OWL card

[shadroch]

Overstreet does state that the owl cards are obsolete. not sure where,but I'm certain I've read it in a publication.

[read_em-migration]

Overstreet does state that the owl cards are obsolete. not sure where,but I'm certain I've read it in a publication.

 

Here's how to tell if the OWL card is obsolete or not: if Arnold comes on here and scolds us for posting the card, it's NOT obsolete!

[october]

Surely to god, you guys don't think a scanned OWL card is accurate, do you?

I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I was thinking just the same, but it should be ok to use once printed out!

 

 

It will take me about two seconds to see if it is accurate or not as scanned. I can compare it to books that I have that have white pages, off-white, ect and if the colors match, the card is good. Besides, it not a [#@$%!!!] thermometer or some delicate scientific instrument. It's meant as a guide, nothing more. You guys are so nit-picky, this isn't NASA.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

The story of the OWL card and why it is not a "ploy" or a marketing gimmick to not include one (cynics, all of you) and why it is INDEED obsolete (yes, obsolete):

 

The OWL card was printed as a special bonus and included with the first Grading Guide back in 1992. At the time, Bob was unhappy with it even then. The concept was a nice one, but flawed. There was no way to guarantee consistent colors even across a single print run, and even then - as has already been stated here - there are so many different "white" starting points, and even comics with yellow, pink and other starting shades, that a universal card meter, while a cute idea, is ultimately useless.

 

When we went to make the new Grading Guide in 2002, we considered trying a new OWL card because we knew some people would want one. But no matter how meticulous you are in the printing, you still can't guarantee it will be perfect, and the flaw in the concept is still there. And we couldn't reuse the old cards because the colors were definitely different from one card to the next, and the reverse has the old 100 point system. So it's a dead issue and an obsolete card.

 

HOWEVER: We know some people still liked the idea, and we still have a bunch of old OWL cards, so whenever anybody asks for one, we still send them out for a token price for shipping or something, like a dollar I think, but we make it clear that they do not correspond to the current grading scale nor is the paper meter really accurate.

 

SO WHY ARE THE OWL NUMBERS IN THE NEW GUIDE? Because once again, we knew that some readers were devotees of the old edition and liked the OWL card and might want to know how the new Guide might correspond to the old card. So we threw them in just as a nice bonus if anybody wanted to know. But we do not support the OWL card as an accurate or up to date measure of paper quality or grade. It's now just a nostalgic little relic of another time.

 

OK?

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Oh and technically you are still violating Gemstone copyright by posting the old OWL card here and we would appreciate you not doing that.

[read_em-migration]

Oh and technically you are still violating Gemstone copyright by posting the old OWL card here and we would appreciate you not doing that.

 

! Perfect Arnold, thanks...

[Dr_Neff]

HOWEVER: We know some people still liked the idea, and we still have a bunch of old OWL cards, so whenever anybody asks for one, we still send them out for a token price for shipping or something, like a dollar I think,

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Blumberg,

 

I would like a box of the OWL cards and would be happy to pay for shipping no kidding. Please LMK how much to send you to cover postage. Thanks so much !

 

Comics4Kids

20825 State Rt. 410 East # 413

Bonney Lake, WA 98390

 

 

It was a lot of fun working on the Grading Guide 2nd Edition and I really wanted to say again how cool it turned out my man! Looking forward to the Big Big Edition of OPG # 35 this year too.

[Aces]

Oh and technically you are still violating Gemstone copyright by posting the old OWL card here and we would appreciate you not doing that.

 

I was just trying to be helpful.

 

[october]

Oh and technically you are still violating Gemstone copyright by posting the old OWL card here and we would appreciate you not doing that.

 

I was just trying to be helpful.

 

 

Sorry I got you in trouble.

[Aces]

Oh and technically you are still violating Gemstone copyright by posting the old OWL card here and we would appreciate you not doing that.

 

I was just trying to be helpful.

 

 

If it's obsolete now, how is there any copyright violation?

 

If I post a pic of a buggy whip will the decendants of the buggy whip companies come get me?

[DiceX]

Surely to god, you guys don't think a scanned OWL card is accurate, do you?

I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I was thinking just the same, but it should be ok to use once printed out!

 

 

It will take me about two seconds to see if it is accurate or not as scanned. I can compare it to books that I have that have white pages, off-white, ect and if the colors match, the card is good. Besides, it not a [#@$%!!!] thermometer or some delicate scientific instrument. It's meant as a guide, nothing more. You guys are so nit-picky, this isn't NASA.

 

It's not nit-picky. There is no way in hell you can scan an OWL card and print it on a printer and be *remotely* close. Have you learned nothing from reading the boards?

 

I suggest taking Arnold up on his post and buying one from Gemstone for a buck.

[october]

Surely to god, you guys don't think a scanned OWL card is accurate, do you?

I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I was thinking just the same, but it should be ok to use once printed out!

 

 

It will take me about two seconds to see if it is accurate or not as scanned. I can compare it to books that I have that have white pages, off-white, ect and if the colors match, the card is good. Besides, it not a [#@$%!!!] thermometer or some delicate scientific instrument. It's meant as a guide, nothing more. You guys are so nit-picky, this isn't NASA.

 

It's not nit-picky. There is no way in hell you can scan an OWL card and print it on a printer and be *remotely* close. Have you learned nothing from reading the boards?

 

I suggest taking Arnold up on his post and buying one from Gemstone for a buck.

 

Are you kidding? What makes an OWL card so amazingly special that its colors can't be reproduced on a scan and print? I agree it won't be totally accurate, but not even "remotely" close? Besides, as was said before, paper stock is so vaired among different ages, companies and runs that it is not that great of a guide to begin with.

 

In any case, if I want one I will order one. So lets not get into another inane flame war over another trivial topic......unless you want to?

[DiceX]

Surely to god, you guys don't think a scanned OWL card is accurate, do you?

I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I was thinking just the same, but it should be ok to use once printed out!

 

 

It will take me about two seconds to see if it is accurate or not as scanned. I can compare it to books that I have that have white pages, off-white, ect and if the colors match, the card is good. Besides, it not a [#@$%!!!] thermometer or some delicate scientific instrument. It's meant as a guide, nothing more. You guys are so nit-picky, this isn't NASA.

 

It's not nit-picky. There is no way in hell you can scan an OWL card and print it on a printer and be *remotely* close. Have you learned nothing from reading the boards?

 

I suggest taking Arnold up on his post and buying one from Gemstone for a buck.

 

Are you kidding? What makes an OWL card so amazingly special that its colors can't be reproduced on a scan and print? I agree it won't be totally accurate, but not even "remotely" close? Besides, as was said before, paper stock is so vaired among different ages, companies and runs that it is not that great of a guide to begin with.

 

In any case, if I want one I will order one. So lets no get into another inane flame war over another trivial topic......unless you want to?

 

I was just trying to help.

I had no idea that your home printer was calibrated below 1.0/de of SWOP TR-001, nor that Aces has a color calibrated monitor and the scan (without an imbedded ICC profile) was an exact color representation of the card.

Please accept my apologies for pointing out what *appeared* to be a flaw in your idea.

I stand corrected.

[october]

Surely to god, you guys don't think a scanned OWL card is accurate, do you?

I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I was thinking just the same, but it should be ok to use once printed out!

 

 

It will take me about two seconds to see if it is accurate or not as scanned. I can compare it to books that I have that have white pages, off-white, ect and if the colors match, the card is good. Besides, it not a [#@$%!!!] thermometer or some delicate scientific instrument. It's meant as a guide, nothing more. You guys are so nit-picky, this isn't NASA.

 

It's not nit-picky. There is no way in hell you can scan an OWL card and print it on a printer and be *remotely* close. Have you learned nothing from reading the boards?

 

I suggest taking Arnold up on his post and buying one from Gemstone for a buck.

 

Are you kidding? What makes an OWL card so amazingly special that its colors can't be reproduced on a scan and print? I agree it won't be totally accurate, but not even "remotely" close? Besides, as was said before, paper stock is so vaired among different ages, companies and runs that it is not that great of a guide to begin with.

 

In any case, if I want one I will order one. So lets no get into another inane flame war over another trivial topic......unless you want to?

 

I was just trying to help.

I had no idea that your home printer was calibrated below 1.0/de of SWOP TR-001, nor that Aces has a color calibrated monitor and the scan (without an imbedded ICC profile) was an exact color representation of the card.

Please accept my apologies for pointing out what *appeared* to be a flaw in your idea.

I stand corrected.

 

I understood approximately 4 words in your last post.

[Jayman]

Surely to god, you guys don't think a scanned OWL card is accurate, do you?

I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I was thinking just the same, but it should be ok to use once printed out!

 

 

It will take me about two seconds to see if it is accurate or not as scanned. I can compare it to books that I have that have white pages, off-white, ect and if the colors match, the card is good. Besides, it not a [#@$%!!!] thermometer or some delicate scientific instrument. It's meant as a guide, nothing more. You guys are so nit-picky, this isn't NASA.

 

It's not nit-picky. There is no way in hell you can scan an OWL card and print it on a printer and be *remotely* close. Have you learned nothing from reading the boards?

 

I suggest taking Arnold up on his post and buying one from Gemstone for a buck.

 

Are you kidding? What makes an OWL card so amazingly special that its colors can't be reproduced on a scan and print? I agree it won't be totally accurate, but not even "remotely" close? Besides, as was said before, paper stock is so vaired among different ages, companies and runs that it is not that great of a guide to begin with.

 

In any case, if I want one I will order one. So lets not get into another inane flame war over another trivial topic......unless you want to?

 

Nothing makes it special OF, it's just that your monitor or printer won't even come close to reproducing the tints of white to brown of the OWL card. That in itself defeats the purpose to use it as a guide.

[october]

[Jayman]

Darn hunt-n-peck typing method!

[october]

Darn hunt-n-peck typing method!

 

Me too...but I have gotten insanly good at it. I don't use the home row, but I can still type without looking at the keyboard. My hands just kind of float above it. My own semi-retarded method of typing.

[read_em-migration]

Dr Neff - I like your avatar - did you win a copy of the OGG signed by Bob and Arnold too?

[DiceX]

Darn hunt-n-peck typing method!

 

Me too...but I have gotten insanly good at it. I don't use the home row, but I can still type without looking at the keyboard. My hands just kind of float above it. My own semi-retarded method of typing.

 

It's funny how all my friends made fun of me for taking Typing 1 and 2 when I was in high school 20 years ago.

The same guys that peck out words while I smoke by them at roughly 90 wpm.