• 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.

What if!?! CGC had used the 100pt scale over 10pt?

Started by bounty_coder,

23 posts in this topic

bounty_coder

bounty_coder

Posted
Posted

Reading through this thread had got me thinking: 10 Point Grading Scale- who actually invented it?

 

What if CGC had actually used the 100 point scale as opposed to the 10 point scale when grading comics?

 

Some questions to go along with this:

- If a comic was graded on the 100 point system and got an 85 I would assume that it translates to a CGC 8.5?

 

- Say an Action Comics #1 was graded by CGC as an 88 on the 100 point scale how would that translate to the 10 point scale? Would they have rounded up to 9.0 (shrug) , or down to 8.5 (shrug)

 

IF it was rounded down to 8.5, would there be higher potential in a comics value by moving to a 100 point system?

 

If 2, Action Comics #1 are graded 8.5, is it possible that one of them is actually an 85 and the other an 87 on the 100 point scale? If you were investing tens of thousands of dollars in an Action Comics #1 would you rather have the 10 point or 100 point scale :ohnoez: (or rather the 8.5 that is a 85 or the 8.5 that is a 87)

 

Interesting thought...

 

- bounty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bounty_coder

bounty_coder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
(tsk) The current system is good enough thank you very much.

 

hehe, But you see what i'm saying? With record prices going for copies of books where their highest grade is say 9.0 or 8.5, does this open up a gap in price being paid to a books quality?

 

-bounty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted

 

I think it would have been valuable, for me, in two areas - The 77 and the 87. For whatever reason there are a lot of late Silver and early Bronze books, especially DCs, that are just better than 7.5 and 8.5, but no way are they 8.0 or 9.0. It's kind of hard to describe, but those are the two areas where I feel like if they inserted an extra grade in between it would make distinguishing among similarly graded books better and clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr 9.8

Mr 9.8

Posted
Posted

I think it would have been valuable, for me, in two areas - The 77 and the 87. For whatever reason there are a lot of late Silver and early Bronze books, especially DCs, that are just better than 7.5 and 8.5, but no way are they 8.0 or 9.0. It's kind of hard to describe, but those are the two areas where I feel like if they inserted an extra grade in between it would make distinguishing among similarly graded books better and clearer.

You mean like a 7.8 and 8.8? I think I see where you are coming from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
What if CGC had actually used the 100 point scale as opposed to the 10 point scale when grading comics?

 

Then there would be less confidence in them as a company and grading in general than we see today. They're already slightly inconsistent on a 25-point scale...on a 100-point scale, the margin of error would be around 4-5 points and nobody would trust the numbers on the label at all down to a 2 or 3 point margin.

 

We'd also see at least a dozen "WTF?" threads a week on here complaining about misgrades... :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bounty_coder

bounty_coder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What if CGC had actually used the 100 point scale as opposed to the 10 point scale when grading comics?

 

Then there would be less confidence in them as a company and grading in general than we see today. They're already slightly inconsistent on a 25-point scale...on a 100-point scale, the margin of error would be around 4-5 points and nobody would trust the numbers on the label at all down to a 2 or 3 point margin.

 

We'd also see at least a dozen "WTF?" threads a week on here complaining about misgrades... :insane:

 

Haha. But do you really think that's the case? More errors on a 100 point scale? I would think that this would allow a finer granularity to a grade, as oppossed to maybe a bit of concieved wishy-washy ness in grades 7.5 to 8.0 and 8.5 to 9.0.

 

Also to note, obviously these scales mean much less with 99% of the books out there. I'm really talking about the elite books where there might only be one 9.0 or 8.5 out there as the highest in grade which would sell for $50K+ in their own rights.

 

Again, not trying to create a 100 point scale revolution (I'm actually fine with the 10 point system), just wanted to discuss.

 

- bounty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comics-rock

comics-rock

Posted
Posted
What if CGC had actually used the 100 point scale as opposed to the 10 point scale when grading comics?

 

Then there would be less confidence in them as a company and grading in general than we see today. They're already slightly inconsistent on a 25-point scale...on a 100-point scale, the margin of error would be around 4-5 points and nobody would trust the numbers on the label at all down to a 2 or 3 point margin.

 

We'd also see at least a dozen "WTF?" threads a week on here complaining about misgrades... :insane:

 

Haha. But do you really think that's the case? More errors on a 100 point scale? I would think that this would allow a finer granularity to a grade, as oppossed to maybe a bit of concieved wishy-washy ness in grades 7.5 to 8.0 and 8.5 to 9.0.

 

Also to note, obviously these scales mean much less with 99% of the books out there. I'm really talking about the elite books where there might only be one 9.0 or 8.5 out there as the highest in grade which would sell for $50K+ in their own rights.

 

Again, not trying to create a 100 point scale revolution (I'm actually fine with the 10 point system), just wanted to discuss.

 

- bounty

 

...and greater grading/ slabbing fees...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

The only thing difference between a 100 point scale and the scale that's used now is the decimal point.

 

There could just as easily be 9.7, 9.5, 8.8, 3.7 as there could 97, 95, 88, 37.

 

There's no functional difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Haha. But do you really think that's the case? More errors on a 100 point scale? I would think that this would allow a finer granularity to a grade, as oppossed to maybe a bit of concieved wishy-washy ness in grades 7.5 to 8.0 and 8.5 to 9.0.

 

I don't have to hypothesize about whether that's the case--it already has been. The Overstreet scale had 100 points and Borock/Haspel agreed with Fishler and many others that the precision of grading standards isn't good enough to merit that many assignable points as people rarely ended up assigning the same grades on a 100-point scale. You can't increase the number of assignable notches without a more precise grading standard to back it up.

 

Before trying to increase the number of points, write a better grading guide first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bounty_coder

bounty_coder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Haha. But do you really think that's the case? More errors on a 100 point scale? I would think that this would allow a finer granularity to a grade, as oppossed to maybe a bit of concieved wishy-washy ness in grades 7.5 to 8.0 and 8.5 to 9.0.

 

I don't have to hypothesize about whether that's the case--it already has been. The Overstreet scale had 100 points and Borock/Haspel agreed with Fishler and many others that the precision of grading standards isn't good enough to merit that many assignable points as people rarely ended up assigning the same grades on a 100-point scale. You can't increase the number of assignable notches without a more precise grading standard to back it up.

 

Before trying to increase the number of points, write a better grading guide first.

 

Interesting hm , thanks for sharing!

 

So does anyone really care about the following hypothetical situation, or has thoughts of it just burned up in the ether?

 

The highest CGC graded Unrestored Action Comics #1 is at 8.5 currently; and for hypothetical purposes say it would have graded 85 on the 100 pt scale.

 

Another Action Comics #1 Unrestored comes around and is given an 8.5 but say it it would graded 87 on the 100 pt scale (but rounded down to fit into the 8.5 grade)

 

With the million+ dollars being paid for comics of this caliber, does the discrepency between the current 10 point scale and 100 point scale rear it's ugly head in these situations (one thought of as an 85 & one thought of as an 87 but both assigned an 8.5) or do the people who have the money to spend on these types of books really care (shrug)

 

- bounty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing