The 2010 Nik Memorial Grading Contest *Round 21* Results

[AJD]

I got this one right - I think a lot of you guys have spent so long looking at defects that you forget to look at the book. This is a tight and pretty book with a few (now well discussed) defects. My first thought was 9.0 and I looked at a bunch of 8.5, 9.0 and 9.2 books on Heritage before going with my original guess.

 

And as for 'data mining' - I've submitted at least two grades that were impossible if I'd looked at the census first, so we can rule that out. I've also got ten bulls. Given that I've never submitted a book in my life, it's not a stretch to imagine that others are getting consistently good scores through experience and a good eye.

 

Yogi Berra got it right: you can see a lot by looking.

[Hibou]

I got this one right - I think a lot of you guys have spent so long looking at defects that you forget to look at the book. This is a tight and pretty book with a few (now well discussed) defects. My first thought was 9.0 and I looked at a bunch of 8.5, 9.0 and 9.2 books on Heritage before going with my original guess.

 

And as for 'data mining' - I've submitted at least two grades that were impossible if I'd looked at the census first, so we can rule that out. I've also got ten bulls. Given that I've never submitted a book in my life, it's not a stretch to imagine that others are getting consistently good scores through experience and a good eye.

 

Yogi Berra got it right: you can see a lot by looking.

 

Yeah, that's a really good point!

 

When I'm getting the grades on mark that's what I'm thinking I do... looking at overall eye appeal first.

 

That X94 I really nitpicked it so I apologize for the CGC SoCo party remark.

 

 

[DrWatson]

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.

That's because lower grade books in the 3.0 to 5.0 are harder to grade.

 

The X-Men 94 was graded nearly a year ago and wasn't part of the submission sent in specifically for the contest. Some of us are growing tired of listening to you drone on and on about data mining.

 

I personally do not care how a contestant arrives at their guess.

[Boozad]

Some of us are growing tired of listening to you drone on and on about data mining.

 

It took you twenty-one rounds? You have the patience of a saint.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

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.

 

 

 

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.

Where the hell would I get time to do this non sense? Such ridiculous rubbish.

[DrWatson]

Some of us are growing tired of listening to you drone on and on about data mining.

 

It took you twenty-one rounds? You have the patience of a saint.

[Boozad]

[oakman29]

Some of us are growing tired of listening to you drone on and on about data mining.

 

It took you twenty-one rounds? You have the patience of a saint.

It's all good, I'll remember what to do next grading game. (thumbs u

[mrlatko]

I want everyone to know that my 4th place standing so far has been achieved WITHOUT the use of performance enhancing data-mined statistics. Unlike Palmeiro, Clemons, Bonds and McGuire, I did not cheat (if such a thing is possible?) JC can give me a drug test and I'll come out clean, guaranteed. (thumbs u

[drewincanada]

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.

 

 

 

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.

Where the hell would I get time to do this non sense? Such ridiculous rubbish.

 

The time to do what? What's rubbish?

[Transplant]

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.

You're such a crybaby. I have 5 bullseyes in the last 7 rounds and haven't checked the census once during this contest. Why would anyone? It's not like there's a big prize at the end. Plus, on this book, I considered that it would be a 9.0 but for the piece on the bc. So I kept it at a 9.0 for the Nik bump. I'm sure I don't count as I undergraded several books at the beginning and am well below the elim line. But don't accuse everyone at the top of checking the census either.

 

In fact, why do you even participate in these things? Waaah, waah, waah, is all we ever hear.

[canickus]

 

I grade the books using the following method.

 

1. I check the scans carefully and give it an initial grade. I have submitted more than 1000 books to CGC and have looked at many more. Since CGC doesn't publish their grading standards, experience is very useful. Books are much easier to grade than scans, by the way. However, learning to estimate grades by a scan is very important when using ebay.

 

The overall look and freshness of a book is very important and is the hardest thing to capture in a scan. I believe that most of the famous "Nik bump" is attributable to not being able to see (or smell, or hear, or feel) what the book looks like in hand. I believe that since CGC provides a "market grade" for books, the graders will bump the grades on attractive books.

 

2. Since no two books are exactly alike, if I have questions about how CGC tends to treat certain defects, I refer to similar graded books in the Heritage archives or on Comiclink.

 

3. Finally, I check the CGC census to make sure that the grade is reasonable.

 

I find it interesting that in the last round, on a book that Joe states, was "impossible and very difficult ... to mine" (I'll go with impossible), the top twenty graders hit 12 bullseyes, had three graders within 1 grade, four graders within 2 grades, and 1 grader went negative. I bet ckp1680 graded the book a 7.5 for its accumulation of defects. I graded the book 8.5. While I felt the book looked sharp and fresh enough to be a 9.0 or 9.2, I felt the combination of color breaking spine creases, color breaking crease in the top right corner, blunted bottom right corner and tear and chip on the back cover would make it an 8.5. I was wrong and helped drag down the average grades off of the top graders to a smidge over half a grade.

 

I wish I had gone with a 9.0 as I lost ground, but it seems to me that an average of +/- half of grade on that book is pretty dang impressive. I am sorry that I brought the average down, but props are due on that book.

 

 

I received a neg in round 2 when I overgraded the Journey Into Mystery 1.

I received another neg in round 9 when I gave the AF15 a 2.5 instead of 1.5.

I graded Avengers 1 a 4.0 instead of a 3.0 and wonder to this day how Joe Collector thinks a 3.0 was the obvious answer.

My third neg came when I graded the Invaders 1 at 8.5 intead of 9.4.

I also predicted the X-Men 1 at 4.5 instead of the 3.5.

 

 

[DrWatson]

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.

You're such a crybaby. I have 5 bullseyes in the last 7 rounds and haven't checked the census once during this contest. Why would anyone? It's not like there's a big prize at the end. Plus, on this book, I considered that it would be a 9.0 but for the piece on the bc. So I kept it at a 9.0 for the Nik bump. I'm sure I don't count as I undergraded several books at the beginning and am well below the elim line. But don't accuse everyone at the top of checking the census either.

 

In fact, why do you even participate in these things? Waaah, waah, waah, is all we ever hear.

Please beware of sharp fingernails.

[joe_collector]

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.

 

I just mined the latest book in 32 seconds flat - it's really quite simple. Anyone want me to PM them the grade (after they have submitted of course) just let me know.

[joe_collector]

IJC can give me a drug test and I'll come out clean, guaranteed. (thumbs u

 

Anyone who got a bulls'eye on Avengers #1 can consider themselves clean. Anyone who got a 3 on it is a suspect.

[comicdonna]

[joe_collector]

[You're such a crybaby.

 

Why would you say that? I know how to get 5 points in approximately 85-90% of the books so far, yet I have not done so until AFTER I submitted my grades. Check out my scores.

 

If you doubt this, then you're a dead wrong whiner, as I have already demonstrated this technique to several people, and the only one I got wrong was Avengers 1, as that was not minable.

[etanick]

so is this round mineable? I just want it on record so if I get it right, I can be declare a cheater.

[DrWatson]

That's a lot of taters!

[drewincanada]

so is this round mineable? I just want it on record so if I get it right, I can be declare a cheater.

 

Nick, you're in the top ten, so you must be a cheater. JC said so.