Guess the Grade -- ASM #129

[uclapeterg]

I'll go with 8.5 as well.

[uclapeterg]

Let somer time pass before posting an answer!!!

[Mr. Kabotz-migration]

The CGC grade was 7.5. JoeC, this issue with pressing is relatively new to me, and I'm learning from these boards. Now that you describe it, it could very well be that the holes are the result of reading plus pressing. However, there really are no other problems beside what I highlighted. This book looks MUCH better than several CGC 9.0s.

 

Can you give more info on pressing? Does CGC downgrade for pressing? Other tell-tale problems to look out for from pressing?

[FFB]

It is impossible if the person with the scan doesn't mention defects that don't appear in a scan (surface impressions, interior defects, PQ, etc.). But if you are looking at a book that is essentially perfect with good gloss and inks except for a 1/32nd inch spine corner bindery bump and the person with book in hand can accurately say that this is the only defect on the book, then you can grade from a scan with a degree of accuracy that is almost as good as you can with book in hand. I know that Steve B. says you can't (he said so himself), but I disagree. Where it gets tougher is when you're talking about NM- and below. But you can still get pretty close if the scans are good and the person with the book gives an accurate description of wear, PQ, and any hidden interior defects.

 

But as far as grading from scans goes -- it's difficult, but not impossible. After all, the OGG's "examples" are just scans of books, right? And that's what we're using for comparison's sake whenever we grade any book.

 

I believe (as I would guess CGC would also say), grading from a scan is impossible. That is not to say you can't be correct in your guess (but even a broken clock is correct twice a day).

[joe_collector]

The CGC grade was 7.5. JoeC, this issue with pressing is relatively new to me, and I'm learning from these boards. Now that you describe it, it could very well be that the holes are the result of reading plus pressing.

 

Is this a book you've owned raw for a long while, bought raw on EBay recently, or purchased slabbed?

[sfilosa]

It is impossible if the person with the scan doesn't mention defects that don't appear in a scan (surface impressions, interior defects, PQ, etc.). But if you are looking at a book that is essentially perfect with good gloss and inks except for a 1/32nd inch spine corner bindery bump and the person with book in hand can accurately say that this is the only defect on the book, then you can grade from a scan with a degree of accuracy that is almost as good as you can with book in hand. I know that Steve B. says you can't (he said so himself), but I disagree. Where it gets tougher is when you're talking about NM- and below. But you can still get pretty close if the scans are good and the person with the book gives an accurate description of wear, PQ, and any hidden interior defects.

 

I would agree with your comments. Of course the big IF, is, are all defects disclosed. That why I always say that based on a scan we should either ACCURATELY grade the book and more cases than not OVERGRADE the book.

 

I've seen plenty of your scans where I thought the book looked like a 9.0 from the scan, and others say 7.5 or 8.0. I can only assume that the others, are ASSUMING more defects than are present.

 

With grading, there are really two issues.

 

1) The quantity and quality of the defects.

 

2) The interpretation of the defects.

 

Example:

 

We both see a PERFECT scan of a book, that shows just one 1/4" corner crease.

 

Assuming we both agree that is the only defect that keeps this book from being MINT (10.0), we have agreed on issue #1.

 

But you might call that book a VF 8.0 because you downgrade all 1/4" corner creased books to at best VF 8.0.

 

I might call the book a VF/NM 9.0 because other than the crease the book is Perfect .That is issue #2, which means we agree on the defect, but not the interpretation.

 

Which leads me to grading from scans. Is the problem that we all don't see the same defects or is it that we disagree how the defect affects the grade?

[uclapeterg]

Which leads me to grading from scans. Is the problem that we all don't see the same defects or is it that we disagree how the defect affects the grade?

 

Probably a little of both. I like when people like Aces list the defects they see when they are giving their grade.

[Mr. Kabotz-migration]

The CGC grade was 7.5. JoeC, this issue with pressing is relatively new to me, and I'm learning from these boards. Now that you describe it, it could very well be that the holes are the result of reading plus pressing.

 

Is this a book you've owned raw for a long while, bought raw on EBay recently, or purchased slabbed?

Purchased at a convention a few years ago raw. I was not aware of "pressing" at that time, and I'm not sure it would have made a difference if I had known and thought it was pressed.

[FFB]

Example:

 

We both see a PERFECT scan of a book, that shows just one 1/4" corner crease.

 

Assuming we both agree that is the only defect that keeps this book from being MINT (10.0), we have agreed on issue #1.

 

But you might call that book a VF 8.0 because you downgrade all 1/4" corner creased books to at best VF 8.0.

 

I might call the book a VF/NM 9.0 because other than the crease the book is Perfect .That is issue #2, which means we agree on the defect, but not the interpretation.

 

Which leads me to grading from scans. Is the problem that we all don't see the same defects or is it that we disagree how the defect affects the grade?

 

That's a great question. I don't know the answer though. I try to follow the Overstreet Grading Guide, but there's so much wiggle room in that book's descriptions that it's hard to be precise in many cases. Also, although CGC largely follows the Overstreet grading scale, I have seen multiple CGC-graded books that do not follow the rules (such as CGC 9.6s with soft corners or small bindery tears), so that my own interpretation of the rules is colored sometimes by what I think that CGC will do, even though I'm trying to stick with Overstreet's standards.

 

In the end, however, I think that the majority of the disagreement here is from people who give different "weight" to certain defects. I say this because we get wildly ranging numbers even after people have already identified in writing all of the defects they can see. Once all visible defects have been identified, it becomes strictly a matter of how to interpret the grading standards in light of the defects.

[Calamerica]

Bumped for you, FFB in response to your post to me today in another Thread.

 

No offense taken nor is ill will thrown back at you. Grading is fun, and I am sorry you feel I am not accurate but STRICT.

 

More later

 

CAL

[Calamerica]

Never got my no-prize.

 

patiently waiting CAL..