Four Scores and 1.5 years Ago...(Registry Scoring Discussion Thread) 5 5

[ADAMANTIUM]

Sorry for the strongly worded post, but those were examples of simplifying sets.

I always assumed the reason we have huge sets is because, that way you can find a set easier to enter your book.

There is no way I've gone to all the sets to see how large or small, so I might not carry weight. Most of what I've seen is ASM X-Men and usual DC books too, and they're already broken up smaller, of which I'm thankful!

We should still see some interesting ramifications for new sets instead of just collect every book. I mean I get it, but it just sounds so boring.

Even Nintendo Power which I got added to the registry is something like 285 issues. Who can tell me of ASM or Nintendo Power that they loved every issue for 30 years. I'm sorry to make run collecting sound like that, but I just don't believe you.

Spoiler

I mean if you were born in 2004, and are 18 to join the registry, I can see the latter half of Nintendo power, but not the 150 issues before that.or something 😂

I'm sure we've heard it all before, and I'm not suggesting gimmicks, but something to allure or make it attractive. And all the posts is just where people who've said all this before are coming from, I don't think it has changed. Guess it's up to us to think of ideas for sets to get approved?

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[wytshus]

Quote

How about "For Scores and 21.5 years Ago" as title for this thread instead?

@MAR1979 

 

 

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/24/2022 at 10:19 AM, wytshus said:

@MAR1979 

 

 

 

😂 And idk why I was so opinionated yesterday haha must have needed to vent the stress! Idk what'll happen in the change, but I'm sure it will work out. A long time from now and a build up if excitement and nervousness.

 

[MAR1979]

On 10/24/2022 at 11:19 AM, wytshus said:

@MAR1979 

 

 

 

Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

 

[wytshus]

On 10/22/2022 at 11:03 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I'm still wondering if pics I have in the registry are going away?

Not that I'm aware of. if I implied that, it wasn't my intention.

 

Just a quick thought:

 

There are 297,985 separate titles in the population report

1st Print ASM #15 alone has 49 different grading categories

There are 25 different "grade points"

Just think of how many different possible combinations there are!  It's mind blowing and soul crushing at the same time...lol

 

 

 

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/24/2022 at 12:14 PM, wytshus said:

Not that I'm aware of. if I implied that, it wasn't my intention.

 

Just a quick thought:

 

There are 297,985 separate titles in the population report

1st Print ASM #15 alone has 49 different grading categories

There are 25 different "grade points"

Just think of how many many different possible combinations there are!  It's mind blowing and soul crushing at the same time...lol

 

 

 

 

[Rosland]

On 10/24/2022 at 10:14 AM, wytshus said:

Not that I'm aware of. if I implied that, it wasn't my intention.

 

Just a quick thought:

 

There are 297,985 separate titles in the population report

1st Print ASM #15 alone has 49 different grading categories

There are 25 different "grade points"

Just think of how many different possible combinations there are!  It's mind blowing and soul crushing at the same time...lol

 

 

 

 

The 25 grading points are the grades from 0.5 to 10.0, and they seem to be auto-generated. If we look at the

grades from 8.0 to 9.6, they are in the following ratios:

             0.42, 0.67, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0, 5.0

so they seem to auto-generated from one source value.

I assume that the 49 different grading categories are also auto-generated from the one source value?

In which case there's only 297,985 slots to score? The 49*25 is then automatic.

[wytshus]

@Rosland

 

Yes, the source value is Universal 9.0, *for the most part.

We are still talking over 2500 possible scores for just 1 book. I used ASM 15 as an example. Not all titles in the pop report have slots in the registry. 

I don't know if 49 is the max number of categories, or the categories that have been graded.

 

 

 

It was just a random thought that pops into my head from time to time...

 

 

 

 

 

[wytshus]

Another random thought:

 

"Award Eligible" Tag

 

We designate certain sets eligible for award consideration, sets not designated are still competitive.

Once a set is designated as eligible, the set list will not be modified.  Sets that are not eligible can become so in the future, if it's fleshed out enough...

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/25/2022 at 12:34 PM, wytshus said:

Another random thought:

 

"Award Eligible" Tag

 

We designate certain sets eligible for award consideration, sets not designated are still competitive.

Once a set is designated as eligible, the set list will not be modified.  Sets that are not eligible can become so in the future, if it's fleshed out enough...

 

It might be nice, if I'm understanding correctly, to know if your set is under consideration, then if you don't win beef it up for next year. I'm sure I'm a long ways off on most of "my" stuff, but it would be descriptive and a better example of what is "looked for", if there were some kind of hint or tag idk. Not a bad spit ball  

[wytshus]

On 10/25/2022 at 1:40 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

It might be nice, if I'm understanding correctly, to know if your set is under consideration, then if you don't win beef it up for next year. I'm sure I'm a long ways off on most of "my" stuff, but it would be descriptive and a better example of what is "looked for", if there were some kind of hint or tag idk. Not a bad spit ball  

It would be a LOT of work on the front end, but long haul, it would make my life much easier.  Plus, I wouldn't have to request any fancy coding,  I could do it by hand.  

[Qalyar]

So, I do feel a little bad that I've derailed the point-scoring discussion into set-construction discussion, although they are related.

For points -- and points alone -- I think the most important thing we need to consider is whether points are intended to compare on an apples-to-apples level between sets or only within their set. The Collectors Universe companies (PCGS/PCA) have registry systems where their points are only intended to compare to members of the same set. For example, the point values for Lincoln cents use the same basic point range as the pre-1838 quarters. Most Lincoln pennies are "rarity 1" for their score factor, which means "pretty darn common"; the 1831 quarter is also rarity 1 (because it's easily the most common pre-1838 quarter). But while even MS-65 (top grade) example of most Lincoln cents can be had for a couple hundred bucks or less, an MS-65 example of that 1831 quarter is a $16,000 coin. But they're worth the same amount of registry points.

I'm not sure that solves the problem of point adjustments entirely, but it's worth consideration, I think.

[wytshus]

@Qalyar

No problem, I welcome all of the input.  I know it seems like I am all over the place, but it all ties in together.  I'm not ignoring what has been said, I am processing, and trying to figure out the pros and cons from an admin/marketing/collector point of view.(what's fair, what's possible, and what's efficient)

 

I talked to a colleague in the Trading Card registry last week, they don't have the "spread" of grade points like comics, but they do have a fixed score for a particular grade, and then individual cards receive a weighted score from that source.  This is where I would like to see comics go.  If it's determined that keys need to be given a higher score, we will do that, once a year.  

 

With the comics registry, once a slot is created, the score applies to that slot, regardless of which set(s) it's in. 

 

This is why I think a base score for 9.0 Universal(Maybe 9.2) is the way to go.  Let the algorithm determine the final score for individual books, and have fixed sets for the awards.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/25/2022 at 2:16 PM, Qalyar said:

So, I do feel a little bad that I've derailed the point-scoring discussion into set-construction discussion, although they are related.

For points -- and points alone -- I think the most important thing we need to consider is whether points are intended to compare on an apples-to-apples level between sets or only within their set. The Collectors Universe companies (PCGS/PCA) have registry systems where their points are only intended to compare to members of the same set. For example, the point values for Lincoln cents use the same basic point range as the pre-1838 quarters. Most Lincoln pennies are "rarity 1" for their score factor, which means "pretty darn common"; the 1831 quarter is also rarity 1 (because it's easily the most common pre-1838 quarter). But while even MS-65 (top grade) example of most Lincoln cents can be had for a couple hundred bucks or less, an MS-65 example of that 1831 quarter is a $16,000 coin. But they're worth the same amount of registry points.

I'm not sure that solves the problem of point adjustments entirely, but it's worth consideration, I think.

I wanted to apologize if I continued to take it in a certain direction, I was more andom and was just making opinions that day. I quoted you, but don't feel it was directed toward you negatively at all, it's only discussion . I'm welcome to see changes, because as a collective, I hope it's for the better

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[ADAMANTIUM]

I was thinking for a lot, I mean a lot of books, even in 9.0 that some values are slow to pick up, especially with moderns.

I'd like to see lower grades on non moderns pick up the slack a little easier, but with the census and different grades mostly achieved under the 9's I'm not sure.

I know I got Malibu Sun added to the registry, and I believe placed 1st the 1st year; although, I believe my lowly 8.0 was beaten when it caught on. I had issue #13, and even though I placed 1st one year and had the tag next to my name? This year I placed it in a trade for walking dead 1.

8.0 #13 sells for $450/500, but was worth 8 points in the registry.

I tried to have points adjusted several times to no avail to justify keep8ng it

 

I want another copy, so I may be shooting myself in the foot, but 8 points is cray cray

[Qalyar]

On 10/25/2022 at 4:44 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I was thinking for a lot, I mean a lot of books, even in 9.0 that some values are slow to pick up, especially with moderns.

I'd like to see lower grades on non moderns pick up the slack a little easier, but with the census and different grades mostly achieved under the 9's I'm not sure.

I know I got Malibu Sun added to the registry, and I believe placed 1st the 1st year; although, I believe my lowly 8.0 was beaten when it caught on. I had issue #13, and even though I placed 1st one year and had the tag next to my name? This year I placed it in a trade for walking dead 1.

8.0 #13 sells for $450/500, but was worth 8 points in the registry.

I tried to have points adjusted several times to no avail to justify keep8ng it

 

I want another copy, so I may be shooting myself in the foot, but 8 points is cray cray

If sets are (re-)scored so that the points only compare within the set, that makes it easier to fix this sort of problem. Do like PCA does and have a 5 point scale. Whatever the rarest and most valuable book or two is in a given set, they have a base value of 5. Run fill? Base value of 1. Individual grades get a score based on grade and base value, determined algorithmically. I'd suggest a simple [Grade *  BV], with ... some sort of modifier for non-blue labels. You'll still have to do some adjustments when the first appearance of Randy from Boise in Dollar Bin Comics #17 becomes a sudden key issue after they cast Leonardo DiCaprio to play him, but you won't need to do adjustments just because speculators drive that book's price up and down the field.

The drawback to this plan is that my 8.5 slab of Dollar Bin Comics #17 (Base Value adjusted to 4, thanks Leo!) might be worth 34 points in the Dollar Bin Comics run, but that doesn't mean anything at all about how much money it is worth compared to other books, in other sets, that are also worth 34 points. Would that bother people who actually jockey for numbers? @ADAMANTIUM?

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/25/2022 at 4:54 PM, Qalyar said:

If sets are (re-)scored so that the points only compare within the set, that makes it easier to fix this sort of problem. Do like PCA does and have a 5 point scale. Whatever the rarest and most valuable book or two is in a given set, they have a base value of 5. Run fill? Base value of 1. Individual grades get a score based on grade and base value, determined algorithmically. I'd suggest a simple [Grade *  BV], with ... some sort of modifier for non-blue labels. You'll still have to do some adjustments when the first appearance of Randy from Boise in Dollar Bin Comics #17 becomes a sudden key issue after they cast Leonardo DiCaprio to play him, but you won't need to do adjustments just because speculators drive that book's price up and down the field.

The drawback to this plan is that my 8.5 slab of Dollar Bin Comics #17 (Base Value adjusted to 4, thanks Leo!) might be worth 34 points in the Dollar Bin Comics run, but that doesn't mean anything at all about how much money it is worth compared to other books, in other sets, that are also worth 34 points. Would that bother people who actually jockey for numbers? @ADAMANTIUM?

I wouldn't think it would bother me. For established value $$ score books, if I'm understanding correctly, it would still pick up when adjust3d once a year? 

I think your attributed score suggestion would only factor badly if it was never monitored. I'd like to hear more than once a year, but I know there is a lot to consider!

[Qalyar]

On 10/25/2022 at 5:00 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I wouldn't think it would bother me. For established value $$ score books, if I'm understanding correctly, it would still pick up when adjust3d once a year? 

I think your attributed score suggestion would only factor badly if it was never monitored. I'd like to hear more than once a year, but I know there is a lot to consider!

The idea behind this system is that the actual dollar value doesn't matter. Just the rarity / value / prestige / interest of each book relative to the rest of the set, on a fixed scale of 1 to 5 (some registries that do this sort of thing are 1 to 10 for a wider range of values; we maybe should do it that way, but I started writing this post using 1-to-5, so that's what you get!). So, to choose a set entirely not at random, Spawn Complete (and fair disclosure, I know about actually collecting Spawn):

• Spawn 1 is probably like a 3 or a 4? It's certainly more valuable than random issues, but it's also important to the idea of a set for the title.
• Malibu Sun 13 might be a 4 or a 5? It's important to the set -- AND it's a rare book that demands comparatively high values in the market.
• Spawn 163 and all the other random run fill that's freely available? 1s.

For the most part, after an initial period of assignment drama, the points won't change often, because the prestigious, rare, high-dollar books don't swap positions a whole lot. A fairly recent example of when a book would change base value is West Coast Avengers 45, a book literally no one cared about until "1st White Vision" suddenly became A Thing That Mattered.

It's easier to set up. It's easier to maintain. The only drawback is that points don't compare between sets. For the sake of argument here, let's give that Malibu Sun 13 a base value of 4. It's a solid book, but it's not like an instantly recognizable key, right? Your 8.0 copy would be worth 32 points. Meanwhile, in the pre-Batman Tec Comics set, this utterly amazing Tec 1 (obviously a base value of 5, it's Tec 1 in a pre-Bats Tec set!) in 6.5 would score... 32.5 points. That's a big chunk towards dominance of the set it's in, but you obviously cannot compare the point values between sets ... except to say that people with more points likely have better, more important books in more sets.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/25/2022 at 5:19 PM, Qalyar said:

The idea behind this system is that the actual dollar value doesn't matter. Just the rarity / value / prestige / interest of each book relative to the rest of the set, on a fixed scale of 1 to 5 (some registries that do this sort of thing are 1 to 10 for a wider range of values; we maybe should do it that way, but I started writing this post using 1-to-5, so that's what you get!). So, to choose a set entirely not at random, Spawn Complete (and fair disclosure, I know about actually collecting Spawn):

• Spawn 1 is probably like a 3 or a 4? It's certainly more valuable than random issues, but it's also important to the idea of a set for the title.
• Malibu Sun 13 might be a 4 or a 5? It's important to the set -- AND it's a rare book that demands comparatively high values in the market.
• Spawn 163 and all the other random run fill that's freely available? 1s.

For the most part, after an initial period of assignment drama, the points won't change often, because the prestigious, rare, high-dollar books don't swap positions a whole lot. A fairly recent example of when a book would change base value is West Coast Avengers 45, a book literally no one cared about until "1st White Vision" suddenly became A Thing That Mattered.

It's easier to set up. It's easier to maintain. The only drawback is that points don't compare between sets. For the sake of argument here, let's give that Malibu Sun 13 a base value of 4. It's a solid book, but it's not like an instantly recognizable key, right? Your 8.0 copy would be worth 32 points. Meanwhile, in the pre-Batman Tec Comics set, this utterly amazing Tec 1 (obviously a base value of 5, it's Tec 1 in a pre-Bats Tec set!) in 6.5 would score... 32.5 points. That's a big chunk towards dominance of the set it's in, but you obviously cannot compare the point values between sets ... except to say that people with more points likely have better, more important books in more sets.

If it were that drastic of a change, while it would even a playing field, it would devastate those in high position on the face of it. When they asked why or dug deeper, they may or may not accept it, but really I don't think administration would go for it. Too much change. I agree with what we have in the way of points, although why Malibu sun 13 suffered and books like Ms marvel 2014 in 9.4 are 150 points. I can't see that parallel on importance vale or anything else. What we have I agree is still weird and needs correcting somehow 

Edited October 25, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[Qalyar]

On 10/25/2022 at 5:27 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

If it were that drastic of a change, while it would even a playing field, it would devastate those in high position on the face of it. When they asked why or dug deeper, they may or may not accept it, but really I don't think administration would go for it. Too much change. I agree with what we have in the way of points, although why Malibu sun 13 suffered and books like Ms marvel 2014 in 9.4 are 150 points. I can't see that parallel on importance vale or anything else. What we have I agree is still weird and needs correcting somehow 

Well, yeah. It would be a philosophical re-building of the registry point system. On the other hand, it's clear something does have to change. Maybe not that much, though...?

A less drastic approach is to "bucket" FMV. So the goal is no longer to care whether a book is worth $250 or $450, it's to determine if a book is worth... a few dollars, maybe a hundred bucks, a few hundred dollars, a couple thousand, a lot of thousands, or ludicrous stacks of cash. Assign a base value to each bucket. Say... 20, 100, 250, 1200, 5000, 20000 (these are literally off the top of my head; do not take as gospel!). Books won't move between bins very often, absent major changes to their desirability.

I still don't like the idea of having points based on FMV, because in a perfect world, I don't think the grading authority should care about FMV at all except for insurance (I don't like FMV-tiered grading fees either). But no one asked me when this all started.