't ask me why CGC decided to use non-standard language.  Every comic book publisher since the 1930s has defined "page" as one side of a two-sided leaf.  So, yes, a book cannot possibly be missing just one page, or have a cut-out that affects only one page. 

On 4/27/2024 at 9:00 AM, skypinkblu said:

Seriously...over the years I've been told that certain chief graders lowered grades for certain defects, Steve hated one thing and Mark another (don't remember which was which, but one was water damage and the other was stains).

Yep.  A very close friend who was a frequent submitter to CGC in the early days told me that Borock was a bit less critical of inside cover toning/halos than Haspel (which may have something to do with Mark's involvement with the Spokane Collection).  But back then, each book was graded by three experienced staff (which tended to compensate for the differences in the "pet peeves" of the various graders).

On 4/26/2024 at 5:20 PM, Point Five said:

I can kinda sorta buy the bottom edge tear as a production defect

A true production defect should be common to most (if not all) copies.  According to the 48 copies shown in the Heritage Archives, this tiny tear is NOT!