OS Grading Guide Contradictions

[seank]

Help me out here folks:

 

Page 186 of the OS Grading Guide, for 9.0 VF/NM comics: "Corners are cut square and sharp with ever-so-slight blunting permitted but no creases."

 

Page 187: Corners -- No creases

 

Page 194: a picture of Arrgh! #1, in VF/NM 9.0 and in the upper right corner, a crease that is pointed out.

 

Page 196, MTU #54 in 9.0, check out the bottom left corner. It's worse than a clean crease. Someone was smoking something when they graded this 9.0.

 

Page 197, DD 156, also in 9.0, bottom right corner. They say it's a fold, but isn't that the same as a crease?

 

So are creases allowed or not allowed in 9.0 VF/NM comics? I've noticed other discrepancies in the Grading Guide:

 

Page 175 states "Almost no stress lines" in the spine for a NM- 9.2 book. Also, "No color break" for cover creases.

 

Page 184 has a so-called NM- 9.2 Gen 3 #3. Check out the spine. About 1/3 down is that a huge stress line that breaks color? Not to mention there's several other visible stress lines. This is "Almost no stress lines?"

 

So what's everyone's thoughts on these discrepancies, the status of corner folds/creases in 9.0 books, and stress lines in 9.2 books?

 

[shadroch]

I found the entire book to be confusing and am sorry I waisted my money on it. The guide included in the price guide is every bit as good,is less confusing and saves you $20. First Overstreet product I have been disappointed in. Folds vs Creases?

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I would fall back on the old "we're only human" defense, but when it comes to subjects like these, that never satisfies anybody. Without looking at the specific examples, I can't speak to them as yet, but I will clarify one point - folds and creases are not the same thing. I think we covered this in another thread here a while back, so maybe somebody can helpfully supply the relevant passage where we discussed the difference between folds and creases.

 

But there is something else to consider as well - nothing in the Grading Guide is meant to be written in stone. We even say as much several times. And although I'm not going to defend any such visual contradictions without looking at them specifically, I can say that when these discrepancies come up, I would argue that they're less about contradiction and more about pointing out that no rule, no matter how specific, is absolute. Given an absence of other flaws and a general look that is particularly eye-catching or desireable, it is very possible that a flaw otherwise NOT allowed in a certain grade might be present and still be considered worthy of that grade due to the absence of other flaws. Remember too that a grade is not just about certain flaws being present, but about a certain range of accumulation of those flaws being present at the same time.

 

Was that too long-winded and rambling? Hope not.

 

Arnold

[OldGuy]

"nothing in the Grading Guide is meant to be written in stone"

 

Riiiight. Lets look at the cover of the grading guide.

 

 

Now let's define "definitive".

 

1. Precisely defined or explicit.

2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive. See Synonyms at decisive.

3. Authoritative and complete

 

My hats off to Overstreet. He's managed to know it all and not be perfect at the same time.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

There's really no winning with some people, so I won't bother to prolong this conversation much longer. But as the author, I can state clearly and for the record - *nothing* in the book is meant to be delivered to any collector on stone tablets. That's why it's called the Grading GUIDE and not the Grading manifesto or Bob's Orders About How All Human Beings Must Grade. It's meant to be a definitive GUIDE, not the final word. What we state, we state with authority and with as much exactitude as we can in some areas, and in others we are *deliberately* vague so as to allow multiple interpretations. This is a community that cannot - no matter what you may think - handle absolutes. There are too many people and too many opinions. The best this kind of book can do is give you a road map and a common vocabulary. And that's it. It was never meant to be the end of the conversation, but just another step along the way. I'm very sorry if some people still don't get that, but what can I do? *shrug*

 

Anyway, if you really don't like it, you can grade however you like. It's OK with me .

 

Arnold

[OldGuy]

"we are *deliberately* vague so as to allow multiple interpretations"

 

"if you really don't like it, you can grade however you like"

 

I get it. I should grade however I like and failing that I need to just grade however I like. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Seriously though, I think the new grading guide is a great step forward for the hobby. I like the guide so much that I'm even giving away a copy (I won it from CGC) in this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=32744&item=2166053400

 

Anything that gets people in the same book, much less on the same page is a good thing. Do me a favor though, don't come in here acting like God's gift with statements like "There's really no winning with some people. All that does is make "some people" think you're a condescending [!@#%^&^] and will ensure that no one "wins".

[murph0]

In truth, you probably really never will satisfy everyone. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. For a majority of the people it'll be an excellent tool to help grade books. For a few people, it'll be just one more thing to complain about.

 

Brian

[seank]

I love the grading guide, too, and think it's a valuable asset. However, there is a big difference between saying "No creases" in 9.2 then showing an example of a 9.2 book and pointing to a crease as an acceptable flaw in that grade, and saying "Insignificant creases under 1/32" is acceptable in 9.2 and showing the same picture. A new collector is going to be very confused by this, especially nowadays when the difference betwen a VF and an NM comic are so small and can mean much in the way of $$$$. "No creases" to me means none, zero, zip, zilch, nice flat corners--not one small crease when the other three corners are flat. That's just plain language.

 

Overall I think the Grading Guide is a great resource and tool, but it does have some "deficiencies" that should be addressed in later printings or editions.

[shadroch]

Would someone please direct me to the thread on Folds vs. Creases. Maybe it will help me out as I seem to have a blind spot on this grading point and would love to gain the knowledge of my fellow collectors

[shadroch]

My biggest disappointment with the book was I thought it spent way too much time covering books from 9.4 to 10.0. Who besides CGC can really judge a 10.0. I was looking for a difinitive guide to grade vg to vf books,which to me seem to be the books most often encountered. I was hoping to learn what to deduct from a VF looking book for defects such as -a coupon being filled out but still intact,writing on inside of book, MVS being removed,but then put back., water or food stains on one or two pages of interior.I also thought page quality and coloring were given short shift. I've been collecting comics since 1973 and remember when the Overstreet spread between Mint and good was mint books bring double good,fine books bring 50% more than good. I have long used only Overstreet,whereas my competitors were using Comic ValueMonthly, or Wizard, Hero, or any other short-lived attempt to manipulate the market. This book may be,and will be, useful for a lot of people,just not me

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

But I *am* condescending, didn't you notice that?

 

I really do like these forums, I have to say. Even when there are disagreements, everybody seems to discuss them intelligently and in good spirits. At least that's the experience I've had here, and it's very refreshing.

 

I'll be the first to admit that no matter what I say about the book, of course there are things that need to be ironed out in a future edition. No such follow-up is planned for the near future, however, but we certainly won't be able to fix these problems if you don't speak up. So your feedback is always welcome, even when I *am* condescending.

 

Arnold

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Are you writing feedback down or something? I remember you saying something like "God I hope I'm not the one who has to work on the next grading guide" during a previous thread containing criticism. Elephants--and 500 pound gorillas--never forget!!!

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

It's almost impossible to keep track of things on these threads, although on occasion I've tried to cut and paste to keep an archive. I would recommend that to be sure I don't miss it, it's best to e-mail or snail mail important feedback. Besides, that way we can document all of it for when it's important and production begins on any pertinent book. Message boards are great for regular communication but it's just too difficult to archive this stuff.

 

Arnold

[Illiterati-migration]

That's why it's called the Grading GUIDE and not the Grading manifesto or Bob's Orders About How All Human Beings Must Grade.

 

Here I thought it was called the "Grading GUIDE" because you enjoyed the alliteration...

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Hey, I enjoy alliteration as much as the next guy. But enough exciting extraneous exposition, effendi!

 

Excelsior!

 

Arnold

[FlyingDonut]

Bob's Orders About How All Human Beings Must Grade

 

Where do I buy it?

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

 

I'll have to get the team to work on it right away!

 

Arnold

[PovertyRow]

Not sure about contradictions but this is a handy place - got my copy of the grading guide a few days ago. Examined it and studied it and am pretty dissapointed (sorry Arnold). The images are just too small. There are VGs in there where the defects are so hidden by the size of the image that I bet it they were scanned into this board they would be rated quite a bit higher.

 

I'm not sure why it was decided that the entire cover had to be shown in basically a smaller format book. Magnifying the defects to almost the full page, but trimming the image back to only show the defect, would have been preferable. A few cropped images could have been shown on one page so we could actually SEE the defect (there are many, many defects I have to almost "pretend" I can see just to keep up with the book) but the defects are what is being highlighted but they end up being lowlighted. We all know what a full cover looks like and can pretty easily extrapolate from an enlarged image of just a defect area.

 

I really am dissapointed in this (truly sorry to say - was a huge fan of the first one).

 

 

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I'm sorry you're disappointed. Some people seem to like it the way it is, some people absolutely despise it, and some people just kind of go "eh." Oh well, can't win 'em all.

[PovertyRow]

I'm sorry you're disappointed. Some people seem to like it the way it is, some people absolutely despise it, and some people just kind of go "eh." Oh well, can't win 'em all.

 

Arnold, I am really sorry to even post this. Put yourself in the place of someone who really needs a grading guide - I mean forget what you know about grading, and then open that book and try to discern the fine points what is being illustrated. Honestly, do you think you could really make use of many of those examples?

 

(BTW - I really feel like scum having to post this)