Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[Lunchbox-migration]

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 obvious a real 10 point system (20 point system) doesn't really work for CGC, as they had to manipulate it to fit their business model and add 5 more grades. The tenths of a point you mention, the awkward 1.8 grade crowbarred in, and the ignoring of the lower grades (Fair+ is a real grade folks) are a few examples.

 

My problem is also with split grades, and using them in conjunction with the "+/-" grades. Split grades were invented in the 90s by dealers who either a) couldn't grade that well or b) were trying to get more for a book than it was worth. Every time I saw a "VF/NM" grade in CBG I'd laugh. There is (was) no grade between VF+ and NM-. If you can't decide if a book is a NM- or a VF+, it's a VF+. Before CGC, if you bought a book that was VF/NM, it was usually closer to VF(+) than NM(-), no? Yes. Just another way for a dealer to "hype" his book by getting the term "NM" into the grade somewhere/somehow.

 

I'd much rather have a 20 point system like this:

 

10.0 Mint

9.5 NM+

9.0 NM

8.5 NM-

8.0 VF+

7.5 VF

7.0 VF-

6.5 Fine+

6.0 Fine

5.5 Fine-

5.0 Very Good+

4.5 Very Good

4.0 Very Good -

3.5 Good +

3.0 Good

2.5 Good-

2.0 Fair+

1.5 Fair

1.0 Fair-

0.5 Poor

 

Makes much more sense to me, but then again, I'm a collector and don't profit at all from selling any comic-related product.

[MCMiles]

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

[Lunchbox-migration]

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

 

I'm guessing you don't own any Wizard First slabs?

[VintageComics]

Yeah but keep in mind that the first 1 million books took almost 10 years...didn't they double that second million in a year or two? That would probably add to the barrel of fun...

 

When CGC started out they had a small group of graders. It took them about 8 years to slab the first MIL. CGC has many more graders now. It took them about 4 years to slab the 2nd MIL.

[Bookery]

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

 

Winnah and new world record! This is the fastest response yet with the ol' "you dare to have a different opinion than me so I'll never buy books from you" knee-jerk. Congratulations!!!

 

(Not to mention it's not very bright... if I'm grading my books as a 9.0 and you can get a 9.2 or a 9.4 out of them from CGC... wouldn't it behoove you to especially buy books from me???).

 

 

[Lunchbox-migration]

 

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.

[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. At least for most people experienced in higher grade comics. The difference or combination of defects aren't always the same, but in higher grades there are few enough defects to easily discern the difference in grade in most cases. It doesn't work as well below 9.0 because the accumulation of defects and different possible combinations of defects is too great in lower grade ranges.

 

 

I would also say that once dollar values become large enough the need to divide grades on a more fine (less coarse) scale becomes necessary because of the price differences.

 

It's just a simple evolution from the original Good-Fine-Mint that Overstreet had in 1970.

 

Did someone, heck did anyone accuse Overstreet of collusion and attempting to create when he went from G-F-M to G-VG-F-VF-Mint? I don't ever remember hearing anything about it.

 

How is evolving from a 3 to a 5 to a 6 to a 20 to a 25 point grading scale any different.

 

Anybody who's read a little history and knows a little physics is going to realize that the more involved you get with something the greater the detail needed. It's just a natural progression.

 

There's nothing nefarious about it.

 

So if nobody cursed Overstreet for increasing the steps in the grading scale why single out CGC now?

[MCMiles]

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

 

Winnah and new world record! This is the fastest response yet with the ol' "you dare to have a different opinion than me so I'll never buy books from you" knee-jerk. Congratulations!!!

 

(Not to mention it's not very bright... if I'm grading my books as a 9.0 and you can get a 9.2 or a 9.4 out of them from CGC... wouldn't it behoove you to especially buy books from me???).

 

 

You are welcome to your opinion. I'm glad you have one. Mine is just better and based in facts and logic. Which you demonstrated with your snarky comment. 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?

 

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

[VintageComics]

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?

[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.

[VintageComics]

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)

[VintageComics]

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

 

Winnah and new world record! This is the fastest response yet with the ol' "you dare to have a different opinion than me so I'll never buy books from you" knee-jerk. Congratulations!!!

 

(Not to mention it's not very bright... if I'm grading my books as a 9.0 and you can get a 9.2 or a 9.4 out of them from CGC... wouldn't it behoove you to especially buy books from me???).

 

 

You are welcome to your opinion. I'm glad you have one. Mine is just better and based in facts and logic. Which you demonstrated with your snarky comment. 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?

 

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

 

I think Bookery is a cool dude. Just a little more old school than you, you progressive youngin'.

 

Honestly, if someone doesn't think a book should grade above 9.0 I'd buy those all day long. Might be plenty of 9.+'s in there.

[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.

 

 

See my recent post, a few posts above, about Overstreet and the changes he made to the grading scale.

[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.

 

 

[MCMiles]

 

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.

Edited November 20, 2012 by MCMiles

[Bookery]

Anybody who's read a little history and knows a little physics is going to realize that the more involved you get with something the greater the detail needed. It's just a natural progression.

 

There's nothing nefarious about it.

 

I never said anything about it being nefarious. I just said it's silly. And CGC didn't invent it... they simply gave the collecting community what it wanted. I understand that.

 

But we've had dozens of threads showing (even unpressed) books resubbing from 9.4 to 9.6, or from 9.6 to 9.4 to prove that even professional graders cannot consistently tell the difference between them. The only reason that my system of treating 9.0 and 9.2 as 9.0, and 9.4 and 9.6 as 9.5, and 9.8 and 10.0 as 10.0 upsets folks... is that there are enough collectors who want to make sure they have the ONLY 9.6 to the others' 9.4 to claim bragging rights.

 

Besides... no two copies of the same book are ever going to be identical... so why not go with the 100-point scale that Oversteet floated for awhile? I'll guarantee if you put two 10.0 copies of the same book on here, half the boards will declare that one copy is better than the other.

 

It's not even a matter of saying some 9.6s aren't better than a 9.4... it's a matter of saying is the difference significant enough to merit its own separate classification? For some it is. For me it's not.

 

 

 

[Lunchbox-migration]

 

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.

[VintageComics]

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 bating you but I'm not. You likely think so because that is the way you have discussions with people. I have no idea what you're getting at.

 

 

I'm asking why you'd rather have numbers than letters. To me, the numbers are easier to read than short hand letters with pluses and minuses. They're also easier to understand by the general public.

 

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

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

[Bookery]

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'...

 

[MCMiles]

Anybody who's read a little history and knows a little physics is going to realize that the more involved you get with something the greater the detail needed. It's just a natural progression.

 

There's nothing nefarious about it.

 

I never said anything about it being nefarious. I just said it's silly. And CGC didn't invent it... they simply gave the collecting community what it wanted. I understand that.

 

But we've had dozens of threads showing (even unpressed) books resubbing from 9.4 to 9.6, or from 9.6 to 9.4 to prove that even professional graders cannot consistently tell the difference between them. The only reason that my system of treating 9.0 and 9.2 as 9.0, and 9.4 and 9.6 as 9.5, and 9.8 and 10.0 as 10.0 upsets folks... is that there are enough collectors who want to make sure they have the ONLY 9.6 to the others' 9.4 to claim bragging rights.

 

Besides... no two copies of the same book are ever going to be identical... so why not go with the 100-point scale that Oversteet floated for awhile? I'll guarantee if you put two 10.0 copies of the same book on here, half the boards will declare that one copy is better than the other.

 

It's not even a matter of saying some 9.6s aren't better than a 9.4... it's a matter of saying is the difference significant enough to merit its own separate classification? For some it is. For me it's not.

 

 

 

I'll give you most of what you said here. It is obviously very difficult for even the professional graders to be consistent. There are a lot of 9.4 that are better than 9.6s.

 

However, this has some accuracy but is mostly incorrect.

 

"The only reason that my system of treating 9.0 and 9.2 as 9.0, and 9.4 and 9.6 as 9.5, and 9.8 and 10.0 as 10.0 upsets folks... is that there are enough collectors who want to make sure they have the ONLY 9.6 to the others' 9.4 to claim bragging rights."

 

Your system 9.0, 9.5, and 10 doesn't upset anyone. It's just not a fine enough scale for higher grades.