CGG's grading?

[seank]

Here's the CGG book. I'm posting a big scan so all of you can judge for yourselves as to the accuracy of CGG's grading.

 

 

 

 

And the back:

 

[FFB]

The grading looks pretty close to accurate to me.

[Stout1]

It may be a hair undergraded, maybe. But it is a accurate number. Were going by scan's, not in hand. Sometimes a book simply look's better in person. You can judge the much finer detail or lack there of much better..

[Jgel]

I have asked this before without a reply. HAS ANYONE EVER CRACKED A CGG BOOK AND SUBMITTED IT TO CGG AND GOTTEN THE SAME GRADE? Or close or what???????

[qualitycomix]

Cracked CGG and submitted to CGG? Please clarify?

[FFB]

Cracked CGG and submitted to CGG? Please clarify?

 

He means cracked CGG and submitted to CGC I'll bet.

 

The only one I remember was an Amazing Spider-Man #122 that was a CGG 9.4 and is now a CGC 9.6. There were others, but the ones I saw came back from CGC with PLODs because CGG missed the resto.

[Jayman]

The only one I remember was an Amazing Spider-Man #122 that was a CGG 9.4 and is now a CGC 9.6. There were others, but the ones I saw came back from CGC with PLODs because CGG missed the resto.

 

[noshill-migration]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

[FFB]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

 

If I recall, in that thread I agreed that it was overgraded as a 9.6 or a 9.4. Based on the scans we had, I thought both companies overgraded it.

[FFB]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

 

If I recall, in that thread I agreed that it was overgraded as a 9.6 or a 9.4. Based on the scans we had, I thought both companies overgraded it.

 

Here is the original thread: Link to Original Thread re ASM#122

[FFB]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

 

By the way, noshill... how is it that you're so familiar with a thread from March 2004, when you didn't register until June 2004? Whose shill are you?

[noshill-migration]

I'm my own. BTW I think the #122 is in the 9.0/9.2 range. I have seen CGC loosen their grades alot this past 6 months. CGGroup has laxed up to industry standards.

[noshill-migration]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

 

If I recall, in that thread I agreed that it was overgraded as a 9.6 or a 9.4. Based on the scans we had, I thought both companies overgraded it.

 

You also left out that important fact.

[FFB]

I'm my own. BTW I think the #122 is in the 9.0/9.2 range. I have seen CGC loosen their grades alot this past 6 months. CGGroup has laxed up to industry standards.

 

If you read the whole prior thread, you'll see that I agree with you on the 9.2 grade.

[FFB]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

 

If I recall, in that thread I agreed that it was overgraded as a 9.6 or a 9.4. Based on the scans we had, I thought both companies overgraded it.

 

You also left out that important fact.

 

It wasn't the original question. I was responding to the question of whether anyone had ever cracked a CGG slab and sent it to CGC, and if so, what the grades were. Did I need to recreate the highlights of a 28-page, four-month-old thread in order to avoid being accused of intentional omissions?

[PovertyRow]

Did I need to recreate the highlights of a 28-page, four-month-old thread in order to avoid being accused of intentional omissions?

 

Well, the evidence against OJ was older than 4 months!

[divad]

I don't see anything missing. The book is folded perfectly along the black edge. Is that bad? Why is every CGG book trimmed? There are at least 2 cgc 8.0 books on the Heritage site that have the same cut. Are they trimmed also???

 

BTW, with no profile and a name like "noshill", I would question your perspective on this. Do you work for CGG?

 

[noshill-migration]

No I don't. I do however , use their service.

[Michael JC-migration]

on the # 122 most members agreed that the book was a way overgraded POS . Before CGC graded it 9.6. But FFB forgot that.

 

If I recall, in that thread I agreed that it was overgraded as a 9.6 or a 9.4. Based on the scans we had, I thought both companies overgraded it.

 

You also left out that important fact.

 

It wasn't the original question. I was responding to the question of whether anyone had ever cracked a CGG slab and sent it to CGC, and if so, what the grades were. Did I need to recreate the highlights of a 28-page, four-month-old thread in order to avoid being accused of intentional omissions?

 

YES!

Don't you know every new thing you say is torn down & scrutinized to find anything that can be used to jab at you or disrupt a thread. You should read back through every post you have made so you never leave out something someone may percieve as an intentional omission.

 

 

[FFB]

Holy CGG Shills, Batman! Two in one thread, both talking to me about the SAME THING!