Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[Bookery]

What bags do comic books originally come in?

The ones that say "Robert Bell" on the flap.

 

This is a baseball thread; don't you mean Albert Belle.

 

It's a comics thread... we should be discussing Al Bellman!

 

[shrunkenhead]

What bags do comic books originally come in?

The ones that say "Robert Bell" on the flap.

 

This is a baseball thread; don't you mean Albert Belle.

 

I have no clue who either of you are talking about, so I'm just gonna throw Bell Biv Devoe out there and walk away.

 

It's long overdue but now

Philly is slammin'

Boyz II Men, ABC, BBD

The east coast family

 

You can do me when you wanna do me.

[Logan510]

What bags do comic books originally come in?

The ones that say "Robert Bell" on the flap.

 

This is a baseball thread; don't you mean Albert Belle.

 

I have no clue who either of you are talking about, so I'm just gonna throw Bell Biv Devoe out there and walk away.

 

It's long overdue but now

Philly is slammin'

Boyz II Men, ABC, BBD

The east coast family

 

And with that you've suddenly become my parents

[comicwiz]

What bags do comic books originally come in?

 

Marvel Multi-Packs and Whitman Pre-Packs

[burntboy]

 

It's the same reason most countries have switched from Imperial measuring standards to Metric ones. Simplicity, ease of conversion, etc, etc.

 

Does anyone actually use the metric system in their day to day life? If someone asks me how tall I am or how much I weight I still don't reference kilos or meters and if I did people would probably would look at me funny. Carry on.

 

More people use it now than they did 30+ years ago when they switched over.

 

 

We started to learn Metric Conversion 50+ years ago in Grammer School.

 

The only thing that stuck with me was 2.34 centimeters per inch.

 

After 50 years the only time I ever use it is when buying a 750ML bottle of Bourbon.

[namisgr]

We started to learn Metric Conversion 50+ years ago in Grammer School.

 

The only thing that stuck with me was 2.34 centimeters per inch.

 

:

 

 

 

[namisgr]

This grading scale discussion has been fun, but some of it treats comic grading like a science rather than the art that it is.

 

Steve Borock was largely responsible for developing the criteria CGC use to assign grades. Now that he no longer works there and submits from the outside, I've heard him talk about sometimes receiving grades that leave him mystified. That's as clear an indication as any that no matter how detailed a set of grading standards is defined, there's beauty in books that's still in the eye of the beholder.

 

Not only that, but the company will never release their grading standards, since they consider them trade secrets vital to the business.

[PovertyRow]

I love when I get a call from someone trying to sell a collection of old comics they found in the attic.

"Well ma'am, what kind of shape are they in?"

"Oh, They are all in very good shape. Very good. They are still in their original bags and everything."

Then they come in and the books are all dog-earred and water damaged and beat up in some crusty old yellow bags from the '70s.

"Sorry ma'am, these are what we call good condition. Some of them are only fair."

She gives me a blank stare.

 

Actually that last part is lie...

 

...I now say "Ma'am, on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the best, your books are mostly ones and twos."

 

She understands immediately.

 

In this scenario, which is probably pretty common, even saying "good" potentially implies something superior. And how often do we see ebay auctions where the term "very good" is used not as a grade but as a general descriptor? Which makes me wonder if some "savvy sellers" may do that intentionally and then retort, "Well I SAID it was "very good!" when you get a lesser grade than you were expecting.

 

I see uses for both. Rich's "On a scale of 1-10" is an ideal use. But the old time collector in me understands the grades and saying 6.0 as opposed to Fine feels weird to me, even today. It feels like a precode book being printed on Baxter paper.

[burntboy]

We started to learn Metric Conversion 50+ years ago in Grammer School.

 

The only thing that stuck with me was 2.34 centimeters per inch.

 

:

 

 

 

 

OOPS - that's 2.54...

[drbanner]

We started to learn Metric Conversion 50+ years ago in Grammer School.

 

The only thing that stuck with me was 2.34 centimeters per inch.:

 

 

 

Metric units are used every minute of every hour of every day in scientific laboratories all across the world (including the US). You can buy a 2-liter bottle of Coke, but you can't buy a 1/2-gallon bottle....go figure.

[paperheart]

This grading scale discussion has been fun, but some of it treats comic grading like a science rather than the art that it is.

 

Steve Borock was largely responsible for developing the criteria CGC use to assign grades. Now that he no longer works there and submits from the outside, I know he sometimes receives grades that leave him mystified. That's as clear an indication as any that no matter how detailed a set of grading standards is defined, there's beauty in each book that's still in the eye of the beholder.

 

Besides, the company will never release their grading standards, since they consider them trade secrets vital to the business.

 

do these mythical "CGC grading standards" truly exist? Personally i believe every time these words are typed or spoken a red light accompanied by cackling laughter goes off at CGC HQ. Either that or another angel gets its wings.

[drbanner]

This grading scale discussion has been fun, but some of it treats comic grading like a science rather than the art that it is.

 

Steve Borock was largely responsible for developing the criteria CGC use to assign grades. Now that he no longer works there and submits from the outside, I know he sometimes receives grades that leave him mystified. That's as clear an indication as any that no matter how detailed a set of grading standards is defined, there's beauty in each book that's still in the eye of the beholder.

 

Besides, the company will never release their grading standards, since they consider them trade secrets vital to the business.

do these mythical "CGC grading standards" truly exist? Personally i believe every time these words are typed or spoken a red light accompanied by cackling laughter goes off at CGC HQ. Either that or another angel gets its wings.

They exist in the here and now only and when Borock left CGC, they left with him. Of course they were replaced with today's standards which are suitable for today's sellers, although I would prefer to buy books graded under the Borock regime. (thumbs u

 

[mackenzie999]

And don't get me started on degrees Celsius. I know it makes more sense, but when you grow up with Fahrenheit it is tough to adjust.

 

Fahrenheit is the one imperial measurement system that is more accurate than metric, having almost double the number of increments between freezing and boiling that Celsius has.

[nearmint]

All the dealers are posting in this thread, making the marketplace forum a barren wasteland ever since this thread started. Go post some books, people, I've got money burning a hole in my pocket.

[Dale Roberts]

Is this a debate about who should be the MVP?

 

It certainly is taking on alot of the characteristics of a "sabermetrics" vs old school baseball stats argument.

 

Personally I vote Trout.

 

Finally a topic i know a little about. Enough of this comic stuff. Dude!! Cabrera won the Triple Crown. THE TRIPLE CROWN!! And he got his team to the World Series.

 

Jeff

 

Cabrera was the best offensive player. Trout was the most valuable player. Value in baseball is about wins. Wins is a factor of runs scored vs runs allowed.

 

There is a high correlation between run differential (or Runs scored vs runs allowed) and wins. As evidence of this, no team with a below .500 record had a positive run differential this year. That is a fancy way of saying they scored less runs than they allowed. Every team with a .500 or better record scored more runs than they allowed. This fact tells me that there are at least 2 components to determining value, that is runs created and runs saved. Defense does make a difference.

 

Offensive value should come from primarily 1 area...runs created. Runs created encompasses so many different factors of offense, from hitting, to effective slugging, to baserunning. It also includes factors which are not included in sabermetric stats, such as the ability to hit a sacrifice fly, or drive in a run from 3rd base on a ground ball to the 2nd baseman. These 2 things have value, even though they are not factored in to the advanced metrics. There are new stats such as extra base taken%, but these are all included in runs scored. An extra base taken or a stolen base which does not score, generally has zero value. In actual value(runs created), the only stats that really have an impact on the club's win total are runs scored and runs driven in.

 

So my formula to determine the most valuable player would be the player who creates the most runs on offense and the player who saves the most runs on defense. Runs created + runs saved = MVP. Runs saved is extremely hard to judge, so going with metrics of plus or minus runs saved above average from Fan Graphs and the Fielding Bible.

 

Cabrera - 139 RBI + 109 runs - 44 HRs +(-8 PMRS) = 196

Trout - 83 RBI + 129 runs - 30 HRs + (21 PMRS) = 203

 

When you include defense, it is clear that Trout is in fact more valuable to his team than Cabrera. I was somewhat surprised by this outcome, but I feel it is a very fair way to evaluate who is the Most Valuable.

 

 

Defense is a big deal, ill agree there. But the Angels finished third this year if im not mistaken. Take Trout out and where do the Angels finish?? Im thinking still third. Take Cabrera away from the Tigers and where do they finish?? Not first and not in the Playoffs.

 

I know Sabermetrics and all this new stuff about analyzing a player is common and has become a big part in valuing a player, sometimes though i think the core of an evauation is right there in front of you and not beyond the numbers. If the Angels go to the playoff this year, then there is a bigger arguement for Trout, but still debatable,

 

Jeff

 

The Angels won more games than the Tigers.

 

You trade divisions (obviously the West was tougher than the central), and the Angels win the central, and the Tigers finish 3rd in the West.

[Silver Surfer]

We started to learn Metric Conversion 50+ years ago in Grammer School.

 

The only thing that stuck with me was 2.34 centimeters per inch.

 

:

 

 

 

 

It sounds bigger.

[Silver Surfer]

All the dealers are posting in this thread, making the marketplace forum a barren wasteland ever since this thread started. Go post press some books, people, I've got money burning a hole in my pocket.

 

[HOTFLIPS]

Is this a debate about who should be the MVP?

 

It certainly is taking on alot of the characteristics of a "sabermetrics" vs old school baseball stats argument.

 

Personally I vote Trout.

 

Finally a topic i know a little about. Enough of this comic stuff. Dude!! Cabrera won the Triple Crown. THE TRIPLE CROWN!! And he got his team to the World Series.

 

Jeff

 

Cabrera was the best offensive player. Trout was the most valuable player. Value in baseball is about wins. Wins is a factor of runs scored vs runs allowed.

 

There is a high correlation between run differential (or Runs scored vs runs allowed) and wins. As evidence of this, no team with a below .500 record had a positive run differential this year. That is a fancy way of saying they scored less runs than they allowed. Every team with a .500 or better record scored more runs than they allowed. This fact tells me that there are at least 2 components to determining value, that is runs created and runs saved. Defense does make a difference.

 

Offensive value should come from primarily 1 area...runs created. Runs created encompasses so many different factors of offense, from hitting, to effective slugging, to baserunning. It also includes factors which are not included in sabermetric stats, such as the ability to hit a sacrifice fly, or drive in a run from 3rd base on a ground ball to the 2nd baseman. These 2 things have value, even though they are not factored in to the advanced metrics. There are new stats such as extra base taken%, but these are all included in runs scored. An extra base taken or a stolen base which does not score, generally has zero value. In actual value(runs created), the only stats that really have an impact on the club's win total are runs scored and runs driven in.

 

So my formula to determine the most valuable player would be the player who creates the most runs on offense and the player who saves the most runs on defense. Runs created + runs saved = MVP. Runs saved is extremely hard to judge, so going with metrics of plus or minus runs saved above average from Fan Graphs and the Fielding Bible.

 

Cabrera - 139 RBI + 109 runs - 44 HRs +(-8 PMRS) = 196

Trout - 83 RBI + 129 runs - 30 HRs + (21 PMRS) = 203

 

When you include defense, it is clear that Trout is in fact more valuable to his team than Cabrera. I was somewhat surprised by this outcome, but I feel it is a very fair way to evaluate who is the Most Valuable.

 

 

Defense is a big deal, ill agree there. But the Angels finished third this year if im not mistaken. Take Trout out and where do the Angels finish?? Im thinking still third. Take Cabrera away from the Tigers and where do they finish?? Not first and not in the Playoffs.

 

I know Sabermetrics and all this new stuff about analyzing a player is common and has become a big part in valuing a player, sometimes though i think the core of an evauation is right there in front of you and not beyond the numbers. If the Angels go to the playoff this year, then there is a bigger arguement for Trout, but still debatable,

 

Jeff

 

The Angels won more games than the Tigers.

 

You trade divisions (obviously the West was tougher than the central), and the Angels win the central, and the Tigers finish 3rd in the West.

 

And that matters, i guess. But, they didnt switch divisions. Fact is that without Cabrera, the Tigers dont make the playoffs. So who is more valuable to their team in their division??

 

Oh and to keep it comics related:

 

Cabrera's season= 9.8

Trout's season= 9.6

Melky Cabrera's season= 9.2 Purple label. (Just thought id throw that in there.)

[PovertyRow]

 

The only thing that stuck with me was 2.34 centimeters per inch.

 

I guess you can't figure out this song?

 

[Bookery]

All the dealers are posting in this thread, making the marketplace forum a barren wasteland ever since this thread started. Go post some books, people, I've got money burning a hole in my pocket.

 

I would, but at this point there's nobody left on the Boards who I'm not supposed to remind never to buy from me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think.