• 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.

CGC Registry Awards - predictions for 2010 winners?

Started by mschmidt,

471 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
My set hasnt been awarded yet, and I am wondering if my other set has a chance. I am down by 100 points, but with more descriptions and scans....

I've got three sets that are the only straight 9.8's in years EVER, with photos and detailed descriptions, and that didn't even cut it.

 

Oh well. At least there is the fun of hunting these down. Now at least it gives everyone a goal for the following years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted
The only downer is they seem to only go by points. I was second place in one set by 100 points, but have comments and some photos on books the other set does not..

That's one of the challengest with the contest that I brought up earlier in the year.

 

Sets should be based not only on number of books, but also the level of detail put into your registy so as to build interest for other collectors.

 

One set I was competing again last year, just to check the photo block, copied pictures from a dealer's site.

 

Just posting books without some details and pictures will not promote a given title. I hope the contest rules change when it comes to completeness.

 

I would also like to see set winners be chosen by something more than points. I think % completed should be a factor. I know pedigrees don't get more points but

why not recognize them as a factor in the set. AS mentioned, the set winners already know who they are. Having a formula, as oppossed to raw points, would add a little suspense to the contest.

 

I agree with all these points. Particularly if the top 2 or 3 sets for a given title are very close in points the judges ought to look at other factors besides overall score. Things like % completed and number of photos/descriptions ought to matter. If two sets are within a reasonable number of points of each other, and the #2 or 3 set is more complete or has tons of photos and descriptions those should be taken into account.

 

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

 

Congrats to all the winners!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mschmidt

mschmidt

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The only downer is they seem to only go by points. I was second place in one set by 100 points, but have comments and some photos on books the other set does not..

That's one of the challengest with the contest that I brought up earlier in the year.

 

Sets should be based not only on number of books, but also the level of detail put into your registy so as to build interest for other collectors.

 

One set I was competing again last year, just to check the photo block, copied pictures from a dealer's site.

 

Just posting books without some details and pictures will not promote a given title. I hope the contest rules change when it comes to completeness.

 

I would also like to see set winners be chosen by something more than points. I think % completed should be a factor. I know pedigrees don't get more points but

why not recognize them as a factor in the set. AS mentioned, the set winners already know who they are. Having a formula, as oppossed to raw points, would add a little suspense to the contest.

 

I agree with all these points. Particularly if the top 2 or 3 sets for a given title are very close in points the judges ought to look at other factors besides overall score. Things like % completed and number of photos/descriptions ought to matter. If two sets are within a reasonable number of points of each other, and the #2 or 3 set is more complete or has tons of photos and descriptions those should be taken into account.

 

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

 

Congrats to all the winners!

 

Considering there are 1000s of sets, don't you think this would add a completely unreasonable burden of work to the CGC employees who are handling this?

 

To me it makes perfect sense the way it's done now - there are the Best In Age, Best Presented, Best Magazine, and the Achievement winners, all of which are hand-picked based on a variety of factors. Those are the awards where a set filled with pedigrees - or a set that isn't necessarily #1 in its category - could shine.

 

And then you have the Best in Set Type winners which are chosen automatically solely on the basis on them being #1 in their category when the judging begins. Which is how it should be - imho, if you aren't #1 in your category, you just don't have the "best set".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted

Not necessarily. Not all sets are going to really be contested. If the #1 set has double the points and completion rate of the #2 set that is an easy call. Many of the sets out there would fall into this category. But in instances where there are very few points separating the #1 and #2 spots, or even in some cases the #3 set, I think that the judges could take a few minutes to judge those sets individually based on criteria like completion % (because the point of putting together a "set" is completing it) and the effort put into that particular set in the form of scans and/or descriptions.

 

It is difficult to judge a "best" set on points when it is apparent that this point system is fairly arbitrary (see the message boards for debates on that) and fails to take things like pedigrees or even page quality into account. If you look, you will see some sets where 1-2 super high grade books (particularly if they are keys) can swamp 10 times that number of slightly lower graded (but still NM quality) books. Of course, this gets us into highly debatable questions like "are 5 books in 9.8 worth as much as 10 books in 9.4-9.6?" that could take up a whole new thread. From a practical standpoint, judges could see completion % and the presence/absence of photos & descriptions from a 2 second glance at the standings for each set. Perhaps they could even do some sort of database search to highlight sets where there is a point difference between the #1 and #2 sets of 5-10% or less (i.e. the #1 set has 1000 points and the #2 set 950).

 

While we all appreciate the hard work that the CGC employees do on our behalf, collectors work hard on these sets and a little extra consideration by judging "best" on more than one (arbitrary) metric is all I (and I think anyone else) would ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted

Winning statistics. Daredevil has only won once, 2006. The Fantastic Four didn't produce any winning sets until this year, 2010. X-Men & X-Men related series (characters) and Spider-Man seem to win most often.

 

1koko

2008 - Best Golden Age - Favourite Pre-Hero

 

4Gemworks Comic Book Emporium

2007 - Best Silver Age - 4GEMWORKS 1-100 ASM BEAUTIES EMPORIUM

2008 - Best Golden Age - 4GEMWORKS CRYPT OF TERROR

 

Andy L

2006 - Best Golden Age - High Grade Supes

 

armydoc

2008 - Best Modern Age - The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed...

 

Barry Conner

2008 - Best Bronze Age - Barry Conner Green Lantern #90- #200

 

BeachBum

2010 - Best Modern Age - 2nd Series Obsession w/ Variants

 

Best2u

2008 - Best Presented - The LL&P Collection - Thrilling Comics

2009 - Best presented - The LL&P Collection - Star Trek

 

Bill Hughes

2006 - Best Bronze Age - Best Conans

 

Brandon Shepherd

2009 - Best Presented - Man Of Action

 

Bullet123

2008 - Best Silver Age - Bullet's FC's

2009 - Achievement in Comics Collecting

2010 - Best Golden Age - Bullet's FC's

 

Bumchex

2010 - Best Golden Age - Bumchex

 

canickus

2009 - Best Modern Age - Canickus Marvel 30 Cent Price Variants

 

CaptainTripps

2006 - Achievement in Comics Collecting

2008 - Best Silver Age - Canadian Original Owner Collection

 

cheetah

2009 - Best Bronze Age - Most Mighty!

 

Chris W.

2006 - Best Golden Age - CW's Spirit's

 

colmoreman

2006 - Best Bronze Age - Big Bronze Books!

2007 - Best Silver Age - Awesome Annuals!

2007 - Best Modern Age - X-Traordinary X-Men!

2008 - Achievement in Comics Collecting

2010 - Best Silver Age - Gorgeous Giants!

2010 - Best Magazine - Prize Premieres!

 

Colorado Comics

2006 - Best Modern Age - The Ultimate, Ultimate Spider-man Collection

 

COMICLINK

2006 - Best Silver Age - SET WITHOUT FEAR

 

comicdonna

2010 - Best Golden Age - The comicdonna collection

 

Crazy Ed

2008 - Best Silver Age - Emerald Insanity

 

Darth Pete

2010 - Best Modern Age - Star Wars Comic Set

 

Darthdiesel

2008 - Best Modern Age - Ultimate Variants

 

Doc Ock

2009 - Best Silver Age - Spidey # 1 - 100

 

dudeman5000

2007 - Best Presented - New dawn for DC

 

Ephus

2010 - Best Presented - Marathon Planet

 

EsquireComics

2007 - Best Golden Age - Completist

 

finuga

2007 - Best Silver Age - Wings & Mace

 

Ghost Town

2006 - Best Silver Age - Spideys

2007 - Achievement in Comics Collecting

2009- Best Silver Age - Those Merry Mutants

 

greggy

2006 - Best Bronze Age - greggy's sweet DC 100 pagers!

2010 - Best Bronze Age - greggy's sweet DC 100 pagers!

 

Hank Pym

2009 - Best Golden Age - Haunt of Fear

 

HiTMAN1099

2009 - Best Modern Age - HiTMAN's Complete Set

 

hkp

2006 - Best Golden Age - Pre Barks

 

kc120us

2009 - Best Bronze Age - Casey's Maximum Mutants

 

Korvac Saga

2009 - Best Silver Age - Astonishingly Fun to Collect

 

krey22

2007 - Best Bronze Age - Good old-fashioned Hellfire

 

Mark Funaiole

2007 - Best Golden Age - Funi's WINGS

 

Mark Sielski

2009 - Best Magazine - The Mark Sielski FM Collection

 

Matt

2006 - Best Modern Age - Wolverine for President

 

mitol

2006 - Best Modern Age - Signature Series Hush

2007 - Best Modern Age - Signature Series ASM McFarlane

 

mschmidt

2008 - Best Presented - m's sandman

2010 - Best Modern Age - m's miracleman

 

Moriarty

2010 - Best Silver Age - Face It, Tiger...You just Hit the Jackpot

 

MutantKeys

2007 - Best Modern Age - MKs Copper X-Men

 

NewForceComics

2007 - Best Golden Age - NFBats

2010 - Achievement in Comics Collecting

 

Raphael Loh

2008 - Best Presented - The Best Run In Years

 

robz

2006 - Best Silver Age - Suspensed!

 

San Onofre Collection

2009 - Best Bronze Age - The San Onofre Collection

2010 - Best presented - The San Onofre Collection

 

SCOTT S. IRELAND

2007 - Best Bronze Age - THE X-MEN COMPLETE SET

 

scrape1

2010 - Best Silver Age - All my Avengers stuff

 

Senator

2009 - Best Modern Age - Senator's Set: New Teen Titans (1980)

2010 - Best Presented - Senator's Set: New Teen Titans (1980)

 

shrunkenhead

2009 - Best Golden Age - The VF(ish) collection

 

Silver

2009 - Best Presented - The Smallville gang!

 

starman221

2008 - Best Golden Age - KILLER BAT'S

2009 - Best Golden Age - HOLY MOLEY STARMAN !!

 

Sterling Comics

2006 - Best Presented - sterlingcomics House of Mystery

2007 - Best Bronze Age - There's No Escape...

2008 - Best Bronze Age - Dare You Enter...

 

Sullypython

2008 - Best Bronze Age - Empty Set

 

Tom Skahan

2007 - Best Presented - Star Trek Gold Key CGC 9.4

 

Topnot

2008 - Best Magazine - evird

 

Ultimate Spider Man Fan Boy

2006 - Best Presented - Ultimate Peter Parker: The working man's CGC set

 

Werner Von Doom

2010 - Best Bronze Age - Latveria's Vaults (Variants)

 

worldsbestcomics

2007 - Best Presented - Beautiful Beasts

2008 - Best Modern Age - Xcellence 94-143

2010 - Best Bronze Age - Beautiful Beasts

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marvelfangirl

Marvelfangirl

Posted
Posted
Not necessarily. Not all sets are going to really be contested. If the #1 set has double the points and completion rate of the #2 set that is an easy call. Many of the sets out there would fall into this category. But in instances where there are very few points separating the #1 and #2 spots, or even in some cases the #3 set, I think that the judges could take a few minutes to judge those sets individually based on criteria like completion % (because the point of putting together a "set" is completing it) and the effort put into that particular set in the form of scans and/or descriptions.

 

It is difficult to judge a "best" set on points when it is apparent that this point system is fairly arbitrary (see the message boards for debates on that) and fails to take things like pedigrees or even page quality into account. If you look, you will see some sets where 1-2 super high grade books (particularly if they are keys) can swamp 10 times that number of slightly lower graded (but still NM quality) books. Of course, this gets us into highly debatable questions like "are 5 books in 9.8 worth as much as 10 books in 9.4-9.6?" that could take up a whole new thread. From a practical standpoint, judges could see completion % and the presence/absence of photos & descriptions from a 2 second glance at the standings for each set. Perhaps they could even do some sort of database search to highlight sets where there is a point difference between the #1 and #2 sets of 5-10% or less (i.e. the #1 set has 1000 points and the #2 set 950).

 

While we all appreciate the hard work that the CGC employees do on our behalf, collectors work hard on these sets and a little extra consideration by judging "best" on more than one (arbitrary) metric is all I (and I think anyone else) would ask.

YAY!!!!!! Another fellow Texan :whee:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
While we all appreciate the hard work that the CGC employees do on our behalf, collectors work hard on these sets and a little extra consideration by judging "best" on more than one (arbitrary) metric is all I (and I think anyone else) would ask.

AMEN!

 

Collectors spend A LOT of money on these sets, and CGC should highly encourage maximum participation and competition by ensuring those that are chosen put the work into their registry sets.

 

I'm totally against someone winning an award just because they post a bunch of books that are best-in-grade, but make no other effort to promote a series. That is just not even much effort other than spending more money than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

To me, some examples of registry sets that should be chosen as BEST SETS are those folks that put a lot of effort into promoting the series, and what a registry set should look like.

 

Jerel's Under Locke & Key

 

Adam's TMNT registry set

 

These guys went above and beyond to maximize the display and interest in their sets, and are the model of extreme competition. The hours alone summarizing all that material is just incredible work on their part.

 

WAY TO GO, FELLAS!

 

:applause:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing