• 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.

Guess the Grade - Part II

Started by sfilosa,

17 posts in this topic

FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

Steve:

 

If you're going to host a book to play "Guess the Grade," rule #1 is to provide us with a written description of any wear/damage that is not clearly visible in the scan.

 

Having said that, I'll guess 9.2 in light of your revelations about the stress lines. What a gorgeous book!

 

The hint on this book is that it has a few non-color breaking stress lines (not very long), that are almost impossible to see in the scan.

 

No correct answer yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfilosa

sfilosa

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I probably should have said there were a few non-color breaking creases but there was a point for not saying it.

 

I thought the book was a 9.4, with a slim chance of a 9.6. I also bought it as the Mile High copy (ten years ago), but I'm not sure if CGC confirmed this.

 

It got a 9.4 with White Pages.

 

This book shows why it is so hard to grade scans. Obviously, the light non-color breaking spine stress is almost impossible to see in the scan. Now image this book in a CGC case. It would probably be impossible to see ANY defects on this book, yet it is only a 9.4. Therefore, that leads to the assumption that a book with any visible defects has to be less than a 9.4, which is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

Grading from scans is considerably easier if the scan is extremely large with good resolution, has a back cover clearly shown, and any non-visible defects are highlighted or described. In any event, when you look at where the guessing grades wound up (9.6s, 9.2s, and at least one 9.4) I'd say that this thread shows that people can actually do a pretty good job of grading based on a scan. Even CGC's graders often differ among themselves by a grade level or two, and they have the books in hand. Grading from a scan is obviously harder than when the book is in hand, but the larger the scan, the easier it gets.

 

This book shows why it is so hard to grade scans. Obviously, the light non-color breaking spine stress is almost impossible to see in the scan. Now image this book in a CGC case. It would probably be impossible to see ANY defects on this book, yet it is only a 9.4. Therefore, that leads to the assumption that a book with any visible defects has to be less than a 9.4, which is not the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfilosa

sfilosa

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Grading from scans is considerably easier if the scan is extremely large with good resolution, has a back cover clearly shown, and any non-visible defects are highlighted or described. In any event, when you look at where the guessing grades wound up (9.6s, 9.2s, and at least one 9.4) I'd say that this thread shows that people can actually do a pretty good job of grading based on a scan. Even CGC's graders often differ among themselves by a grade level or two, and they have the books in hand. Grading from a scan is obviously harder than when the book is in hand, but the larger the scan, the easier it gets.

 

So what you are saying is that my Scans are too small (are you implying SIZE does matter).

 

Actually you make good points, but I also know that MOST people on these boards tend to downgrade scans based on ASSUMED defects.

 

Everyone wants to say they are STRICT graders. I don't presume to be a strict grader, I believe I'm an ACCURATE GRADER (but I stink on low and mid grade books).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

I totally agree about the "strict/accurate" grader thing. I would much rather be accurate than "strict." That's the thing that bothers me the most about CGG -- CGG appears to grade modern comics too strictly. One tiny defect that is allowable in the 9.6 grade will result in a book getting a 9.2 or lower from CGG. It's almost like CGG wants to develop a reputation for being stricter than CGC, when what is needed is accuracy.

 

Also, I agree that lots of people on here grade based on assumed defects. I have posted books that are virtually flawless and had someone say "It's a 7.0 or 7.5," based on wear he couldn't see but assumed was there. I totally agree that you have to assume the book is MINT and only downgrade based on stuff you can see or that the book's owner tells you is there.

 

Actually you make good points, but I also know that MOST people on these boards tend to downgrade scans based on ASSUMED defects.

 

Everyone wants to say they are STRICT graders. I don't presume to be a strict grader, I believe I'm an ACCURATE GRADER (but I stink on low and mid grade books).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing