Lots of 'Ask CGC' Responses Today...

[mrwoogieman]

....but no response to my question: When is CGC switching to a 100-point grading scale?

[Edian]

....but no response to my question: When is CGC switching to a 100-point grading scale?

 

But what's wrong with the actual (10-point )? 9.6 would be 96 on a 100-point scale.

 

Maybe you want that CGC include another points like 91, 92, 93, etc.

 

 

[garthgantu]

Edian: the current scale is really more of a 24-point scale if you factor in all the 'fractions' of grades that CGC assigns (8.5, 9.2, etc.)... Yes, the benefit of a 100-point scale would be more precise grades. The downside of a 100-point scale would be that the focus on grade/condition would become even more intense, but at the same time people's ability to grade would remain basically the same. If the average (or even above-average) collector can't consistently discern between 9.2 and 9.4, or 9.4 and 9.6, who will be able to discern between 8.3 and 8.4? (Nobody, that's who.)

 

Mr. Woogie: Does CGC *ever* respond to questions about their future plans? That seems like it would be very out of character for the slabinators in Fla.

[Edian]

Edian: the current scale is really more of a 24-point scale if you factor in all the 'fractions' of grades that CGC assigns (8.5, 9.2, etc.)... Yes, the benefit of a 100-point scale would be more precise grades. The downside of a 100-point scale would be that the focus on grade/condition would become even more intense, but at the same time people's ability to grade would remain basically the same. If the average (or even above-average) collector can't consistently discern between 9.2 and 9.4, or 9.4 and 9.6, who will be able to discern between 8.3 and 8.4? (Nobody, that's who.)

 

Ok, I get it and you are right, many treads talk about why a book receive a 9.0 intead of a 9.4, now with a 100-point scale could be worst.

[Zanarkand]

I don't think the world will give a care if their books come back 9.0 or 9.1... Though I do see an increase in resubs. Would you resub your very nice looking VF+ 8.5 if you though you could score an 88?

 

There are people out there who really miss that grade...

[OldGuy]

the benefit of a 100-point scale would be more precise grades.

 

Some will argue that this would be the downside.

[Darthdiesel]

Lets take it down to the tenths level since that decimal point is amust and have a thousand point system

[mrwoogieman]

Well, If someone can tell the difference between a 1.8 and a 2.0 to assign a grade at the bottom end of the scale, then they should be able to have that same precision all the way through to 9.0 where the .2 differentials kick in again. (I don't actually think CGC should go to a 100 point scale, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.) Personally, I think it should be shades of red to delineate grades, that one would be 10.0 and this would be 0.5

[OldGuy]

I think it should be shades of red to delineate grades

 

The Homeland Grading Scale?

[ecfanman]

But the numbers just correspond to "grades". There are 25 grades that CGC has. They have a standard assigned to each grade. The graders determine which standard fits the book. CGC knows how they apply the standards, and we can only speculate. Numbers are assigned to them so they would be in some kind of "order".

 

Does anyone think the difference between a 1.8 and a 2.0, is the same difference as between a 9.6 and a 9.8? They are both "0.2" apart, but they certainly don't correspond to the same number of defects or the same difference in value. And certainly a 8.0 doesn't mean a book is "twice as nice" as a 4.0, or that a 9.6 is "twice as far from a 10.0" as a 9.8.

 

I wish they would have kept the descriptive grades (i.e. "very good", "near mint -", etc.). To me, that would make the numeric scale less confusing. The numbers only help to remind you where CGC makes distinctions. e.g. "very fine -" (7.5) is between "fine/very fine" (7.0) and "very fine" (8.0)

 

If you think they should have 50 or 100 different grades, then that's a seperate issue. Doesn't really matter if they use a 10 point scale, a 100 point scale or a 3.14158 point scale just as long as there is an order to the grades and the graders can tell the difference.

 

ECFANMAN

[joe_collector]

I personally think CGC should adopt a 0.1 level of precision between CGC 8.5 and 10 grades.

 

That would get a lot of resubs and handle the problem of having such a huge gap between 8.5 and 9.0, when we know there are lots of tweeners that fall on the high and low sides.

[Aces]

Adding a 8.8 and 9.5 and 9.7 would be enough.

[garthgantu]

Yes, and to Aces' and Joe's points, in part at least, moving incrementally to a 100-point system would be even more lucrative for CGC, as you'd likely get re-re-re-subs..."damn, no sooner do I re-sub my 8.5 Submariner #1 to get that 8.7, but now CGC's adding 8.8 and 8.9 to the scale - be re-sub Subby again."

 

...sigh...

[jonnydouble]

Yes, and to Aces' and Joe's points, in part at least, moving incrementally to a 100-point system would be even more lucrative for CGC, as you'd likely get re-re-re-subs..."damn, no sooner do I re-sub my 8.5 Submariner #1 to get that 8.7, but now CGC's adding 8.8 and 8.9 to the scale - be re-sub Subby again."

 

...sigh...

 

Or maybe,....maybe we could grade on a curve,...like if the highest grade on a book is a 9.2,..it automatically jumps to a 10.0...and all the other books submitted rise likewise .8 points,.....but when a new book is added to the census,...the whole structure of the curve would be altered making your previous grade invalid,.....so in order to make your book accurate again you would be forced to re-submitt,...however if the re-submitted book was graded at a higher or lower grade than first given,....that throws the whole curve off AGAIN !!! ....so now everybody else has to send their books back to get their grades readjusted,..assuming they will all be graded the same as the first time,...but if even one book is higher or lower,...then,....well ,...you get the idea...

 

 

J.D.