2022 CGC Grading Contest Season 1 Spring Edition (#2) Round 1 27 27

[sledgehammer]

If you can have color lift, why couldn't you have gloss lift?

The difference in appearance at the top staple is pretty severe.

Edited April 30, 2022 by sledgehammer

[kav]

On 4/29/2022 at 8:51 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Sounds like me looking back at what I submitted and trying to figure out why I thought some of those grades were even close.

 

 

[kav]

On 4/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, Axe Elf said:

Well, they're the ones who write grading guidelines.

I personally had it at 2.5, since those who write grading guidelines think Marvel chipping should be limited to the "Good" category (i.e., no higher than 3.0), and I didn't think the book was totally pristine even outside of missing the entire leading edge of the front cover.

CGC can just file it away under "learning experiences."

maybe they could hire you to explain grading to them!   

[Galen130]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:11 PM, kav said:

maybe they could hire you to explain grading to them!   

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 1:37 AM, Axe Elf said:

From my limited experience on this site, I understand that it is frowned upon to mention any competition by name--but surely there is a tacit understanding that competition EXISTS.  Therefore, it should be obvious that...

1) CGC isn't the only one who writes grading guidelines;

and, from daily perusal of the "Quality Control" type threads, it should be obvious that...

2) Even if CGC has grading guidelines, they are not internally consistent in observing them--occasionally egregiously so.

This latter fact seems to be so widely known that it's worth an extra year's wait and another $75 to crack open a 9.4 and send it back in on the chance it might get a 9.8 this time (and repeat customers are often rewarded for their persistence--and sometimes they get a 7.5...  WAH Wah wah...).

It is my contention that if CGC is allowing that kind of damage in books graded above 3.0 because it has a special name, then objectively (not just from the perspective of "CGC Grading Standards"--if any such thing exists), that is an error.

Your mileage may vary...

  The guy who started the other main company was previously head grader at CGC.

Edited April 30, 2022 by kav

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:09 PM, kav said:

 

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 1:19 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

[ttfitz]

On 4/30/2022 at 7:33 AM, skypinkblu said:

I'm always impressed with those who can do it well...and I'm sure you did fine!

Well, looks like I got double your score. But at least I'm not last!

Looks like I'll have to hold off on laughing at you for the moment, 

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:13 PM, kav said:

  The guy who started the other main company was previously head grader at CGC.

Maybe that guy is "objectively incorrect," too? 

It's a shame, isn't it, that we don't all have unclouded apprehension of the Platonic ideal of these grades, which evidently precede CGC's flawed attempts to implement them?

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:00 PM, trystero17 said:

Maybe that guy is "objectively incorrect," too? 

It's a shame, isn't it, that we don't all have unclouded apprehension of the Platonic ideal of these grades, which evidently precede CGC's flawed attempts to implement them?

Irrelevant to the point I was making.  Elf was saying 'different companies grade different'.  Elf is that you?

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:03 PM, kav said:

Irrelevant to the point I was making.  Elf was saying 'different companies grade different'.  Elf is that you?

No no, I'm agreeing with you. Just articulating it poorly.

Yes, Elf was saying different companies grade differently (which, as you point out, is at least debatable), but also that the way CGC does is "incorrect"... which to me implies that there's some sort of objectively "correct" grading standard independent of whatever an individual company happens to do.

Edited April 30, 2022 by trystero17

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:08 PM, trystero17 said:

No no, I'm agreeing with you. Just articulating it poorly.

Yes, Elf was saying different companies grade differently (which, as you point out, is at least debatable), but also that the way CGC does is "incorrect"... which to me implies that there's some sort of objectively "correct" grading standard independent of whatever an individual company happens to do.

ah I understand now.  Yes it's an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect for sure.

[CJ Design]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:12 PM, kav said:

ah I understand now.  Yes it's an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect for sure.

like this example?

 

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:11 PM, kav said:

maybe they could hire you to explain grading to them!   

Appreesh the respect, but there's probly someone who is more qualified, more local--and more interested in the job--than I am.

But I agree, they do need someone to come in and help establish grading standards that are more consistent both internally and externally.  As long as it's a game of Yahtzee, it's hard to take any grade in a CGC holder at face value.

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:44 PM, Axe Elf said:

Appreesh the respect, but there's probly someone who is more qualified, more local--and more interested in the job--than I am.

But I agree, they do need someone to come in and help establish grading standards that are more consistent both internally and externally.  As long as it's a game of Yahtzee, it's hard to take any grade in a CGC holder at face value.

 2 people thought the Hulk book was a 3.0.  Not a strong argument for your grading being better than CGC, but very strong argument for Dunning-Kruger.

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:13 PM, kav said:

  The guy who started the other main company was previously head grader at CGC.

He apparently had many of the same misgivings about his former company that the current forum population does.  At least he actually did something about it, instead of endlessly complaining about CGC's inconsistent quality while continuing to submit books to them for services.

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:49 PM, Axe Elf said:

He apparently had many of the same misgivings about his former company that the current forum population does.  At least he actually did something about it, instead of endlessly complaining about CGC's inconsistent quality while continuing to submit books to them for services.

Irrelevant to my point-his grading is the same.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

Personally I prefer the Dunder Mifflin approach. 

Specifically Dwights philosophy .

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:00 PM, trystero17 said:

It's a shame, isn't it, that we don't all have unclouded apprehension of the Platonic ideal of these grades, which evidently precede CGC's flawed attempts to implement them?

Exactly this.

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:08 PM, trystero17 said:

No no, I'm agreeing with you. Just articulating it poorly.

Yes, Elf was saying different companies grade differently (which, as you point out, is at least debatable), but also that the way CGC does is "incorrect"... which to me implies that there's some sort of objectively "correct" grading standard independent of whatever an individual company happens to do.