• 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 9.2 with holes? just skip the piss match

Started by Rickdogg,

140 posts in this topic

Rickdogg

Rickdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

But in doing so you are now putting aspects of the CGC grading system into the descriptive hands of the seller, which opens up a who new canna wurms!

 

Whatever the seller tries to do, he can't escape the fact that it's a VG. THE TRUTH IS GREAT! tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arty

Arty

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't it be easier to use those "imaginary" qualified grades?

You'll know exactly what a "NM 9.2 qualified- 3 punch holes" book will look like, even without a picture.

You can't say what a VG book with 3 holes will look like. Is it otherwise like FN/VF/NM copy? There's no point in 3rd party numerical grading if you don't know it's "true" grade without a picture.

 

Rick: do you believe that CGC can make accurate grading criterias for unusual one of a kind defects? If there is only a one known copy with some rare flaw,

how do they grade that?

Does CGC have different criterias for different size and number of punch holes and their affect on downgrade? I think it's an impossible task.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rickdogg

Rickdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm winded now, but CGC is a grading company. If they really wanted to, they could make up a grading criteria for bindery holes. If they could do it for all of the other defects they can do it for this one as well since they are all in fact flaws.

 

I'll wait for POV's response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rickdogg

Rickdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That's true, but I think that in case of unusual and rare one-of a kind defects (like punch holes) it can not be determined how much these flaws downgrade a book.

 

Just like you can't determine a true value for a single, oldest in census Mint 10 silverage book. But if there are dozens of 9.0 books their value can be reasonably "accurately" estimated.

 

What are you talking about? We'll know in a few days. smirk.gif Books with bindery holes can be duplicated by the millions. It's very simple just punch holes in the damn thing. A silver age CGC 10.0 is not easily duplicated. Once again, wrong analogy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rickdogg

Rickdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have to give rick 5 stars for courageously defending his opinion in an unfair situation on debating alone against two opponents.

 

laugh.gif @ one point it was 3 but CI jumped in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Does CGC have different criterias for different size and number of punch holes and their affect on downgrade? I think it's an impossible task.
It's so far from an impossible task that it makes me want to chuckle. The chuckling wouldn't be at you, it'd be at the idea you're expressing, which has been expressed by many, many people before you, including Gerber and Overstreet. So much pessimism from a species such as man who has accomplished so many other wonders!

 

It's not impossible to create a grading scale that all defects fit into, it's just a bit daunting if the only human faculties you're willing to use are observation (studying comics) and human memory (experience). Grading CAN become much more of a science; I'm convinced of it. If mankind can send a freakin' robot to the surface of Mars and remote control it from Earth, I'm convinced that creating an all-inclusive grading scale isn't the impossible task people believe it to be.

 

Companies use scientific--even totally AUTOMATED--techniques for measuring the quality of products and set standards for placing those products into different categories every single minute of every single hour of every single day. I know, I know--people think you can't translate an aesthetic art like grading into a cold, hard science. That's partially true. You can't turn it into an absolute science that has a universal truth. Nobody has come up with a formula to mathematically determine what "beauty" is.

 

However, people make up their own exacting standards for what beauty is all the time. Overstreet and CGC have started to do that for comics; they just haven't put it into anything resembling an exact, scientific vocabulary yet. The real questions about whether comic book grading is a science or not are:

 

  • Are there a finite number of categories for commonly-seen defects on paper collectibles?
  • Are defects measurable?

If the answer to those two questions is yes--and I believe that answer IS yes--then grading can become much more of a science than it is today. The reason this hasn't already been done for collectibles is not because it's impossible, it's because it's a historically new area of knowledge within which there is comparatively little money to be made, so the financial weight of a medium-to-large-sized company or a determined individual (short of people like Overstreet and Borock) hasn't been thrown behind it yet. There is actually software out there that will analyze a photograph of the human face and attempt to assign a numerical grade to the beauty of that face! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in the case of such an automated software program like I just mentioned, the beholder is the group of people who wrote that software. Using their experience and measurements of beautiful facial dimensions, they coded those dimensions as checks into a software program that attempted to measure things like cheekbone structure, size of eyes/nose/forehead/chin, and the space between eyes/nose/chin. This software isn't ready for prime time yet, last I heard; computer analysis of digital images hasn't evolved far enough yet to come anywhere close to the function of the human brain and eyes. But millions of dollars a year are spent to advance this science for a BROAD range of applications, so it's just a matter of time before it gets good and trickles down to a small area like paper collectibles grading.

 

Using research, organization of the research into a hierarchical set of groups, and some geometry to compute the total surface area of the cover and of interior pages that a defect has affected, I'm extremely confident you can create a comprehensive grading scale. There is another collector who posts on the E-Bay forums named "gifflefunk" who has actually written software to grade a comic for you! He came up with the set of standards coded into the software by reverse-engineering all the defects from all the photographs in Overstreet's first edition of the Grading Guide. Last I heard, he didn't have it working yet for anything below the Fine grade, and the software doesn't analyze photographs--you have to manually enter all the defects on a comic--but it's an example of what you can start doing if you keep an open mind about the near-unlimited potential for the scientific method to categorize and model physical quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I have NO problems with the qualified concept whatsoever. I DO have a problem with books like this with friggin holes in them getting a 9.2 qualified label. It should be labeled POOR with the notes being "this book is a piece of shilt" grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
supapimp

supapimp

Posted
Posted

honestly, it doesn't bother me, if the book is structually NM, then it's NM, hole or no holes. that's what qualified means, as for a sig on the cover getting qualified, that's BS. if it wasn't for CGC trying to milk their BS signature series, it's BS. quote me on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rickdogg

Rickdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I thought of that before too. (Since I over analyze everything.) wink.gif The green label used for "unverified" signatures is just a cheap excuse to charge for those SS labels mad.gif SO TRUE! (but then again, it depends sometimes)

 

Some signatures are one of a kind and could easily be verified professionally even w/o a CGC staff member watching the guy/girl sign the book, but hey I can't blame CGC for this one. They want to make money and they sure did off of those SS labels. laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rickdogg

Rickdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I forgot to add...

 

Does CGC downgrade for signatures on SS labels? I remember seeing a GI JOE #1 (Image) with 5 signatures and received a 9.8. confused.gif It lead me to believe that they don't downgrade for sigs when it comes to the SS label. Similar idea of the green label (aka fake) that assigns an imaginary grade like the green label with the imaginary 9.2 with 3 bindery holes. mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing