• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

"Qualified" Grade Poll

Started by drbanner,

Do you agree with the use of the CGC "Qualified" grade for books that would grade much higher except for a single, major defect (for example, an otherwise NM book with a missing page)?  

360 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree with the use of the CGC "Qualified" grade for books that would grade much higher except for a single, major defect (for example, an otherwise NM book with a missing page)?

    • 1517
    • 1517

49 posts in this topic

joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
How can anyone honestly vote no with a straight face!

 

After seeing a Qualified 6.0 with 10 PAGES MISSING, I am wondering what kind of comic book collectors would agree with the CGC Qualified process?

 

Has CGC turned us into cover collectors already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I've already commented on the 10 pg missing book, however

does this makes the entire concept invalid???

 

I agree with the concept, but I disagree with the implementation. 10 missing pages does not a 6.0 make, nor is it simply one major defect.

 

If you read Banner's poll, he asks if we agree with the USE of the CGC Qualified Grade..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted

Well at least you agree with the concept. But I agree with the use of the CGC qualified grade MOST of the time so I voted yes. Just as I agree with CGC's grading MOST of the time. But there's no question they make questionable choices from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
But there's no question they make questionable choices from time to time.

 

I've seen far more questionable Qualified grades than I ever have Universal.

 

CGC has also eliminated Grader's Notes and Alpha Grades, making buyers totally dependant on the Numerical Grade for reference. I disagreed, as did many others, but it looked to be a positive for some to move to more simplistic way of determing and displaying grade.

 

But then in the face of this "Numbers Only" scenario, they give a 6.0 Q to a comic that is half ripped out. CGC fans can hum and hah all they want, but that book (and many other Qualifieds) makes no sense.

 

I personally feel that their BIG NUMBERS plan to help newbies into the CGC world, virtually requires an end to Qualified grading. Let the one and only Grading Number rule!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well at least you agree with the concept. But I agree with the use of the CGC qualified grade MOST of the time so I voted yes. Just as I agree with CGC's grading MOST of the time. But there's no question they make questionable choices from time to time.

 

This is why I structured the poll so brilliantly...to get Joe to agree with me!! 27_laughing.gif

 

Just kidding...as I pointed out in one of the other QG threads, if you agree with the concept of CGC using the QG, then you have to leave the cut-point as to what does and what doesn't get a QG up to the party doing the grading. Like any other subjective analysis, it's pretty easy to be an armchair quarterback critiquing the borderline/judgement calls.

 

Finally, as Rudd has alluded to, under the current scheme there is no way to distinguish between the AF 15 in Question (6.0 other than 10 pages missing), and the same book with the logo removed from the cover - both are Poor/Incomplete. Yet obviously, one is much, much more desirable than the other. The QG handles this situation cleanly, and efficiently. Having 10/20/30 sub-divisions of the Fair/Poor grade would be impractical and unrealistic, and there is simply no way the collecting community could come up with a grading scheme that everyone agreed on for super-low grade books with quirky and/or one of a kind defects.

 

With that, I present the now-some-what static results of the Poll:

 

61% in favor of the use of QG's

38% opposed (and your math is correct Rip, 38% is "...a little over 1/3...")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Finally, as Rudd has alluded to, under the current scheme there is no way to distinguish between the AF 15 in Question (6.0 other than 10 pages missing), and the same book with the logo removed from the cover - both are Poor/Incomplete. Yet obviously, one is much, much more desirable than the other.

 

Do you see how illogical this is? CGC removed Grader's Notes and basically told us to look at the covers for any differences in grades. Now are people so stupid that they can't tell the difference between these two comics?

 

Giving that book a 6.0 is pure marketing, whether you want to admit it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Finally, as Rudd has alluded to, under the current scheme there is no way to distinguish between the AF 15 in Question (6.0 other than 10 pages missing), and the same book with the logo removed from the cover - both are Poor/Incomplete. Yet obviously, one is much, much more desirable than the other.

 

Do you see how illogical this is? CGC removed Grader's Notes and basically told us to look at the covers for any differences in grades. Now are people so stupid that they can't tell the difference between these two comics?

 

Giving that book a 6.0 is pure marketing, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

As Rudd also alluded to, the only thing illogical in this whole thing is trying to get you to see any point of view other than your own...and yes it is "marketing" - the market has decided that the book with the full cover is worth more than the book with the 3/4 cover! Why is this so hard for you to understand? makepoint.gif

 

Never mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
[As Rudd also alluded to, the only thing illogical in this whole thing is trying to get you to see any point of view other than your own...and yes it is "marketing" - the market has decided that the book with the full cover is worth more than the book with the 3/4 cover!

 

Then let the market decide, without any help from CGC.

 

I feel well-centered comics are more valuable than "white border beauties" and the HG collectors on here agree. Many also feel that light foxing, date stamps, writing or kid's names scrawled on the cover detract from the comic's collectiblity.

 

Does CGC deduct for these? No. Does CGC even note them on the label? No.

 

What does CGC tell us? LOOK AT THE COVER.

 

I recommend they take their own advice for the scenario you envision above, without playing with the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Then let the market decide, without any help from CGC.

The market did decide. CGC didn't force anyone to bid on that book, and they fully disclosed the missing pages on a different colored "qualified" label.

 

And gave it a 6.0 numerical grade. If you don't see the importance of that BIG NUMBER, then you're being a dork.

 

CGC has moved to a BIG NUMBER ONLY process, with no alpha grades, no grader's notes on things such as centering, cut, owner name scrawls, foxing, date stamps, written dates, etc. are all forgotten notations at CGC, but suddenly it's all fine with the CGC Faithful that a freakish, half-book gets a 6.0?

 

Look at the number, CGC yells.... except if it's missing 10 FREAKIN' PAGES!

 

If you want the market to truly decide, mark all incompletes with the same numerical grade, and then let buyers choose the one they like more aesthetically. Tossing in a CGC 6.0 screws up the whole equation, and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugaboo-migration

Bugaboo-migration

Posted
Posted
[As Rudd also alluded to, the only thing illogical in this whole thing is trying to get you to see any point of view other than your own...and yes it is "marketing" - the market has decided that the book with the full cover is worth more than the book with the 3/4 cover!

 

Then let the market decide, without any help from CGC.

The market did decide. CGC didn't force anyone to bid on that book, and they fully disclosed the missing pages on a different colored "qualified" label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugaboo-migration

Bugaboo-migration

Posted
Posted

And gave it a 6.0 numerical grade. If you don't see the importance of that BIG NUMBER, then you're being a dork.

 

CGC has moved to a BIG NUMBER ONLY process, with no alpha grades, no grader's notes on things such as centering, cut, owner name scrawls, foxing, date stamps, written dates, etc. are all forgotten notations at CGC, but suddenly it's all fine with the CGC Faithful that a freakish, half-book gets a 6.0?

 

Look at the number, CGC yells.... except if it's missing 10 FREAKIN' PAGES!

 

If you want the market to truly decide, mark all incompletes with the same numerical grade, and then let buyers choose the one they like more aesthetically. Tossing in a CGC 6.0 screws up the whole equation, and you know it.

 

But the book didn't get a 6.0 price did it? The bidders took into account that it was a qualified 6.0 and that 10 pages where missing and bid accordingly. However, they were able to bid based on the added knowledge that the book was unrestored and would be in 6.0 condition if the missing pages were there.

 

If you really want the market to decide, why not just put a 0.5 on every book, even perfect 10's, and let everybody decide which book they like more more aesthetically?

 

You can't really be this dense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
If you really want the market to decide, why not just put a 0.5 on every book, even perfect 10's, and let everybody decide which book they like more more aesthetically?

 

You can't really be this dense.

 

No, but I think you are, if you're comparing a CGC 9.8 to a freak-show, half-book missing 10 FULL PAGES.

 

Hint: One is complete and high-grade, the other is a freakish partial, Frankenstein book with a BIG CHUNK RIPPED OUT. Let's put all the Frankenstein books in one numerical category, whatever CGC decides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing