what the BLEEP is a 9.5?

[DiceX]

If we're being serious, only two books in the Wizard First program were ever graded 10, and they were legitimate 10.

 

9.5 was a 'quick grade' which meant 9.2 to 9.9. The books were sent to CGC from the printer, so they're essentially 'uncirculated'... which was the real point of the program. "Untouched near mint in a slab".

 

There were Wizard First 9.0 as well.

 

Neither the 9.0 or the 9.5 Wizard First books were added to the CGC Census. The two Wizard First 10s are in the census, but they're indistinguishable from regular 10s (unless you could see the label).

 

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

[tinynascarfan-migration]

If we're being serious, only two books in the Wizard First program were ever graded 10, and they were legitimate 10.

 

9.5 was a 'quick grade' which meant 9.2 to 9.9. The books were sent to CGC from the printer, so they're essentially 'uncirculated'... which was the real point of the program. "Untouched near mint in a slab".

 

There were Wizard First 9.0 as well.

 

Neither the 9.0 or the 9.5 Wizard First books were added to the CGC Census. The two Wizard First 10s are in the census, but they're indistinguishable from regular 10s (unless you could see the label).

 

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

see now that wasn't so hard to answer now was it?

 

oh wait, 2 differing opinions, and we have no way of knowing if either of them is right.

 

and how many is not enough to matter? if CGC gives out a grade of 9.5 to an Action #1 and that's the only copy that gets that grade, does that copy matter?

 

DUH!

 

yeah, I ask the hard questions, and it ticks some folks off, but I want CGC to be beyond reproach.

 

look at the mainstream media nowdays, you see more and more stories about comic books. and like it or not, when and if that media machine gets started on CGC if they find a crack in the armor, they gonna exploit it hard.

 

I want CGC to be around a long damn time, so lets get some of these questions out of the way now.

 

does anyone know for sure how we could see what books got graded during this fiasco(brain fart)?

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

If we're being serious, only two books in the Wizard First program were ever graded 10, and they were legitimate 10.

 

9.5 was a 'quick grade' which meant 9.2 to 9.9. The books were sent to CGC from the printer, so they're essentially 'uncirculated'... which was the real point of the program. "Untouched near mint in a slab".

 

There were Wizard First 9.0 as well.

 

Neither the 9.0 or the 9.5 Wizard First books were added to the CGC Census. The two Wizard First 10s are in the census, but they're indistinguishable from regular 10s (unless you could see the label).

 

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

I hope so - in hindsight, it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I imagine back then they felt that the gain in consumer awareness of CGC in doing the promotion was worth compromising their grading standards.

[A-DONIS]

9.5s are rarer than 10.0s

[Dr. Balls]

In honor of Dice - I give you the WIzard First thread from 2004.

[miraclemet]

Way to selectively read/think

 

lets sign a contract with wizard and grade their books either a 9.5 or a 10.0

 

1. They also graded them 9.0 (read the Wikipedia entry)

2. These were "off the presses" copies. Dont most new, undistributed copies typically end up being 9.4 and up? So How is Grading them 9.0, 9.5 or 10 (assuming the grades are accurate) a problem. Most uncirclated moderns are in that range too.

 

I guess in the future...

 

They dont do that anymore (started in 2004, ended in 2004) and havent done anything like it since... so obviously CGC figured out (with some help from the boards) that this was a bad move. So there's no "in the future"...

 

Are we going to bring up every bad decision that's someones made even after they corrected it? And re-bring it up almost a decade after the fact (a decade is 10 years, the Wizard grading was 9 years ago)

 

You want to "make sure they dont repeat the mistake" well they've made it almost a decade, and it seems like at the time they understood why it was a bad call.

 

Lots of scenarios "could" happen in the future, are you going to cover them as well. I mean scenarios they learned from are less likely to occur than new scenarios.

 

Not sure what the point of dredging it up serves. It was a bad decision a decade ago. They realized their mistake and they havent made anything like it since.

 

Any point in beating a decade old dead horse that's already been resolved?

 

Lets speculate about other mistakes that CGC might make in the future and try to prevent them.. .

 

• 
  Will CGC start to grade pets?
  
• What if CGC started muxing human remains in with theyr slab material?
  
• What if time machines made it possible for me to go back and pre-discover the Edgar Church find, would it still be a pedigree?
  
• What if CGC started to offer notary services as part of the SS program?
  
• what if CGC starts to note appearances of GLTB characters with a special rainbow colored label?
  

 

[DiceX]

If we're being serious, only two books in the Wizard First program were ever graded 10, and they were legitimate 10.

 

9.5 was a 'quick grade' which meant 9.2 to 9.9. The books were sent to CGC from the printer, so they're essentially 'uncirculated'... which was the real point of the program. "Untouched near mint in a slab".

 

There were Wizard First 9.0 as well.

 

Neither the 9.0 or the 9.5 Wizard First books were added to the CGC Census. The two Wizard First 10s are in the census, but they're indistinguishable from regular 10s (unless you could see the label).

 

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

see now that wasn't so hard to answer now was it?

 

oh wait, 2 differing opinions, and we have no way of knowing if either of them is right.

 

and how many is not enough to matter? if CGC gives out a grade of 9.5 to an Action #1 and that's the only copy that gets that grade, does that copy matter?

 

DUH!

 

yeah, I ask the hard questions, and it ticks some folks off, but I want CGC to be beyond reproach.

 

look at the mainstream media nowdays, you see more and more stories about comic books. and like it or not, when and if that media machine gets started on CGC if they find a crack in the armor, they gonna exploit it hard.

 

I want CGC to be around a long damn time, so lets get some of these questions out of the way now.

 

does anyone know for sure how we could see what books got graded during this fiasco(brain fart)?

 

 

If you don't like my answer, feel free to use the search function and figure it out for yourself.

CGC isn't infallible but when they're wrong, they do their best to fix it. That's what gives them credibility.

 

 

[DiceX]

Way to selectively read/think

 

lets sign a contract with wizard and grade their books either a 9.5 or a 10.0

 

1. They also graded them 9.0 (read the Wikipedia entry)

2. These were "off the presses" copies. Dont most new, undistributed copies typically end up being 9.4 and up? So How is Grading them 9.0, 9.5 or 10 (assuming the grades are accurate) a problem. Most uncirclated moderns are in that range too.

 

I guess in the future...

 

They dont do that anymore (started in 2004, ended in 2004) and havent done anything like it since... so obviously CGC figured out (with some help from the boards) that this was a bad move. So there's no "in the future"...

 

Are we going to bring up every bad decision that's someones made even after they corrected it? And re-bring it up almost a decade after the fact (a decade is 10 years, the Wizard grading was 9 years ago)

 

You want to "make sure they dont repeat the mistake" well they've made it almost a decade, and it seems like at the time they understood why it was a bad call.

 

Lots of scenarios "could" happen in the future, are you going to cover them as well. I mean scenarios they learned from are less likely to occur than new scenarios.

 

Not sure what the point of dredging it up serves. It was a bad decision a decade ago. They realized their mistake and they havent made anything like it since.

 

Any point in beating a decade old dead horse that's already been resolved?

 

Lets speculate about other mistakes that CGC might make in the future and try to prevent them.. .

 

• 
  Will CGC start to grade pets?
  
• What if CGC started muxing human remains in with theyr slab material?
  
• What if time machines made it possible for me to go back and pre-discover the Edgar Church find, would it still be a pedigree?
  
• What if CGC started to offer notary services as part of the SS program?
  
• what if CGC starts to note appearances of GLTB characters with a special rainbow colored label?
  

 

Good post, but prepare for it to be scoffed at.

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

He asks the hard questions. Like Cronkite.

[DiceX]

He asks the hard questions. Like Cronkite a tool.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

 

[DiceX]

9.5s are rarer than 10.0s

 

Wrong. 9.0s were rarer than 9.5s.

I don't even recall anything getting a 10. If there were, there were not many.

If I recall, Wizard was pissed because they were not getting any 10s.

 

 

[miraclemet]

Good post, but prepare for it to be scoffed at.

 

 

Preparing...

[DamageInc-migration]

I want CGC to be around a long damn time, so lets get some of these questions out of the way now.

 

The Board got these questions out of the way a long time ago (you've heard of Google now?), you're just late to the party and are slowly (very slowly) catching up. Please Google any questions first before you embarass yourself some more.

 

The funniest part of the whole Wizard First thing was that it was announced on April Fool's Day

 

[DamageInc-migration]

If we're being serious, only two books in the Wizard First program were ever graded 10, and they were legitimate 10.

 

9.5 was a 'quick grade' which meant 9.2 to 9.9. The books were sent to CGC from the printer, so they're essentially 'uncirculated'... which was the real point of the program. "Untouched near mint in a slab".

 

There were Wizard First 9.0 as well.

 

Neither the 9.0 or the 9.5 Wizard First books were added to the CGC Census. The two Wizard First 10s are in the census, but they're indistinguishable from regular 10s (unless you could see the label).

 

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

I hope so - in hindsight, it was a pretty stupid thing to do.

 

CGC did a lot of stupid (greedy) things back then, that's why I gave them such a hard time. I mean, CGC was going to name the modern age/red label books "The Wizard Age" until they were laughed out of a retailers' conference.

[DiceX]

If we're being serious, only two books in the Wizard First program were ever graded 10, and they were legitimate 10.

 

9.5 was a 'quick grade' which meant 9.2 to 9.9. The books were sent to CGC from the printer, so they're essentially 'uncirculated'... which was the real point of the program. "Untouched near mint in a slab".

 

There were Wizard First 9.0 as well.

 

Neither the 9.0 or the 9.5 Wizard First books were added to the CGC Census. The two Wizard First 10s are in the census, but they're indistinguishable from regular 10s (unless you could see the label).

 

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

I dug back through that thread. Valiantman was correct. 9.5 was any book 9.2 through 9.9.

10 was the only grade that held it's integrity.

 

 

[Davenport]

Wrong. 9.5 was anything 9.6 through 9.9.

There were not enough of these books graded to matter before CGC came to their senses and stopped.

It was an admitted bran fart and it's over.

 

 

I hope so - in hindsight, it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I imagine back then they felt that the gain in consumer awareness of CGC in doing the promotion was worth compromising their grading standards.

I thought "Wizard First" was CGC's plan-B to labeling all Moderns "Wizard Age".

 

Some story of CGC being laughed out of the room with that "Wizard Age" proposition, when fist pitching hobby elites.

 

Doesn't seem like a brain fart. Seems like CGC could influence the hobby only so far.

[shadroch]

Years from now, those Wizard 9.5s may be highly sought after as CGC Variants.

What did they run? Two months, if that?

[tinynascarfan-migration]

He asks the hard questions. Like Cronkite a tool.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

 

ouch that so hurts, unlike some folks on here, I got no problems askin questions, I aint skeered of getting scoffed at or made to look like a fool, ive been made to look like one before and I will be again.

 

I wanted an answer and i seem to have gotten one, one that was well explained and pointed out when it happened, the only other question i have is how many of these copies exist? it seems 2 of them are 10's but how many 9.0's and 9.5's?

[tinynascarfan-migration]

Way to selectively read/think

 

lets sign a contract with wizard and grade their books either a 9.5 or a 10.0

 

1. They also graded them 9.0 (read the Wikipedia entry)

2. These were "off the presses" copies. Dont most new, undistributed copies typically end up being 9.4 and up? So How is Grading them 9.0, 9.5 or 10 (assuming the grades are accurate) a problem. Most uncirclated moderns are in that range too.

 

I guess in the future...

 

They dont do that anymore (started in 2004, ended in 2004) and havent done anything like it since... so obviously CGC figured out (with some help from the boards) that this was a bad move. So there's no "in the future"...

 

Are we going to bring up every bad decision that's someones made even after they corrected it? And re-bring it up almost a decade after the fact (a decade is 10 years, the Wizard grading was 9 years ago)

 

You want to "make sure they dont repeat the mistake" well they've made it almost a decade, and it seems like at the time they understood why it was a bad call.

 

Lots of scenarios "could" happen in the future, are you going to cover them as well. I mean scenarios they learned from are less likely to occur than new scenarios.

 

Not sure what the point of dredging it up serves. It was a bad decision a decade ago. They realized their mistake and they havent made anything like it since.

 

Any point in beating a decade old dead horse that's already been resolved?

 

Lets speculate about other mistakes that CGC might make in the future and try to prevent them.. .

 

• 
  Will CGC start to grade pets?
  
• What if CGC started muxing human remains in with theyr slab material?
  
• What if time machines made it possible for me to go back and pre-discover the Edgar Church find, would it still be a pedigree?
  
• What if CGC started to offer notary services as part of the SS program?
  
• what if CGC starts to note appearances of GLTB characters with a special rainbow colored label?
  

 

see that's a good answer, i could have done without the sarcasm, but i can deal with it,

 

i cant say ive never made fun of someone on these boards, but me and he(or is it he and me) seem to have reconciled.

 

still, its a shame that some on here just have to make fun of others, you know, behind their computer that is. not in the real world.

[miraclemet]

see that's a good answer, i could have done without the sarcasm, but i can deal with it,

 

i cant say ive never made fun of someone on these boards, but me and he(or is it he and me) seem to have reconciled.

 

still, its a shame that some on here just have to make fun of others, you know, behind their computer that is. not in the real world.

 

Cant tell from your comment if it was entirely directed at me... did you think my post was making fun of you? I did question your selective reading (you noted the existence of the 9.5 & the 10.0 but glossed over the 9.0), but beyond that I think I limited my ribbing at your supposition and your argument.

 

Anyway wasn't sure, so I'll just assume you were talking about someone else.