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

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:17 PM, trystero17 said:

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

yep

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:08 PM, kav said:

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

Axually, YOU'VE said that a couple of times now.  I've repeated what many people on the board have said--CGC needs to learn to be more consistent and objective--but even though you've nominated me for the job a few times, and I have always appreciated the respect, I have also always politely declined your appointment in deference to someone more qualified, more local, and more interested in the job.

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:10 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.

Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

What IS relevant is that many objective standards already exist out there, and that CGC needs to pick one that's in line with the way the rest of the world grades comics and then work on establishing consistency in following it.

[trmoore54]

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.

Mine's better than yours... 

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:21 PM, Axe Elf said:

Axually, YOU'VE said that a couple of times now.  I've repeated what many people on the board have said--CGC needs to learn to be more consistent and objective--but even though you've nominated me for the job a few times, and I have always appreciated the respect, I have also always politely declined your appointment in deference to someone more qualified, more local, and more interested in the job.

Have Alexa add this to your word bank
Facetious:

adjective

treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

"a facetious remark"

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:23 PM, Axe Elf said:

What IS relevant is that many objective standards already exist out there,

Which one is the correct one?

On 4/30/2022 at 6:23 PM, Axe Elf said:

and that CGC needs to pick one 

Oh, so you mean they're arbitrary?

 

(So, so close to a breakthrough...)

[Crops068]

I thought this was about a grading contest?

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:31 PM, Crops068 said:

I thought this was about a grading contest?

we're talking about grading standards and grades of books in the contest!!  

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:31 PM, Crops068 said:

I thought this was about a grading contest?

[Galen130]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:57 PM, kav said:

sherlock holmes would have understood your clarification.
@Galen130

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:34 PM, trystero17 said:

[Axe Elf]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:29 PM, trystero17 said:

Which one is the correct one?

It would be hard to say that one and only one is ultimately and perfectly "correct."  It's better to look at how several of them agree, and then where one or two have some distinctly outlying feature--such as allowing Marvel chipping in grades higher than 3.0--to eliminate those outliers.

On 4/30/2022 at 5:29 PM, trystero17 said:

Oh, so you mean they're arbitrary?

Not at all.  Pretty much all the grading standards I have ever read are based on some real-world correlation to books that appear to be in better or worse condition than others.  By this time in the process, grading standards should be FAR from arbitrary, although there are a few arbitary relics out there that need to be brought into line (such as allowing Marvel chipping in grades higher than 3.0).

On 4/30/2022 at 5:29 PM, trystero17 said:

(So, so close to a breakthrough...)

Hope you get there!

[kav]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:29 PM, trystero17 said:

 (So, so close to a breakthrough...)

Hope you get there too, but-

[trystero17]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:40 PM, kav said:

Hope you get there too, but-

Serves me right for getting my hopes up.

(Mind you, I didn't really. Because, you know, Dunning-Kruger.)

[trmoore54]

On 4/30/2022 at 12:57 PM, sledgehammer said:

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

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

Color touch predominantly is a small area...even a dot...or at least can be.  I've seen the results in some cases after the removal results in paper/color loss...but back to blue label.  Regloss is 100% of the cover.  I have no idea of the removal process if it is even possible.  Thinking maybe someone just subjects it some type of heat perhaps to de-gloss the surface...who knows.  Or it's not even a legitimate removal...just a trick to fool the grader.  

Does anyone know if there is a legitimate de-gloss process?  Never heard of it.  I have no idea. 

[Bird]

I would think the more likely answer is that the re-glossing was missed by the graders this time around. That seems to me more likely than a wondrous process that removed the re-gloss but only dropped the book 0.5 grades in the process.

Now, who subbed the book?

[Bird]

This discussion is hereby to be referred to as

The DeGlossi Debacle, or, more simply, DeGlossi

[Bird]

Does Loss of Gloss Means Loss of Face for CGC? Tune in this time Monday for more from corporate on DeGlossi

[ADAMANTIUM]

Did anyone tag cgc Mike, or were we expecting a response? 

[CJ Design]

Like, "Is daGloss Crystal?"