• 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.

The 2010 Nik Memorial Grading Contest *Round 21* Results

Started by sckao,

75 posts in this topic

trmoore54

trmoore54

Posted
Posted
I truly thought there was a sub crease on the back cover,the lower right corner of the front cover looks to be completely rounded.My 8.5 needs to be regraded because it's much prettier than this pile. :frustrated:

 

If you enlarge the scan to 200% it's MISSING the entire corner...not just rounded! I would've gone 9.0 without that but couldn't justify any higher than 8.0... :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drewincanada

drewincanada

Posted
Posted

I've seen lots of 9.0 books, and I didn't hesitate to call this a 9.0. No data mining.

 

The book is quite sharp. The big detractions are the bottom right corner, the tiny crease in the top right corner, and the chip missing on the back cover.

 

There's NO WAY to tell from the scan (even blowing it up) if that bottom corner is missing or blunted. (Unless you have a 3D model of the book and can rotate it to see that corner from a different angle.) I decided it was blunted.

 

And I figured that CGC wouldn't have as big a problem with the chip because it was on the back cover.

 

As many have said, this contest is about guessing the grade that CGC would assign the book, NOT what you would assign it.

 

Perhaps the people in the top ten aren't cheating and are just good at it? I'd say they were also lucky, but luck doesn't usually hold out over 21 rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted
Damn, that lower right corner looked way too round for a 9

 

I thought the corner was chewed or chipped. Must have been a scanner illusion and/or mental malfunction on my part. :frustrated:

No front and back show the same damage,if this was my book raw I would grade it a 6.5

 

Yep, I am in the boat with you guys...I also blew this one I said 7.0. Shocked it got a 9.0....but more shocking is that so many people said it was a 9.0... :o

I guess thats the difference from the people who actually look at the book and the data miners,because nobody in their right mind would buy this book as a 9.0 raw. :eyeroll:

 

:news: This contest is NOT about how we would grade it. It's about how CGC would grade it.

 

By the way, there's no way this book is a 6.5 :screwy: It's also not a 9.0 in my opinion but it's certainly not that bad. I learned my lesson when I was Tomahawked several rounds ago. :boo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

Round 21 Commentary

 

No commentary right now but I invite you to write your own!

 

JC is rushing out the door to a Super Bowl party (after just coming back from his kid's piano recital) and remember I need to submit a grade. This after carefully weighing all the defects and possible production vs. wear damage, and giving it a day or two to mull it over, and finally deciding on an 8.5.

 

Then right before I left to watch the SB, I hastily PM an 8.0 grade. :tonofbricks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Are you implying that people are somehow cheating? :popcorn:lol

 

That depends on what you call "cheating"? If "using all available information and data" to determine your grade, without actually grading the book qualifies, then obviously people are "cheating".

 

It is pretty easy too, as I previously demonstrated. I went through all the books, and nailed 80-90% of them, and narrowed it down considerably on the rest. The only 2 books that were impossible and very difficult, respectively, to mine were the Avengers 1 and X-men 94, although on the former, a "3" score would be common with miners, although naturally it was one of the lowest in terms of bulls-eyes. On the X-Men 94, it's up in the air.

 

But enough about this, as there will always be people looking to "get the edge" in a contest, so just have fun with it and let them "win" and feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I just find it extremely coincidental that 32 people had graded this book a 9.0 Bullseye! (thumbs u and that people are getting bullseyes 5 and 6 in a row? JC can be a little extreme at times,but I really am with him on this one. meh

 

Although it was possible to data mine this issue, it would be more difficult to do that some of the others, and I am wondering now whether it was "out in the wild" before, or whether it was raw prior to the contest being set up?

 

But sckao has already posted that using any and all available data is *not* cheating, so I guess it's open game to whoever wants to do it. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

And if anyone wants to run a quick mathematical analysis, go check out the results from Avengers 1 (only impossible to mine book yet posted) and compare those results to the others.

 

How many of the "top graders" got a bulls'eye on that one? What was the percentage of bulls-eyes? How many top players got a "3" mark on it (which was *exactly* where the data pointed)? What was the "data spread" and was the eventual grade an overwhelming favorite?

 

I haven't done it, but I remember looking through and being quite amazed at how many people missed that one. meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
I just find it extremely coincidental that 32 people had graded this book a 9.0 Bullseye! (thumbs u and that people are getting bullseyes 5 and 6 in a row? JC can be a little extreme at times,but I really am with him on this one. meh

 

Although it was possible to data mine this issue, it would be more difficult to do that some of the others, and I am wondering now whether it was "out in the wild" before, or whether it was raw prior to the contest being set up?

 

But sckao has already posted that using any and all available data is *not* cheating, so I guess it's open game to whoever wants to do it. (shrug)

Kind of like the pressing game? 039.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
drewincanada

drewincanada

Posted
Posted

 

That depends on what you call "cheating"? If "using all available information and data" to determine your grade, without actually grading the book qualifies, then obviously people are "cheating".

 

But enough about this, as there will always be people looking to "get the edge" in a contest, so just have fun with it and let them "win" and feel better.

 

zzz

 

:screwy:

 

Once again I'll ask: isn't it possible that the leaders are just very good at understanding how CGC would grade a book, and also at being able to accurately interpret the grade from a scan?

 

When I first saw the scans of that last book, my gut said 9.0. No mining involved. I confirmed my guess by looking at my own 8.5-9.2 CGC slabs.

 

You'll also find that etanick has nailed many of the tough books, and he's currently tied with me for 4th place.

 

Do a little research and you'll see that Nick submits his guesses within minutes of the start of each round. For Round 21, the scans were posted at 8:28, and Nick submitted his grade at 8:35. If he's data mining, he's a might fast digger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing