The Official "Hey, these scores need fixing" thread (Revised)

[JMoses]

I'm requesting that the score for Superman: The Computers that Saved Metropolis be revisited and raised. It is one of three Radio Shack giveaways from 1980 in the Superman One-Shots set, the others being Superman in the Computer Masters of Metropolis and Superman: Victory by Computer. The scores for Computer Masters and Victory in 9.8 are both 64 points, while the score for The Computers that Saved Metropolis in the same grade is only 40. I can't see any compelling reason why all three shouldn't be scored at 64. They are equal in every other way.

 

I'm asking that the scores for Superman: The Computers that Saved Metropolis be raised to equal those of the other two giveaways.

 

Thank you.

 

 

I posted this request about a month ago, and there has as of yet been no reply one way or the other. Does that mean the request has been denied (if so, please tell me why that is) or has it not yet been dealt with (I don't have any idea of the turnaround on a request like this)?

 

Thanks again!

[PowderedH2O]

Wyatt Earp (Dell) sets #4-13 have the 9.2 ratings as approximately 10% of the 9.0 ratings. I think a decimal got misplaced somewhere perhaps?

 

Just double checking on this request from mid January. The 9.2's are showing the same scores as the 6.0's. All of the books between 6.5 and 9.0 have significantly higher scores than the 9.2's. Also, there are no scores for issues 5, 6, and 8. I'm not sure if any have been graded yet, but I am planning on sending some in, so while you are there could you add those too? I think that they should be the same as the other surrounding issues as there is nothing particularly unique of one from the other.

 

Thanks for your consideration!!! :)

 

Sam

[ExcludedTim]

 

FYI - we still cannot update scoring due to a bug in the system.

 

Recently there has been a new bug with uploads causing random books to appear in other sets. Please post these in the additions thread so Nicole can address them individually.

 

We hope to have both issues resolved soon, but there is not a timeline available to us at this point.

[Icculus308win]

Guardian Gals of CGC (and Boardies imput too)

 

Following suit I guess with the Hulk #271 posts...

 

I was looking at My Marvel Preview #2 (Punisher Origin) 9.4 which is valued in the Registry at 495 points. Than I was looked into a Marvel Preview #7 (1st app. of Rocket Raccoon) 9.4 which is valued in the Registry at 54 points.

(Obviously #7s in 9.6 and 9.8 are going for values too grand to compare without confirming GPA)

 

As the Market seems to show finding a Marvel Preview #7 in a 9.4 would cost around 1k since summer I believe. A Marvel Preview #2 in a 9.4 sells around 1/3 the price of a #7.

 

 

There are currently 65 slabbed #7s and 20 of those are 9.0 or better.

There are approaching quadruple the amount of #2s in the Registry with 197 and 128 of those are 9.0 or better.

 

So something needs to be revalued and equated again imho.

Does anyone else agree that seems to be a little off?

 

 

[Icculus308win]

Hello. I was wondering who I needed to talk to about comic set points in the registry. I have been talking to several comic shops and friends who have sets in your registry and was wondering how you decide how many points a comic should get. For example. I have a set in your teenage mutant ninja turtles volume 1. It is under t Goodwin. I am currently in 8th place. What gets me is that I have the #2 most complete set with over 60 comics in it. 90% of them are 9.8s with some 9.6s. How can you have some one in first place with way less comics but because they have the number 1 9.8 it automatically gives them 9600 points? I was just curious because it seems like if we want to win in the set competition then we don't need to get a whole lot of them graded. Just get the number 1 and be done with it. Doesn't really seem fair. Seeing how we all like to look at our sets and see what we have accomplished but we see someone above us with no where near the time and effort put in to it. . Thanks

 

 

 

 

I don't think an individual's set not adding up to what qualifies for a higher point value in the Registry is about fairness though. It is more the fact that individual does not own a key component that increases their set Registry score when equated into the formula and added into the overall set score value.

 

CGC has devised a formula with I "believe" parts of the equation being value, scarcity of the book, scarcity of the book in higher grades, popularity of the book, rarity of the book surfacing for sale or auction, rarity of the book surfacing in higher grades for sale or auction, past and present market trend (perhaps they look at future too, with pop culture do to how it an effect a books popularity and do to more exposure it can effect value) and print run size.

A first print #1 9.8 is a pretty good representation of these things.

 

It is a pretty nice amenity that CGC actually offers us. Being we are able to help aid in supplying factors for the point value of books. We give opinions, insight, knowledge even some factoids to help them evaluate a books score when adding it into the formula.

Is the formula great? No not great, but pretty good.

Is the formula a pretty decent representation to a books characteristics? I think so for the most part it is.

And if the score is not a good representation of a book - that's where we all come in to ask, suggest or discuss it's current value. I feel Gemma and or Nicole are very receptive and accommodating. Just do your homework prior for them and yourself and when in doubt pool what other Boardies think or know about books in question.

 

Granted, there are many books I feel need tweaking and some big time. I'm not a Golden Age collector (I have my Ben Bowie books and some Smokey Bears that are technically GA dates.....and their values are more than fine imho) but I know so many books those guys save up for, or wait years to surface or spend years scouring places for - and in the Registry their books don't get evaluated appropriately in the equation imho.

 

I feel we are an overall asset for the most part aiding the current Guardian Gals of CGC evaluating a score. A win - win for dabofa us.

But at the end of the day, it is up to the Gals and the powers that be of CGC, nothing to do about fairness in my opinion.

You should be happy though - since this place gives out ribbons even when you don't win the big race.

They would make all those "caring" parents and kids so happy with themselves who "feel" it hurts little Timmy's feelings and "believe" it lowers his self confidence when they don't also get a trophy even though they didn't place.......you know, just because they showed up to race they deserve something too.

(Even though….little Timmy: just might not have the makings of an athlete, he flat out suckks at running, possibly can't see his own feet, or he is simply chasing butterflies in a field during the race )

 

[PowderedH2O]

I will say that I am perfectly happy with the way the system is set up. Having collected graded baseball and football cards for a long time (not anymore), the system seemed ridiculous. All cards were capped at being worth 10 points. So, for example, if you owned a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, it has a max value in the 1952 set of 10 points. And a Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella from that same set each has a value of 5. So, the collector that has the Robinson and Campanella have the same amount of quality points in the set as the guy that owns the Mantle. The only problem is that for an average nice grade (lets say 7.0) the Robinson and Campanella should set you back somewhere between $4k and $5k, whereas the Mantle will cost you somewhere between $35k and $45k. That's a HUGE difference. The collector that shelled out eight times as much should be compensated with eight times the points in my opinion.

Well, CGC's site does that. Are the formulas always perfect? Nope. But, the system is a lot closer to perfect than others I've seen.

 

Sam

[Icculus308win]

I will say that I am perfectly happy with the way the system is set up. Having collected graded baseball and football cards for a long time (not anymore), the system seemed ridiculous. All cards were capped at being worth 10 points. So, for example, if you owned a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, it has a max value in the 1952 set of 10 points. And a Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella from that same set each has a value of 5. So, the collector that has the Robinson and Campanella have the same amount of quality points in the set as the guy that owns the Mantle. The only problem is that for an average nice grade (lets say 7.0) the Robinson and Campanella should set you back somewhere between $4k and $5k, whereas the Mantle will cost you somewhere between $35k and $45k. That's a HUGE difference. The collector that shelled out eight times as much should be compensated with eight times the points in my opinion.

Well, CGC's site does that. Are the formulas always perfect? Nope. But, the system is a lot closer to perfect than others I've seen.

 

Sam

 

 

I had no clue that's how they scored cards.

That is fricken moronic!!

Thank-you CGC

[thatdudebooks]

Hi there, just noticed that the score value for Nova (2013) #1 Skottie Young Baby Variant reads 0, please fix.

 

Thanks!

[hdiddy8706]

the mind mgmt set scores are very high and probably need fixing

 

thanks

[Gemma]

The glitch seems to have been repaired successfully so I will be updating scores as requested. The Pre-Code Horror list will probably be last as it is so long, but it will get done before the awards.

Please feel free to post if you see any errors or have other requests for scoring updates.

[Icculus308win]

Thank-you Gemma

[PowderedH2O]

Thanks Gemma. I think the scores are perfect now for the set I referenced (although the guy in first place just lost over 4,000 points because some REALLY OVERPOINTED books are now down to normal weights - oops, sorry).

[Gemma]

:shrug: I tried to be fair, but with the accumulation of changes these things happen. Also many sets had their Qualified grades updated which affected standings.

 

I will probably start a new thread with the list of Pre-Code horror to be updated so that future requests will be easier to identify.