what a joke these registry awards are

[HarveySwick]

Points SHOULD equal value of a book or as close as you can get to the value of a book.

I guess I just can't stress this enough as my argument. I enjoy the Registry. I "compete" in a couple of sets just for the fun of it. I understand CGC's position and they want to maintain as much profit as they can regarding the SS program and the way the Registry stands, it is a good incentive to submit books under the SS program.

 

I just don't think awarding extra points to books deserving of extra points based on their value will hurt that. You'll just have people that had 9.8 Universals now submitting books for SS to that may not have before to compete with "unique" books.

 

Right now it's just Blue Label vs. Yellow Label. I think it should be Blue Label vs. Blue Label "Unique" vs. Yellow Label.

 

As someone that enjoys looking at the Registry - I like seeing books distinguished from others. It makes it fun. I'm not being so vocal about this because I suddenly think I'm going to "win" anything. I just can't argue enough that points should be reflective of a book's value as much as possible. Otherwise, why award points in the first place? Treat the Registry as a checklist and make it about collections and not a competition.

[N/A]

So... what ARE Registry points based on Jeff?

 

What should they be based on?

 

 

You don't want to know what they're based on.

 

What they should be based on is constants and not variables.

 

 

I worked in cost accounting before retiring. Most manufacturing companies have recipes for their products called bills of materials. Many companies close due to inaccuracies. The biggest issue I've seen is unit of measure (UOM). If you use a bag of flour for recipe and your supplier increases the size of the bag as an improvement well.....proper standard unit of measure prevents this.

 

Value = variable = maintenance = errors = joke

[N/A]

The point is that people who enjoy collecting SS books don't WANT other "unique" books to gain points. AND CGC uses the Registry as a marketing tool and any potential concerns regarding a loss in profit on SS books nullifies any chance of change in point distribution.

 

Case in point: back in 2005 I decided it would be cool to get the entire run of Miracleman slabbed. I have 20 of 25, they range from 9.0 to 9.8, but most are 9.6. I have the rare and glorious 15 in 9.4. This effort has resulted in me being the 17th best set with 1070 points. Despite being 80% complete, I trail the leader by 1904. The current leader is 100% 9.8 Sig Series. I have several "Eclipse Archive Editions" which are given the same points values as regular issues. I know that it is not feasible for me to compete in this set at this point, so I no longer try.

 

That's how applying points for Signature Series can kill the competition.

 

Also, bear in mind that my mother can sign a book and make it Signature Series, as long as an official CGC witness verifies her identity and escorts me to the CGC table. The registry doesn't apply points based on who signed it. A Star Wars comic can be signed by George Lucas, Jim Shooter, Stan Lee, Carrie Fisher, or Calamerica and it's still worth 110% of the blue label points.

 

Yeah, that's not true at all.

 

Stan Lee gets a pass and is basically allowed to sign anything he wants, but CGC won't give a SS label to a comic book signed by, for instance, your mother (unless she's actually a comic book professional). No offense to your mom :thumbsup:

 

I was thinking there was a case where a collector drew their own art on a blank cover and got it slabbed as "signed and sketched by ...." but that may be an unconfirmed anecdote (AKA lies and propaganda). I can't find anything more about it now. I did find a Spawn 221 signed by Stan Lee, which I found odd at best.

 

I might leave Heroes with my name on 3 SS labels...maybe.

 

You were drawn into a book as a character, right?

 

I will be referenced in 3 books.

[wardevil0]

Points SHOULD equal value of a book or as close as you can get to the value of a book.

I guess I just can't stress this enough as my argument. I enjoy the Registry. I "compete" in a couple of sets just for the fun of it. I understand CGC's position and they want to maintain as much profit as they can regarding the SS program and the way the Registry stands, it is a good incentive to submit books under the SS program.

 

I just don't think awarding extra points to books deserving of extra points based on their value will hurt that. You'll just have people that had 9.8 Universals now submitting books for SS to that may not have before to compete with "unique" books.

 

Right now it's just Blue Label vs. Yellow Label. I think it should be Blue Label vs. Blue Label "Unique" vs. Yellow Label.

 

As someone that enjoys looking at the Registry - I like seeing books distinguished from others. It makes it fun. I'm not being so vocal about this because I suddenly think I'm going to "win" anything. I just can't argue enough that points should be reflective of a book's value as much as possible. Otherwise, why award points in the first place? Treat the Registry as a checklist and make it about collections and not a competition.

 

By and large, the value of a book is based on its desireability to the overall market. Not everything appeals to everyone, but as long as there are collectors who pursue the niche things like Mark Jeweler inserts or pedigrees then those books will command a premium price relative to comparable grade standard comics. Why wouldn't the competitive registry reflect that?

 

There are people who argue that Sig Series defaces the comic and should be treated as a defect. This opinion does not seem to alter the prices Sig Series fetch at auction, which are generally higher than non-Sig counterparts. The fact reamins that to the worldwide collecting community certain factors make a book more desireable and therefore more valuable.

 

Tangentially, I feel that this entire discussion is a red herring to dissuade us from the real problem with the registry, which is that slots are not automatically made for books when they are graded. I have 22 slabbed books that do not fit in a set. Suggestion: when you give a book a serial number, at least enter that issue in a set based on title and volume. Nineteen issues of Gotham Girls have been slabbed, at least one of every issue of the miniseries, but there is no set in which to put them.

[madnstuff-migration]

I sent numerous emails to cgc about this without a response. Another problem with the registry is that those certificate numbers shouldn't be public, then people wouldn't know what numbers to snag online and enter. Also another problem I have come across when building my set is the seller continues to keep that number in his set, he simply clicks deny and then after the awards he will release it to me.

[HarveySwick]

I think your thread topic discussion has been hijacked.

 

[HarveySwick]

There's nothing to do about people stealing Certification numbers other than, as Dena stated, notify CGC and let them take care it. (thumbs u

[madnstuff-migration]

then it isn't a fair competition if people can enter numbers of slabs they don't own to have a #1 set, contacting cgc was already done and am confident the person who used bogus numbers will have the best set, like last year

[JLA Brad]

You don't want to know what they're based on.

 

What they should be based on is constants and not variables.

 

 

I worked in cost accounting before retiring. Most manufacturing companies have recipes for their products called bills of materials. Many companies close due to inaccuracies. The biggest issue I've seen is unit of measure (UOM). If you use a bag of flour for recipe and your supplier increases the size of the bag as an improvement well.....proper standard unit of measure prevents this.

 

Value = variable = maintenance = errors = joke

 

Forgive my ignorance, but are the basis for the registry points listed somewhere on the website? If not, is that information that is kept private by the CGC?

 

I just ask because the question still has not been answered - the closest answer being the above - "What they should be based on is constants and not variables" - this is an answer, albeit it a vague one.

 

Personally, I don't care if you give a book 1000 points or 100 points, whether it gets bonus points for being signed or being a pedigree. In the end, it makes no difference to the value of the book, what you buy it for or what you sell it for. If a book is a pedigree, I believe that more times than not it will be valued higher than a non-pedigree of the same grade - rightly or wrongly.

 

That being said, if value is not a basis for the points awarded to a book, beyond the grade, how else do you decide the points? Perhaps the year of the book, the publisher, the issue # - these are all non-valued based - do these factor in?

 

This is an interesting discussion.

[N/A]

And those examples are constants.

 

I can't give you a straight answer to what they are based on right now because there is no consistency to the registry. This would help alleviate 99% of the issues! discussions and maintenance required for the registry as it stands today. If an give you a list of things that have been used to determine points.

[N/A]

And :applause:for not caring about the actual points. The most frustrating thing in playing any game or being involved in any competition is having the rules changed while you're playing. Consistency is the key.

[mschmidt]

then it isn't a fair competition if people can enter numbers of slabs they don't own to have a #1 set, contacting cgc was already done and am confident the person who used bogus numbers will have the best set, like last year

 

How about naming some names already?

[newshane]

I agree with Branget.

 

No extra points should be given for Pedigree.

 

In fact, I'll just take this a step further with the following proposition:

 

No extra points awarded for signatures.

 

But that would be a bad business model, I suppose.

 

But extra points for a pedigree? That opens an all new can of worms. Like Branget said, where do you draw the line for extra points?

 

This is all a moot point anyway, because the CGC has already responded to this inquiry - the system is not set up for this and changing it would apparently be a colossal headache with little to no return.

 

 

[newshane]

then it isn't a fair competition if people can enter numbers of slabs they don't own to have a #1 set, contacting cgc was already done and am confident the person who used bogus numbers will have the best set, like last year

 

How about naming some names already?

 

+1

[cheetah]

OPG price, collectability, rarity, age, significance. I believe these are the factors that have been identified in the past. The only other one would be volume of people requesting a score increase because they overpaid for a book.

[N/A]

Yes, scrap all that except age.

[dena]

I sent numerous emails to cgc about this without a response. Another problem with the registry is that those certificate numbers shouldn't be public, then people wouldn't know what numbers to snag online and enter. Also another problem I have come across when building my set is the seller continues to keep that number in his set, he simply clicks deny and then after the awards he will release it to me.

 

I don't know who you contacted at CGC or why there wasn't a response. For that I apologize. However, I am asking you to let me know where you see this happening and I will look at it. Also, regarding the ownership issue, if you have the item in your possession and someone is not releasing it, let us know and we will handle that as well. We handle ownership issues like that almost daily.

[MatterEaterLad]

I agree with Branget.

 

No extra points should be given for Pedigree.

 

In fact, I'll just take this a step further with the following proposition:

 

No extra points awarded for signatures.

 

But that would be a bad business model, I suppose.

 

But extra points for a pedigree? That opens an all new can of worms. Like Branget said, where do you draw the line for extra points?

 

This is all a moot point anyway, because the CGC has already responded to this inquiry - the system is not set up for this and changing it would apparently be a colossal headache with little to no return.

 

 

It's all fun and games until Steve Borock starts doing it.

[Supa-Bad-Mofo]

If you let us know where you see this, we will investigate and delete sets where this is happening.

That would make way too much sense though!

 

Dena, can we revisit additional points being awarded for Pedigrees? I mean, that seems to be the biggest shortcoming right now with the registry and something that really should be fixed. It costs money to get a SS book, but it's pretty easy to get Stan Lee to sign anything and - extra points! Pedigrees cost more and are difficult to find. No need to distinguish between the pedigree sets. Maybe just award them the same amount of extra points given for SS books. (thumbs u

 

And possibly a small points differential on PQ. But that is a smaller request.

 

I'm right there with ya!! More points for pedigree!!! Read my argument here!

[Gatsby77]

It's been said earlier in the thread but I can't see a fair system for awarding additional points for pedigree books because of the subjectivity and variance among pedigrees.

 

By subjectivity, I mean - where do you draw the line? What about pedigrees no longer recognized by CGC? what about File Copies or "collections" such as Mile High 2 where there are multiples?

 

Further, variance is clear - Twin Cities, Church, Pennsylvania, Allentown are all solid pedigrees of high quality. Crippen books tend to have ugly dust shadows and Savannahs to have cream or brown pages. And what to do with File Copies? Why shouldn't they count?

 

I have a high registry set that I'm proud to say includes books from more than half a dozen different Pedigrees. And I don't think the books deserve any more credence than non-pedigrees.

 

Why? Any grade bump has already been factored in. I'd rather have a non-pedigree 9.8 than a pedigree 9.6 any day of the week. And I know others who agree with me, even folks who have broken up full single-pedigree runs when they've upgraded with select non-pedigree (but higher-graded) examples.

 

The set values should remain as is, and not try to award arbitrary points for pedigrees.