Why Doesn't CGC have a 9.7 grade?

[RockMyAmadeus]

it just seems unnecessary..

 

Lots....and LOTS....of people thought that MS61, 62, 66, 68, etc were unnecessary, too.

 

And they were a LOT more critical than your comment here.

 

But, eventually people recognized that what the market wants, the market gets, and only the government can say otherwise, so they accepted it.

 

 

I don't know what those numbers are i was just making a comment.

 

No problem...I was just continuing my coin analogy.

 

MS61 would be roughly equivalent to a 9.1 CGC. MS61 exists.....9.1 doesn't. Yet.

[Fireboy]

it just seems unnecessary..

 

Lots....and LOTS....of people thought that MS61, 62, 66, 68, etc were unnecessary, too.

 

And they were a LOT more critical than your comment here.

 

But, eventually people recognized that what the market wants, the market gets, and only the government can say otherwise, so they accepted it.

 

 

I don't know what those numbers are i was just making a comment.

 

No problem...I was just continuing my coin analogy.

 

MS61 would be roughly equivalent to a 9.1 CGC. MS61 exists.....9.1 doesn't. Yet.

 

Oh, coins, sorry, dont know anything about those, thought it was a gun or something, ?

[RockMyAmadeus]

You can submit the same book on a different day and get a different grade, this is a proven fact (and not a criticism of CGC). When the difference between the existing grades is subjective, it seems utterly pointless to me to further split the grades.

 

You are absolutely correct....

 

But that doesn't change what the market may want.

 

Lots and lots of people say the exact same thing about NGC, they're 100% right, yet there are STILL 11 different grade designations between MS60 and MS70.

 

OK, that's a fair comment but I'm still very doubtful that the market would have enough interest in a 9.7 grade but that can only be speculation.

 

It may never happen...it's entirely speculative. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is this: IF the market wants a 9.7, or any other grade designation not currently in use, it will get it.

 

Oh, and if anyone wondered about the "grade squeeze" in comics between 9.0 and 10.0, there's a similar squeeze in coins...only it's worse:

 

Poor - 1

Fair - 2

About Good - 3

Good - 4

(Better than Good, not quite VG) - Good6

Very Good - 8

(Better than VG, not quite Fine) - VG10

Fine - 12

(same as above) - Fine15

Very Fine - 20

VF25

VF30

VF35

(FOUR designations! Damn you Sheldon!! )

Exremely/Extra Fine - 40

EX/XF - 45

About Uncirculated 50

AU53

AU55

AU58

Mint State60-

MS70

 

Crazy, huh?

 

The important thing to keep in mind is that there isn't a "Good6.7384" because the market doesn't want that....and the market doesn't want it because there's not the massive differences in price between Good4 and VG8 in *most* cases.

 

The reason for the 11 Mint State designations is obvious: in progressively better states of preservation, items get rarer and rarer, and prices for obtaining "the best" go higher and higher. That doesn't mean a 66 is "worthless" because it's "only a 66"....it just means that you can own a REALLLLY nice example, and not have to pay, say, $200,000 for it in MS67....you can get away with spending $25,000 on it...or, instead of paying $500 for it, you can spend $50...works either way (and yes, the crackout game is alive and well in the slabbing business.)

 

[mschmidt]

To all the folks who say "ridiculous!" "illogical!" "it'll never happen!" "not possible!"

 

You're being very shortsighted.

 

If the MARKET wants a 9.7, 9.5, et al, it will have it.

 

If the market doesn't, it won't.

 

It doesn't matter how loudly and longly people protest otherwise, that won't change what the market wants.

 

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. This phenomenon has ALREADY HAPPENED in other, older collectible fields. There's no reason it cannot happen in comics, as well, but it will, as ever, be the market that decides it, not you, I, Jim Halperin, or even Mark Haspel....well, ok, maybe Halperin and Haspel. They have a little more pull than me.

 

No offense intended, but from reading your post, it really doesn't seem like you've been paying attention to anything that's happened within the field of comic book grading for the last 10 years.

 

CGC did do a 9.5 grade previously (in association with Wizard) - it was a huge flop, and was discontinued faster that you can say "wow - that 9.5 grade was a huge flop".

 

Up until 1999, comic book grading was done on a 100-point scale (the ONE scale) which proved to be way too complex, and was replaced with the 10-point scale that we use today.

 

So, as far as I can tell, the market has spoken quite loudly on this subject matter already.

[Sal]

two points;

 

i took the OP to be saying that it wasn't he who was assigning zero value to 9.6s, but rather the marketplace,

 

and

 

it's actually not a terrible idea from CGC's viewpoint. nor is it a terrible idea for the people who sell modern - defined in this instance as 2000 on, not CGC's definition - slabs. from the purist's point of view, however, it's a needless muddle

[mschmidt]

it's actually not a terrible idea from CGC's viewpoint. nor is it a terrible idea for the people who sell modern - defined in this instance as 2000 on, not CGC's definition - slabs. from the purist's point of view, however, it's a needless muddle

 

How so? Moderns (from 2000 on), with a few exceptions, are not really worth the slabbing fees if they're not 9.8. How would that change with the introduction of a 9.7 grade?

[Mio]

it's actually not a terrible idea from CGC's viewpoint. nor is it a terrible idea for the people who sell modern - defined in this instance as 2000 on, not CGC's definition - slabs. from the purist's point of view, however, it's a needless muddle

 

How so? Moderns (from 2000 on), with a few exceptions, are not really worth the slabbing fees if they're not 9.8. How would that change with the introduction of a 9.7 grade?

 

And others [like me] think that over time most modern 9.8s will be also worthless. A 9.7 grade would be totally redundant. I'd love to see how consistent CGC could be at grading 9.6/9.7/9.8. To many, there is already an inperceptible difference between 9.6 & 9.8.

 

I wonder if grading ranges would ever be accepted? Meaning, if the CGC graders are not unanimous, the grade would be "8.0-8.5" and if they all agree the grade would be "8.5" for example. I would tend to favour this method.

[A-DONIS]

okay okay...I've got a new one.. CGC doesn't have a 9.7 grade because 7 ate 9???

 

Dumb joke...

[RockMyAmadeus]

To all the folks who say "ridiculous!" "illogical!" "it'll never happen!" "not possible!"

 

You're being very shortsighted.

 

If the MARKET wants a 9.7, 9.5, et al, it will have it.

 

If the market doesn't, it won't.

 

It doesn't matter how loudly and longly people protest otherwise, that won't change what the market wants.

 

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. This phenomenon has ALREADY HAPPENED in other, older collectible fields. There's no reason it cannot happen in comics, as well, but it will, as ever, be the market that decides it, not you, I, Jim Halperin, or even Mark Haspel....well, ok, maybe Halperin and Haspel. They have a little more pull than me.

 

No offense intended, but from reading your post, it really doesn't seem like you've been paying attention to anything that's happened within the field of comic book grading for the last 10 years.

 

Except, of course, that I've intimately followed the field of comic book grading for all of my adult life, but hey, no offense taken.

 

 

CGC did do a 9.5 grade previously (in association with Wizard) - it was a huge flop, and was discontinued faster that you can say "wow - that 9.5 grade was a huge flop".

 

I'm quite aware of the 9.5 and 10 Wizard program, and I'm quite aware that it flopped.

 

What you don't seem to be able to understand....and, no offense intended...is that the market wasn't ready for a 9.5 at that time.

 

It is the absolute height of ridiculous naivete to believe that will always be the case, forever and ever, amen.

 

It is also the height of ridiculous naivete to compare a "9.5 program", with nothing else around it to give it context, like 9.7 and 9.3, to a gradual roll out....as the market dictates, if it ever does...of those grades IN context.

 

Up until 1999, comic book grading was done on a 100-point scale (the ONE scale) which proved to be way too complex, and was replaced with the 10-point scale that we use today.

 

This is false.

 

Allow me to explain:

 

Yes, I am well aware (having contributed, however minorly, to the 2nd edition of the OGG...I feel "creds" are important in this discussion), that the 1st edition OGG had a 100 point scale. It was a very good idea at the time, and, as all good ideas do, it had a bit of growing, evolving, and tweaking....not to mention some borrowing from other, more established collectibles fields...to do before it would work on a large scale.

 

However...and this is an extremely important however....the 100 point scale was not used by anyone for any length of time, and it never even approached anything near general market acceptibility.

 

In that way, it is false to say it was "replaced by the 10 point system", because nobody (with, as ever, the exceptions to the rule) was using the 100 point system in the first place. The 10 point system was essentially new information to the vast majority of buyers and sellers in the comics marketplace, not a "replacement."

 

(Should I *really* blow your mind and bring up the people who thought...and may still think....that there's no such thing as "VF/NM", that that's an impossible grade....? Nah, that's a discussion for another day. )

 

Therefore, it is really rather moot to this discussion. The standard nomenclature (Good, Fine, VF, NM, etc) was COMMON usage until CGC, and for quite a few years after (in fact, to this day, I could not really tell you which is the more "accepted" usage...the numeric ("9.8"), alpha-numeric ("NM/M 9.8") or alphabetic alone ("NM/M") They all three seem to be equally common in the market as a whole. [Please don't make me qualify that by saying "that includes BOTH slabs AND raw books. Pretty please. ])

 

So, as far as I can tell, the market has spoken quite loudly on this subject matter already.

 

Well....again, no offense intended....but you really don't have much of a grasp of how the market works if you're going to state things like this, as if they are the utmost utmost, never to change, forever and ever, amen.

 

Back in 1980, the coin market "had spoken quite loudly" on the idea of an "MS61", and, people like you, relatively intelligent, eloquent people, people who were experts in the field and well respected, said it was the height of lunacy to include such a grade, that such distinctions were impossible, and that the market had already decided what it would and would not accept.

 

By 1995, that idea was as obsolete as the use of the term "Unc." to describe a Mint State coin.

 

Do you not see how the market can change and evolve, and what the market has decided TODAY may completely contradict what it will decide in, oh, 2013?

 

I will say it again: if the MARKET decides there will be a 9.7, there will BE a 9.7, regardless of what any individual or group has to say about the matter.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I wonder if grading ranges would ever be accepted? Meaning, if the CGC graders are not unanimous, the grade would be "8.0-8.5" and if they all agree the grade would be "8.5" for example. I would tend to favour this method.

 

This is a really good idea, even if it's never incorporated.

 

I actually favor a concept whereby the net grade is determined by several different factors - page quality, registration, reflectivity/color, wear (obviously), etc.

 

It would look something like this:

 

Page Quality - 9.6 (for, say, pages that "almost white"...this gives them a lot more room.)

Wear - 6.5

Registration - 9.4

Color Saturation/Gloss - 4.0

 

Net Grade - 7.5

 

Obviously, the wear would be the heaviest weighted factor, but it would give the buyer a much better idea of the overall preservation of the book in hand. If a book had lots of wear, but was saturated with beautiful, deep rich colors, as if it had never been out of the basement, that should be worth some sort of "bonus." If the book was otherwise flawless, but the cover was sun faded, that could be factored in to the grade (which, again, would help....I actually just sold a 9.0 Iron Fist #14 that was lightly faded...and the buyer wants to return it because of this. Yes, it was obvious from the picture, and all three CGC graders took the fading into account, but the buyer apparently didn't, so....)

 

They do something of the sort with coins with PCGS's "CAC" designation and NGC's "star" designation, though it's not broken down that much. If a coin is technically an MS67, but is superior in eye appeal to a "typical" 67, they give it the CAC or star designation to note it. I actually think there are some card grading companies that do such a thing.

 

Here's an example:

 

[mschmidt]

So, as far as I can tell, the market has spoken quite loudly on this subject matter already.

 

Well....again, no offense intended....but you really don't have much of a grasp of how the market works if you're going to state things like this, as if they are the utmost utmost, never to change, forever and ever, amen.

 

But where did I state that? Like I said, the market has already spoken on the 10-point grading scale - which is why we're using it right now - and the Wizard 9.5 grade - which is why we're not using it.

 

Nowhere did I claim that I could foresee the future, but as of this writing, I stand by my statement - the market has indeed spoken.

 

 

Do you not see how the market can change and evolve, and what the market has decided TODAY may completely contradict what it will decide in, oh, 2013?

 

I will say it again: if the MARKET decides there will be a 9.7, there will BE a 9.7, regardless of what any individual or group has to say about the matter.

 

I'm sorry, but the "if the market decides it will happen, it will happen no matter what"-line you've spouted in several posts so far is ridiculous, and I'm honestly surprised that any person of reasonable intelligence would keep pushing it like it's the gods-honest truth.

 

The fact of the matter is that the market is not some anonymous entity that silently controls everything - it's a collection of individuals & groups (the people who you claim have no say in anything) who make their opinion, their likes & their dislikes felt through whatever action they take (posting on a message board, writing long heart-felt letters to the editor, voting with the pocket book, etc).

 

The market (ie. us) can certainly help sway companies towards changes that we feel they should implement, but that doesn't mean it'll automatically happen. I'm fairly certain that the market would like for CGC to lower their prices & have quicker turnaround times, but I doubt that that's going to happen anytime soon.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, as far as I can tell, the market has spoken quite loudly on this subject matter already.

 

Well....again, no offense intended....but you really don't have much of a grasp of how the market works if you're going to state things like this, as if they are the utmost utmost, never to change, forever and ever, amen.

 

But where did I state that? Like I said, the market has already spoken on the 10-point grading scale - which is why we're using it right now - and the Wizard 9.5 grade - which is why we're not using it.

 

You didn't state it. You implied it. Subtle difference, I'm sure. When you say "the market has spoken quite loudly on this subject matter already" the implication following that statement is "and they decided it's not going to work so forget that idea." The market spoke on the matter in 2004. In 2004, the market was not ready for a 9.5 grade. The program was abandoned in 2004.

 

You're correct. It didn't work. At that time. And at this particular time (which we don't know, because they're not attempting it NOW), we don't know.

 

That doesn't mean that the market will not change its mind. Could it work? Of course. Could it be another failure? Of course.

 

But I suspect, if a 9.7 and 9.5 and 9.3 rollout is done as the market dictates, it will, like the MS61 grades before it, find its place in the market, as these things do.

 

Nowhere did I claim that I could foresee the future, but as of this writing, I stand by my statement - the market has indeed spoken.

 

I didn't say you "claimed" anything. You implied it. Are we really going to play this semantics game....?

 

And one more time, since you're missing it: "the market has indeed spoken"....SO....WHAT?

 

If you do not mean to imply that that's the way it's going to be, then saying "the market has indeed spoken" becomes MOOT. The market spoke. So? What's it going to say about it NOW? (we don't know, because they're not doing 9.5s NOW.)

 

What's it going to say in a year? 2 years? 5 years?

 

No one knows. Therefore, saying "the market has spoken" with its implication that the matter is CLOSED and not up for legitimate discussion, is meaningless.

 

Do you not see how the market can change and evolve, and what the market has decided TODAY may completely contradict what it will decide in, oh, 2013?

 

I will say it again: if the MARKET decides there will be a 9.7, there will BE a 9.7, regardless of what any individual or group has to say about the matter.

 

I'm sorry, but the "if the market decides it will happen, it will happen no matter what"-line you've spouted in several posts so far is ridiculous, and I'm honestly surprised that any person of reasonable intelligence would keep pushing it like it's the gods-honest truth.

 

It's not only not ridiculous, it's already happened in several fields.

 

Why you cannot understand this, I do not know. It's not a difficult concept.

 

If the market decides it wants a 9.7, and a 9.5, and a 9.3, just like the coin market decided it wanted an MS61, 62, 64, 66, etc....it will happen.

 

This is not rocket science.

 

The fact of the matter is that the market is not some anonymous entity that silently controls everything - it's a collection of individuals & groups (the people who you claim have no say in anything) who make their opinion, their likes & their dislikes felt through whatever action they take (posting on a message board, writing long heart-felt letters to the editor, voting with the pocket book, etc).

 

Apparently, you're not familiar with market economics.

 

Let me help you: the "market", used in the context that I am using it (as opposed to, say, a "Farmer's Market") is, in fact, the sum total of every individual and group that actively participates in that segment of commerce. Every person and group who buys, sells, steals, or otherwise trades in comic books is part of that market.

 

"The Market" is, in fact, a nebulous, "unknowable" entity, that can be coerced, can be cornered, can be manipulated, but can never be controlled by anyone but a government for any length of time. The market decided when it was ready for slabbed comics. It was not ready for slabbed comics in 1991, even though slabbing in other fields was already a reality. But by 2000, it decided...slowly, cautiously....that it was ready. By 2005, the market had accepted slabbed comics as a segment of the hobby as a whole. Slabbed comics are a reality that is not going away anytime soon. The market spoke. It decided, completely out of control of any entity, be it an invididual or group of individuals.

 

The market (ie. us) can certainly help sway companies towards changes that we feel they should implement, but that doesn't mean it'll automatically happen.

 

Oh, on the contrary. Whatever the MARKET decides will happen HAPPENS.

 

Or do you not follow the New York Stock Exchange at all....?

 

I'm fairly certain that the market would like for CGC to lower their prices & have quicker turnaround times, but I doubt that that's going to happen anytime soon.

 

You really don't have much of an understanding of what the market really is, do you?

 

If the MARKET decides CGC must lower their prices and have quicker turnaround time, CGC will be forced to do exactly that, or go out of business. There is no other option.

 

The market DOES this by simply choosing to inform CGC of the problem, and, if the problem is not addressed, the market packs up its toys and takes them elsewhere....including not slabbing any books ever again. If the market, as a whole, decides the product is not worth the price they are paying, they will shop elsewhere, and if there is nowhere else to shop, they will spend their money on something else.

 

Will there be some holdouts? Of course. There are always exceptions to every rule.

 

But no company on earth has ever stayed in business with holdouts.

 

Why do you think the Ford Motor Company is still around, while the Studebaker Company is not?

 

Because FMC listens to the market and gives it what it wants. They didn't dictate to the market what it is going to buy. Quite the contrary: the market tells Ford, and others, what to make. In fact, FMC...and hundreds of corporations like it...spend vast sums of money trying to find out exactly what the market wants!

 

The Studebaker Company, on the other hand, knew what the market for its products wanted for a century, too....and then lost the ability to understand the market and so, are relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

De facto monopolies, which CGC currently enjoys, does NOT mean that they are immune to these market realities!

 

Seriously, if this was all theoretical, and had never happened in any other field, you might have an argument that it could "never work."

 

But it HAS happened, MULTIPLE times, in MULTIPLE fields, and suggesting that it cannot happen in comics, that it won't happen in comics, that "9.7 is ridiculous", implying that, because it failed once, it won't work again, is nothing but shortsighted naivete.

 

Sorry.

 

(but GREAT conversation! )

[500Club]

Good points, RMA.

 

It certainly is reasonable to look at other collecting fields to see what has gone before. It also brings up an original point thread, which is that CGC may elect to make a business decision to add 9.5 and 9.7 grades (for example). It doesn't necessarily have to be demanded by the market, per se. The market didn't demand blue labels for GA books with small amounts of resto. CGC can chart it's own course, and perhaps influence events all on its own.

 

Also, as for the 9.5 grade, I think if you polled the board posters here, you'd find a certain level of contempt for Wizard and their involvement in professional grading. The Wizard 9.5 was doomed to fail.

[Lebowski]

This thread makes my brain hurt with all its hypotheticals, abstractions, and personifications.

 

Here's the real skinny: Implementation of a scale that worked upon tenths of a point would be a harbinger of doom for the hobby. You think people have a hard time differentiating between grades now? You think the monetary divides based upon imperceptible differences is zany now? Oh brother.

 

I'd say quit arguing over who can more eloquently put forth an argument for knowing how the market works and simply look at the impragmatic nature of the proposal.

[DrWatson]

impragmatic

Is that even a word?

[Sal]

it's actually not a terrible idea from CGC's viewpoint. nor is it a terrible idea for the people who sell modern - defined in this instance as 2000 on, not CGC's definition - slabs. from the purist's point of view, however, it's a needless muddle

 

How so? Moderns (from 2000 on), with a few exceptions, are not really worth the slabbing fees if they're not 9.8. How would that change with the introduction of a 9.7 grade?

 

Because of P.T. Barnum's maxim. Maybe the market would rule it out, who knows? The market does some pretty weird things, as far as I can tell

[DrWatson]

it's actually not a terrible idea from CGC's viewpoint. nor is it a terrible idea for the people who sell modern - defined in this instance as 2000 on, not CGC's definition - slabs. from the purist's point of view, however, it's a needless muddle

 

How so? Moderns (from 2000 on), with a few exceptions, are not really worth the slabbing fees if they're not 9.8. How would that change with the introduction of a 9.7 grade?

 

Because of P.T. Barnum's maxim. Maybe the market would rule it out, who knows? The market does some pretty weird things, as far as I can tell

That and not everything is slabbed for market value. I have a few books that were slabbed solely for their intrinsic value.

[Lebowski]

impragmatic

Is that even a word?

 

I made it up especially for this thread.

[right_you_are-migration]

Also, as for the 9.5 grade, I think if you polled the board posters here, you'd find a certain level of contempt for Wizard and their involvement in professional grading. The Wizard 9.5 was doomed to fail.

 

Good thing, then, that CGC didn't call their Modern slabs "Wizard Age" like they originally wanted to in 1999

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=4&Number=3065670&Searchpage=1&Main=155347&Words=wizard+Moondog&topic=0&Search=true#Post3065670

[RockMyAmadeus]

This thread makes my brain hurt with all its hypotheticals, abstractions, and personifications.

 

Here's the real skinny: Implementation of a scale that worked upon tenths of a point would be a harbinger of doom for the hobby. You think people have a hard time differentiating between grades now? You think the monetary divides based upon imperceptible differences is zany now? Oh brother.

 

I'd say quit arguing over who can more eloquently put forth an argument for knowing how the market works and simply look at the impragmatic nature of the proposal.

 

Shrug.

 

It's of the simplest essence: if comic collectors (the market) demand additional points, additional points will show up, no matter who says what about what's practical or pragmatic or sensible or crazy. If not, they won't. That's it in a nutshell.