CGC Registry Awards - predictions for 2010 winners?

[DrWatson]

Ahem!

 

My Little old Astonishing X-Men set.

 

Toot, toot.

[N/A]

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).

 

 

I disagree and would encourage the discussion on the points system. If the point system seems fairly arbitrary then fix it. A standardized point system including such additions as photos ,desriptions and even percent completion would be ideal. Getting the point system as close to ideal would answer all of the questions about how to award registry owners.

 

In the long run this decreases the CGC manpower required to run the registry.

[Bosco685]

Ahem!

 

My Little old Astonishing X-Men set.

 

Toot, toot.

 

[Raphael]

those are really some great sets Bosco, congrats again to all the winners!

[Bosco685]

I disagree and would encourage the discussion on the points system. If the point system seems fairly arbitrary then fix it. A standardized point system including such additions as photos ,desriptions and even percent completion would be ideal. Getting the point system as close to ideal would answer all of the questions about how to award registry owners.

 

In the long run this decreases the CGC manpower required to run the registry.

I have to agree with Jeff.

 

Heck, you have some folks that copy raw book pictures from dealer sites and insert them into their registry sets. I think someone that adds front AND back cover shots, detailed descriptions of each book, and even a fantastic summary for their registry set to attract collector interest deserves extra points.

 

It's a competition - treat it like one, but of course keeping it healthy to promote the hobby.

[mysterio]

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.

 

Those are examples of simply amazing sets! (If I knew how to insert the clapping hands into this post I would have!) I completely agree that simply spending the most money to put up a bunch of 9.8s isn't in the spirit of the competition (at least the way I see it). While having nice books is certainly an important part of building a set worthy of recognition, it shouldn't be the ONLY basis for judgement. I would have no problem with a revision of the point system to encourage active participation (i.e. photos and descriptions) with sets. Those points could even make up a separate and complementary metric alongside the points awarded for grades. I also think that page quality should somehow count towards the point totals for books, as white pages certainly command higher prices and therefore reflect higher demand and respect.

[DrWatson]

Page quality is too fluid to have any bearing on the points system. In other words, it is possible to submit the same book three different times and possibly end up with three different page quality designations with the page quality not really "changing."

[Bosco685]

I also think that page quality should somehow count towards the point totals for books, as white pages certainly command higher prices and therefore reflect higher demand and respect.

I think that is going to be a tough one to judge on as some books also have a history of low-quality paper and come up frequently as OFF WHITE/WHITE. So to award points because someone lucked out and found the rare WHITE would be unfair to the rest, in my opinion.

 

Plus like someone pointed out, I've personally resubmitted books to CGC that were labelled OFF WHITE/WHITE and they came back WHITE. And I didn't do anything to change the page quality rating.

[mysterio]

I also think that page quality should somehow count towards the point totals for books, as white pages certainly command higher prices and therefore reflect higher demand and respect.

I think that is going to be a tough one to judge on as some books also have a history of low-quality paper and come up frequently as OFF WHITE/WHITE. So to award points because someone lucked out and found the rare WHITE would be unfair to the rest, in my opinion.

 

Plus like someone pointed out, I've personally resubmitted books to CGC that were labelled OFF WHITE/WHITE and they came back WHITE. And I didn't do anything to change the page quality rating.

 

Sure, but to be fair the numerical grades show the same weaknesses. You can resubmit a book 3 different times and get 3 different grades without anything structural about the book changing. Likewise, some books (with dark covers, for example) are tough to find in high grades. This is no different than books with notoriously low page quality.

 

To be clear, I don't think that page quality should be on equal footing with the numerical grade, just that it should have an influence. Maybe a 90/10 or 80/20 bearing, with 90/80% on grade and 10/20% on page quality. Nicer page quality ought to give books a small bump over a book with a lower page quality.

[mschmidt]

Those are examples of simply amazing sets! (If I knew how to insert the clapping hands into this post I would have!) I completely agree that simply spending the most money to put up a bunch of 9.8s isn't in the spirit of the competition (at least the way I see it). While having nice books is certainly an important part of building a set worthy of recognition, it shouldn't be the ONLY basis for judgement. I would have no problem with a revision of the point system to encourage active participation (i.e. photos and descriptions) with sets.

 

It already does. If two sets have the same number of points, the set with the most images & descriptions get the top spot.

[Bosco685]

It already does. If two sets have the same number of points, the set with the most images & descriptions get the top spot.

But that's in a draw. I think what we are talking about are those registry members that go the extra mile to really promote a title/character.

 

Otherwise, those with the best book grades just rise to the top with little effort on their part to truly promote collecting a given title, or even getting into encased books.

 

Those should be some of the core values expected during this competition, as we are in a hobby that constantly needs new blood to keep the market going.

[mschmidt]

It already does. If two sets have the same number of points, the set with the most images & descriptions get the top spot.

But that's in a draw. I think what we are talking about are those registry members that go the extra mile to really promote a title/character.

 

Otherwise, those with the best book grades just rise to the top with little effort on their part to truly promote collecting a given title, or even getting into encased books.

 

Yes, they do - but giving a "best in set type" designation to a set that isn't #1 in its category makes zero sense whatsoever, because it, by definition, isn't the "best set" of its type.

 

I think the "best in set type" system as it stands right now is pretty much perfect - it's based solely on points, but if there's a tie, the presentation aspect of the set kicks in & decides the winner. It still gives people an incentive to add the images & the descriptions, but ensures that the person who actually has the best books will win the award.

[mysterio]

It already does. If two sets have the same number of points, the set with the most images & descriptions get the top spot.

But that's in a draw. I think what we are talking about are those registry members that go the extra mile to really promote a title/character.

 

Otherwise, those with the best book grades just rise to the top with little effort on their part to truly promote collecting a given title, or even getting into encased books.

 

Yes, they do - but giving a "best in set type" designation to a set that isn't #1 in its category makes zero sense whatsoever, because it, by definition, isn't the "best set" of its type.

 

I think the "best in set type" system as it stands right now is pretty much perfect - it's based solely on points, but if there's a tie, the presentation aspect of the set kicks in & decides the winner. It still gives people an incentive to add the images & the descriptions, but ensures that the person who actually has the best books will win the award.

 

Let me give you an example that hits close to home for me to get everyone's views on this example. I am #2 in Spidey Super Stories, a set I have really worked hard on. My #2 set is a mere 155 points behind the #1 set, and we are both over 4000 points so that is a fairly small amount relatively speaking. My #2 set is 21% more complete than the #1 set, and I have 100% photos of the front cover and am working on the back covers (only 1 of those so far). I have about half a dozen issues that are the sole graded examples for those particular issues. Now, the #1 set is spectacular, and I most definitely am not trying to knock down his accomplishments in the least, but I wonder if you would argue that a set that is considerably smaller than the #2 set, with only 2 photos vs 100% for the #2 set, is really an open and shut case for the "best" set. My problem is that I have "settled" for 9.4 and 9.6 books for a great deal of my set, whereas the #1 set is predominantly 9.8 books (and also predominantly the Winnipeg set). So if you would argue that a smaller set of mostly 9.8 books is the "best" set then that is fine, as that is what CGC decided as well. And again I will stress that this is not at all meant to be a slam on the #1 set (which I have great respect for), and my argument may be interpreted as sour grapes because I came up short, but if you can look at my case on its merits and decide that I am completely wrong-headed to be disappointed in CGC's decision then I would like to hear your reasoning.

[Raphael]

Hey Mysterio. You've brought up some interesting points. My 2cents on the matter:

 

While your set is certainly more complete than the #1 spot holder, I do see that the #1 holder's are, for the most part are of higher grade than yours. In my opinion, when we're looking at the "best" set, there should be focus on the overall grade of the books in that set. In the world of collecting, many collectors do focus on looking for the best/highest graded books for their set, while others care more about completion. I think in your case, while your set is more complete, I would have to say that the #1 holder's set, because of the amount of high grade books, is the "better" set.

 

Your post makes a case for some sort of point allocation for having descriptions and images for your books, but that may be hard to do. How would one ascertain how many points to assign for images and descriptions, especially when stock photos and descriptions can be used in a persons set.

 

Let me also add that if you did in fact, have a 100% complete set, those extra points (even if all the books are not all 9.8), the sheer amount of books you have and their accumulated points would push you to the top. Then the case would be that there is a guy that isn't #1 has less books, but has more higher grade books than you.

 

When all else fails, go for #1 with the highest graded books and the most complete set

[Bomber-Bob]

 

Michael, I respectfully disagree with your statement that the system is perfect.

You are assuming the integrity of the set with the most points = the owner honestly owns all the books. I don't think this is always the case. I have personally experienced being bumped from #1 to #2 in a Silver Age title by a 'collector' who has been selling his books in auctions.

[mysterio]

Oneasian, I see your points and don't have a problem with them. "Best" is always going to be in the eye of the beholder, and there are a lot of ways to judge it. I respect other's reasonable points on the matter. No system is going to be perfect, including this one.

 

Bob, as for your point about integrity of sets, how do you propose doing this? Technically, if someone is selling books it may be reasonably assumed that they currently own them. Any books someone owns should be eligible for their sets until they are sold. Maybe you should clarify your argument a bit, or at least your particular definition of "own".

[Bomber-Bob]

Bob, as for your point about integrity of sets, how do you propose doing this? Technically, if someone is selling books it may be reasonably assumed that they currently own them. Any books someone owns should be eligible for their sets until they are sold. Maybe you should clarify your argument a bit, or at least your particular definition of "own".

 

Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to verify the integrity of one's registry, hence my argument that the system is not perfect. In my observation it seems that this 'collector' owns his books as long as the new owner does not request a registry transfer.

[mysterio]

Bob, as for your point about integrity of sets, how do you propose doing this? Technically, if someone is selling books it may be reasonably assumed that they currently own them. Any books someone owns should be eligible for their sets until they are sold. Maybe you should clarify your argument a bit, or at least your particular definition of "own".

 

Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to verify the integrity of one's registry, hence my argument that the system is not perfect. In my observation it seems that this 'collector' owns his books as long as the new owner does not request a registry transfer.

 

Yeah, likely not. I always put in the transfer request as soon as I win a book and pay for it, but some people are lazier about it and either wait a long time or never put in the request. I'm sure there are plenty of phantom books in sets that were simply never taken out by people who sold them.

 

But speaking of verification, there should be a way to keep stock photos out of registry sets. The number on the CGC case ought to match the book in the photo. Again, policing this is a problem and would likely have to be left up to individual members to report, but this should be a registry policy to prevent people from populating sets with hijacked images.

[comicdonna]

Bob, as for your point about integrity of sets, how do you propose doing this? Technically, if someone is selling books it may be reasonably assumed that they currently own them. Any books someone owns should be eligible for their sets until they are sold. Maybe you should clarify your argument a bit, or at least your particular definition of "own".

 

Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to verify the integrity of one's registry, hence my argument that the system is not perfect. In my observation it seems that this 'collector' owns his books as long as the new owner does not request a registry transfer.

 

Yeah, likely not. I always put in the transfer request as soon as I win a book and pay for it, but some people are lazier about it and either wait a long time or never put in the request. I'm sure there are plenty of phantom books in sets that were simply never taken out by people who sold them.

 

But speaking of verification, there should be a way to keep stock photos out of registry sets. The number on the CGC case ought to match the book in the photo. Again, policing this is a problem and would likely have to be left up to individual members to report, but this should be a registry policy to prevent people from populating sets with hijacked images.

It would be difficult to police. I have all my front and back scans cropped to just the book. The CGC number is listed in the set anyways. I suppose I can prove I own the books if asked to verify. I don't see this happening anyways.

[Bosco685]

That award badge sure looks sweet, Mike. And very well deserved!