2022 CGC Grading Contest Season 1 Spring Edition (#2) Round 1 28 28

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:47 PM, kav said:

 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.

Who cares how many people had it at 3.0?  I personally had it at 2.5, as I said before.

I'm more concerned with people getting it RIGHT--especially the people who get paid to ostensibly provide an "objective standard."

[trystero17]

 

On 4/30/2022 at 5:53 PM, Axe Elf said:

On 4/30/2022 at 5:00 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.

 

I... I just want to pour chocolate sauce on the irony here and eat it.

 

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:55 PM, Axe Elf said:

Who cares how many people had it at 3.0?  I personally had it at 2.5, as I said before.

I'm more concerned with people getting it RIGHT--especially the people who get paid to ostensibly provide an "objective standard."

so, CGC is wrong, long time collectors are wrong, everybody is wrong, but you.  Based on because you say so.  Got it.

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:56 PM, trystero17 said:

 

 

I... I just want to pour chocolate sauce on the irony here and eat it.

 

sherlock holmes would have understood your clarification.
@Galen130

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:56 PM, trystero17 said:

 

 

I... I just want to pour chocolate sauce on the irony here and eat it.

 

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:52 PM, kav said:

Irrelevant to my point-his grading is the same.

At this point, yours is at best an unsubstantiated claim.  I would be interested to hear his grade for the Hulk in question, as well as the opinions of others who have the responsibility of writing grading guidelines, such as this guy's opinion:

LINK

GOOD
On older Marvels in this category, small pieces missing from the edges are usually evident. These are known as "Marvel Chips."

[kav]

On 4/29/2022 at 7:41 PM, Axe Elf said:

I really hope you guys weren't too hard on the poor newbie grader who gave that Hulk a 4.0.  I mean OBVIOUSLY he has to be fired--there's no way a book with an entire EDGE missing from the front cover can be higher than a 3.0--but I hope you at least sent him off with a nice severance package, and didn't just kick him to the curb.  I'm sure he had the best of intentions.

So when will the corrected grade be posted?

 

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:02 PM, Axe Elf said:

At this point, yours is at best an unsubstantiated claim.  I would be interested to hear his grade for the Hulk in question, as well as the opinions of others who have the responsibility of writing grading guidelines, such as this guy's opinion:

LINK

 

As I said, the grading contests are a great way to learn about grading-as long as you dont think you already know everything.  

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:57 PM, kav said:

so, CGC is wrong, long time collectors are wrong, everybody is wrong, but you.  Based on because you say so.  Got it.

This would be a gross misinterpretation of everything I have written to date in this thread.

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:05 PM, Axe Elf said:

This would be a gross misinterpretation of everything I have written to date in this thread.

naw

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:55 PM, Axe Elf said:

Who cares how many people had it at 3.0?  I personally had it at 2.5, as I said before.

I'm more concerned with people getting it RIGHT--especially the people who get paid to ostensibly provide an "objective standard."

And that's the crux of it.

"Getting it right," by what standard? Because you have to pick a standard. Because there IS no "objective standard." None. There never has been and never will be.

All you can do is pick the arbitrary standard you're going to use, knowing full well that is IS arbitrary. Preferring one such arbitrary standard over another doesn't make either one correct or incorrect.

Edited April 30, 2022 by trystero17

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:05 PM, kav said:

As I said, the grading contests are a great way to learn about grading...

Hopefully that will be the end result.

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:06 PM, trystero17 said:

Because there IS no "objective standard." None.

This would be the general substance of my objection, along with a plea for one to be developed to replace this current system of grade Yahtzee.

CGC thinks it's ok for a book to be missing the entire leading edge of its front cover, as long as they can call it "Marvel chipping."  Other grading standards (including most people's common sense) think that missing the entire leading edge of the front cover is a serious flaw.  There's this illusion that CGC offers some guarantee of objectivity and consistency, when a day's perusal of this forum clearly indicates this is not the case.

Everyone here seems to recognize it as a problem, but now I'm saying it's a problem in relation to this contest, and suddenly CGC is the Infinite Source of the Infallible.  I recognize that within the confines of this contest--they are--but in the larger, real-world context, not so much.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Axe Elf

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:06 PM, trystero17 said:

And that's the crux of it.

"Getting it right," by what standard? Because you have to pick a standard. Because there IS no "objective standard." None. There never has been and never will be.

All you can do is pick the arbitrary standard you're going to use, knowing full well that is IS arbitrary. Preferring one such arbitrary standard over another doesn't make either one correct or incorrect.

I think he wants to be the standard.  He's said a couple times now CGC needs to learn from him.  

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:08 PM, Axe Elf said:

On 4/30/2022 at 6:06 PM, trystero17 said:

Because there IS no "objective standard." None.

This would be the general substance of my objection, along with a plea for one to be developed to replace this current system of grade Yahtzee.

 

 

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:08 PM, Axe Elf said:

This would be the general substance of my objection, along with a plea for one to be developed to replace this current system of grade Yahtzee.

as soon as you create an objective standard for a subjective analysis, lemme know.  I'd be very interested in an objective standard for 'art' for example.

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:10 PM, kav said:

as soon as you create an objective standard for a subjective analysis, lemme know.  I'd be very interested in an objective standard for 'art' for example.

I, for one, would love to be able to settle within my circle of friends, once and for all, objectively, whose taste in music is correct.

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:12 PM, trystero17 said:

I, for one, would love to be able to settle within my circle of friends, once and for all, objectively, whose taste in music is correct.

yours is, most likely-

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:12 PM, trystero17 said:

I, for one, would love to be able to settle within my circle of friends, once and for all, objectively, whose taste in music is correct.

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:13 PM, kav said:

yours is, most likely-

I mean, one of us has to be correct, right? That's how it works, isn't it?