Grading Guide Question

[Norrin_Radd]

Just for that, we're going to take out Bronze through Modern. That's all "newer" stuff anyway, only those crazy kids like that [#@$%!!!].

 

Arnold

 

[divad]

Just for that, we're going to take out Bronze through Modern. That's all "newer" stuff anyway, only those crazy kids like that [#@$%!!!].

 

Arnold

 

Yeah, now we're talkin' - we'll give Darth his own guide

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

 

But seriously, feel free to send along suggestions for the next Grading Guide, it's always good to get feedback.

 

Arnold

[seank]

 

But seriously, feel free to send along suggestions for the next Grading Guide, it's always good to get feedback.

 

Arnold

 

Pictures that are consistent with the written descriptions!

[uclapeterg]

 

But seriously, feel free to send along suggestions for the next Grading Guide, it's always good to get feedback.

 

Arnold

 

When is the new edition slated to come out?

[FFB]

Well now you're just making me feel genuinely unappreciated.

 

Arnold

 

Hey Arnold,

 

Since you're reading this thread, maybe you can answer the question re why there are internal inconsistencies in the text and pictures of the guide? The "creases in VF/NM" issue is just one example. I see small, light, color-breaking creases on 9.0 books all the time. Hell, JP's Amazing Spider-Man #1 CGC 9.6 has a small color breaking crease in the lower right corner. What gives?

 

Another thing I'd like to see addressed in a future guide is the effect that slight rust on staples has on the overall grade. The current Guide is ambiguous on the topic. What grade is an otherwise NM 9.4 book that has light rust on the staples at the centerfold, but not on the interior (for example)? What about a NM 9.4 book with light rust on the staples that is visible from the exterior, but hasn't migrated too badly yet?

[FFB]

Just for that, we're going to take out Bronze through Modern. That's all "newer" stuff anyway, only those crazy kids like that [#@$%!!!].

 

Arnold

 

Considering how inaccurate OS's pricing is on modern and many bronze/copper books, what difference would it make?

 

[blowout]

Just for that, we're going to take out Bronze through Modern. That's all "newer" stuff anyway, only those crazy kids like that [#@$%!!!].

 

Arnold

 

Considering how inaccurate OS's pricing is on modern and many bronze/copper books, what difference would it make?

 

 

Over to Wizard.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

No specific date as yet, but it recently transpired that it may happen a lot sooner than the ten years it took between editions one and two. Much sooner, so feedback is welcome.

 

Arnold

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

The only answer I can give for any inconsistencies is that ultimately, the production of some very complex books comes down to a matter of days, a few people, and as much attention as we can possibly provide. Unfortunately, human beings aren't perfect, and inconsistencies can creep in despite our best efforts to be as careful and as accurate as possible. But with every new volume, we refine and correct until those inconsistencies are ironed out. Since such problems still exist in the second edition, I'm grateful for the opportunity to get things even better in the next one.

 

And I already have a note down: look into addressing the whole issue of rust, staples, and rust migration. We'll see what we can do.

 

Arnold

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

You guys are *so* asking for it.

 

Arnold

[fantastic_four]

Well now you're just making me feel genuinely unappreciated.

 

I apologize for the insensitive way I phrased my statement. I didn't mean to imply that Matt Nelson is a better writer than you--I think exactly the opposite is true. You're a pro at it, and he isn't, and from an editorial perspective, I think you did a FINE job on the OGG. The reason I mentioned someone like Matt Nelson is because he's a decent writer who is hungry to have an impact on the hobby who Overstreet or Borock could bounce ideas off of who is an actual pro with years of experience at grading. However, you didn't assign your role on the book to yourself, so your lack of deep personal interest in the topic and lack of experience isn't your fault. When you consider that you knew VERY little about grading coming into that book, it looks to me like you did a FANTASTIC job. You've heard this praise from me before, but the graphs and charts at the beginning of the grading section you created are the most significant advances to the published grading standard since the first edition of the grading guide. You did a fantastic JOB on that!!!

 

One common thread I've always heard in your explanations about the inconsistencies in the guide is that there's only so much you can do in the short amount of time allocated to the guide. I COMPLETELY understand this; it's not hard to figure out that the revenue potential on a book like this is extremely limited. To compensate for the money constraints, why not step back on the next edition into an editorial role and recruit more active contributions from hobby professionals who could be primarily compensated simply by the PR associated with being a contributing author to the Grading Guide? That's exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned Matt Nelson's name--one of the primary reasons I'm sure he's motivated to publish the articles and the upcoming book on Pedigrees he has in the works is because it promotes his business as a restoration and grading expert. I'm not sure if they'd be interested, but I can think of some other potential names, including almost any national dealer (I've seen an active and disciplined interest in grading from Fishler, Rosenberg, and possibly others), grading professional (the CGC guys) or restoration professional (Nelson, Wilson, Heft, Cicconi, Friesan). Chris Friesan could be a GREAT candidate considering that he's probably going to start a new business and could use the PR, plus he's been working around the CGC graders for five years. Also, restoration professionals are particularly good candidates for this due to the extreme discipline and focused concentration it takes for them to learn their craft and continuously practice it.

 

It's hard to say whether you could get any bites with major contributors like this, but it has TREMENDOUS potential to improve the accuracy of the grading standard, so it's most definitely worth a shot. If all the professionals say no, there are a few collectors who take an extreme interest in grading in the various forums who could play a more active role in refining the standard. I've said this before, and I'll say it again--E-Bay forum member "gifflefunk" has the most talent of any grading theorist I've ever seen in print. He's talked about writing his own grading guide, and I've talked to HIM about that topic also, although I usually lack the time to help push an individual effort at this point in my life. I think he's a mathematics professor, and he DEFINITELY has the disciplined mindset we NEED to make the grading knowledge available to the hobby more of a well-defined science than the rough art that it currently is.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

First off, thank you very much for the effusive comments, but please understand - I *was* kidding. I didn't really take any of this personally. I try to always maintain a consistent air of sarcasm through most of my posts here just to be fun, so I didn't mean to imply that you said anything hurtful. I'll endeavor to be more obvious in my irony in the future.

 

Having said that, Matt Nelson is indeed a valuable advisor, contributor and supporter over the years, as are many others in the industry, and I assume you know that Matt did indeed play a role in the last Grading Guide. He even had his own section on restoration, proposed his own approach to the matter, and did a superb job of it too. The last Grading Guide also featured articles and or contributions from Steve Borock, Susan Cicconi, Dale Moore, Tom Gordon (pre-Gemstone), our own J.C. Vaughn, Chuck Rozanski, Bruce Hamilton, and many others, including almost the entire eBay chat board grading gang, who were of invaluable help to me throughout the project (look at the acknowledgements page for all the names). So I don't want anyone to get the impression that the book could ever have been a solo effort from me, or Bob, without the input and direct contributions of many experts in the industry.

 

And when we get to work on the third edition, you can be sure that we'll be making use of all that talent and expertise once again.

 

Arnold

[FFB]

That's all we can ask. Thanks Arnold!

 

The only answer I can give for any inconsistencies is that ultimately, the production of some very complex books comes down to a matter of days, a few people, and as much attention as we can possibly provide. Unfortunately, human beings aren't perfect, and inconsistencies can creep in despite our best efforts to be as careful and as accurate as possible. But with every new volume, we refine and correct until those inconsistencies are ironed out. Since such problems still exist in the second edition, I'm grateful for the opportunity to get things even better in the next one.

 

And I already have a note down: look into addressing the whole issue of rust, staples, and rust migration. We'll see what we can do.

 

Arnold

[fantastic_four]

So I don't want anyone to get the impression that the book could ever have been a solo effort from me, or Bob, without the input and direct contributions of many experts in the industry.

 

I figured you spent a few weeks or months learning about grading from some of the hobby professionals you mentioned, and then you and Bob somehow collaborated or split the work up on creating the content in the grading section (which is the only section I was referring to in my prior post). That's how it sounded back when you were asking for input over on the E-Bay comics forum back before you finished the 2002 OGG.

 

I've heard you say before you think grading is more of an art than a science. Do you still believe that? I was flipping through the Gerber Photo-Journals which came out before Overstreet first put out the 1992 grading guide and noticed this bit in his grading section, which seems to echo this opinion and is too "arty" and not "sciency" enough:

 

 

The first bit of that is interesting--it looks to me like Overstreet and/or Gary Carter disagreed with Gerber and that Overstreet's 1992 Guide is their crack at what Gerber thought wasn't feasible!

 

Gerber's second paragraph is also overly pessimistic. You can't managably list every defect a comic can possibly have, but you can categorize them as you started to do with your 21 defect categories in the 2002 Guide. And you can take that to the next level by taxonomizing them into a (preferrably shallow, to keep grading time down to 30 to 90 seconds) defect hierarchy, as gifflefunk (Nick Pope) has done EXTREMELY well.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I think I should talk to Nick more in depth one day soon. And yes, I still think it's more art than science, but that there is room for a lot more specificity in delineating the categories of defects and the guidelines for practicing that art. Every step brings us closer.

 

Arnold

[fantastic_four]

I think I should talk to Nick more in depth one day soon.

 

Please do. I was developing a taxonomy of grading defects myself, but then I saw him post on the ebay forums that he already had one, and he was listing small portions of it. I asked him about it in email and he sent it to me, and it blew me away--his was months or years ahead of the one I was developing. And don't take offense to this observation, but it's also far better than the 21 categories in the 2002 OGG. I might post it here, but I need to get his permission first. I tried to get him to post here last year, but he seems to hate CGC for some reason--I think the money and greed surrounding high-grade collecting turns him off.

 

He's also farther along on the path you started down with the graph in the 2002 OGG charting the relationship between the number of defects on a comic and grade. The chart is, as I said before, VERY innovative, but it's also inaccurate because using only defect count isn't enough--you also need to factor in defect severities, and preferrably defect location. A defect taxonomy needs to also account for these variables so that a grader is accounting for them during the defect identification and grade assignment processes.

 

And while I'm thinking about it and don't have Nick's email handy to run this past him as I've been meaning to for about a year, the topmost "roots" of a defect taxonomy tree should ideally be assigned their own grades, and then combine those grades together into a final grade. Some of the sports card and coin companies do this, and I think it's DEFINITELY the best next step forward for grading. Many people in these forums have suggested at least two taxonomy roots (categories) of "overall grade" (as CGC already does) and "eye appeal", although I think a few more categories are in order, with interior grade being at the forefront of that list. Here's a Beckett sports card that uses four top-level categories: "Centering", "Corners", "Edges", and "Surface":

 

[garthgantu]

It'd be nice if Borock would collude with a good writer--perhaps a Matt Nelson--to write a grading guide. Or perhaps he could just collaborate with Overstreet on the next edition of the OGG.

 

As Arnold will no doubt be happy to hear, CGC has given no indication of being willing to explicitly outline its grading criteria, so the OGG is the defacto standard for the foreseeable future. The fact that it has a few slight contradictions in it notwithstanding. Look at it this way: even with the contradictions, the OGG is far more consistent that CGC's graders. Heck, the OGG even applies a single grading 'scale' to books from all ages, something CGC clearly doesn't do.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Nah, I'm not happy or unhappy. The fact is that Steve Borock and all the folks at CGC have never been anything but wholly supportive and gracious contributors to the Grading Guide and our others efforts at Gemstone. Nice chaps, all of them.

 

Arnold

[Deucedriver]

I'll second the idea of having grades for different categories of the book, similar to the baseball card scan provided .

 

I sold several comic books (raw) on E-bay and included a grading breakdown. I basically took the OGG categories of binding, staples, paper quality, etc. and gave a description of each. I received a good response and the auctions tended to sell for a higher price. IMHO it's a more thorough and accurate description of the book. All that's missing is a numerical scale for each category. Of course I'm sure that will open it's own can of worms...