Suggestions for CGC Awards

[David Swan]

CGC is already starting to post info about the upcoming yearly awards. I've always felt that a job worth doing is a job worth doing right and as far as I know the CGC collector awards are THE premier comic collector awards so it would be neat to see them done right. I have a few suggestions that I think would improve the quality of the awards. Some may be already in place. This would reduce the number of winners and save CGC money on printing and sending certificates.

 

1.Disallow any set that is obscured. This includes even Best in Set. If a person doesn't want their set to be seen they probably don't want a certificate. I have actually seen sets win Best in Age that are obscured although they might have been obscured AFTER their win.

 

2.For Best in Age only consider sets where the collector has put in some effort. There should be a significant amount of images and issue descriptions. Again, if you only enter the registry number and call it a day you probably don't care about an award.

 

3.For Best in Age or Best Presented only include sets that have actually been added to in the past year. I have seen at least one set win without having a single addition in the prior 12 months. I've also seen sets win and then immediately get dismantled. If the set meets my above three criteria it's probably in it for the long haul. I've even seen a collector win Achievement in Comic Collecting Award and then turn around and remove all comics.

 

4.Avoid awarding instant sets. I've seen impressive sets spring into being overnight and disappear just as fast. This one isn't as hard and fast as the first three but slowly built sets are probably going to be around longer.

 

5.I think it would make sense to treat the CGC awards like the Oscars with sets being submitted. Have a check box on the Control Panel that says [ ] Consider Set for 2014 CGC Awards. The person would have twelve months just to click a box. There have to be a lot of certificates being sent out to people no longer actively paying attention to their sets or in some cases sets that no longer even exist.

 

See more journals by David Swan

[wardevil0]

I like your line of thinking. I've read some snarky posts in other threads on this forum from people who seem to think getting a certificate in the mail is some kind of burden. Personally, I'm in contention for "Best of Set Type" on a few sets, and I'd be thrilled to actually win it. Unfortunately, I expect to be sniped like on eBay with people who populate a set the day before the awards are tallied.

 

I especially like the check-box option of whether or not you wanted to be considered, and the requirement to make some changes between awards cycles. I don't think that would impact those of us who actively cultivate our sets, which are called "competitive" sets after all.

 

"The CGC Comic Registry is a free online community where collectors register and display their comics, interact with other collectors, and compete for awards and recognition. Participants can display their CGC-certified comics in pre-defined Competitive Sets, where they’ll receive a point value associated with scarcity, desirability and certified grade" - from the CGC Registry home page

[bagofleas]

When it comes to the Best in Set Category, it should simply go to whoever is at the top.

 

But with all of the other categories, like Best in Age and Best Presentation sets, I think it would be neat if CGC nominated up to 5 sets per award and then let all of the CGC members on the registry vote for their picks in each category and then award the top three vote getters in each one.

 

Probably won't ever happen, but I think it would be pretty cool and allow us to at least have some say on which sets get the awards.

[revat]

For #3, what if you have all the comics in CGC SS 9.9 already? You have the best set, you've uploaded pics, you've written descriptions. If its still ultra awesome year after year, why should it ever lose out if there is no new set more deserving? Just for variety? That doesn't seem fair either.

[David Swan]

For #3 I only intended Best in Age or Best Presented. If a set is as good as it's ever going to get and doesn't win it probably won't ever win. Best in Age and Best Presentation don't tend to win more than once.

[meshuggah]

When it comes to the Best in Set Category, it should simply go to whoever is at the top.

 

But with all of the other categories, like Best in Age and Best Presentation sets, I think it would be neat if CGC nominated up to 5 sets per award and then let all of the CGC members on the registry vote for their picks in each category and then award the top three vote getters in each one.

 

Probably won't ever happen, but I think it would be pretty cool and allow us to at least have some say on which sets get the awards.

 

I like this idea

[newshane]

When it comes to the Best in Set Category, it should simply go to whoever is at the top.

 

But with all of the other categories, like Best in Age and Best Presentation sets, I think it would be neat if CGC nominated up to 5 sets per award and then let all of the CGC members on the registry vote for their picks in each category and then award the top three vote getters in each one.

 

Probably won't ever happen, but I think it would be pretty cool and allow us to at least have some say on which sets get the awards.

 

I like this idea

 

I actually prefer a subjective judge on these matters...too much room for corruption if board members were allowed to vote. Keep in mind that CGC employees are supposedly banned from trading/selling/buying slabs, so that is a plus in this situation.

 

Plus, I'd hate to see the board become a metaphorical front lawn during election time...with tacky signs cluttering up the scenery. There would be too much campaigning, I think.

 

I love all of the other suggestions made by the OP except for #4. There is no real way to tell if such sets are illegitimate or not. Playing the prediction game could get messy. If someone throws up a set in time to win an award...well, they win!

 

 

[XXXPHOENIX]

An obscured set should be automatically disallowed to participate in the CGC awards

[David Swan]

I love all of the other suggestions made by the OP except for #4. There is no real way to tell if such sets are illegitimate or not. Playing the prediction game could get messy. If someone throws up a set in time to win an award...well, they win!

 

#4 was intended as more of a guideline. With just three sets per age winning it seems hard to believe that the judges would have no choice but to add an instant set. My suggestion was based on what I've observed in the past. Last years winners appeared to be much better than some I'd seen in previous years.