Silver Age CGC 9.9 and Reality

[Ze-man]

 

That's the way Dav sees it.

 

I don't mind Dav's perspective. While I may disagree with him more often then not, I would not have bothered to reply if his question didn't interest me.

 

And I hope he took my response not as a "CGC apologist", but just an honest assessment of the same situation he seems to see in a totally different light.

 

I can see how it is maddening to make sense of the 9.8-9.9 game. I never played at that end of the pool, I never had the money to. And even if I did, I doubt I would care enough about the differences between the two grades to pay more for one. I can understand that difference very well, I just don't really care at that level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bababooey]

I wouldn't have graded that 9.9.

9.8 yes, 9.9? No.

I'd like to hear what Mr 9.9 has to say about this...

[Davenport]

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

We may be seeing it the same, if you're saying it's a man-made controlled statistical cliff. As opposed to reality taking its course, be what may.

 

That's what promoted the thread. I felt like I was reading something that defied reality.

 

Who talks like that? statistical cliffs?

 

 

My point was CGC rarely hands out 9.9's because they rarely see a book that deserves it. They knowingly reserve it for those few books that deserve it.

 

Not that they willingly decide to control/limit the number.

 

So no, that was not what I was saying at all.

 

 

 

That's the way Dav sees it.

 

He and Beerhbom should be able to bring down CGC if they work closely together.

 

Wow. Okay. I didn't mean to pizz in your cheerios. But I promise you CGC is not threatened one iota by this conversation. If they are they can delete the thread.

 

I hadn't seen those stats before. Thought they unusual and defied reality, something interesting. Personally I don't give a carp either way.

 

Note to Mods: If this thread seems too subversive or somehow anti-CGC, please delete it.

 

 

[Ze-man]

I'll ask again before I take off, how many 9.8's are there? Among the 300,000 60's era books graded.

 

I found it interesting the 4 books mentioned as being mostly 9.9's Why those 4 titles?

 

Did kids hoard them, were some found in factory boxes years later? Where their initial print runs higher then other titles because Marvel wanted them to be the next big hit?

[VintageComics]

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

We may be seeing it the same, if you're saying it's a man-made controlled statistical cliff. As opposed to reality taking its course, be what may.

 

That's what promoted the thread. I felt like I was reading something that defied reality.

 

Who talks like that? statistical cliffs?

 

 

My point was CGC rarely hands out 9.9's because they rarely see a book that deserves it. They knowingly reserve it for those few books that deserve it.

 

Not that they willingly decide to control/limit the number.

 

So no, that was not what I was saying at all.

 

 

 

That's the way Dav sees it.

 

He and Beerhbom should be able to bring down CGC if they work closely together.

 

Wow. Okay. I didn't mean to pizz in your cheerios. But I promise you CGC is not threatened one iota by this conversation. If they are they can delete the thread.

 

I hadn't seen those stats before. Thought they unusual and defied reality, something interesting. Personally I don't give a carp either way.

 

Note to Mods: If this thread seems too subversive or somehow anti-CGC, please delete it.

 

 

Oh, I'm sure CGC won't delete the thread and you didn't pizz in my Cheerios.

 

You only really seem to show up whenever there is something negative to say, though. At least that is what I've seen here since I've started reading your posts closely.

 

 

[seanfingh]

Seems like they knowingly reserve it for only a certain few books, and rarely hand it out.

We may be seeing it the same, if you're saying it's a man-made controlled statistical cliff. As opposed to reality taking its course, be what may.

 

That's what promoted the thread. I felt like I was reading something that defied reality.

 

Who talks like that? statistical cliffs?

 

 

My point was CGC rarely hands out 9.9's because they rarely see a book that deserves it. They knowingly reserve it for those few books that deserve it.

 

Not that they willingly decide to control/limit the number.

 

So no, that was not what I was saying at all.

 

 

 

That's the way Dav sees it.

 

He and Beerhbom should be able to bring down CGC if they work closely together.

 

Wow. Okay. I didn't mean to pizz in your cheerios. But I promise you CGC is not threatened one iota by this conversation. If they are they can delete the thread.

 

I hadn't seen those stats before. Thought they unusual and defied reality, something interesting. Personally I don't give a carp either way.

 

Note to Mods: If this thread seems too subversive or somehow anti-CGC, please delete it.

 

 

Oh, I'm sure CGC won't delete the thread and you didn't pizz in my Cheerios.

 

You only really seem to show up whenever there is something negative to say, though. At least that is what I've seen here since I've started reading your posts closely.

 

 

That is out of line. Dav has always been one to keep a scrutinizing eye on the slabbed comic prize. And it is very clear where he lies on the issue of pressing etc. But his contributions to the Boards and the hobby are myriad. And he still keeps everything square on the Ewert books, because he has helped me out several times in that regard.

 

Dav and I don't agree on a lot of things. But there are few that shoot straighter. So what if he has an agenda? It keeps all of us on our toes and watching out for people that are creating new ways to game the system. And it is almost always respectful to the point of being scientific.

[Monster's Lair Comics]

 

 

 

Obviously owners of 9.8's will make a case why their 9.8 is not sitting in 9.9 holder. And pick apart why those sitting in 9.9's are not worthy.

 

 

Sometimes I question why books are in 9.8 holders instead of 9.6 or 9.4. There are many times I see books that appear flawless in 9.6's, and books with visible flaws in 9.8.

 

[silverweb]

I have received two 9.9s from CGC in my life. They certainly don't give them out very often. I have submitted over a dozen pristine Spider-man Chromiums and all came back 9.8 and 9.6 So, I ended up having to buy my 9.9s

 

 

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

That is out of line.

 

You know what, you're right. It was out of line. I actually enjoyed Dav's post about the bookmobile the other day.

 

Sorry Dav.

 

 

He definitely has an agenda.

 

(thumbs u

[bluechip]

I see less consistency in the appearance of books with rare labels than I see in who actually gets them.

[TupennyConan]

Reality is defined by the choices we make.

[Davenport]

You know what, you're right. It was out of line. I actually enjoyed Dav's post about the bookmobile the other day.

 

Sorry Dav.

 

 

He definitely has an agenda.

 

(thumbs u

Thanks.

 

About "definitely has an agenda": Seriously, I chuckle when I read that. I personally think I probably have less of an agenda than many here. If I did, you can tell by my post count I'd make one horrible propagandist.

 

I know where that comes from though. During the evolution of CGC, over many years, there were heated debates ,legitimate concerns and spectacular revelations about where it was all going. But that's OVER. That process concluded and encapsulated comics are what they are. To each their own.

 

If I have an agenda it's the same one I started with: to read something interesting, maybe learn something. To think for myself and question everything.

 

 

 

[USArmyParatrooper]

I bet if you crack and resubmit any 9.9 (without the label) it has at least a 95% chance of coming back 9.8

 

That's not to say the grade is meaningless. Just that it takes a spectacular comic and a fair amount of luck. But this is just a guess on my part, and maybe I'm wrong.

 

Taking it further, at what level of constency would you say the CGC graders can distinguish between a 9.9 and a 10.0?

[valiantman]

I'll ask again before I take off, how many 9.8's are there? Among the 300,000 60's era books graded.

About 5,900. (less than 2%)

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/statsbydecade.asp

 

[Mr.Illmannered]

^Wow.

[iggy]

You know what, you're right. It was out of line. I actually enjoyed Dav's post about the bookmobile the other day.

 

Sorry Dav.

 

 

He definitely has an agenda.

 

(thumbs u

Thanks.

 

About "definitely has an agenda": Seriously, I chuckle when I read that. I personally think I probably have less of an agenda than many here. If I did, you can tell by my post count I'd make one horrible propagandist.

 

I know where that comes from though. During the evolution of CGC, over many years, there were heated debates ,legitimate concerns and spectacular revelations about where it was all going. But that's OVER. That process concluded and encapsulated comics are what they are. To each their own.

 

If I have an agenda it's the same one I started with: to read something interesting, maybe learn something. To think for myself and question everything.

 

 

 

Dav has ALWAYS been alright in my book. (thumbs u

[BeachBum]

I bet if you crack and resubmit any 9.9 (without the label) it has at least a 95% chance of coming back 9.8

 

That's not to say the grade is meaningless. Just that it takes a spectacular comic and a fair amount of luck. But this is just a guess on my part, and maybe I'm wrong.

 

Taking it further, at what level of constency would you say the CGC graders can distinguish between a 9.9 and a 10.0?

 

95% chance? Please, only if the book is mishandled before resubbing.

 

A 9.9 is a 9.9 & a 10.0 is a 10.0. Are there borderline books in any grade? Sure. But to say 95% of the 9.9s would come back less is a gross overstatement.

 

When I pull and sub a book out of the stacks or boxes that looks higher than 9.8 and it comes back higher than 9.8 then CGC has done there job.

 

A really beautiful book is just that and should be graded accordingly, not discounted by one's personal perception or bias to higher grades given.

[bababooey]

I'll ask again before I take off, how many 9.8's are there? Among the 300,000 60's era books graded.

About 5,900. (less than 2%)

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/statsbydecade.asp

Looking at that link I noticed something interesting about the results that could apply to the frequent "what is high grade" debate.

 

Some here define high grade on a scale based on era and many disagree with including age of book when stating whether the book is high grade.

 

If you look at the universal chart results something stands out - the average grade results; it actually gives you that sliding scale that moves based on decade.

 

2000 up - 9.78 & 9.71 average HG threshold 9.8

1990-1999 - 9.61 average HG threshold 9.6

1980-1989 - 9.41 average HG threshold 9.4

1970-1979 - 8.93 average HG threshold 9.0

1960-1969 - 7.73 average HG threshold 7.5 or 8.0

1950-1959 - 7.20 average HG threshold 7.0

1940-1949 - 6.76 average HG threshold 6.5 or 7.0

1930-1939 - 5.52 average HG threshold 5.5

 

Just throwing it out there, thought the numbers were interesting. I know these are average grades for submissions but presumably people are submitting their better books so using the submitted average as the threshold makes sense.

 

[mschmidt]

I bet if you crack and resubmit any 9.9 (without the label) it has at least a 95% chance of coming back 9.8

 

That's not to say the grade is meaningless. Just that it takes a spectacular comic and a fair amount of luck. But this is just a guess on my part, and maybe I'm wrong.

 

Taking it further, at what level of constency would you say the CGC graders can distinguish between a 9.9 and a 10.0?

 

95% chance? Please, only if the book is mishandled before resubbing.

 

A 9.9 is a 9.9 & a 10.0 is a 10.0. Are there borderline books in any grade? Sure. But to say 95% of the 9.9s would come back less is a gross overstatement.

 

When I pull and sub a book out of the stacks or boxes that looks higher than 9.8 and it comes back higher than 9.8 then CGC has done there job.

 

A really beautiful book is just that and should be graded accordingly, not discounted by one's personal perception or bias to higher grades given.

 

[Davenport]

When I pull and sub a book out of the stacks or boxes that looks higher than 9.8 and it comes back higher than 9.8 then CGC has done there job.

 

A really beautiful book is just that and should be graded accordingly, not discounted by one's personal perception or bias to higher grades given.

I know this question is going to sound snarky, but please don't take it that way.

 

With that stat of 27 per over 300,000, how many could you possibly be pulling? It seems like a once in a lifetime happenstance, if that, given those numbers.

 

Because I'm not a math person... National Weather Service: "Odds of being struck by lightening in your lifetime (Est. 80 years) 1:10,000."

 

See what I mean?