• 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 Green Eggs Grading Contest Round 7

Started by thirdgreenham,

175 posts in this topic

oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
Wow, I think the stark reality of being formally eliminated from the competition has really quieted down the masses.

 

Is anyone not in the Top 10 still playing?

 

 

I never have come in even close to the top ten. But I still look foward to every round. I LOVE this contest. The guys running it should be given the prizes. 2c

 

+1

 

I may go down in flames but I will go down! :sumo:

 

(...not sure that sounded right...)

 

:roflmao:

 

My momma told me to always finish what I started,so on with the pain. :tonofbricks:

No pain no gain

 

Pain, and more pain.

 

Just pain for you three.

 

Smart azz! meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcjames

jcjames

Posted
Posted
How is that TTA 13 not a 1.0 with a huge piece missing from the front cover?

 

Because grading is not subjective - you're just doing it wrong. :insane:

 

But yeah, I gave it a 1.0 also. Some of these grades are just plain :screwy:

 

I did pick up a bullseye on the Batman though! :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted
Not using the large scans on the Batman 232 really cost me on this one. :(

 

I'm guessing all those 9.0 and up grades didn't look at the large scan or graded on their phone.

 

I hoping the 5.5 someone gave the TTA was a typo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Point Five

Point Five

Posted
Posted

I guessed 1.8 on the TTA #13. The one thing I'll say is that the cover inks and gloss look really great despite the wear... 2.0 still seems generous, but I guess I can fathom a bit of a bump for the eye appeal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
01TheDude

01TheDude

Posted
Posted
I guessed 1.8 on the TTA #13. The one thing I'll say is that the cover inks and gloss look really great despite the wear... 2.0 still seems generous, but I guess I can fathom a bit of a bump for the eye appeal.

 

 

at first glance, I thought the TTA looked like a 2.0 myself-- and then I realized there was a massive chunk out of the cover and the first wrap. Seemed like a no brainer 1.0 for that -- the book is not complete. It looks decent enough but that chunk is pretty significant.

 

oh well- nailed the other one.... next round

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted
I guessed 1.8 on the TTA #13. The one thing I'll say is that the cover inks and gloss look really great despite the wear... 2.0 still seems generous, but I guess I can fathom a bit of a bump for the eye appeal.

 

 

I'm guessing the relatively solid spine and white pages helped the grade, but for me the missing chunk adds up to negative eye-appeal no matter the gloss. Without the missing piece I thought the book looked like a 2.0, possibly generous 2.5 due to the general wear, but the size of the missing piece and the smaller one out of the first page had me thinking 1.5 tops, and more likely a 1.0 ( which admittedly is a catch all grade that can include even more problematic books). Shades of the infamous moldy Action #1 with a missing chunk that got a 2.5 and plenty of harsh criticism.

 

Admittedly, I've seen a few CGC 3.0s that looked like they should have gotten a 1.8 to me, so this isn't much of different situation. Maybe because they are more likely to be graded, but it does seem this sort of generosity of grade is more frequent with keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Batman book the more I saw wrong with it but I pegged it at an 8.0. The wear seemed minimal I guess there was just a lot of it that blended it exceptionally well.

 

Yeah, that Batman book is one that really needs to be graded in-hand to be totally accurate, and the TTA is yet another example of CGC vastly overgrading a book due to "structure" while totally ignoring a significant defect (missing chunk from cover/pages) that requires a baseline under OS and other grading criteria.

 

I think the only thing CGC has a true baseline for is coverless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicdey

Comicdey

Posted
Posted

To me a 1.0 is missing a significant cover piece that makes it completely unapprealing. Or is missing something inside that is bordering on a poor 0.5.

 

This book is generally complete and readable and that's why I gave it a 1.5. I think a 1.0 would be too harsh.

 

I couldn't personally call it a 2.0 but we all should recall the action 1 with a big piece missing that got a 2.5.

 

Buy the book. Not the slab. And I still need a copy of this book :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing