2017 Green Eggs Grading Contest Round 5 4 4

[NinjaSealed]

1 hour ago, 01TheDude said:

I feel a lot of these bulls eyes are the result of older, lower graded books. Several of us were talking about how we find it harder to nail down a grade on a high grade book versus reader grade copies. The cumulative effect of what level of damage is acceptable at those lower ranges actually narrows what to look for imo. On the high grade books-- it becomes more of a needle in the haystack you are trying to identify-- which is made even more difficult when dealing with the plastic casing and other general problems you imagine you are seeing. And how those high grade flaws are scored at the time CGC has them just makes it that much more difficult.

I feel I can grade between .5-8.0 very accurately. Above that it becomes a huge guessing game from my experience, outside of stone cold 9.8's.

[1950's war comics]

8 hours ago, tomo said:

The only apologies necessary are from the ones who now necessitated 5 more rounds of 9.8's that look like 9.2's.

Census be damned, I loved looking at those old books!

@tomo I agree , this annual tournament is my very favorite thing about these boards @thirdgreenham you put on a fabulously run tournament on your own time ! you provide great, sometimes obscure books 

for us to see, scan , enjoy and attempt to grade ! the lower grade books are actually the funnest and the most educational to grade whether the census helps or not......... !!!!

you and @sckao  always have, and continue to run, a BRILLIANTLY run tournament full of fun and agony ...just like most any sporting tournament !!

[1950's war comics]

9 minutes ago, NinjaSealed said:

I kind of lucked out. I have been submitting my grades super quick based on my initial opinion and didn't pay attention to all the red junk on the Gay Comics and almost submitted 6.0. I was debating between 4.5 and 5.0 after I noticed it. Slightly surprised they hammed it down to a straight 4.0, especially being GA.

Yep ! @thirdgreenham  provided a MASTERFUL  example  of what coloring will do to the grade of an otherwise "fine" looking book, i have learned so much in just three years of this UNIQUE   tournament...............

[AJD]

14 minutes ago, 1950's war comics said:

Yep ! @thirdgreenham  provided a MASTERFUL  example  of what coloring will do to the grade of an otherwise "fine" looking book, i have learned so much in just three years of this UNIQUE   tournament...............

That one was very informative. Personally, I think it should have been marked down way more. That scribbling essentially destroyed the value as a collectible for me. I gave it a 3.0, but I wouldn't buy a book like that at 3.0 money. Yet another example of 'buy the book, not the grade".

[oakman29]

Well I certainly hope that all those bullseyes were legit. I have  my doubts.

I see myself as a pretty damn good grader,but some of these books are very difficult.  I just have to wonder how the same people March right to the top just about every  year,coincidence?

 

[letsgrumble]

37 minutes ago, AJD said:

 

54 minutes ago, 1950's war comics said:

Yep ! @thirdgreenham  provided a MASTERFUL  example  of what coloring will do to the grade of an otherwise "fine" looking book, i have learned so much in just three years of this UNIQUE   tournament...............

That one was very informative. Personally, I think it should have been marked down way more. That scribbling essentially destroyed the value as a collectible for me. I gave it a 3.0, but I wouldn't buy a book like that at 3.0 money. Yet another example of 'buy the book, not the grade".

 

I asked that question on the boards years ago and got an informative response. Had no idea how to grade a book that would be otherwise be in the FN-VF range if not for heavy colouring/scribbling. The expert opinion seemed to be VG 4.0 (and I should have taken that advice for this contest).

 

[letsgrumble]

1 hour ago, 1950's war comics said:

 

10 hours ago, tomo said:

The only apologies necessary are from the ones who now necessitated 5 more rounds of 9.8's that look like 9.2's.

Census be damned, I loved looking at those old books!

@tomo I agree , this annual tournament is my very favorite thing about these boards @thirdgreenham you put on a fabulously run tournament on your own time ! you provide great, sometimes obscure books 

for us to see, scan , enjoy and attempt to grade ! the lower grade books are actually the funnest and the most educational to grade whether the census helps or not......... !!!!

you and @sckao  always have, and continue to run, a BRILLIANTLY run tournament full of fun and agony ...just like most any sporting tournament !!

 

+1

[SteppinRazor]

3 hours ago, 01TheDude said:

I feel a lot of these bulls eyes are the result of older, lower graded books. Several of us were talking about how we find it harder to nail down a grade on a high grade book versus reader grade copies. The cumulative effect of what level of damage is acceptable at those lower ranges actually narrows what to look for imo. On the high grade books-- it becomes more of a needle in the haystack you are trying to identify-- which is made even more difficult when dealing with the plastic casing and other general problems you imagine you are seeing. And how those high grade flaws are scored at the time CGC has them just makes it that much more difficult.

It is definitely easier to grade in the lower grades than high, as there is more to go on.  I got back two copies of the same book just recently and one is a 9.8, one a 9.6, and even with them in my hand I can see no difference.  An older book, you can see obvious flaws, yellowing, rounded corners, tears, etc..

That said, I expect some have been checking the census, which is a shame. I for one cantstop/wontstop playing though.  That would be as almost as rude to thirdgreenham and sckao as cheating IMO.

Edited August 12, 2017 by SteppinRazor

[Sandflea]

7 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

 

That said, I expect some have been checking the census, which is a shame. I for one cantstop/wontstop playing though.  That would be as almost as rude to thirdgreenham and sckao as cheating IMO.

+1

[letsgrumble]

11 hours ago, thirdgreenham said:

11 hours ago, Ron C. said:

I'm sorry, this is not fair. I saw this listing and yet I thought that this comic was worth less. Please, in the future, make sure that the comics to be graded are not easily accessible on the census.https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Jo-Jo+Comics&publisher=Fox+Features+Synd.&issue=7&year=1947&issuedate=7%2F47

Well, Ron, the fault really falls on me.  I like to use books in my contests that are either cool, rarely seen, have special defects that will be interesting to see how CGC handles it, and so on and so forth.  From doing this, I'd say that perhaps 6-8 of my 20 books used will have fairly low census numbers.  I will pay closer attention and try to use books that are harder to just look up.

As far as the census checking goes, I cannot control this.  I know that some here (perhaps many) will check the census to see how many graded copies there are out there.  This becomes less of a grading contest and more of a research project.  But, it is one of many tools that people use to ascertain what they think these books grade out as.  I must admit, I have used it too, but only after I've actually graded the book.  

It would be a shame to not be able to use the books that I want to use, but I do see that my choices need a little fine tuning.

Sorry everyone.  

Don't apologize. Everyone participating knows this is a grading contest not a CGC census look-up contest.

Wondering if CGC would agree to temporarily remove data from the census prior to running a contest like this on their forum. Especially if books were all recent submissions, perhaps on just one or few invoices. It is promoting their products and services after all. 

[Ron C.]

I am sorry for even bringing up the topic. Even more so now since it likely means more work for Andy and Shin (who already do so much to make this a fun event)!

Edited August 12, 2017 by Ron C.

[DeadOne]

35 minutes ago, Ron C. said:

I am sorry for even bringing up the topic. Even more so now since it likely means more work for Andy and Shim (who already do so much to make this a fun event)!

It not the first time that use of the census has been brought up.

I honestly think it's a non-issue.
If anyone honestly thinks that those in the top 10 or top 20 get there because they use the census to verify grades on (maybe) a half dozen books out of 20, and keep those spots (or very close to) year after year, they're nuts.
The top people in the contests every year are there because they know how CGC addresses flaws on books.

[sckao]

I agree. Using the Census has been brought up in basically EVERY Grading Contest.

It's not against the Rules and in real life, you would use whatever methods you had available to give someone an informed opinion if asked for a grade as a potential Subject Matter Expert. (That includes researching the book which would include past sales, other visual examples of the book in various grades, the CGC Census, your own experience, etc.)

It's a non-issue.

Short of running the Grading Contest in real-time at a Convention (grade by projector scan with a limited time per round), and the request that people not use their mobile devices to research the book... I don't see a work-around.

(You could also have a row of computers with large monitors that only show the books in question via a QUIZ format. This would allow each individual to blow up the scans, etc... but limit other research methods.)

Play on! 

Edited August 12, 2017 by sckao

[Azkaban]

7 minutes ago, DeadOne said:

It not the first time that use of the census has been brought up.

I honestly think it's a non-issue.
If anyone honestly thinks that those in the top 10 or top 20 get there because they use the census to verify grades on (maybe) a half dozen books out of 20, and keep those spots (or very close to) year after year, they're nuts.
The top people in the contests every year are there because they know how CGC addresses flaws on books.

yup, now the pressure is really on. I'm second guessing my grades more than I did before because with these higher grade books you can be off just a little and your points will go in the crapper and everyone will think you were cheating. I guess I'll be spending the next two days going over these with a fine tooth comb 

[oakman29]

Maybe CGC could help us out during these grading games, by closing access to the census data for the duration of the game.

That would keep everyone honest.

Of course I'm  sure the ones to rebutt this, are probably the ones who are padding their grading skills.

I don't  know, it's just a suggestion. 

[Sandflea]

13 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Maybe CGC could help us out during these grading games, by closing access to the census data for the duration of the game.

That would keep everyone honest.

Of course I'm  sure the ones to rebutt this, are probably the ones who are padding their grading skills.

I don't  know, it's just a suggestion. 

Could close access to contestants temporarily

Edited August 12, 2017 by Sandflea

[DeadOne]

13 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Maybe CGC could help us out during these grading games, by closing access to the census data for the duration of the game.

That would keep everyone honest.

Of course I'm  sure the ones to rebutt this, are probably the ones who are padding their grading skills.

I don't  know, it's just a suggestion. 

We can't even get a majority to agree to close the sales forum down for the 2 days of the VCC... but anything is possible.

[thirdgreenham]

1 hour ago, letsgrumble said:

12 hours ago, thirdgreenham said:

12 hours ago, Ron C. said:

I'm sorry, this is not fair. I saw this listing and yet I thought that this comic was worth less. Please, in the future, make sure that the comics to be graded are not easily accessible on the census.https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Jo-Jo+Comics&publisher=Fox+Features+Synd.&issue=7&year=1947&issuedate=7%2F47

Well, Ron, the fault really falls on me.  I like to use books in my contests that are either cool, rarely seen, have special defects that will be interesting to see how CGC handles it, and so on and so forth.  From doing this, I'd say that perhaps 6-8 of my 20 books used will have fairly low census numbers.  I will pay closer attention and try to use books that are harder to just look up.

As far as the census checking goes, I cannot control this.  I know that some here (perhaps many) will check the census to see how many graded copies there are out there.  This becomes less of a grading contest and more of a research project.  But, it is one of many tools that people use to ascertain what they think these books grade out as.  I must admit, I have used it too, but only after I've actually graded the book.  

It would be a shame to not be able to use the books that I want to use, but I do see that my choices need a little fine tuning.

Sorry everyone.  

Don't apologize. Everyone participating knows this is a grading contest not a CGC census look-up contest.

Wondering if CGC would agree to temporarily remove data from the census prior to running a contest like this on their forum. Especially if books were all recent submissions, perhaps on just one or few invoices. It is promoting their products and services after all. 

@Architecht  I doubt they would temporarily remove 20 serial numbers from their census, but I could be wrong.  Arch, if I wanted to reach out to someone at CGC, who would be a good person to start with?

Thanks,

Andy

[SteppinRazor]

21 minutes ago, DeadOne said:

We can't even get a majority to agree to close the sales forum down for the 2 days of the VCC... but anything is possible.

I didn't even know we were asked.  Or where.  Or when the VCC is.

[oakman29]

Regardless,  I love this place,and I love you guys. I'm  just happy to be in the game, and just to make it in the top 30+ is fine by me. You guys are the best collectors in the hobby, with the best collections in the hobby. Of course you're  going to be the best graders as well.