• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

2015 CGC Green Eggs Grading Contest- Round 4 Results

Started by sckao,

39 posts in this topic

trmoore54

trmoore54

Posted
Posted

Saw that I had improved each round and thought it would be cool to make a list of everyone who had done so and see who goes the longest...listed in position rank order...

 

mr_highgrade (15)

01TheDude (23)

Jazzman (23)

Lavaman (23)

Red Hood (23)

spidermanbeyond (23)

yoddler (23)

trmoore54 (36)

Uncanny X-Force (36)

DavidtheDavid (50)

rjpb (50)

Spidey-fan73 (50)

TheGeneral (50)

ARK (68)

jaeldubyoo (68)

kav (68)

Thanos88 (68)

oakman29 (84)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FineCollector

FineCollector

Posted
Posted
I just realized how much I suck! :sorry:

That Wings was a .5? (shrug)

 

You read the notes and looked at the scans, right?

Andy,but....... You're right. :sorry: But .5? Really? I would have thought 1.0 for sure. :cry:

 

If the cover is split and detached, I suppose it could be a 1.0

 

If the cover is split, detached, fugly, and brittle looking, it should be a 0.5

 

:grin:

 

I think that's a weakness in CGC's grading. I'm fairly certain a split and detached cover never goes higher than 0.5, and that's a very nice book to pay a Poor price for. Overstreet would call that a Fair. According to them, you can have up to the full back cover missing and still get Fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AJD

AJD

Posted
Posted

 

I think that's a weakness in CGC's grading. I'm fairly certain a split and detached cover never goes higher than 0.5, and that's a very nice book to pay a Poor price for. Overstreet would call that a Fair. According to them, you can have up to the full back cover missing and still get Fair.

 

I posted a question in the 'Ask CGC' thread about split and detached covers and the max grade they can get. I'm genuinely curious about this. I'll post the response if I get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wilson3d

Wilson3d

Posted
Posted

 

I think that's a weakness in CGC's grading. I'm fairly certain a split and detached cover never goes higher than 0.5, and that's a very nice book to pay a Poor price for. Overstreet would call that a Fair. According to them, you can have up to the full back cover missing and still get Fair.

 

I posted a question in the 'Ask CGC' thread about split and detached covers and the max grade they can get. I'm genuinely curious about this. I'll post the response if I get one.

 

I found an old thread on this site that had a bunch of pics of Split Detached covers that were CGC'd. They varies from 0.5 to 1.5 depending on the amount of the covers that was missing. If I can dig it up again, I'll post the link. I thought for sure I was dead on with the 1.0 I went with based on the pics...but of course, I chose wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
01TheDude

01TheDude

Posted
Posted

 

I think that's a weakness in CGC's grading. I'm fairly certain a split and detached cover never goes higher than 0.5, and that's a very nice book to pay a Poor price for. Overstreet would call that a Fair. According to them, you can have up to the full back cover missing and still get Fair.

 

I posted a question in the 'Ask CGC' thread about split and detached covers and the max grade they can get. I'm genuinely curious about this. I'll post the response if I get one.

 

I found an old thread on this site that had a bunch of pics of Split Detached covers that were CGC'd. They varies from 0.5 to 1.5 depending on the amount of the covers that was missing. If I can dig it up again, I'll post the link. I thought for sure I was dead on with the 1.0 I went with based on the pics...but of course, I chose wrong.

 

I think you can make an argument for either a .5 or a 1.0 on this book. The cover detached spine completely split is part of the equation but the amount of cover damage both front and back is extensive with large portions (albeit mostly just background colors) missing from the item. From a buyers standpoint, would it make much of a difference to you whether the book was labelled a .5 or 1.0? It has no other entries on the census to be compared to so the overall value is hardly impacted by the CGC grade for this book. If someone wants it badly enough, they will cough up the dough for this copy -- without a doubt the same amount whether it be 1.0 or .5 -- meaning this is a classic case of buying the book and not the grade.

 

While I get your point about consistency or clarity of determining a grade-- we are only seeing the encapsulated item. For all we know the book is also brittle or has some internal issues not seen on the front/back scans (I'll assume it didn't as the contest organizers would have mentioned this item certainly). Regardless-- I don't see that this is graded too harshly even based on the cover scans.

 

I would almost wonder why someone would ever submit this for grading short of making sure it wasn't restored in some way- but even then, would it really impact the value of the item? Heck-- I wonder if much could be done to restore this book that would make any sense financially speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted

It seems to come down to whether you think a book that is basically complete (outside of some missing pieces on the covers) should rank better than Poor, regardless of how ragged it is. Part of the problem for people is Poor can describe a broad range of books ( from decent looking copies missing a centerfold - something I think should be a Q grade only, but many disagree) to a book that's been half eaten by bugs or rodents. Prior to CGC most collectors had no problem with grades like PR/FR and FR+, which perhaps allowed for more nuance in the lowest of grades, but ultimately when one gets below 2.0 it's more about the nature of the flaws than the number in the corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FineCollector

FineCollector

Posted
Posted
Part of the problem for people is Poor can describe a broad range of books ( from decent looking copies missing a centerfold - something I think should be a Q grade only, but many disagree)...

 

I don't think there should be qualified grades at all, I feel they're A) a cop out by the grader, and B) a marketing ploy to get people to submit low grade books and still potentially get a happy number. I don't believe in wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted
Part of the problem for people is Poor can describe a broad range of books ( from decent looking copies missing a centerfold - something I think should be a Q grade only, but many disagree)...

 

I don't think there should be qualified grades at all, I feel they're A) a cop out by the grader, and B) a marketing ploy to get people to submit low grade books and still potentially get a happy number. I don't believe in wishful thinking.

 

I have to disagree for the most part (though perhaps not in all cases). They can be confusing to someone looking at GPA or trying to make a judgement of a book's FMV, but that could be true of the same books if they are just given a universal grade based on a particular flaw that doesn't reflect it's potential appeal, particularly if that flaw leaves an otherwise very attractive copy with the same grade as a book sharing that flaw, but is otherwise a rag.

 

And sometimes a flaw is so unusual that it becomes tough to grade other than qualified. I once owned a Timely that was given a Q6.5 grade due to a reprint of an interior splash page being pasted over the original. For what reason I couldn't say. What universal grade should it have been given? As buyer and seller I obviously didn't value it the same as a blue 6.5, but it's general appearance otherwise no doubt had an influence on what sort of discount to expect. FWIW I cracked it out and sold it as the same grade for a little more than I had paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing