Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[seanfingh]

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

Well, obviously not.

 

I'm glad you have one. Mine is just better and based in facts and logic. Which you demonstrated with your snarky comment.

 

Hmm. What could have possibly prompted me to respond in kind to a snarky comment? I wonder...

 

Why would CGC (or anyone else) give your 9.0s a 9.2 or a 9.4? Is it because they are better than 9.0? Do they have less defects?

 

According to CGC they do. According to me, they aren't that significant. That's the whole point.

 

BTW, I doubt it's a record. I've just seen this "opinion" from you before, and it was just as senseless then.

 

Now my opinion is an "opinion"... again proving that it's obviously isn't "welcome".

 

BTW-- you already have bought books from me... you just don't know it. You get them from dealers who buy them from me, mark up the grades, or have them upgraded from CGC, and you happily pay a lot more from them than you ever would from me. Just sayin'...

 

[VintageComics]

 

I would guess 90% of the angst in this hobby stems from the ridiculous notion of grading paper down to tenths of a point. A system that would have left well enough alone by grading steps that went 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5, 10.0 would eliminate a very large portion of the "problems" which produce dozens of threads here. But to point out such reality makes you a heretic, and so it goes.

 

 

It's not heresy. It's simply not reality.

There is an obvious visual difference between 9.0, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.8.

 

.....

 

Important note to myself: Never buy high grade books from anyone that thinks there isn't a need for a two point system above 9.0

 

 

How would my scale be any different? Two ways: get rid of the Gem Mint B.S label, Mint is fine, and I'd get rid of the split grades. Obviously accepting the removal of split grades would be the big problem. But if you were to accept it, nothing much else would change. You'd still have NM+ (9.6), NM (9.4) and NM- (9.2). They just wouldn't be actual tenths of grades anymore, they'd be regular ("lower") grades. But they're still basically the same thing.

 

Your scale is fine till you get to higher grades (9.0) and at that point there is a need (at least in my opinion) for a finer division of grades. It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

You can stand back and say how far do you think that is? Someone might say "about a yard". Get a little closer and it might be "two and half feet plus or minus" and so on, but as it gets more refined it's going to get down to "Two feet seven and 7/8""

Of course if it's something that can be measured more precisely it should be.

 

That's where I'll give Bookery some credit. It's a paper product. The scale should only be so fine. Once there was a 100 point system. It was way to fine for comic books, but to say there should only be three grade points in the higher end is not logical. It is finer than that and physically measurable.

 

Good post. I don't totally agree, but that's... okay.

 

The only thing I will disagree with is that they didn't have to make the fine divisions in the 9's. The could have done anything they wanted - 8.0/8.3/8.9/9.2/9.5/9.8/10.0 - whatever. They just chose to loosely base it on Overstreet's previous scale.

 

How the numbers are divided isn't nearly the point. The point is that we are at that time period in comic collecting where the numbers needed to be divided because someone holding a book where the next increment might be a 5 or a 6 figure $wing is going to want a little more detail before selling their book.

 

The collector who doesn't care about $ might not care or see the need for incremental grades but the market is comprised of people who do and don't care, and since you can't please everyone you need a set of rules to try and cover most bases all at the same time.

 

Anyone can bemoan the values of comics all you want [it's been going on for decades) but the reality is that this is the teething of the hobby and it's something it has to go through.

 

[Lunchbox-migration]

How would my scale be any different? Two ways: get rid of the Gem Mint B.S label, Mint is fine, and I'd get rid of the split grades. Obviously accepting the removal of split grades would be the big problem. But if you were to accept it, nothing much else would change. You'd still have NM+ (9.6), NM (9.4) and NM- (9.2). They just wouldn't be actual decimal grades anymore, they'd be regular ("lower") grades. But they're still basically the same thing.

 

Are you saying that you'd rather have letters than numbers represent the grades?

 

No, I'd have both, like CGC used to.

 

Why? (Obvious question)

 

So obvious, in fact, there's no need to take the bait.

 

 

It's obvious now that you think I'm baiting you but I'm not. You likely think so because that is the way you have discussions with people.

 

With people like you, you mean. Go ask someone like Sha if this is how I have discussions with her.

 

I'm asking why you'd rather have numbers than letters.

 

I believe I specifically said I'd have both numbers and letters on the label?

 

Anybody above the age of 6 years of age understands a graduated scale of 1-10.

 

Are you using a Senko rigged wacky style or a jig here?

 

Only people who have learned how to grade understand a numerical grading scale. It's like a secret code.

 

Did you mean Alpha here?

[Bookery]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

[VintageComics]

Did you mean Alpha here?

 

Yes, I meant Alpha. Typing out many posts and made an error. But you know what I meant.

 

I know how you talk. You enjoy spewing venom at Borock and CGC and you avoid and evade when questioned, or better feel cornered. Just like now when you won't answer my simple question.

 

(thumbs u

[Straw-Man]

Seems like this thread's freshness date is about to expire.

 

Billy is one of my very best favorite posters/people...if you read it another way, it was not meant to be;)

 

awwwwwwwwwww. the feeling is moochul.

[Lunchbox-migration]

I know how you talk.

 

You've never heard me speak in your life. You'd love my accent. Latah!

[VintageComics]

And there goes Stu not answering the simple question of "why".

 

[MCMiles]

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

Well, obviously not.

 

I'm glad you have one. Mine is just better and based in facts and logic. Which you demonstrated with your snarky comment.

 

Hmm. What could have possibly prompted me to respond in kind to a snarky comment? I wonder...

 

Why would CGC (or anyone else) give your 9.0s a 9.2 or a 9.4? Is it because they are better than 9.0? Do they have less defects?

"According to CGC they do. According to me, they aren't that significant. That's the whole point."

 

BTW, I doubt it's a record. I've just seen this "opinion" from you before, and it was just as senseless then.

 

Now my opinion is an "opinion"... again proving that it's obviously isn't "welcome".

 

BTW-- you already have bought books from me... you just don't know it. You get them from dealers who buy them from me, mark up the grades, or have them upgraded from CGC, and you happily pay a lot more from them than you ever would from me. Just sayin'...

 

Still can't figure out how think you aren't welcome to your opinion. Because I disagree? Because I arrogantly said mine was better?

 

According to CGC and most others experienced in high grade.they do. According to me, they aren't that significant. That's the whole point.

 

Basically what you are saying is other dealers bought books from you because you under graded them, they graded them accurately and made more money. They probably left you with all of the books you over graded. Sounds like a good business model. Just sayin'

 

 

Edited November 20, 2012 by MCMiles

[Lunchbox-migration]

And there goes Stu not answering the simple question of "why".

 

 

Why not?

 

There you go big guy.

 

 

[MCMiles]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

[nearmint]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

[Speedy-D]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

Only because you're used to seeing the finer grades. You could just as easily say that CVA helps to determine the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7.

[VintageComics]

And there goes Stu not answering the simple question of "why".

 

 

Why not?

 

There you go big guy.

 

 

I've already explained (with typos) why not?

 

I'm over all a conservative person. I don't generally like change, but if change is going to be for the better than I'd rather have it happen sooner so that I can adjust for it than later.

 

Numerical is easier to read and understand than Alpha, and definitely less complicated than Alpha and Numerical.

 

While Alpha is traditional it's quickly being outgrown, hence why I think the change to Numerical makes sense.

[nearmint]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

Only because you're used to seeing the finer grades. You could just as easily say that CVA helps to determine the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7.

 

And the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7 is less relevant than the difference between a 9.5 and a 10.

[shrunkenhead]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

 

Well then that's the best possible reason for NOT going that route.

[Flaming_Telepath]

While Alpha is traditional it's quickly being outgrown...

 

Er, not in 95% of the back issue market, it's not.

 

So why can't the 5% actually fall in line with the rest of the hobby?

 

Get back to Alpha and if you really need it, throw some big numbers on there too.

[nearmint]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

 

Well then that's the best possible reason for NOT going that route.

 

(thumbs u

[Balham's Finest]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

 

I was thinking exactly the same.

 

Regardless of whether CVA stepped in to do this, or CGC decided that they should just do it themselves (optional or otherwise), that would make the "simplified" ladder redundant.

[VintageComics]

While Alpha is traditional it's quickly being outgrown...

 

Er, not in 95% of the back issue market, it's not.

 

So why can't the 5% actually fall in line with the rest of the hobby?

 

Get back to Alpha and if you really need it, throw some big numbers on there too.

 

Much like Alpha is outgrown in most cultures and turning to numbers for conveying scales (it died in Ancient Greece a long time ago) it is going through a transition in this hobby. It's a natural progression to convey something qualitative in numbers rather than letters.

 

It might be alive and well in the ungraded back issue market (which is admittedly large) it is slowly petering out in the graded market.

 

For those that think both are relevant, and yet both convey the same thing, I have to ask: "Why have more information on a label than you need?"