Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SHOULD CGC...

..factor QP & PQ into their numerical grade?  

159 members have voted

  1. 1. ..factor QP & PQ into their numerical grade?

    • 2789
    • 2789


23 posts in this topic

Is PQ Page Quality? If so, I thought CGC already did factor that in? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Yes...but should they?

 

Man that is a tough one. I think they should definitely factor in PQ because page degradation, etc is an aspect of condition. QP still makes me crazy. The OS guide is so vague on the Bindery/Printing defects and doesn't even begin listing them as having an impact until 5.0.

 

So, although I used to feel until just very recently that QP should not be facoted into the CGC grading, I now feel it should be thanks to a much more thorough perusal of the 2nd OS Grading Guide. However, factoring in QP is going to raise yet another firestorm, I believe, unless a real criteria is established that goes beyond the curren OS vagueness.

 

So I voted a reluctant Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I voted a reluctant Yes.

 

 

You've changed your mind about the inclusion of production defects? 893whatthe.gif

 

The end is near.....

 

Yeah, I had to after really perusing the new grading guide and seeing produciton defects were listed down to 5.0. Still vaugue but certainly much more presence than in the old days when QP was used as a seperator for the upper NM/M grades.

 

But - and it is why I voted a "reluctanct" Yes, to my mind the current criteria is too vague. I think it would be an interesting question: Should CGC include QP in their grading with what we currntly know about how CGC perceives QP? grin.gif

 

As Ed Wood said (well, in Burton's film, anyway) trying to get funding for Bride Of The Monster: "We shot ten minutes of the movie, and now we're looking for completion funds." to which McCoy replies, "Oh, son, you're too vague."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CGC is going to factor QP into their numerical grade, they should definately have to put a notation on the label that quantifies that deduction. ie; 9.8- .2 for miswrap

 

Otherwise, the structural grade gets lost in the translation.

 

Same with PQ. If a book is downgraded because of page quality....I would like to know what the book would have received if the PQ is WHITE.

 

The biggest mistake I've seen by CGC, was when they downgraded an admittedly 9.8/9.9 copy of Hulk 181....to a 9.6 without notation. 893frustrated.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CGC is going to factor QP into their numerical grade, they should definately have to put a notation on the label that quantifies that deduction. ie; 9.8- .2 for miswrap

 

Agree 500% - I KNEW there was something I forgot to mention and that was it. I really think that, with grading becoming as sophisticated (or showing the potential for same), we need to get things more broken out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good example - OS Grade Guide says "only subtle" bindery/printing defects. I cannot see how that is subtle - 15-20% of the price is chopped off it is such a bad cut. So DID CGC factor in the "subtle" bindery defects that OS advises - and if not - then are they really using OS Grading criteria as has been stated here? 893frustrated.gifinsane.gifgrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good example - OS Grade Guide says "only subtle" bindery/printing defects. I cannot see how that is subtle - 15-20% of the price is chopped off it is such a bad cut. So DID CGC factor in the "subtle" bindery defects that OS advises - and if not - then are they really using OS Grading criteria as has been stated here? 893frustrated.gifinsane.gifgrin.gif

 

Welcome to my frustration....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm a big QP advocate, I think all CGC needs to do is keep the badly cut books out of 9.4, and maintain a "very well centered" criteria for CGC 9.6 and up.

 

Wouldn't that be stepping out of line with CGC's position that they use OS Grading criteria? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm a big QP advocate, I think all CGC needs to do is keep the badly cut books out of 9.4, and maintain a "very well centered" criteria for CGC 9.6 and up.

 

Wouldn't that be stepping out of line with CGC's position that they use OS Grading criteria? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

How so? I've posted pics from the OS Grading Guide where otherwise NM books get downgraded for miscuts, large white borders, etc.

 

CGC actually goes against the OS Guide by not taking production issues into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm a big QP advocate, I think all CGC needs to do is keep the badly cut books out of 9.4, and maintain a "very well centered" criteria for CGC 9.6 and up.

 

Wouldn't that be stepping out of line with CGC's position that they use OS Grading criteria? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

How so? I've posted pics from the OS Grading Guide where otherwise NM books get downgraded for miscuts, large white borders, etc.

 

CGC actually goes against the OS Guide by not taking production issues into account.

 

I agree about the 9.4 and 9.6/+ books. I was thinking more in terms of applying the QP further down the grading scale os the OSGG does. That way CGC would be more in keeping with their using OS as their grading criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to both production flaws and page quality. For Golden Age, miscuts and off-center covers are both common and expected, less so for Silver Age. Bronze and newer comics should be well centered and not miscut.

 

As for Page Quality on GA, any designation with the word "tan" in it should not be allowed in 9.4 or up. Slightly brittle or worse PQ should not be allowed in 8.0 or better, as I would not consider it a "High grade" copy.

IMO.

 

Timely

Link to comment
Share on other sites