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

[ADAMANTIUM]

 with all the talk of "newsstands" and them getting slots and or worth more points?

Does this mean the ones that are there "NOW"  like ASM in 500's and 600's $3.99 and $2.99 "newsstand editions" will be worth more?

Lol I have like 15 or so books that are worth less than 10 points, books in VF or higher. I was just thinking out of 630 books my "average" is 113 points per book, imagine how much higher they would be if I sold off those newsstands.

I mean they may not be "collectable as 30 or 35 cent variants" but isn't that nitpicking? I mean they're something, right? if a label notation is deserved, why shun that part of the hobby?

Because they're new? a hassle to deal with? idk but I want to post a jim carrey gif of C'mon  

 anyway, no sleep 'till..... Brooklyn!  

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/26/2022 at 11:03 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

 with all the talk of "newsstands" and them getting slots and or worth more points?

Does this mean the ones that are there "NOW"  like ASM in 500's and 600's $3.99 and $2.99 "newsstand editions" will be worth more?

Lol I have like 15 or so books that are worth less than 10 points, books in VF or higher. I was just thinking out of 630 books my "average" is 113 points per book, imagine how much higher they would be if I sold off those newsstands.

I mean they may not be "collectable as 30 or 35 cent variants" but isn't that nitpicking? I mean they're something, right? if a label notation is deserved, why shun that part of the hobby?

Because they're new? a hassle to deal with? idk but I want to post a jim carrey gif of C'mon  

 anyway, no sleep 'till..... Brooklyn!  

Lol I feel I should prattle further.

Because there is not intrinsic value to them on any given day, they don't always sell for that much, if even more at all bbbbbuiuuiuuut

Y'all were saying value doesn't have too much to do with it, and there is no denying that they're "rarer or harder to find in grade", just food for thought 🤔

[Qalyar]

On 10/26/2022 at 11:03 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

 with all the talk of "newsstands" and them getting slots and or worth more points?

Does this mean the ones that are there "NOW"  like ASM in 500's and 600's $3.99 and $2.99 "newsstand editions" will be worth more?

Lol I have like 15 or so books that are worth less than 10 points, books in VF or higher. I was just thinking out of 630 books my "average" is 113 points per book, imagine how much higher they would be if I sold off those newsstands.

I mean they may not be "collectable as 30 or 35 cent variants" but isn't that nitpicking? I mean they're something, right? if a label notation is deserved, why shun that part of the hobby?

Because they're new? a hassle to deal with? idk but I want to post a jim carrey gif of C'mon  

 anyway, no sleep 'till..... Brooklyn!  

I ... don't really have a horse in the race for what I think newsstand books should be "worth" in terms of points vs. their DM brethren. I just want there to be at least some way to have sets that include both. Right now, for a couple titles, I maintain two separate sets, one for the DM copies and one for newsstand copies. I'd much rather be able to put together one set where they all have their own slots, because that's exactly how I view them, as distinct collectible versions. I'm not unsympathetic to people who don't feel that way, but... it's definitely how I approach them. No different than a distinguishable printing or a price variant or any similar shenanigans.

Of course, first CGC has to fix the way it's labeling these newsstands. Sigh. But that's entirely unrelated to how we're dealing with them.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:21 PM, Qalyar said:

I ... don't really have a horse in the race for what I think newsstand books should be "worth" in terms of points vs. their DM brethren. I just want there to be at least some way to have sets that include both. Right now, for a couple titles, I maintain two separate sets, one for the DM copies and one for newsstand copies. I'd much rather be able to put together one set where they all have their own slots, because that's exactly how I view them, as distinct collectible versions. I'm not unsympathetic to people who don't feel that way, but... it's definitely how I approach them. No different than a distinguishable printing or a price variant or any similar shenanigans.

Of course, first CGC has to fix the way it's labeling these newsstands. Sigh. But that's entirely unrelated to how we're dealing with them.

Ya since we're waiting on them to sort that out, I figured we could start with what was already there. 

I'm agreeable to sets of newsstands only to dm only, but that means direct ASM would be missing #1-158 or whenever the dm started. 

Js keep in mind that Newsstand came first

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:25 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Ya since we're waiting on them to sort that out, I figured we could start with what was already there. 

I'm agreeable to sets of newsstands only to dm only, but that means direct ASM would be missing #1-158 or whenever the dm started. 

Js keep in mind that Newsstand came first

To that point now that Newsstand gets a notation but has been around the longest, should we really give them that hard a time?

Direct market was created and yes a lot was direct market only. Just because we no longer have a Newsstand market, what happens if we do again? What then?

And just because it's no longer the norm, should we be disheartened for the as of now longest running distribution to be set apart?

I think the DM only in ASM would be fewer in numbers even with it being the last ten years.

I might be wrong on all of that, but it's the way I understand it.

[ADAMANTIUM]

as a complete aside:

How is the Newsstand a "shenanigan", when shouldn't the Direct be the "created for market shenanigan?" all point of view I guess?

Stinks we've seen such few suggestions; although, I don't pick a side either, whatever is decided on will be mostly out of my hands anyway, and I'll live with it.

The debate is young and so is this thread, if changes happen next year. I really almost rather stay out of it, as I haven't seen all the direct/newsstand threads, mostly because of this situation for this thread that it won't ever have a "final conclusion"

Edited October 26, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[ADAMANTIUM]

I've only heard things and don't have a firm grasp really to suggest anything much.

I'm not an authority on these, so I'll just see what becomes.of.it.

Cheers.

 

[Iconic1s]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:36 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Stinks we've seen such few suggestions; although, I don't pick a side either, whatever is decided on will be mostly out of my hands anyway, and I'll live with it.

This is true!  Considering their are tens of thousands (guessing) of Registry Users it's odd that only like 4-5 of us care enough about this discussion to contribute.  That's a bummer considering how much effort @wytshus is willing to put into this to make sure it's right.

I am of the 'same book, same points, same slot' opinion (in case you haven't noticed ).  Unless the indicia indicates otherwise, they are the SAME BOOK.  I don't care about newsstands, I don't care about price variants, etc. unless the INDICIA is different (that's just ME).  All of these so-called 'variants' with the same indicia can share the same slot and be worth the same points... that's ALL I care about.  The Census will NEVER be a reliable source to determine the relative scarcity of any of these books, and because we are talking about GRADED copies, nor should the whole newsstand distribution  be a factor to base points on.

If someone digs those 'price variants/newsstand' books that much then they can create a Custom Set where they can show them off IMO... OR they can add them to the same slot where I add my Direct and be rewarded with the same points for the same book.  Unless they have different indicia they share the same slot/points in a competitive set.

Points won't mean a thing if there are multiple slots for the SAME BOOK in competitive sets, particularly where a couple of those slots are only to pander to a few niche collectors (look at the Crisis set!).  I also don't believe in multiples of the same sets where these niche books are added...

Having said that, and I've said it before, if CGC does go full-blown newsstand variant slots/points then it should be across the board and if that's what is then expected to 'compete' then guys like me can make an educated decision whether to continue to hang around.  It's a waste of MY time to have a 100% complete set, when there is another identical set (except with extra slots to appease the niche collector) created where I would be incomplete.  That's the 'every kid gets a ribbon' mentality and I for one, don't want something I haven't 'earned' per the rules in place...  if, in CGC's mind, additional slots belong in ALL competitive sets for these books then that should be it.  At least then we know where we stand, and I can decide to either go for these other copies of the SAME BOOK and continue to compete (which I personally won't do because they are ugly), or I can peace out.

In closing, points don't mean a thing when books are either multiplied across sets like this, or arbitrarily given more points for a reason that clearly cannot be tied to any actual data at this point... 

P.S. I also still think the issue of using the same BIG book across multiple sets to win in them all should be looked at...

Edited October 27, 2022 by Iconic1s
minor type

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:07 PM, Iconic1s said:

This is true!  Considering their are tens of thousands (guessing) of Registry Users it's odd that only like 4-5 of us care enough about this discussion to contribute.  That's a bummer considering how much effort @wytshus is willing to put into this to make sure it's right.

I am of the 'same book, same points, same slot' opinion (in case you haven't noticed ).  Unless the indicia indicates otherwise, they are the SAME BOOK.  I don't care about newsstands, I don't care about price variants, etc. unless the INDICIA is different (that's just ME).  All of these so-called 'variants' with the same indicia can share the same slot and be worth the same points... that's ALL I care about.  The Census will NEVER be a reliable source to determine the relative scarcity of any of these books, and because we are talking about GRADED copies, nor should be the whole newsstand distribution  be a factor to base points on.

If someone digs those 'price variants/newsstand' books that much then they can create a Custom Set where they can show them off IMO... OR they can add them to the same slot where I add my Direct and be rewarded with the same points for the same book.  Unless they have different indicia they share the same slot/points in a competitive set.

Points won't mean a thing if there are multiple slots for the SAME BOOK in competitive sets, particularly where a couple of those slots are only to pander to a few niche collectors (look at the Crisis set!).  I also don't believe in multiples of the same sets where these niche books are added...

Having said that, and I've said it before, if CGC does go full-blown newsstand variant slots/points then it should be across the board and if that's what is then expected to 'compete' then guys like me can make an educated decision whether to continue to hang around.  It's a waste of MY time to have a 100% complete set, when there is another identical set (except with extra slots to appease the niche collector) created where I would be incomplete.  That's the 'every kid gets a ribbon' mentality and I for one, don't want something I haven't 'earned' per the rules in place...  if, in CGC's mind, additional slots belong in ALL competitive sets for these books then that should be it.  At least then we know where we stand, and I can decide to either go for these other copies of the SAME BOOK and continue to compete (which I personally won't do because they are ugly), or I can peace out.

In closing, points don't mean a thing when books are either multiplied across sets like this, or arbitrarily given more points for a reason that clearly cannot be tied to any actual data at this point... 

P.S. I also still think the issue of using the same BIG book across multiple sets to win in them all should be looked at...

I agree! I agree to most of the points in this thread regarding point and etc. Sometimes I just think they "tease about more points"  when the current ones are languishing, IMO IF SO, so idk what is up

Still When I enter a UK price variant into a slot? It doesn't work UNTIL the mods approve it.

THAT SAID, why does newsstand need it's own slot? if it is going to be a label notation, well ok, but then why the "own slot and more value pts wise tease?"

It's like "newsstand" is getting special treatment, when if they are or aren't isn't ever clearly defined

And why open that Can Of Worms with Others Price/etc not getting the same treatment? I smell a conspiracy

but really I Just Don't Know  

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:15 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I agree! I agree to most of the points in this thread regarding point and etc. Sometimes I just think they "tease about more points"  when the current ones are languishing, IMO IF SO, so idk what is up

Still When I enter a UK price variant into a slot? It doesn't work UNTIL the mods approve it.

THAT SAID, why does newsstand need it's own slot? if it is going to be a label notation, well ok, but then why the "own slot and more value pts wise tease?"

It's like "newsstand" is getting special treatment, when if they are or aren't isn't ever clearly defined

And why open that Can Of Worms with Others Price/etc not getting the same treatment? I smell a conspiracy

but really I Just Don't Know  

I typed in a hurry, but if UK Price Variants fit in a regular slot, upon approval, then Newsstand should too  @Iconic1s

To set apart Newsstand as some kind of tease, means getting it lambasted in the public eye is not a good thing.

I appreciate that others appreciate it and the word is "getting out there", but this "any publicity is good publicity" policy of the way things are going? idk

I'd rather more people collect them and price go up, but we all do with all our books, we just tend to trust on natural progression. These stirrings seem want to "look" natural, but in the end, would they do more harm than good?

[Qalyar]

On 10/25/2022 at 5:42 PM, Qalyar said:

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.

Quoting myself here, because I can.

One of the other problems I have with using FMV as a component of anything is that it raises the inherent question of how do we determine the "reference" FMV for a book? Do we benchmark against CGC 9.0? That's fine for, say, Silver Age books. But a lot of the important early books don't even physically exist in 9.0 Universal; meanwhile, most Moderns at 9.0 are effectively worthless. Perhaps this is another benefit of bucketed "values". It's likely at least somewhat easier to distinguish between a book with tens of dollars, hundreds of dollars, or thousands of dollars -- in whatever form it's most frequently traded -- without needing to get into the weeds about where it's benchmarked in terms of grade?

[Qalyar]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:07 PM, Iconic1s said:

This is true!  Considering their are tens of thousands (guessing) of Registry Users it's odd that only like 4-5 of us care enough about this discussion to contribute.  That's a bummer considering how much effort @wytshus is willing to put into this to make sure it's right.

I am of the 'same book, same points, same slot' opinion (in case you haven't noticed ).  Unless the indicia indicates otherwise, they are the SAME BOOK.  I don't care about newsstands, I don't care about price variants, etc. unless the INDICIA is different (that's just ME).  All of these so-called 'variants' with the same indicia can share the same slot and be worth the same points... that's ALL I care about.  The Census will NEVER be a reliable source to determine the relative scarcity of any of these books, and because we are talking about GRADED copies, nor should the whole newsstand distribution  be a factor to base points on.

If someone digs those 'price variants/newsstand' books that much then they can create a Custom Set where they can show them off IMO... OR they can add them to the same slot where I add my Direct and be rewarded with the same points for the same book.  Unless they have different indicia they share the same slot/points in a competitive set.

Points won't mean a thing if there are multiple slots for the SAME BOOK in competitive sets, particularly where a couple of those slots are only to pander to a few niche collectors (look at the Crisis set!).  I also don't believe in multiples of the same sets where these niche books are added...

Having said that, and I've said it before, if CGC does go full-blown newsstand variant slots/points then it should be across the board and if that's what is then expected to 'compete' then guys like me can make an educated decision whether to continue to hang around.  It's a waste of MY time to have a 100% complete set, when there is another identical set (except with extra slots to appease the niche collector) created where I would be incomplete.  That's the 'every kid gets a ribbon' mentality and I for one, don't want something I haven't 'earned' per the rules in place...  if, in CGC's mind, additional slots belong in ALL competitive sets for these books then that should be it.  At least then we know where we stand, and I can decide to either go for these other copies of the SAME BOOK and continue to compete (which I personally won't do because they are ugly), or I can peace out.

In closing, points don't mean a thing when books are either multiplied across sets like this, or arbitrarily given more points for a reason that clearly cannot be tied to any actual data at this point... 

P.S. I also still think the issue of using the same BIG book across multiple sets to win in them all should be looked at...

Obviously, you and I are never going to agree on what we would like to see from the Registry. Because you bright-line do not want sets to have separate slots for DM vs. newsstand copies. You consider them the "same book". I very much do want them treated separately, hate that I have to kludge distinct sets for them now, and think that any books that are reliably distinguishable due to any production elements are not at all the "same book" even if the cover art is the same.

But I think "indicia trumps everything" is sort of a mess, regardless. There are a lot of books -- mostly from smaller publishers, but not exclusively so -- where there are 100% distinguishable second (or later!) printings but the indicia makes no indication of that. Heck, there's a thread right now over in General about the early issues of Transformers (back when it was going to be a limited series), where there have generally been threeish recognized printings, except that the internal issue checklists and back-cover advertising makes that far more complicated (and CGC isn't always flawless about noting what's going on, but that's beside the point). None of them have indicia changes.

Or, if you don't like Transformers, consider Classics Illustrated. I sold off the entirely of my Classics collection and will never look back, but at one point in time, I was trying to assemble a comprehensive specialist collection of the title, with all of the HRN variations and so forth. I was only about 70% complete (and almost exclusively in raw books, but let's pretend), but I would have been very disappointed if the Registry only permitted me one line per title in the run. The point was to collect as many of the minor variations as possible. That's what collecting is about, for me.

I get that not everyone collects the same way, and I feel like there has to be a way to offer Registry space for people who just one one of "each book, broadly speaking" versus people who want "one of each book, in the narrowest sense possible". If I were to collect Crisis, I would 100% want those slots for CPV copies, and slots for the US newsstands, too. But I appreciate that people who just want to collect the set should have a way to do that without being condemned to having their set rate in 5th place or somesuch.

As for the PS issue there, where you get one awesome book and then tromp all over 20 sets with it... my personal opinion is that the Registry should be one book, one set. That has the added benefit of ensuring that, if there are separate sets for with- and without-newsstands/price-variants/etc, you can't win both at the same time with the same books. You can choose how you want to collect and compete... but you have to actually choose.

[wytshus]

Quote

Considering their are tens of thousands (guessing) of Registry Users it's odd that only like 4-5 of us care enough about this discussion to contribute.

This is the way of things when it comes to the Registry.  I have been working with the Collector Society website for about a year and a half now, and I still find it.....lets say.....clunky.  I can just imagine that a new user would find it a bit overwhelming.

I have been exclusively approaching the Registry as an Admin, modifying sets, adding slots, modifying scores, and resolving add fails.  Now that I have my feet underneath me somewhat, I am starting to look at things from a collector standpoint (whats fair, fun, and interesting), and from a marketing perspective (how can we get new users, how can we make the competition more transparent) 

Let me state for the record that the Registry is NOT the Census.  I do not have read/write access to the Census, the Registry gets its individual book data from there, and I input Universal Scores on the Registry side. Once that's completed, its out of my hands.

 

What I am trying to do, and the reason I created this thread, is to get input, instead of springing drastic changes on everyone arbitrarily, and expect everyone to like it.

 

Most of the comments in this thread have crossed my mind at one time or another, especially the comment about competitive sets being modified ad hoc.  This is one of my biggest gripes about the Registry when it comes to the Awards, and I intend to do something about it next "season". 

 

I am heavily in favor of a base score for ALL books.  It has been mentioned, and I totally agree that CGC should not be in the business of declaring FMV, especially since the modifiers for weighted scores only apply to books that have been registered BY CGC. Having one score for all books will level the playing field, and the algorithm can weigh scores for individual books. If there are tweaks to be made, we can do that in the "off-season".

I am also leaning heavily towards fixed sets for award consideration.  If a new slot absolutely must be added, it will be non competitive until the new season starts.  But for the most part, the scores and slots do not change.

 

I do really appreciate all the feedback, keep it coming.  I read all the comments(and re-read the long ones). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Iconic1s]

On 10/27/2022 at 3:36 PM, Qalyar said:

Obviously, you and I are never going to agree on what we would like to see from the Registry. Because you bright-line do not want sets to have separate slots for DM vs. newsstand copies. You consider them the "same book". I very much do want them treated separately, hate that I have to kludge distinct sets for them now, and think that any books that are reliably distinguishable due to any production elements are not at all the "same book" even if the cover art is the same.

But I think "indicia trumps everything" is sort of a mess, regardless. There are a lot of books -- mostly from smaller publishers, but not exclusively so -- where there are 100% distinguishable second (or later!) printings but the indicia makes no indication of that. Heck, there's a thread right now over in General about the early issues of Transformers (back when it was going to be a limited series), where there have generally been threeish recognized printings, except that the internal issue checklists and back-cover advertising makes that far more complicated (and CGC isn't always flawless about noting what's going on, but that's beside the point). None of them have indicia changes.

Or, if you don't like Transformers, consider Classics Illustrated. I sold off the entirely of my Classics collection and will never look back, but at one point in time, I was trying to assemble a comprehensive specialist collection of the title, with all of the HRN variations and so forth. I was only about 70% complete (and almost exclusively in raw books, but let's pretend), but I would have been very disappointed if the Registry only permitted me one line per title in the run. The point was to collect as many of the minor variations as possible. That's what collecting is about, for me.

I get that not everyone collects the same way, and I feel like there has to be a way to offer Registry space for people who just one one of "each book, broadly speaking" versus people who want "one of each book, in the narrowest sense possible". If I were to collect Crisis, I would 100% want those slots for CPV copies, and slots for the US newsstands, too. But I appreciate that people who just want to collect the set should have a way to do that without being condemned to having their set rate in 5th place or somesuch.

As for the PS issue there, where you get one awesome book and then tromp all over 20 sets with it... my personal opinion is that the Registry should be one book, one set. That has the added benefit of ensuring that, if there are separate sets for with- and without-newsstands/price-variants/etc, you can't win both at the same time with the same books. You can choose how you want to collect and compete... but you have to actually choose.

Definitely NOT trying to get anyone to agree with me. Just clearly stating my opinion regarding this issue as it seems not many others are.

I do 100% agree with your one book, one set idea!  I think that would make the Registry much fairer for everyone, and give more people a chance to have #1 in Set Type.

I have stated my opinion as clearly as I can and now it’s time to leave it at that, and allow CGC to decide what the Registry will look like going forward.  Whatever that is we all get to decide if we like it and if it’s something we want to be involved with.  I for one, won’t hang around if some of these newsstand variant/set/slot changes go into effect, but that’s okay.  Life will go on!  Take care!

[Iconic1s]

On 10/27/2022 at 3:46 PM, wytshus said:

This is the way of things when it comes to the Registry.  I have been working with the Collector Society website for about a year and a half now, and I still find it.....lets say.....clunky.  I can just imagine that a new user would find it a bit overwhelming.

I have been exclusively approaching the Registry as an Admin, modifying sets, adding slots, modifying scores, and resolving add fails.  Now that I have my feet underneath me somewhat, I am starting to look at things from a collector standpoint (whats fair, fun, and interesting), and from a marketing perspective (how can we get new users, how can we make the competition more transparent) 

Let me state for the record that the Registry is NOT the Census.  I do not have read/write access to the Census, the Registry gets its individual book data from there, and I input Universal Scores on the Registry side. Once that's completed, its out of my hands.

 

What I am trying to do, and the reason I created this thread, is to get input, instead of springing drastic changes on everyone arbitrarily, and expect everyone to like it.

 

Most of the comments in this thread have crossed my mind at one time or another, especially the comment about competitive sets being modified ad hoc.  This is one of my biggest gripes about the Registry when it comes to the Awards, and I intend to do something about it next "season". 

 

I am heavily in favor of a base score for ALL books.  It has been mentioned, and I totally agree that CGC should not be in the business of declaring FMV, especially since the modifiers for weighted scores only apply to books that have been registered BY CGC. Having one score for all books will level the playing field, and the algorithm can weigh scores for individual books. If there are tweaks to be made, we can do that in the "off-season".

I am also leaning heavily towards fixed sets for award consideration.  If a new slot absolutely must be added, it will be non competitive until the new season starts.  But for the most part, the scores and slots do not change.

 

I do really appreciate all the feedback, keep it coming.  I read all the comments(and re-read the long ones). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really appreciate what you are doing! I’m bowing out of this discussion now. I think my opinion is clear and no sense beating a dead horse as they say.  Best of luck figuring out what works!  One last thing though… Custom Sets are cool too and may be a good way to reward creativity, etc.  Probably just another can of worms though, so apologies 

[Off Panel]

On 10/18/2022 at 12:51 PM, wytshus said:

I'm considering making all 9.0 Universal Scores 4 points, the minimum cover price.  It used to be $2.99 (3), but after 2015 or so, it's $3.99.  

Wait, are you saying you would set the 9.0 Universal Score on ALL books to 4 points? If so, that wouldn't make sense to me.

I appreciate the differentiation that various ages and types of books enjoy today.

For instance:

Today, the score for an Amazing Spider-man legacy 894 from 2022 is 4 points. The book just came out a few months ago and I could have picked it out of a stack of 894s for four bucks. It would actually be hard to get a 9.0 because most issues are going to be nicer than that, but let's assume I'm an enthusiastic reader. That definitely feels like it's worth 4 points.

The score for an Amazing Spider-man 109 from 1972 is 60 points. This book is never going to be a key, but it's a 50 year-old gem written by Stan Lee and penciled by John Romita. My LCS probably doesn't have this. I might have to do some searching to find a 109, and unlike with the 894, 9.0 condition is a plus rather than a minus. I had to pay a little money for this but I didn't break the bank. This doesn't feel like a 4-point book. It feels more like 60 points.

Then there's the Amazing Spider-man 129 from 1974. This book is a grail. I had to work hard for this book. I had to compete with other collectors to score this. Maybe I had to budget carefully to buy this book or maybe I had to trade some other big books to get it. There was some sacrifice involved to get this book in a 9.0! 3,133 points doesn't feel crazy for this one.

Points-wise, the current system "feels" right to me.

 

If I understand the proposed approach, these books would now look like this"

The 50 year-old book and the 5 month-old book are equals now. If I bust my hump all over town and the Internet to find a 9.0 issue of 109, I'll have the same score as the dude who skipped down to his LCS and dropped 4 bucks on a 894. (Actually, I'll trail behind him because his book will probably be a 9.2.) That feels broken out of the starting gate.

(Consider this: How many grumpy old dudes on this board like to loudly proclaim that they "haven't bought a modern book since aught-seven when that Quesada fellah broke Spider-man"? They'll be none too pleased when their carefully curated Silver Age collections start getting out-scored by guys who had a big day at the Modern dollar boxes.)

I don't know how you'll calculate the "key" bonus, but let's say you calculate it at 3,133 points (or something in that neighborhood) and I've got no beef with you. You have maintained a status quo that works well on that book without fixing the issue you're trying to avoid. All the annoying guys who want you to add points because She-Hulk #1 just sold on Comicconnect for $2,300 will now want you to add points because Comic Tom told them that Daredevil-25-first-appearance-of-Leap-Frog is a major key now!

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the current scoring system works pretty well. I can see how it wouldn't work well for you, whytshus, and I'm not unsympathetic. That's not an easy job you've got. We need to find a way to make it easier without destroying the point system.

 

P.S. - Qalyar, I'm in awe of the thought you've put into how to manage the sets, and I find myself agreeing with your approach.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Off Panel
Removed extra charts.

[Off Panel]

On 10/13/2022 at 4:47 PM, wytshus said:

Let me start off by saying this:

 

Registry scores do not equate to market dollars. 

I agree that registry points should not be determined solely by the price of a book, BUT price and registry points may be driven by many of the same factors, including demand and scarcity. In the end, both price and points are trying to measure the "worth" of a book, so while registry scores should not equate to market dollars, they are probably highly correlated to market dollars.

If I may ask, what factors were used to determine the points for each book when the registry was first rolled out? That may be a good starting point for our discussion.

[Gotham Kid]

On 10/29/2022 at 10:39 PM, Off Panel said:

On 10/13/2022 at 9:47 PM, wytshus said:

Let me start off by saying this:

 

Registry scores do not equate to market dollars. 

I agree that registry points should not be determined solely by the price of a book, BUT price and registry points may be driven by many of the same factors, including demand and scarcity. In the end, both price and points are trying to measure the "worth" of a book, so while registry scores should not equate to market dollars, they are probably highly correlated to market dollars.

Completely agree.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Gotham Kid

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

On 10/31/2022 at 2:47 AM, Gotham Kid said:

Completely agree.

Ditto.

[wytshus]

On 10/29/2022 at 5:39 PM, Off Panel said:

I agree that registry points should not be determined solely by the price of a book, BUT price and registry points may be driven by many of the same factors, including demand and scarcity. In the end, both price and points are trying to measure the "worth" of a book, so while registry scores should not equate to market dollars, they are probably highly correlated to market dollars.

If I may ask, what factors were used to determine the points for each book when the registry was first rolled out? That may be a good starting point for our discussion.

The main problem is that prices for keys do not stay static.  Also, we are talking about open market prices, something that CGC shouldn't be involved in..

In the beginning,  for most non key books, the 9.0 Universal score was the minimum cover price, before 2015, which was set at 3 

After 2015 or so, the minimum price is $3.99 (4). 

Keys and vintage comics were scored according to Overstreet 9.2.

The algorithm is supposed to weigh individual books according to scarcity, desirability, and grading category. 

However, it gets this data from the Census, (i.e. books that have been graded by CGC) So you get a weighted score for books within the Census, not in the open market.

 

Which is why we say that scores do not equate to market dollars.  (Even though we  do get part of that data from the market...)  o_0

 

Currently, there is simply too much volatility and FOMO hysteria to continually update individual scores every time there's a spike, it's not worth the time, and it raises a lot of questions about impartiality.