Is the Algorithm Wrong posted by Tnerb

[CSJournals-migration]

Sorry Gemma, this was too long for just another thread on the boards.

 

Test

 

See more journals by Tnerb

[Tnerb]

My favorite set is the New Mutants (1983). This set has 109 issues contained within; including The Marvel Graphic Novel #4, all 100 issues, 7 annuals, and the spectacular Art Adams rendered Special Edition #1. Each issue from #2 through #85 is worth 25 points. Issues #1 and #85 through #99 are 35 points each. These statistics are for books graded a 9.8 regardless of page quality; this does not include annuals, specials, and a few exceptions (16, 87, 88, 98, and 100).

 

Issue #98 was one of the books that took me a long time to purchase. This book fetches a premium price which comparatively is way too much for a book that is plentiful in a

9.8. There are currently 873 9.8's out of 2801 copies graded. I still had other (cheaper) issues to get, issues that were a bit scarcer. Number 98 was also worth only 35 points when I first started collecting this set. This was the same comic that introduced Gideon, Domino (Copycat), and the little known Deadpool. This book has since been amended to 120 points.

 

Between 1983 and 1991 (8 years) The New Mutants had several first appearances but not limited to Magma (disguised in issue #8, as Amara Aquilla in issue #9, and as Magma in issue #10), Warpath (formerly Thunderbird II, issue #16), and Cable (issue #87); including Selene the Black Queen (issue #9), Warlock (issue #18), while fighting such villains as The Sentinels (issue #2), The Silver Samurai (issue #6), and the Shadow King (issues#31-#34). They teamed up with the motorcycle group Team USA (issue #5), Cloak and Dagger (Issues #22-#25) and The Star Jammers (issues #50 and #51). The team was even killed (issue #37) and brought back to life (outside the set) by the Beyonder. This series is credited as the first X-Men spin-off and yet it is treated with less respect than George Lucas' (Executive Producer) "Howard the Duck".

 

The Uncanny X-men spanning the same years have a point range between 80 points (approximately issue #167) to 60 points (approximately issue #275) per a graded 9.8 issue, once again not including certain issues (e.g. issues #201 and #266). There are even modern age books that have fewer sets per title (Locke & Key) with a higher point value. The algorithm is supposed to take into account of how many sets there are. How does "Locke & Key" with 42 sets warrant 32 points on a 9.8 non variant cover compared to the New Mutants (1983) with 157 sets at 25 points an issue (not including previous mentioned issue numbers). Volume three of the same title started in 2009, each issue of this set is worth between 24 and 32 points depending on a regular or variant cover. How is a title separated by two volumes and almost twenty years (from the end of Volume 1 and the beginning of Volume #3) have a marginal point difference?

 

My copy of X-Infernus is a Gem Mint (10.0). Using the unknown formula, this issue is worth 40 points on the registry. I feel this is fair for a book from 2009. Bagofleas has a copy of New Mutants #1 in the same condition (1 of 2 that exist and if you own the second one I am interested). How is it possible that this book is worth only 60 points? First off the book is a #1 that was released fresh off the success of Marvel Graphic Novel #4 (six printings). Second off, the book was released in March of 83' (almost 30 years old) and should be worth 160 points at least; 240 would be ideal.

 

Here are some examples from the same era. I will use issues #1 and #2 to prove my point. I will list the point value of each 9.8 followed by the difference in parenthesis between that title and The New Mutants (1983). I will also list how many sets each of those titles have:

 

Dazzler has 26 sets;#1 is@160 points (125);#2 is@120 points (95)

Transformers has 83 sets;#1 is@120 points(95);#2 is@80 points(55)

G.I.Joe has 118 sets:#1 is@220 points(185);#2 is@200 points(175)

 

The above titles I can understand their points per issue. What I can't understand is why The New Mutants are not up between Dazzler and G.I. Joe in the points scale. Then there are the following three that utterly confuse me on how the algorithm works, not to mention how do they have more points per a book than my favorite set?

 

Droids has 10 sets; #1 is @160 points (125);#2 is @96 points (71)

Ewoks has 6 sets; #1 is @120 points (95); #2 is @ 96 points (71)

 

The above two could be linked to Star Wars, hence why they might have a higher point value, so I can almost understand, but this last example is proof of what a misrepresentations the algorithm could be. Heathcliff has one set. This single set also happens to be devoid of any issues. Issue #1 however is listed has having 56 points for a graded 9.8 copy while there is no point value for issue #2. Are you seriously telling me that Heathcliff has a higher point value than the New Mutants #1? Heathcliff #1 has six books graded in a 9.8 (out of the ten that are graded) while the New Mutants #1 has 333 graded in a 9.8 (out of the 586 that are graded). Six of those 586 are higher than a 9.8.

 

Of course stating all this and any changes made to this set by CGC would probably have me lose my #1 status with just the changes to issue #1 alone, but it would be worth it if the New Mutants (1983) would be corrected. Are there any sets that you own that you feel should be changed? I understand that there is a thread for sets that should be corrected but I am more of a journal kind of guy. What are your thoughts?

 

Thanks for Reading

 

Tnerb

 

PS. Of course I could be just rambling

 

I tried to edit the above but the edit key feature disappeared. If anyone could hel, then I would appreciate it.

[Doc Joe]

The points are a human construct designed to introduce competition and thus 'fun' (i.e. sell more slabbed comics). I suspect not more than 5 seconds went into thinking what level the New Mutants would be set at. No Board Meetings were held to discus the relative merits of GI Joe, Dazzler and New Mutants.

 

Go to the "These Scores Need Fixing" and ask for an upgrade and you shall get it since no one will argue the counter point.

 

PS: Awesome set, hope you win an award (thumbs u

[surfer99]

On the one hand, we should not be so invested in the point values CGC assigns to our books. It is just for fun, there really seems to be no rhyme or reason to it, and it will drive us bonkers trying to figure out why our books don't have the point value we feel they should.

 

On the other hand, the number of points a book has been given tends to equate to the level of respect that book has received from CGC. As a collector who invests heavily in building their collection, we all want our books to garner the respect we feel they deserve.

 

Having said that, I do believe CGC needs to put more thought into how point values are assigned. Of course, that means taking time away from grading, and given it has been 6 months since my oldest submission and I have yet to receive my books, I would rather they focus on that for now.

 

 

 

 

[biggblaster]

Surfer 99 you aren’t kidding. I am the kind of person that wants to check my submissions everyday but these days I have to put my books out of my mind and forget that I have them. . On the subject to the points, I am relatively new to CGC so I do not really understand the point set up. It is the sets that I don’t quite get. R these sets premade by CGC? And if so why can I name them myself? A thought to the point system, could CGC give higher points to books that would normally not be graded just to garner some business? In other words CGC does not need to push Amazing Spiderman 300 or New Mutants 98 to be graded, but Heathcliff or Dazzler might need a little help. To be totally truthful I started grading books initially just to make money, I started in January of this year, but since getting a few batches back I can’t help but think I should keep a few. I sent in 7 New Mutants 98’s and received 4 9.8’s and 3 9.6’s. So the collector in me now wants to put one of those 9.8’s aside for myself. This is the story of my life and the reason I am not wealthy. I always want to keep the best for myself. .

[surfer99]

Biggblaster, no one really understands the point set up, . You can find CGC's explanation here: http://comics.www.collectors-society.com/registry/members/comics/RankingInfo.aspx

 

As far as the sets themselves, there is a Set Type Name that is assigned by CGC (e.g. "X-men #94-#143"), and then each collector can give their own Set Name to their personal set within this set type (e.g. I named my set of X-men #94-#143 "X-men: Byrne"). This way, when you look at all member sets within a certain set type you can see where your set ranks compared to all the others (my set is ranked 64, so there are 63 other sets out there that have more points than mine).

 

 

Hope this helps, and congrats on the grades received for your New Mutants #98 books. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with keeping one of those 9.8's for yourself.

 

 

[jackowick-migration]

In short, I agree once again with Tnerb.

 

In long, I do think the sets for NM need a higher value. This was significant for being a predecessor to teen angst comics, many great character firsts, and being made in the newsprint era, many books of the overall population will fail to hit even a 9 bagged and boarded due to page yellowing.

[SuperTechMonkey]

I have to completely agree with Tnerb on this.

 

As a side note, it's always been my opinion that if this title would've had an "X" in front of it like everything else Marvel has done for every other X-Men-related title then I believe that this title would have been looked at very differently by a lot of people.