STANDINGS..............

[FFB]

And what's the prize for most points lost to undergrading... truly a rare and prize-worthy accomplishment...

 

 

Consistently undergrading a scan means you don't know how to grade by CGC standards. You are either counting defects to harshly or worse, you are assuming that there are defects that you can't see.

 

I would much prefer to OVERGRADE every SCAN. I might guess a 9.4 based on a scan and the book gets a 9.0. Does not mean I'm a bad grader? NO. Maybe the book would have been a 9.4 except there were some surface wear (or creases in white areas) that were not detectable in the scan.

 

Just the way I see it.

 

I agree totally. Assess a grade fairly based on what you can see. It is up to the book's owner to tell us if there's any wear on the book that is not visible in the scan (especially defects that are inside the covers or on interior pages or not visible on a spine edge or that are too small to show up in a scan). It is not up to us to guess what wear might not be visible.

[Jayman]

And what's the prize for most points lost to undergrading... truly a rare and prize-worthy accomplishment...

 

 

Consistently undergrading a scan means you don't know how to grade by CGC standards. You are either counting defects to harshly or worse, you are assuming that there are defects that you can't see.

 

I would much prefer to OVERGRADE every SCAN. I might guess a 9.4 based on a scan and the book gets a 9.0. Does not mean I'm a bad grader? NO. Maybe the book would have been a 9.4 except there were some surface wear (or creases in white areas) that were not detectable in the scan.

 

Just the way I see it.

 

I agree totally. Assess a grade fairly based on what you can see. It is up to the book's owner to tell us if there's any wear on the book that is not visible in the scan (especially defects that are inside the covers or on interior pages or not visible on a spine edge or that are too small to show up in a scan). It is not up to us to guess what wear might not be visible.

 

Point is we ALL would grade better if we were holding the book right in front of us. A scan can no way be a tell all no matter what resolution.

[divad]

Damn straight!

[sfilosa]

Point is we ALL would grade better if we were holding the book right in front of us. A scan can no way be a tell all no matter what resolution.

 

Of course.

 

And from a scan, you should almost always OVERGRADE (or be dead on) a book.

 

The only exception (which was kind of the case with the last FF book) is seeing something in a scan that you believe is structural wear, when it really is a printing/manufacturing defect or just on the slab (like a scratch).

 

I guessed 9.4 on the book, but only because the printing defect at the LLC was confirmed as a printing defect. So if you didn't know that and assumed it was wear, then I could see downgrading the book.

 

ALSO, don't think being an UNDERGRADER is unusual. MOST DEALERS UNDERGRADE when purchasing books. Bought book as VF- but sold as a VF+.

[Aces]

ALSO, don't think being an UNDERGRADER is unusual. MOST DEALERS UNDERGRADE when purchasing books. Bought book as VF- but sold as a VF+.

 

[Jayman]

Point is we ALL would grade better if we were holding the book right in front of us. A scan can no way be a tell all no matter what resolution.

 

Of course.

 

And from a scan, you should almost always OVERGRADE (or be dead on) a book.

 

The only exception (which was kind of the case with the last FF book) is seeing something in a scan that you believe is structural wear, when it really is a printing/manufacturing defect or just on the slab (like a scratch).

 

I guessed 9.4 on the book, but only because the printing defect at the LLC was confirmed as a printing defect. So if you didn't know that and assumed it was wear, then I could see downgrading the book.

 

ALSO, don't think being an UNDERGRADER is unusual. MOST DEALERS UNDERGRADE when purchasing books. Bought book as VF- but sold as a VF+.

 

I tend to agree with you and this brings up a good point when buying on ebay/internet. Always ask for a scan but also a written/typed description from the seller. If it is a big $$$ book that you are interested in purchasing, then he should be willing to take the time and make an acurate list of any defects that are or aren't visible in the scan.

[nik]

I tend to agree with you and this brings up a good point when buying on ebay/internet. Always ask for a scan but also a written/typed description from the seller. If it is a big $$$ book that you are interested in purchasing, then he should be willing to take the time and make an acurate list of any defects that are or aren't visible in the scan.

 

Isnt this what CGC is for? I understand grading is subjective, but isnt this the reason books are submitted for a non-bias opinion? I would tend to believe that the money being spent to have your book graded by someone impartial (although not perfect) but alot more trustworthy than your average seller out there. So why would you need a written/typed description if the book was already assigned a grade?

[rjpb]

Isnt this what CGC is for? I understand grading is subjective, but isnt this the reason books are submitted for a non-bias opinion? I would tend to believe that the money being spent to have your book graded by someone impartial (although not perfect) but alot more trustworthy than your average seller out there. So why would you need a written/typed description if the book was already assigned a grade?

 

 

A lot of collectors still feel that there are some great deals buying raw books off Ebay if you are careful. If you dollar cost average, the amount of times you pay for an overgraded book can be more than off-set by bargain prices on accurately graded stuff.

 

If I were buying high dollar high grade slabbed books, I would still want a big scan, and to know page quality and of any specific defects. One area I part company with CGC is on considering production defects in the grade. When paying serious money for a high grade book, I would want to know that the condition conformed to my expectations for the grade not just CGC's.

[nik]

I see your point, but speaking for myself, if I was, lets say buying ASM #50 graded by CGC at a 9.4 from a buyer, I should believe that the book is a true NM, and not have to play the guessing game. I understand everyone always grades a little different or what he perceives as flaws in a book others dont.

 

Or maybe I just took the last round a little to personal.

 

Bottom line is, my opinion on a book might differ from CGCs a little, but when they finalize a grade and put it on the slab, I would buy the book no matter how big or small the scan was.

[rjpb]

Don't take the guesses personally, that FF is a nice looking book, and while I've been dead on about half your books, I and alot of others guessed 9.2, and I maintain that being within .2 is totally acceptable given the subjectivity of grading. The reason I would be unwilling to rely on CGC's grade alone has more to do with the absurd premiums paid for .2 increments, and not with their grading ability. This is less of an issue when buying raw, or at least used to be, as previous to the advent of CGC, few dealers asked for a any sort of multiple on a NM+ versus a NM copy of the same book.

[FFB]

I tend to agree with you and this brings up a good point when buying on ebay/internet. Always ask for a scan but also a written/typed description from the seller. If it is a big $$$ book that you are interested in purchasing, then he should be willing to take the time and make an acurate list of any defects that are or aren't visible in the scan.

 

Isnt this what CGC is for? I understand grading is subjective, but isnt this the reason books are submitted for a non-bias opinion? I would tend to believe that the money being spent to have your book graded by someone impartial (although not perfect) but alot more trustworthy than your average seller out there. So why would you need a written/typed description if the book was already assigned a grade?

 

No, CGC is irrelevant to this topic in my mind. The seller should tell you exactly what can be seen and not be seen in the scan. Plus, even if the book is slabbed and graded, books suffer damage in the slabs after grading, and I'd want to know about that too.

[nik]

No, CGC is irrelevant to this topic in my mind. The seller should tell you exactly what can be seen and not be seen in the scan. Plus, even if the book is slabbed and graded, books suffer damage in the slabs after grading, and I'd want to know about that too.

 

Although its true that a book can get damaged in the well, be it by accident, or whatever, I can appreciate your view on this when you are purchasing a BIG $ book.

But to say they are irrelevant? if you are the buyer Yes, you are more certain to pay a higher price for high grades, but if you are the seller, you know you will make a killing on your slabbed high grade.

[Jayman]

I tend to agree with you and this brings up a good point when buying on ebay/internet. Always ask for a scan but also a written/typed description from the seller. If it is a big $$$ book that you are interested in purchasing, then he should be willing to take the time and make an acurate list of any defects that are or aren't visible in the scan.

 

Isnt this what CGC is for? I understand grading is subjective, but isnt this the reason books are submitted for a non-bias opinion? I would tend to believe that the money being spent to have your book graded by someone impartial (although not perfect) but alot more trustworthy than your average seller out there. So why would you need a written/typed description if the book was already assigned a grade?

 

nikos61: I was talking primarily about purchasing raw books. If puchasing a CGC graded book I would of course be much more at ease with the grade assessment.

But I still believe full disclosure upon request (just to quell any doubts) about the book being purchased is a must.

 

BTW I am really enjoying your grading challange. I know I am not even close to top ranks, but it has made me reevaluate my grading. I have found it to be great practice and good fun!

[Jayman]

No, CGC is irrelevant to this topic in my mind. The seller should tell you exactly what can be seen and not be seen in the scan. Plus, even if the book is slabbed and graded, books suffer damage in the slabs after grading, and I'd want to know about that too.

 

I hear ya!

[FFB]

No, CGC is irrelevant to this topic in my mind. The seller should tell you exactly what can be seen and not be seen in the scan. Plus, even if the book is slabbed and graded, books suffer damage in the slabs after grading, and I'd want to know about that too.

 

Although its true that a book can get damaged in the well, be it by accident, or whatever, I can appreciate your view on this when you are purchasing a BIG $ book.

But to say they are irrelevant? if you are the buyer Yes, you are more certain to pay a higher price for high grades, but if you are the seller, you know you will make a killing on your slabbed high grade.

 

I don't mean CGC is irrelevant as a general matter. What I mean is that the fact that a book has been graded by CGC is irrelevant to the issue of whether I would want a seller to disclose any significant wear on a book that wasn't visible in a scan. That's all. Of course CGC's grade would count for a lot.

[AlexH]

 

 

 

AFTER 10

 

1. Bill43-------------------------------78

2. Newtsamson---------------------------76

3. XsmanX-------------------------------73

4. Arty---------------------------------72

4. Sterlingcomics-----------------------72

4. AlexH--------------------------------72

5. Zipper68-----------------------------70

5. Lordraul-----------------------------70

5. ArAich-------------------------------70

6. Rjpb---------------------------------69

6. DrBanner-----------------------------69

7. Warlord------------------------------68

8. OsborneFrance------------------------67

8. Ultimatevenom------------------------67

9. Aces---------------------------------64

10. Rocketeer----------------------------63

11. FantasyFootballBono------------------62

12. Nearmint-----------------------------61

12. 143KSK-------------------------------61

13. DiceX--------------------------------60

13. Sfilosa------------------------------60

14. Jimm94-------------------------------59

14. Pedigreeman--------------------------59

15. Redhook------------------------------58

16. Uclapeterg---------------------------54

16. Jayman-------------------------------54

17. Beaumonts----------------------------53

18. Darthdiesel--------------------------50

19. Fan4Fan------------------------------49

20. Awe4One------------------------------47

20. Stronguy-----------------------------47

20. Scrooge------------------------------47

21. Calamerica---------------------------41

21. Supapimp-----------------------------41

22. Davidling623-------------------------37

23. Silver-------------------------------35

24. Burntboy-----------------------------30

25. Inconceivable------------------------29

26. Richnerd-----------------------------24

27. Dudeism------------------------------20

28. Namisgr------------------------------15

29. Garthgantu---------------------------10

29. Zanarkland---------------------------10

29. Ninanina-----------------------------10

29. Johannschmidt------------------------10

29. Divadrabnud****----------------------10

30. Nerfherder-3--------------------------8

30. PaulMaul------------------------------8

31. Joemad--------------------------------7

31. Durden08------------------------------7

32. Grider67------------------------------6

32. Chadamir------------------------------6

33. Flamingcarrot-------------------------5

34. Aman619-------------------------------3

34. Punyhuman-----------------------------3

34. Povertrow-----------------------------3

34. Musicmeta-----------------------------3

 

AFTER 11

 

1. Bill43--------------------------------86

2. Newtsamson----------------------------84

3. XsmanX--------------------------------81

4. Arty----------------------------------80

4. ArAich--------------------------------80

4. Lordraul------------------------------80

5. Sterlingcomics------------------------78

5. Warlord-------------------------------78

6. Rjpb----------------------------------77

6. DrBanner------------------------------77

7. Zipper68------------------------------76

7. AlexH---------------------------------76

8. Ultimatevenom-------------------------75

9. Aces----------------------------------72

10. Sfilosa-------------------------------70

10. FantasyFootballBono-------------------70

11. Pedigreeman---------------------------69

11. 143ksk--------------------------------69

11. Nearmint------------------------------69

12. Jimm94--------------------------------67

12. Rocketeer-----------------------------67

12. OsborneFrance-------------------------67

13. DiceX---------------------------------66

14. Redhook-------------------------------64

15. Uclapeterg----------------------------62

16. Beaumonts-----------------------------61

17. Jayman--------------------------------60

18. Darthdiesel---------------------------58

19. Fan4Fan-------------------------------55

19. Stronguy------------------------------55

20. Awe4one-------------------------------51

21. Supapimp------------------------------49

21. Calamerica----------------------------49

22. Scrooge-------------------------------47

23. Davidking623--------------------------43

24. Burntboy------------------------------40

25. Inconceivable-------------------------37

26. Silver--------------------------------35

27. Dudesim-------------------------------28

28. Richnerd------------------------------24

29. Namisgr-------------------------------15

30. Divadrabnud---------------------------12

31. Garthgantu----------------------------10

31. Zanarkland----------------------------10

31. Ninanina------------------------------10

31. Johannschmidt-------------------------10

32. ThanosOfitan---------------------------8

32. Galaxor--------------------------------8

32. Eaglessbchamps-------------------------8

32. Nerfherder-3---------------------------8

32. PaulMaul-------------------------------8

33. Joemad---------------------------------7

33. Durden08-------------------------------7

34. Grider67-------------------------------6

34. Chadamir-------------------------------6

35. FlamingCarrot--------------------------5

36. Aman619--------------------------------3

36. Punyhuman------------------------------3

36. Povertyrow-----------------------------3

36. Musicmeta------------------------------3

 

Bump for people looking for the actual standings

[divad]

Nik,

Thanks for the asterisks! Yowza!!! Now I feel better!

[Fan4Fan]

ALSO, don't think being an UNDERGRADER is unusual. MOST DEALERS UNDERGRADE when purchasing books. Bought book as VF- but sold as a VF+.

 

Of course they do.

 

Or maybe they only overgrade on sales.

 

Needless to say, this isn't really a relevant argument. It is in the dealer's business interests to undergrade (intentionally or otherwise). As a collector, it really isn't of much importance to me (which is probably why my grading isn't "properly calibrated" to the "correct way" of doing things).

 

Perhaps it is unfair on my part to assume at least a grade difference from the scan presented to me, but I guess that may be the "eBay effect" kicking in.

 

Thanks,

Fan4Fan

[Darthdiesel]

And what's the prize for most points lost to undergrading... truly a rare and prize-worthy accomplishment...

 

 

Consistently undergrading a scan means you don't know how to grade by CGC standards. You are either counting defects to harshly or worse, you are assuming that there are defects that you can't see.

 

 

Isn't that CGG's MO?

[sfilosa]

Perhaps it is unfair on my part to assume at least a grade difference from the scan presented to me, but I guess that may be the "eBay effect" kicking in.

 

I hear ya there.

 

My point wasn't to fault a buyer from assuming that a book probably grades lower than the scan.

 

But as a service to all forum members, I just think we should grade books (especially in the grading forum) based on what defects we can see. Also, I try to grade the book using CGC grading stardards on this book, not my own. I have several CGC NM (9.4) that have way more dirt on the back cover than I would allow in grading a book NM. I also would downgrade more "yellowing" than CGC does. But I would not be as tight as they are on "non-color breaking creases" as they don't reduce the "eye appeal" of a book much, and that's really what I look for in a high-grade book, EYE APPEAL.