CGC Green Eggs Grading Contest Round 3

[canickus]

Yeah- Both the CF detachment and a popped staple put me at 5.0.

I figure 5.0 would be tops for a double trouble book.

That was exactly my grade and my logic.

I'm kinda curious if the guys who nailed this book figured the staple detach + CF detach were OK in 6.0, or if they overlooked the staple detach completely?

 

(OK, enough from me on this. Better start resting up to complain about next round's grades.)

 

 

 

One important thing to keep in mind is that one of the fine lines that CGC has to walk is that they are paid to assign "market acceptable" grades to books. I think that one of the reasons that they haven't publicly published standards is that some of the important criteria like "freshness" and "eye appeal" are not easy to quantify. It is a developed taste. CGC is regularly critiqued on exactly how well they do this, particularly by these boards. You have to admit that the "eye appeal" of that Thrilling 12 is really strong, especially for a book going on 75 years old.

 

Without trying to awaken the ghost of JC, the book looks to me more like a 6 than a .5.

[Jester Hats]

Thank you for a little help!

[DWL]

Yeah- Both the CF detachment and a popped staple put me at 5.0.

I figure 5.0 would be tops for a double trouble book.

That was exactly my grade and my logic.

I'm kinda curious if the guys who nailed this book figured the staple detach + CF detach were OK in 6.0, or if they overlooked the staple detach completely?

 

(OK, enough from me on this. Better start resting up to complain about next round's grades.)

 

 

 

One important thing to keep in mind is that one of the fine lines that CGC has to walk is that they are paid to assign "market acceptable" grades to books. I think that one of the reasons that they haven't publicly published standards is that some of the important criteria like "freshness" and "eye appeal" are not easy to quantify. It is a developed taste. CGC is regularly critiqued on exactly how well they do this, particularly by these boards. You have to admit that the "eye appeal" of that Thrilling 12 is really strong, especially for a book going on 75 years old.

 

Without trying to awaken the ghost of JC, the book looks to me more like a 6 than a .5.

 

Remember that thing they used to say on Myth Busters, "well there's your problem"

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yeah- Both the CF detachment and a popped staple put me at 5.0.

I figure 5.0 would be tops for a double trouble book.

That was exactly my grade and my logic.

I'm kinda curious if the guys who nailed this book figured the staple detach + CF detach were OK in 6.0, or if they overlooked the staple detach completely?

 

(OK, enough from me on this. Better start resting up to complain about next round's grades.)

 

 

 

One important thing to keep in mind is that one of the fine lines that CGC has to walk is that they are paid to assign "market acceptable" grades to books. I think that one of the reasons that they haven't publicly published standards is that some of the important criteria like "freshness" and "eye appeal" are not easy to quantify. It is a developed taste. CGC is regularly critiqued on exactly how well they do this, particularly by these boards. You have to admit that the "eye appeal" of that Thrilling 12 is really strong, especially for a book going on 75 years old.

 

Without trying to awaken the ghost of JC, the book looks to me more like a 6 than a .5.

 

The eye appeal of the Thrilling #12 is, indeed, quite stunning.

 

[gradejunky]

Eeks, these are tough.....I really can't stand grading GA books from a scan, or period for that matter.

[thirdgreenham]

Eeks, these are tough.....I really can't stand grading GA books from a scan, or period for that matter.