What is considered High Grade? 0

[Dr1970-migration]

My particular examples are Fawcett Movie Comics Man From Planet X (all copies had split spines off the press so the highest CGC grade is probably going to be a 3.0 or so)

 

The answer is simple: there are no high grade copies of this book in existence.

wrong...

 

If the highest grade of this book is a 3.0, then there are no high grade copies in existence. This was what I was talking about when I said you looked silly. Please stop it, you aren't is SOT's league, as you usually say smart things.

 

Funny how you call me SOT, as I would rather you just call me d-bag.

 

 

Uhhhhhhhhhm, ok. Or how about POS instead of SOT?

[MrBedrock]

If the highest grade of this book in existence is and will always be a 3.0, then there are no high grade copies in existence.

Wrong, silly.

[DrWatson]

If you can figure out how to.

 

That is Sho'Nuff funny.

No.

[NewWorldOrder]

My particular examples are Fawcett Movie Comics Man From Planet X (all copies had split spines off the press so the highest CGC grade is probably going to be a 3.0 or so)

 

The answer is simple: there are no high grade copies of this book in existence.

wrong...

 

If the highest grade of this book is a 3.0, then there are no high grade copies in existence. This was what I was talking about when I said you looked silly. Please stop it, you aren't is SOT's league, as you usually say smart things.

 

Funny how you call me SOT, as I would rather you just call me d-bag.

 

 

Uhhhhhhhhhm, ok. Or how about POS instead of SOT?

 

Works for me!

 

SOT is for people who actually know me.

[Comicopolis]

If you can figure out how to.

 

No sir, I would not like to take the time to figure out why you are such a loser.

 

It is probably because your parents left that coat hanger mark on your forehead before you were born.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

One of the worst things I've seen posted on here.

[COI]

Oh look, my favorite topic. The last thread we had on this constituted half of my post count, yet I accomplished nothing.

[COI]

High grade is high grade, regardless of era. If a 9.0+ is what you consider high grade for silver, then it's high grade for gold, bronze and moderns.

 

If you scale the concept of "high grade" by era, then the term loses all meaning.

 

 

You guys are confusing the concept of "collectibility", with the concept of "high grade"; they're not synonymous.

 

A 7.5 is a beautiful grade for an Action 1, but that doesn't make it high grade.

 

 

Now you're just misusing language. We have a word for what you're describing; it's called "price".

 

A CGC 5.0 valued at $10,000 has a high price, but it's not high grade.

 

A CGC 9.4 valued at $15 is high grade, but does not have a high price.

 

 

"High grade" is a normative concept; it's a description of a books state of preservation. High grade means a high state of preservation, signifying the absence of a certain amount of defects. The year the book came out, the quantity available, its market price, and all the other fluff being brought up in this thread are irrelevant to how well preserved the book is and thereby, whether or not that book is in "high grade".

 

If, for example, VF/NM is considered high grade in general, would it be ok for me to sell a scarce 6.0 as a "relative 9.0", since a 6.0 is one of the nicest copies available? Would you accept a slab that said "relative 9.0", with a 6.0 book inside? Saying a 6.0 is "high grade" on X book because it's scarce is the logical equivalent of saying it's a "relative 9.0".

 

I said this several pages back, Nick said it above, and I'll say it again; "high grade" is not synonomous with "collectibility"; it's not the equivalent of "nice book"; it's a description of a book's state of preservation. A book either is high grade or it isn't, based solely on its grade; nothing else is relevant.

 

 

What I'm arguing is that the concept of high grade is not relative, but normative, or in other words, it's refering to a specific standard , a standard which is determined by its state of preservation. In the hobby, we denote various states of preservation using a grading scale. So if an individual considers anything above 9.0 to be high grade, then 9.0 is the point on the scale in which high grade starts. At that point, "9.0" and "high grade" are congruent.

 

 

Again, you're equating the term "high grade" with "collectibility". What you're essentially saying is that for your collecting purposes, there is a collectible copy of every book, which is fine. But it does not follow that there's a high grade copy of every book.

 

If the only existing copy of a particular book had 3/4 of the cover missing, you would still call that "high grade"?

 

 

 

Here's a summary:

 

Those of us arguing that the term "high grade" is objective or normative are doing so based on logic and language, and for the sake of clarity, consistency and simplicity.

 

Those arguing that "high grade" is relative are doing so based on specific biases about the "worth" of certain books, and related to how they collect as individuals. In the process, they're creating a conception of the term which is impossible to define, and which cannot be applied consistently.

 

That's pretty much it.

 

 

Ok, so let's say a 5.0 is the highest existing grade of a particular book for a decade, and is thereby referred to as "high grade" throughout that time. Then a 9.0 shows up; the 5.0 is no longer "high grade". There's your inconsistency. A book which was high grade one day is not high grade the next.

 

By establishing a threshold based on structural grade, the term can be applied consistently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrBedrock]

I'm arguing

That's pretty much it.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[COI]

I'm arguing

That's pretty much it.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot:

 

I have psychological issues which preclude me from letting this dumb mess rest.

[seanfingh]

High grade is high grade, regardless of era. If a 9.0+ is what you consider high grade for silver, then it's high grade for gold, bronze and moderns.

 

If you scale the concept of "high grade" by era, then the term loses all meaning.

 

 

You guys are confusing the concept of "collectibility", with the concept of "high grade"; they're not synonymous.

 

A 7.5 is a beautiful grade for an Action 1, but that doesn't make it high grade.

 

 

Now you're just misusing language. We have a word for what you're describing; it's called "price".

 

A CGC 5.0 valued at $10,000 has a high price, but it's not high grade.

 

A CGC 9.4 valued at $15 is high grade, but does not have a high price.

 

 

"High grade" is a normative concept; it's a description of a books state of preservation. High grade means a high state of preservation, signifying the absence of a certain amount of defects. The year the book came out, the quantity available, its market price, and all the other fluff being brought up in this thread are irrelevant to how well preserved the book is and thereby, whether or not that book is in "high grade".

 

If, for example, VF/NM is considered high grade in general, would it be ok for me to sell a scarce 6.0 as a "relative 9.0", since a 6.0 is one of the nicest copies available? Would you accept a slab that said "relative 9.0", with a 6.0 book inside? Saying a 6.0 is "high grade" on X book because it's scarce is the logical equivalent of saying it's a "relative 9.0".

 

I said this several pages back, Nick said it above, and I'll say it again; "high grade" is not synonomous with "collectibility"; it's not the equivalent of "nice book"; it's a description of a book's state of preservation. A book either is high grade or it isn't, based solely on its grade; nothing else is relevant.

 

 

What I'm arguing is that the concept of high grade is not relative, but normative, or in other words, it's refering to a specific standard , a standard which is determined by its state of preservation. In the hobby, we denote various states of preservation using a grading scale. So if an individual considers anything above 9.0 to be high grade, then 9.0 is the point on the scale in which high grade starts. At that point, "9.0" and "high grade" are congruent.

 

 

Again, you're equating the term "high grade" with "collectibility". What you're essentially saying is that for your collecting purposes, there is a collectible copy of every book, which is fine. But it does not follow that there's a high grade copy of every book.

 

If the only existing copy of a particular book had 3/4 of the cover missing, you would still call that "high grade"?

 

 

 

Here's a summary:

 

Those of us arguing that the term "high grade" is objective or normative are doing so based on logic and language, and for the sake of clarity, consistency and simplicity.

 

Those arguing that "high grade" is relative are doing so based on specific biases about the "worth" of certain books, and related to how they collect as individuals. In the process, they're creating a conception of the term which is impossible to define, and which cannot be applied consistently.

 

That's pretty much it.

 

 

Ok, so let's say a 5.0 is the highest existing grade of a particular book for a decade, and is thereby referred to as "high grade" throughout that time. Then a 9.0 shows up; the 5.0 is no longer "high grade". There's your inconsistency. A book which was high grade one day is not high grade the next.

 

By establishing a threshold based on structural grade, the term can be applied consistently.

 

 

A tale told by an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[MrBedrock]

I have psychological issues which preclude me from letting this dumb mess rest.

Me too.

Let's go have a beer.

[cloudofwit]

[COI]

High grade is high grade, regardless of era. If a 9.0+ is what you consider high grade for silver, then it's high grade for gold, bronze and moderns.

 

If you scale the concept of "high grade" by era, then the term loses all meaning.

 

 

You guys are confusing the concept of "collectibility", with the concept of "high grade"; they're not synonymous.

 

A 7.5 is a beautiful grade for an Action 1, but that doesn't make it high grade.

 

 

Now you're just misusing language. We have a word for what you're describing; it's called "price".

 

A CGC 5.0 valued at $10,000 has a high price, but it's not high grade.

 

A CGC 9.4 valued at $15 is high grade, but does not have a high price.

 

 

"High grade" is a normative concept; it's a description of a books state of preservation. High grade means a high state of preservation, signifying the absence of a certain amount of defects. The year the book came out, the quantity available, its market price, and all the other fluff being brought up in this thread are irrelevant to how well preserved the book is and thereby, whether or not that book is in "high grade".

 

If, for example, VF/NM is considered high grade in general, would it be ok for me to sell a scarce 6.0 as a "relative 9.0", since a 6.0 is one of the nicest copies available? Would you accept a slab that said "relative 9.0", with a 6.0 book inside? Saying a 6.0 is "high grade" on X book because it's scarce is the logical equivalent of saying it's a "relative 9.0".

 

I said this several pages back, Nick said it above, and I'll say it again; "high grade" is not synonomous with "collectibility"; it's not the equivalent of "nice book"; it's a description of a book's state of preservation. A book either is high grade or it isn't, based solely on its grade; nothing else is relevant.

 

 

What I'm arguing is that the concept of high grade is not relative, but normative, or in other words, it's refering to a specific standard , a standard which is determined by its state of preservation. In the hobby, we denote various states of preservation using a grading scale. So if an individual considers anything above 9.0 to be high grade, then 9.0 is the point on the scale in which high grade starts. At that point, "9.0" and "high grade" are congruent.

 

 

Again, you're equating the term "high grade" with "collectibility". What you're essentially saying is that for your collecting purposes, there is a collectible copy of every book, which is fine. But it does not follow that there's a high grade copy of every book.

 

If the only existing copy of a particular book had 3/4 of the cover missing, you would still call that "high grade"?

 

 

 

Here's a summary:

 

Those of us arguing that the term "high grade" is objective or normative are doing so based on logic and language, and for the sake of clarity, consistency and simplicity.

 

Those arguing that "high grade" is relative are doing so based on specific biases about the "worth" of certain books, and related to how they collect as individuals. In the process, they're creating a conception of the term which is impossible to define, and which cannot be applied consistently.

 

That's pretty much it.

 

 

Ok, so let's say a 5.0 is the highest existing grade of a particular book for a decade, and is thereby referred to as "high grade" throughout that time. Then a 9.0 shows up; the 5.0 is no longer "high grade". There's your inconsistency. A book which was high grade one day is not high grade the next.

 

By establishing a threshold based on structural grade, the term can be applied consistently.

 

 

A tale told by an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

How was lunch, Sean?

 

[COI]

I have psychological issues which preclude me from letting this dumb mess rest.

Me too.

Let's go have a beer.

 

Sounds good to me.

[seanfingh]

 

Lent is over muthaphocker. I had a delicious salad for lunch today.

[comicdonna]

If you can figure out how to.

 

No sir, I would not like to take the time to figure out why you are such a loser.

 

It is probably because your parents left that coat hanger mark on your forehead before you were born.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

But I did ask a real question that you deflected with this stuff: if there is one copy of a Golden Age book in existence, and that book is coverless, do you consider it high grade?

I would...if it was never intended to have a cover.

 

Let's say it was intended to have a cover.

 

Are you letting yourself get sucked back into this argument Richard? I remember the first time, you were left looking pretty silly.

We all look silly at some point. At least you have cute kids. I wonder how that happened?

 

Sharon already told you, my wife is hot! (You should see the boys dressed as Wolverine and The Hulk for FCBD. My 6 month old is 22 pounds!)

When we meet, be sure to bring the misses.

[JazzMan]

High grade to me is typically high enough so I can't afford them. Pick a grade, any grade and it may be high grade to me.

[COI]

Lent is over muthaphocker. I had a delicious salad for lunch today.

 

Hope it had plenty of bacon.

 

[seanfingh]

Lent is over muthaphocker. I had a delicious salad for lunch today.

 

Hope it had plenty of bacon.

 

 

Bacon gets a bad rap.

[Comicopolis]