2018 Green Eggs Grading Contest - Round 2 5 5

[oakman29]

7.5! WHAT. 

[kav]

I think very few did ok this round so overall it should not affect final standing too much.

[Not A Clone]

9 minutes ago, Black_Adam said:

Maybe I didn't read far enough (I'm bad that way) and it said, "no more than a 1/4" triangle, 1/8" square or 1" long rectangle..." 

 

I'll have to stop using the grading guide or double check elsewhere, cause it doesn't mention the 1" in my book. 

[01TheDude]

7 minutes ago, kav said:

mathematically, wtf is a "1/4" triangle, 1/8" square or 1" rectangle"?  because in my book a 1" rectangle is WAY  bigger than a 1/8" square...

I cannot understand how any book missing a piece of the cover -- regardless of total size -- can get over a 3.0

[SpideyFein]

1 minute ago, oakman29 said:

7.5! WHAT. 

What??? Oak, you’re a legend! 

[kav]

Just now, 01TheDude said:

I cannot understand how any book missing a piece of the cover -- regardless of total size -- can get over a 3.0

ah but what if total size is ONE MICRON then what?

[jcjames]

22 minutes ago, Black_Adam said:

I thought the criteria for Very Good was no more than a 1/4" triangle or 1/8" square missing out of a corner of the cover - the chunk out of that Weird Chills looks big enough to write a grocery list on (assuming, like me, the only thing you buy at the supermarket is beer). 

There are no grading criteria for CGC.

And I would LOVE for them to prove me wrong.

 

[01TheDude]

Just now, kav said:

ah but what if total size is ONE MICRON then what?

like the corners of the Millie book (well multiple microns) ?

I am saying something obvious to the eye-- not just a rounded corner per se-- but a n observable piece clearly missing from a cover. No other collector would see that as OK over a 3.0 imo. I guess you can throw out the rule book with GA books a little perhaps. I mean-- yeah-- scarce or hard to find 60+ some odd years old books might get special rules. I get that. Just makes me think GA Universal is a somewhat "qualified" grading system in blue clothing.

[kav]

Just now, 01TheDude said:

like the corners of the Millie book (well multiple microns) ?

I am saying something obvious to the eye-- not just a rounded corner per se-- but a n observable piece clearly missing from a cover. No other collector would see that as OK over a 3.0 imo. I guess you can throw out the rule book with GA books a little perhaps. I mean-- yeah-- scarce or hard to find 60+ some odd years old books might get special rules. I get that. Just makes me think GA Universal is a somewhat "qualified" grading system in blue clothing.

But if you make that rule then you have to keep downgrading depending on size of piece and that way lies chaos:
1/8"  3.0

1/4" 2.5

1" 2.0

1.5" 1.8

2" 1.5

2.5" 1.0

3" 0.5

3.5" 0

4" -1

4.5" -2

etc

[Hudson]

11 minutes ago, 01TheDude said:

I cannot understand how any book missing a piece of the cover -- regardless of total size -- can get over a 3.0

+1 (sorry for the "old school" +1, but this deserves more than a "like").

I might not agree with "any" size, as some might say a 1/100th of an inch chip does not deserve such treatment, however, the piece off that Weird certainly qualifies as large enough.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Hudson

[SpideyFein]

We may all have stories, but I once graded a SC22, was sure it was going 2.0-2.5 because of a chunk slightly bigger than the Weird Chills, and it came back 4.0. I couldn’t believe my eyes. Granted, it was on the back cover. I think placement of the missing piece must play a factor. 

[01TheDude]

7 minutes ago, kav said:

But if you make that rule then you have to keep downgrading depending on size of piece and that way lies chaos:
1/8"  3.0

1/4" 2.5

1" 2.0

1.5" 1.8

2" 1.5

2.5" 1.0

3" 0.5

3.5" 0

4" -1

4.5" -2

etc

I made no assertion below 3.0 or saying that the total area of the missing piece correlates directly to a grade level. I'm saying it should be treated sort of like how most of us understand a large crease you get with a subscription copy cannot get a grade better  than 4.5-- as an example. A generally agreed upon level of what defects impact the overall potential grade of a book. Now certainly -- some of these defects will overlap but if you take the most damaging defect (the one most serious to the overall grade)-- all the others can fall under that same umbrella.

 

I think some folks are used to looking at the high grade stuff and start counting spine ticks etc-- and deducting from 10.0 . My method is -- hey-- this book can't be better than X because of condition Y. That gives me a ceiling and I look to see if other defects are cumulative enough to bring it down more than the main defect.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, 01TheDude said:

I made no assertion below 3.0 or saying that the total area of the missing piece correlates directly to a grade level. I'm saying it should be treated sort of like how most of us understand a large crease you get with a subscription copy cannot get a grade better  than 4.5-- as an example. A generally agreed upon level of what defects impact the overall potential grade of a book. Now certainly -- some of these defects will overlap but if you take the most damaging defect (the one most serious to the overall grade)-- all the others can fall under that same umbrella.

 

I think some folks are used to looking at the high grade stuff and start counting spine ticks etc-- and deducting from 10.0 . My method is -- hey-- this book can't be better than X because of condition Y. That gives me a ceiling and I look to see if other defects are cumulative enough to bring it down more than the main defect.

I get that but with a sub crease you have one defect that is always the same size.  Trying to make a similar rule for something that varies wildly in size does not work, IMO.  Size matters, as they say.

[FineCollector]

I went 3.5 on the Weird Chills.  Personally, I'd call it a 2.5, but I knew it wouldn't go that low.  Had it just been the piece out, I would've guessed 4.0, but the spine split below it seemed too much.

[01TheDude]

10 minutes ago, kav said:

I get that but with a sub crease you have one defect that is always the same size.  Trying to make a similar rule for something that varies wildly in size does not work, IMO.  Size matters, as they say.

No-- you are trying to make distinctions that I am not defining. For me-- personally-- I cannot give a book with a piece missing from the cover over a 3.0. That is not saying what grade I might give it-- just that I won't go over 3.0. More missing?-- probably a lower grade than 3.0.

My guess is that the ceiling for CGC GA books in that condition must be 4.0 and maybe that is fair for those books. And as someone mentioned-- the position and size of the missing piece may make it have less impact to the grade in CGC's eyes.

Edited June 14, 2018 by 01TheDude

[kav]

3 minutes ago, 01TheDude said:

No-- you are trying to make distinctions that I am not defining. For me-- personally-- I cannot give a book with a piece missing from the cover over a 3.0. That is not saying what grade I might give it-- just that I won't go over 3.0. More missing?-- probably a lower grade than 3.0.

My guess is that the ceiling for CGC GA books in that condition must be 4.0 and maybe that is fair for those books. And as someone mentioned-- the position and size of the missing piece may make it have less impact to the grade in CGC's eyes.

But you havent defined what 'a piece' is.  1/4"? 1/8"? 1/16"? 1/64"? 1/5455667778889"?
 

[Red84]

I had 4.5 and 6.0

[01TheDude]

4 minutes ago, kav said:

But you havent defined what 'a piece' is.  1/4"? 1/8"? 1/16"? 1/64"? 1/5455667778889"?
 

I also don't work for CGC - these are my personal standards. Stop being so obtuse.

[thirdgreenham]

Y’all never heard of the Nik bump?  

[porcupine48]

Ugh.I missed a round.Shame