Anti CGC

[markseifert]

The fact that all the graders at CGC are all yoked or harnessed together to work with the same grading standard and STILL do not agree on grades shows me that it will never be perfect.

 

It suggests to me that the scale is too fine to be practically applied by human graders.

 

I've said this before, but an independent test of cgc's grading consistency would be pretty interesting. Someone will get around to it eventually.

[fantastic_four]

The fact that all the graders at CGC are all yoked or harnessed together to work with the same grading standard and STILL do not agree on grades shows me that it will never be perfect.

 

It suggests to me that the scale is too fine to be practically applied by human graders.

 

I've said this before, but an independent test of cgc's grading consistency would be pretty interesting. Someone will get around to it eventually.

 

It'd be interesting--I'm guessing it's around 70% - 80%.

[VintageComics]

subjectivity is a must to grading a book.

 

I VEHEMENTLY disagree. Why do you say this?

 

Because a 1/2 hard crease on a VF book is going to have much less impact than it will on a NM book.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Because a 1/2 hard crease on a VF book is going to have much less impact than it will on a NM book.

 

Mathematically, you're arguing that determining how much to reduce for a defect isn't a linear equation, and I agree with you entirely. Luckily math moved beyond that limited type of thinking hundreds of years ago and a model is possible. I'm not sure offhand what type of curve we're using to determine how much less to weigh defects the more of them there are--it's probably exponential although that may be exaggerating it--but I can absolutely say I'd rather being tasked with modelling that than the path of an automated Mars lander on its trek through the atmosphere of the Earth and Mars and in the trip through space.

[AtlasFan]

Just to separate the art from the science--how much you should deduct for a defect is an art, but once you've decided this, it's a science. A computer can't tell you how much to deduct for a defect because that's aesthetics, but once programmed with how much to deduct, they absolutely can tell you how much to deduct for a defined set of defects.

 

The gray area is separate from computers--it's whether or not it's possible at all to document how much to deduct for the infinite types of defects that are out there. Entropy and chaos theory tells us there are an infinite number of things that could happen to a comic...so what tth and Borock doubt is that it's possible to document infinite complexity. But you can by categorizing defects into taxonomical types--that's the scientific approach, and it's what graders do anyway in their heads lacking a written standard.

 

Heck, computerizing the calculation is the easy part. the calculation could even be (gasp!) hand-calculated if needed. The challenging part would be to:

1) determine all the components of a comic book

2) determine and codify all individual defects that each component may have

3) determine the value of each component's defect

4) apply an optimal methodology for a grader to capture each defect

 

It sounds like the biggest obsticle for this project would be to convince the users (GCG graders) that this is not impossible and that human observations can be standardized and quantified.

 

At any rate, it sounds like it would be a fun project!

Bill

 

[fantastic_four]

2) determine and codify all individual defects that each component may have

 

This is the most common reason people think it's not possible--it's the reason Overstreet and Borock think it's impossible, they're concerned that you can't codify defects because there are an infinite number of possibilities. While I agree the set of possible defects is infinite, I think you can categorize them and assign deductions to the severity of a defect from a given category, and that Borock and the CGC graders are already doing exactly that in their heads.

[VintageComics]

I think I'd just rather grade my own comics or buy them from someone who is a fairly consistent grader. Sounds way easier.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

I think I'd just rather grade my own comics or buy them from someone who is a fairly consistent grader. Sounds way easier.

 

I tend to agree, but such complexity would be hidden from users, and it's beside the point since you and I are replying to AtlasFan's pining about CGC's standards, not yours and mine. I wouldn't want to use it either unless it were about as fast as grading in my head, which likely isn't possible...nobody would want to double the already-tedious time required to grade a 10,000 book collection you're selling.

 

One pro of software grading would be more thorough reporting of defects to future owners of the book, as if you enter them into software, they can be output in sales listings--or even onto a report card printed out for customers if you're a grading certification company. However, in the case of it being a dealer tool, I bet the majority of sellers would think this disuaded more sales than it encouraged and that full disclosure isn't a good thing.

[VintageComics]

The fact that all the graders at CGC are all yoked or harnessed together to work with the same grading standard and STILL do not agree on grades shows me that it will never be perfect.

 

It suggests to me that the scale is too fine to be practically applied by human graders.

 

I've said this before, but an independent test of cgc's grading consistency would be pretty interesting. Someone will get around to it eventually.

 

I don't think the scale is simply fine, it's infinitely variable.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

The fact that all the graders at CGC are all yoked or harnessed together to work with the same grading standard and STILL do not agree on grades shows me that it will never be perfect.

 

It suggests to me that the scale is too fine to be practically applied by human graders.

 

I've said this before, but an independent test of cgc's grading consistency would be pretty interesting. Someone will get around to it eventually.

 

I don't think the scale is simply fine, it's infinitely variable.

 

 

I think he meant fine as in ornate, detailed, or precise...that it has too many notches of precision at 25 stops between 0.5 and 10.0 and should have less, which I agree with.

[fantastic_four]

Now, if I give out any more information, I will have to start charging consulting fees!

 

Oh yea, and this captures why nobody's refined the grading standard...the people with enough applied science/math knowledge to do it are used to getting paid quite a lot for it, and I can't think of any money at all to be made in doing that kind of work for comic book back issue grading. I've mulled it over quite a few times and haven't been able to envision anything other than a PITA. I still think of doing it from time to time just for fun, which is why I still enjoy debating it...I suppose it hasn't bubbled up to the top of my list of fun activities yet.

 

There was a guy on the EBay comics boards who is a math professor who talked there for several years about writing a grading guide and possibly some software to support it. I tried to get him to come post here to make the grading debates more interesting, but he's somewhat like the guy who started this post and dislikes certification, although I don't recall him taking the melodramatic "it's killing the hobby" stance this guy is taking. Think his name there was "gifflefunk."

[AtlasFan]

Now, if I give out any more information, I will have to start charging consulting fees!

 

Oh yea, and this captures why nobody's refined the grading standard...the people with enough applied science/math knowledge to do it are used to getting paid quite a lot for it, and I can't think of any money at all to be made in doing that kind of work for comic book back issue grading.

 

I disagree. With all the recent publicity surrounding the recent Action #1 and Tec #27 auctions, everyone gets the message that comics are Big Business.

 

Personally, if I was consulting, I would love to do it -- and I wouldnt take a cent for it...they could pay me off in comics!

 

Let me ask this...do you think when CGC graded the Action 1 & Tec 27 that it only took 2-3 minutes? Did they use the same process to grade it as they did when I submitted my X-Men #125? I SERIOUSLY dount it. I'm sure many hours were spent going over those books with a fine-tooth-comb.

 

 

 

[fantastic_four]

I disagree. With all the recent publicity surrounding the recent Action #1 and Tec #27 auctions, everyone gets the message that comics are Big Business.

 

Personally, if I was consulting, I would love to do it -- and I wouldnt take a cent for it...they could pay me off in comics!

 

Let me ask this...do you think when CGC graded the Action 1 & Tec 27 that it only took 2-3 minutes? Did they use the same process to grade it as they did when I submitted my X-Men #125? I SERIOUSLY dount it. I'm sure many hours were spent going over those books with a fine-tooth-comb.

 

There's money in comics...but how do you apply that to grading? The actual money to be made is as a dealer...I'm kind of doubting Overstreet got rich off of his Grading Guide.

 

No, I know they spend longer on the high grade Action 1s and Tec 27s, Borock has said several times in the forums they do. Makes sense, they're big comics geeks like we are, we'd spend longer drooling over those too. He's said they spend longer on the 9.9 and 10.0 candidates too to make sure they don't mistakenly give those grades away to books that don't deserve them. Given the fact that many people believe those grades are mythical anyway and shouldn't be assigned, that, too, makes sense. I'm highly doubtful any one grader has ever spent more than an hour on any book though...more than 20 minutes would surprise me. My best guess is still 2-3 minutes per book on average.

[TheWatcher]

Hulk head hurts! Oops, forgot it's the GA forum: Heap head hurts!*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I have no clue if the Heap even talked, so I'm just running with it

[AtlasFan]

Hulk head hurts! Oops, forgot it's the GA forum: Heap head hurts!*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I have no clue if the Heap even talked, so I'm just running with it

 

Maybe Solomon Grundy would be a better choice...I know he talked.

[1koko]

Hulk head hurts! Oops, forgot it's the GA forum: Heap head hurts!*

 

 

 

Obvious I know...

[tth2]

Hulk head hurts! Oops, forgot it's the GA forum: Heap head hurts!*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I have no clue if the Heap even talked, so I'm just running with it

At least it's just your head that hurts. After reading the posts in this thread since yesterday, I've lost the will to live.

[adamstrange]

Hulk head hurts! Oops, forgot it's the GA forum: Heap head hurts!*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I have no clue if the Heap even talked, so I'm just running with it

At least it's just your head that hurts. After reading the posts in this thread since yesterday, I've lost the will to live.

[RockMyAmadeus]

OK, I'm understanding now.

 

So you want a human to mark off a checklist whereby a program calculates a grade.

 

So you're still using subjective human input as raw data.

 

Right back where we've started.

 

That still doesn't take into account the feel, smell or over all appearance of a book and those are 3 very important factors when choosing a grade.

 

Comic grading is not just about a string of defects much like human health is not just about weight and height.

 

Because comics are 3 dimensional AND some subjectivity is a must to grading a book I believe it's just too much info (and too many variables) to be pigeonholed into a 2D program.

 

Of course that's just my opinion and I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

 

You're not.

 

Well, at least this time....

 

The simple fact of the matter is this: people who have experience grading, and who use a *relatively* standard set of guidelines (ie, the 2nd edition of the OGG), will come to relatively close conclusions 99.9999934% of the time.

 

That means you're not going to get one person say a book is a "4.5", another a "1.8", and yet another a "9.2."

 

It's not going to happen.

 

And with THREE people assigning an aggregate grade, as opposed to just one, the margin for "subjectivity" is drastically reduced.

 

The real issue has always been, and remains, why then does the market insist on putting radical price differences on what amounts to tiny, fairly subjective differences in actual physical condition that could be "either/or" on any other day.

 

THAT is the real crux of the issue.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

And with THREE people assigning an aggregate grade,

 

There is no aggregrate grade. There is a Finalizer, and his grade is law.