Thief of Thieves

[N/A]

I wasn't suggesting that CGC was giving improper grades, just that the census & gpa numbers show a lot more lower grades than I usually see on new books. I'd try & paste the info, but I'm on my cell .... I think you misunderstood my post. That's not hard to do bc of auto spell correct on my cell. Moreover, I've never spread misinformation & don't appreciate the suggestion that I have. There are lots of people on the boards who attempt to influence prices, popularity, etc. I'm not one of them. I just report the facts, share opinions & ask for input from others.

 

Pretty much every other one of your posts has misinformation - or, at the very least, speculation with no basis in reality :shrug:

 

I'd venture a guess and say that the reason for all the 9.4s and 9.6s in the census are an influx of new speculators who don't know how to grade.

 

That was just plain rude and factually inaccurate as it pertains to me. Also, your theory about speculators who don't know how to screen books doesn't work bc the numbers we are working with, unless they have been updated recently, were released prior to the news about the TV show. Who knows, maybe there were some who didn't do a good job guessing how CGC would grade the books & were just riding kirkman fever. After all, look at the number of people who are paying or paid top dollar for the Hardcore one shot. Before you make such sweeping conclusions you may want to think this stuff through analytically and refrain from bad mouthing other board members as it makes you appear like you have personal animus and are unknowledgable when you have some good ideas. In sum, back off & try & have a good time. That's all any of us can really hope to do on the boards anyway.

 

Dude, you really need to agree to a psychiatric exam. Do you read what you write.

 

Back to your misinformation claim. ToT seems to have a better average grade (on a small sample) than WD #1 which is generally understood to be a book that grades high. There is zero evidence for your claim which makes your claim false aka making a false claim aka spreading misinformation.

 

Anyone reading your posts quickly draws this conclusion. Living in denial helps nobody but perhaps your fragile psyche??

[Magneto]

yay it's Friday

[N/A]

CGC has been hard on the regular cover Thief of Thieves ... I think that helps drive the high prices of CGC 9.6s & 9.8s.

 

Let's make this real simple. This is your statement. Back it up with facts. Please wait until you get home as driving while texting is not........smrt, I am so smart.

[youmechooz]

when i sent mine in, i was just praying for 9.8's. got 9.8's and told myself i was the best grader in the world

[N/A]

Nothing wrong with that. They were so tough on you man!

[NewEnglandGothic]

Holy hell man.

I hate to get involved in these tissues, but...

 

Nico I want to see more links. It might help the imformation you present. I do find this stuff interesting here and there when proven accurate. I did it from time to time with L&K.

[krighton]

i've personally thought it's the ToT covers themselves, not CGC causing less than stellar grades. I was surprised the last couple i sent in were 9.8. Then again i'm a harsh grader.

[N/A]

What do you consider stellar grades? The vast majority are 9.6/9.8.

[Nico Esq]

Apparently the census has been updated with lots of 9.8s and 9.6s. I just looked. I don't know how to get the old results. My recollection was that there was one 9.2, three 9.4s, three 9.6s and one or two 9.8s the last time I looked. The point being that new books usually have all 9.8s and no 9.2s and rarely a 9.4 - they don't have an equal number of 9.2s and 9.4s as 9.6s and 9.8s. The new numbers make more sense to the historical trends.

 

Your offensive remark that I should be examined by a psychiatrist is offensive. I'm very disappointed by your insulting behavior. Also, I wasn't texting and driving. I'm not trying to kill anyone, I'm just on my cell and not on my laptop/desktop. As always, I'm not trying to have some personal argument that derails discussion on the boards and I'm done responding to your personal attacks. What would have saved everyone a lot of time is if you would have just pulled down the new census numbers and posted them and advised me that the percentages had changed since the last time I looked. Instead you made this huge debate about the issue. Grow up man. The boards are intended for peopel who share common interests to talk about things we enjoy not to pick fights, try and make your fellow board members look and feel bad, etc. That type of childish, animosity is juvenile at best and sadistic at worst. I doubt that you are a sadist or have a childlike persona in real life and imagine that you and I would get along in the real world. So try your best to get along with me and others on the board. The argumentative, snarky, insulting posts are unbecoming of someone with your knowledge and reflect poorly on the boards generally and are uninviting to new members.

[krighton]

stellar is 9.8+....a 9.6 is less than stellar (for me).

[N/A]

When I'm not on my cell I'll pull the numbers, but I rarely see a significant number of 9.2s on a three month old book.

 

This is what you said. The updated census has the same number of 9.2's as when you made this statement. What is that number again? Exactly one.

 

So explain to me how one 9.2 is a "significant number of 9.2's on a 3 month old book"

 

As for the psychiatric comment consider it constructive criticism. Since you seem to hold zero value in the opinion of your fellow collectors then perhaps a discussion with a professional would be enlightening. If you feel I am child like in my behaviour perhaps it is in response to your child like taunts and claims. The fact is you claim facts that are in no way facts and then accuse others of doing the same.

[N/A]

stellar is 9.8+....a 9.6 is less than stellar (for me).

 

Fair enough but with the possible exception of old IDW cover stock is there any modern books that meet these expectations?

[Nico Esq]

Dude, I'm done arguing with you and filling the pages of the thread with bickering between the two of us. If you want to have a discussion PM me.

[juggernaut]

Here is the breakdown from week to week for CGC graded Thief of Thieves #1.

 

Thief of Thieves #1

 

 

[N/A]

When I'm not on my cell I'll pull the numbers, but I rarely see a significant number of 9.2s on a three month old book.

 

This statement is misleading and can cause frustration among new collectors. This potentially hurts new collectors and those new to CGC. Please refrain from making inaccurate statements like this in the future. We all would like our hobby to grow and this behaviour only hurts the chances of future growth.

 

Thanks.

[N/A]

Here is the breakdown from week to week for CGC graded Thief of Thieves #1.

 

Thief of Thieves #1

 

 

 

Add it to the faves Nico.

[krighton]

stellar is 9.8+....a 9.6 is less than stellar (for me).

 

Fair enough but with the possible exception of old IDW cover stock is there any modern books that meet these expectations?

 

a good portion of submitted modern comics seems to fall in the 9.8 range (when carefully checked). ToT didn't seem to have as high a number of 9.8s as is the norm. But I guess the only reason we're even seeing 9.2 & 9.4 is because it's hot and people want to make a quick profit and send whatever they have in, figuring they'll at least get their money back even with lesser grades.

 

[Nico Esq]

Here is the breakdown from week to week for CGC graded Thief of Thieves #1.

 

Thief of Thieves #1

 

 

Thanks! I think that illustrates my point. Around the end of April/May is when the numbers change, but as I said before that distribution is probably what caused the CGC 9.8s to command so much cash. I guess I'm partially to blame for the surge of 9.8s because I got 4 9.8s and an equal number of 9.6s. My grades don't even make sense based upon observed flaws. I actually am thinking about paying for grader notes just to see what counted and didn't count towards my grade. I'm not complaining in any way whatsoever. In fact, I'm really happy because CGC gave me 9.8 on my comicspro and ICE variant universals. God bless the Fast Track process.

[N/A]

[mschmidt]

What would have saved everyone a lot of time is if you would have just pulled down the new census numbers and posted them and advised me that the percentages had changed since the last time I looked.

You mean, like you could have done prior to making yet another factually incorrect post? Or is only other people that are required to present facts to back up their arguments? :shrug:

 

 

The boards are intended for peopel who share common interests to talk about things we enjoy not to pick fights, try and make your fellow board members look and feel bad, etc. That type of childish, animosity is juvenile at best and sadistic at worst. I doubt that you are a sadist or have a childlike persona in real life and imagine that you and I would get along in the real world. So try your best to get along with me and others on the board. The argumentative, snarky, insulting posts are unbecoming of someone with your knowledge and reflect poorly on the boards generally and are uninviting to new members.

 

Please don't lump yourself in with other people on the boards.

 

You've contributed nothing in your brief period here, yet have the nerve to moan non-stop about the "mistreatment" from people who are getting sick & tired of your constant need to throw out baseless assumptions as fact. What you seem utterly incapable of realizing is that there are lot of people here who actually know what they're talking about, who have a lot more experience than you and who never needed to post "open letters" to the board, asking for special considerations because they were getting their feelings hurt.

 

If you want to be respected around here, grow a thicker skin & start posting something of worth - if you had truly been knowledgeable about the issues you choose to post about, the all guns blazing approach you've employed so far might actually have worked. But as you're not, the impression that you're leaving is one of a spoiled, petulant child who thinks that covering up ones' ears and screaming "no" at the top of their voice is the only way to make their opinion heard.