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

[wytshus]

Not ALL variants, just foreign.  Sorry 

[Qalyar]

On 10/20/2022 at 3:47 PM, wytshus said:

Not ALL variants, just foreign.  Sorry 

Ah. Well. That's reasonable.

It's not that I don't think those are deserving of real space in sets, in some fashion. Hell, I collect weird foreign republications of weird books no one else cares about! I've got a whole custom set for foreign repubs of Black Hole and would have slabbed copies of the Italian edition of Midnight Nation except that the only copies I've ever been able to get are sub-reader dogs. But CGC's labeling of foreign variants and foreign republications has gone through at least one major change in the recent past, and might very well do so again before the dust settles. Accordingly, the census for these books is a disaster, and trying to codify them into the registry would be a nightmare.

[Iconic1s]

On 10/20/2022 at 3:44 PM, Qalyar said:

Let's go with that hypothetical Captain Canuck collector, because that ought not single anyone out. We'll pretend that there are suddenly slabbed copies of this whole thing. It's a thought experiment, people! The title was a 14-issue run in 1975 from Comely Comix, but there are a ton of one-shots from various publishers (the 2014 Calgary Entertainment Expo exclusive Captain Canuck Summer Special is a moderately difficult book to find). And the series eventually got picked up and continued by Chapter House Publishing. Unusually for indies, that 1970s series has (for at least some issues) both direct market and newsstand distribution editions, but no variant covers; the later titles featuring the character sometimes have many variant covers. How do we represent this with sets? We could have:

• Captain Canuck (Archie, 1975) [Title Only] -- this has only the 14 slots, one per issue of the title itself
• Captain Canuck (Archie, 1975) [Title Only, Specialist] -- there is no "With Variants" here, because the only variants are newsstand editions; this slot has 14 direct market slots, plus one for each issue with NS copies.
• Other titles with enough issues to count as a set could qualify for their own slots, too. Captain Canuck (2015, Chapter House) certainly, but not Captain Canuck Legacy, which was advertised as a miniseries but only saw 1 issue.
• Captain Canuck [Category] -- this has one slot for every Captain Canuck book, from the original Archie series to the Chapter House stuff to the various one-shots.
• Captain Canuck [Category, With Variants] -- same thing, but now Captain Canuck Legacy #1's 1000-copy special edition has its own slot, as do the retailer incentive covers of the 2015 Chapter House series, and so on.
• Captain Canuck [Category, Specialist] -- as the previous one, but the 1975 newsstands have their own slots too.

 

I actually don’t agree with this at all.  CGC should have one competitive set per ‘Set Type’ whatever that looks like… if it’s with variants, with newsstands, whatever that is, that’s IT.

The rest of the sets you mention can be Custom Sets if someone doesn’t want to ‘compete’ under the CGC ‘Set Type’ guidelines.

What’s the point of having a set in so-called ‘first place’ when it’s just a consolation price because you didn’t want to compete in the ‘real’ set, where (hypothetically) there are 50 variant covers of each issue, and (again hypothetically) newsstands with separate slots, etc.

If they make all the sets as you mention to please every possible collector, that’s completely unmanageable.

Myself for example, if CGC does in fact create another set that I enjoy ‘complete with variants’ I’ll either 1) just leave the competitive set world behind and enjoy my Custom Set, or 2) start finding the books I need to compete in that Set Type under the new rules… I won’t expect a Set be created to accommodate my personal style of collecting goals… that’s why they provide me, and everyone else the ability to create Custom Sets ad nauseam.

On 10/20/2022 at 3:44 PM, Qalyar said:

all the other goodies that made his sets so compelling.

Thank you!

[Rosland]

This thread seems very unfocused and I'm having a hard time narrowing it down to the real issues.

What exactly is/are the problems? All of the below?

(1) Individual issue scoring

(2) Set scoring

(3) Set awarding

(4) Set variant explosion

It seems to me that one resource we do have access to is the census. Why not use it to help scoring? We should

be rewarding difficulty, right? I realize that scarcity in census can be due to real scarcity or to indifference. Either way,

it's hard to own the single graded copy of any issue.

 

 

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

On 10/21/2022 at 3:54 AM, Rosland said:

This thread seems very unfocused and I'm having a hard time narrowing it down to the real issues.

What exactly is/are the problems? All of the below?

(1) Individual issue scoring

(2) Set scoring

(3) Set awarding

(4) Set variant explosion

It seems to me that one resource we do have access to is the census. Why not use it to help scoring? We should

be rewarding difficulty, right? I realize that scarcity in census can be due to real scarcity or to indifference. Either way,

it's hard to own the single graded copy of any issue.

 

 

Along this line, clearly rarity in combination with grade and perhaps demand (this may already have been mentioned), should still be/should be considered for assigning points. For example, copper and modern age comic books are, rightly, generally worth substantially less points than, for example, silver and bronze age ones because there are typically a ton of them, including keys.

Of course, there are many more factors for assigning points that I will presently not address.

[wytshus]

Quote

CGC should have one competitive set per ‘Set Type’ whatever that looks like… if it’s with variants, with newsstands, whatever that is, that’s IT.

The rest of the sets you mention can be Custom Sets if someone doesn’t want to ‘compete’ under the CGC ‘Set Type’ guidelines.

I completely agree with this.  Although, I would still like to have 1st Print only sets, but that's just a personal preference. To be perfectly honest, I do not like the (Complete) sets at all.  I prefer to have individual slots for each variant, it soothes my OCD...heh.

 

Quote

This thread seems very unfocused and I'm having a hard time narrowing it down to the real issues.

What exactly is/are the problems? 

The main problem, and the reason I started this thread, is individual issue scoring.  The other issues tie into this. 

On the registry side, when I create a slot, I input the Universal score for a 9.0 Grade(This is usually the minimum cover price). The table in that slot then calculates Universal Scores for the other grades.  Once that is done, there is an algorithm on the back end that is supposed to adjust for scarcity, desirability, and value across all other grading categories and their individual grades. I believe it gets those variables from the census.  

 

The 2 main issues are:

There is no automated system in place to update the Universal Scores.  

There seems to be an issue with the algorithm, it is not always calculating scores correctly.

 

 

[Sauce Dog]

Saw it mentioned about reducing the amount of sets and perhaps requiring a minimum amount of comics to qualify for a set...this feels like a bad idea as it discourages collectors of every type away from the registry. Heck, if a minimum was set my winning Moon Knight set (only 6 issues) could be on the chopping block, right? It wouldn't make sense to axe an entire volume of a characters release just because it was cancelled after a few issues (and some have much less). This is fundamentally an issue with the database - not with set amounts - so the solution is unfortunately the hard job of addressing the actual DB and system, not cutting countless sets that people might feel strongly about. You want MORE sets, not less (this entire registry should be striving to become basically the Pokemon game, gotta-catch-em-all fever, for comic collectors and encourage more set building and competition)

It sounds like the system is too far gone for any real easy solutions, as it would be much better to have every score generated from a set of  specific point variables and only if an exception is entered for a specific issue would the default point value be ignored (for perhaps notable key issues). 

 

[wytshus]

@Sauce Dog

The minimum requirement for set creation is for NEW sets.  I really don't want to delete existing sets or slots.  

My intention is not to get rid of entire sets/series.  I would very much like to eliminate duplicate sets, where ever possible.

 

Take Amazing Spider-Man for an example.

There are 33 separate competitive sets for ASM alone.  There is a Complete Set, a Complete with Variants set, a set for 1st appearances, issue specific sets, issue run sets, foreign issue specific sets, etc.

Now, I understand this, because the title has so many individual issues, across 40 years.  Once you include variants,  it becomes impossible to put them in one set and expect someone to collect them all. 

And this is just for one title. Once you take into consideration other popular titles, you can see the problem.

I have never seen the value in having a Complete set, and a Complete with Variants Set for the same title. 

 

But, like I said, I am not going to make any drastic changes until after next year's awards.  I am just looking for input from the community.  

 

 

[Rosland]

On the topic of scoring a slot:

Why not team up with Overstreet? Set the reference value of a slot (Universal Blue 9.0) to the Overstreet 9.2 value. Once a year

they update the pricing guide and then all set scores are automatically updated by software that uses their database (assuming

they have a database...). Yes, that ties slot scoring to $ but I like that personally.

With the 9.0 reference value, all other slot grades can be automatically generated.

[Rosland]

On 10/21/2022 at 10:38 AM, wytshus said:

@Sauce Dog

The minimum requirement for set creation is for NEW sets.  I really don't want to delete existing sets or slots.  

My intention is not to get rid of entire sets/series.  I would very much like to eliminate duplicate sets, where ever possible.

 

Take Amazing Spider-Man for an example.

There are 33 separate competitive sets for ASM alone.  There is a Complete Set, a Complete with Variants set, a set for 1st appearances, issue specific sets, issue run sets, foreign issue specific sets, etc.

Now, I understand this, because the title has so many individual issues, across 40 years.  Once you include variants,  it becomes impossible to put them in one set and expect someone to collect them all. 

And this is just for one title. Once you take into consideration other popular titles, you can see the problem.

I have never seen the value in having a Complete set, and a Complete with Variants Set for the same title. 

 

But, like I said, I am not going to make any drastic changes until after next year's awards.  I am just looking for input from the community.  

 

 

Suppose users can generate custom sets based on a Complete set. For example, I want a specific artist run on a comic and I can mark each

issue of the Complete set as Enable/Disable. The Disabled slots become invisible, and what is left is my customized version. That could even

work for issues between titles if a massive "Complete Silver Age" (for example) set was available for customizing.

Some thought would be required for set scoring and set awarding...

[Iconic1s]

On 10/21/2022 at 1:23 PM, Rosland said:

Suppose users can generate custom sets based on a Complete set. For example, I want a specific artist run on a comic and I can mark each

issue of the Complete set as Enable/Disable. The Disabled slots become invisible, and what is left is my customized version. That could even

work for issues between titles if a massive "Complete Silver Age" (for example) set was available for customizing.

Some thought would be required for set scoring and set awarding...

This is an interesting idea, but I think it goes back to just making your own Custom Sets.

My concern (again) isn’t so much about the points, as it is about slot creation, which then took a turn to actual Set creation.  I still feel that as long as the same book is worth equal points within a particular set then it’s a fair playing field. I honestly never gave this much thought until newsstands suddenly became variants.

I have one set that I wholeheartedly care about. People had worked on that set for years and hadn’t gotten it close to 100% and in the quality.  It was not easy.  As much as I love that set I think it would be dumb to have a second nearly identical set except with (for example) newsstand slots.  There is no point in that IMO.

As I said earlier CGC just needs to define what a set is going to be so we can decide if we want to play or not.  I, for one, don’t want to spend the next several years working on something else to have the rules/guidelines changed again to suit another type of collector (or to encourage submissions).  I think that, for example, Canadian Price Variants absolutely RUINED the Crisis on Infinite Earths Set Type to suit one (maybe two) guys and I’d rather not see something like that happen to sets I enjoy.

Perhaps part of the solution is to somehow find ways to offer more awards for those type of Custom Sets that stand out because that one guy was so awesome that they went after all these weird books that, although they don’t make the cut for a Competitive Set, still complement the group of books?  Or, just throw every type of variant, newsstand, price variant, etc into the competitive Set Type and call it a day.

I’m not sure about the first printings only set (in addition to another larger set) either.  I think in a lot of cases the person winning in the larger set would just add their books there also, and win a second time.  Maybe, MAYBE, limiting the number of sets a single book/cert number can compete in at a time is something to look at.

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Iconic1s

[Rosland]

I'm not much for collecting the variants, but I do believe that any item graded by CGC deserves a slot in at least one set.

[Iconic1s]

On 10/22/2022 at 12:36 AM, Rosland said:

I'm not much for collecting the variants, but I do believe that any item graded by CGC deserves a slot in at least one set.

Agreed.

On 10/21/2022 at 10:25 PM, Iconic1s said:

 I still feel that as long as the same book is worth equal points within a particular set then it’s a fair playing field. I honestly never gave this much thought until newsstands suddenly became variants.

This is the only reason I am chiming in as much as I am.  In my opinion newsstands can continue to share the same slot as their direct partners as they do now… they have the same indicia and are not variants, they should not have their own slot or be worth more points.

This goes for those ‘Canadian Price Variants’ I mentioned above as well… if they occupied the same slot as their US counterpart you wouldn’t have all the division that Crisis set has been subjected to. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the indicia on those.

When it comes to all the Modern Retailer Variants, I’m not even sure where to begin on those!  In a competitive sense do they each get a slot, or can they all occupy the same slot for competitive purposes?  I don’t know.

Back to points… I don’t think they matter if the same book is worth the same points.  This market is so crazy right now that I’m not sure points should be in any way linked to the market.  Someone else already mentioned that scarcity in the census could mean that the book is indeed rare, or that no one else cares.  I have the only Major Bummer (1997) set… all but one of the 15 books are the first and only graded copies… that’s only because so far I am the only one that cares about that set of books, not because they are hard to find raw (also, other than issue 1, none have ever sold because I submitted them all myself).  Those books should not be worth mega points because they ‘appear’ rare due to the census, and if their points were tied to the market what then?  Having said that, the census is probably not reliable when linked to points either. (Neither is the market when it comes to books like these).

Perhaps points should be tied only to some formula that involves year published and grade… I don’t know but I do think there are too many other factors affecting each and every book that as it is now it is way too complicated to ever be sustainable… and it will only get worse.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Iconic1s

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/21/2022 at 12:38 PM, wytshus said:

@Sauce Dog

The minimum requirement for set creation is for NEW sets.  I really don't want to delete existing sets or slots.  

My intention is not to get rid of entire sets/series.  I would very much like to eliminate duplicate sets, where ever possible.

 

Take Amazing Spider-Man for an example.

There are 33 separate competitive sets for ASM alone.  There is a Complete Set, a Complete with Variants set, a set for 1st appearances, issue specific sets, issue run sets, foreign issue specific sets, etc.

Now, I understand this, because the title has so many individual issues, across 40 years.  Once you include variants,  it becomes impossible to put them in one set and expect someone to collect them all. 

And this is just for one title. Once you take into consideration other popular titles, you can see the problem.

I have never seen the value in having a Complete set, and a Complete with Variants Set for the same title. 

 

But, like I said, I am not going to make any drastic changes until after next year's awards.  I am just looking for input from the community.  

 

 

From what I've heard, new newsstand notations aren't going to matter for the moment, because the notation on the label is being added to the "pedigree" field on the label and cert number

One day at a time.

I'm still wondering if pics I have in the registry are going away? Or redefined when changed next year? 

In reality complete sets of #700 + issues of books, seems silly in way. If you think who will collect all these variants? That's how I feel seeing asm complete with 700+ books. Simpler runs are achievable but I think would still be sought after to complete, yet would be more work? But would also give a quicker sense of accomplishment to those participating... idk

With more simpler sets, more awards make sense, but I would attempt getting more people trying to complete sets before adjusting the awards. By making the sets somehow simpler or smaller "runs" or something else, or if you can think of other qualifiers to atttact.

I welcome less run based sets , like "complete". I don't see the appeal of buying numerous issues of which the only value is being in numerical order, but I'm glad others do! It's probably the heart of collecting! Its just not often enough that the desirables are there in a complete run, ie the habit of the average for collector, thats why different series seem so random cause its here and there with a little collected out of it. Shorter runs or other qulaifiers, help people seek out sets. Not just a library of books in numerical order, which is boring. Especially with asm or X-men Phoenix run with plenty of keys, and is why we've shortend X-men complete. We need more of those, along with ms marvel 16-18 for example. Give someone some purpose and smaller goals, I'm on my way with those, in a way. I just would be thanking Marvel and DC for reboots and would shorten sets to those runs rather than a "complete" set. Don't do away with complete though? I mean, I understand but they're near impossible and idk how to fix that. Maybe once people complete shorter runs from shorter series, It may be easier to adjust the scoring?

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[Qalyar]

I ... don't really know how to solve the problems in a way that will make everyone happy. I've been a proponent of "lots of sets" because:

1. I want my sets to include literally everything. Variant covers, nth printings, direct market/newsstands (...pedigree slot nonsense notwithstanding...grr...), whatever.
2. I don't want to in the cheerios of people who hate newsstands or hate variants or whatever else.
3. I want sets to be defined in ways that make sense.

I also appreciate that mandating that sets mean "full runs" isn't even applicable to... well, an increasing percentage of the community, who literally only care about 1st appearances and major events and are largely willing to discard the "run fill" in between. Even if that makes me very sad.

[Rosland]

Just bite the bullet. Pick your poison. Color boxes are the current scoring system.

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/22/2022 at 10:56 PM, Qalyar said:

I ... don't really know how to solve the problems in a way that will make everyone happy. I've been a proponent of "lots of sets" because:

1. I want my sets to include literally everything. Variant covers, nth printings, direct market/newsstands (...pedigree slot nonsense notwithstanding...grr...), whatever.
2. I don't want to in the cheerios of people who hate newsstands or hate variants or whatever else.
3. I want sets to be defined in ways that make sense.

I also appreciate that mandating that sets mean "full runs" isn't even applicable to... well, an increasing percentage of the community, who literally only care about 1st appearances and major events and are largely willing to discard the "run fill" in between. Even if that makes me very sad.

I feel you. While I agree run sets are the core and should always be there, how many in reality ARE BEING COMPLETED?

It's like saying here is an impossible goal and we'll reward those who "try", thats one thing.

I'm all for them as they're the heart of the hobby, but look at the thousands of sets in the registry and tell me the percentage that are completing 700-800 plus issues, then 1000+ including variants. That's like saying we're "all inclusive", but it isn't the reality, not feasable for most!

Not all sets are like that, so I don't mind! When he says there are too many small sets, then it's like tossing a pebble in the ocean! Lol Oh you got a ASM #1 in 1.8 for $6000, only 999 more books to go? I mean, that isn't all inclusive when it comes down to awarding acheivement. 

[MAR1979]

How Long Is a Score in Years? [and Why It’s Called a Score]

The most popular use of the term ‘score’ is in Lincoln’s speech in Gettysburg. Nowadays, a ‘score’ as a measurement of time is rarely used. People are more acquainted with the term ‘decade.’ If a decade is 10 years, how long is a score?

A score is 20 years long. The term ‘score’ originated from the Old Norse term ‘skor,’ meaning notch, mark, or incision in rock. It also originated from the Old English term ‘scoru,’ meaning ‘twenty.’ 

======================

 

How about For Scores and 21.5 years ago as thread title instead?

[MAR1979]

Hiya @wytshus

Nitpick:

How Long Is a Score in Years? [and Why It’s Called a Score]

The most popular use of the term ‘score’ is in Lincoln’s speech in Gettysburg. Nowadays, a ‘score’ as a measurement of time is rarely used. People are more acquainted with the term ‘decade.’ If a decade is 10 years, how long is a score?

A score is 20 years long. The term ‘score’ originated from the Old Norse term ‘skor,’ meaning notch, mark, or incision in rock. It also originated from the Old English term ‘scoru,’ meaning ‘twenty.’ 

======================

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

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by MAR1979

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 10/23/2022 at 1:38 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I feel you. While I agree run sets are the core and should always be there, how many in reality ARE BEING COMPLETED?

It's like saying here is an impossible goal and we'll reward those who "try", thats one thing.

I'm all for them as they're the heart of the hobby, but look at the thousands of sets in the registry and tell me the percentage that are completing 700-800 plus issues, then 1000+ including variants. That's like saying we're "all inclusive", but it isn't the reality, not feasable for most!

Not all sets are like that, so I don't mind! When he says there are too many small sets, then it's like tossing a pebble in the ocean! Lol Oh you got a ASM #1 in 1.8 for $6000, only 999 more books to go? I mean, that isn't all inclusive when it comes down to awarding acheivement. 

 "in short"

saying, "grade doesn't matter due to value" and "only completion does" is hogwash when you have to spend $25 per modern grading on a 1000+ books  Might as well buy the ASM #1 CGC 1.8 and forget trying?

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

From what I've heard, new newsstand notations aren't going to matter for the moment, because the notation on the label is being added to the "pedigree" field on the label and cert number

One day at a time.

I'm still wondering if pics I have in the registry are going away? Or redefined when changed next year? 

In reality complete sets of #700 + issues of books, seems silly in way. If you think who will collect all these variants? That's how I feel seeing asm complete with 700+ books. Simpler runs are achievable but I think would still be sought after to complete, yet would be more work? But would also give a quicker sense of accomplishment to those participating... idk

With more simpler sets, more awards make sense, but I would attempt getting more people trying to complete sets before adjusting the awards. By making the sets somehow simpler or smaller "runs" or something else, or if you can think of other qualifiers to atttact.

I welcome less run based sets , like "complete". I don't see the appeal of buying numerous issues of which the only value is being in numerical order, but I'm glad others do! It's probably the heart of collecting! Its just not often enough that the desirables are there in a complete run, ie the habit of the average for collector, thats why different series seem so random cause its here and there with a little collected out of it. Shorter runs or other qulaifiers, help people seek out sets. Not just a library of books in numerical order, which is boring. Especially with asm or X-men Phoenix run with plenty of keys, and is why we've shortend X-men complete. We need more of those, along with ms marvel 16-18 for example. Give someone some purpose and smaller goals, I'm on my way with those, in a way. I just would be thanking Marvel and DC for reboots and would shorten sets to those runs rather than a "complete" set. Don't do away with complete though? I mean, I understand but they're near impossible and idk how to fix that. Maybe once people complete shorter runs from shorter series, It may be easier to adjust the scoring?

 

and when I said I'm not mostly a run collector, that's unfair too, because I am for what is feasible. The Moon knight set that won was a good example, short run feasible.

ASM and X-men is good, cause a 3rd of those are "keys" anyway, and Idk how that gets a bad rep  If i'm supposed to buy the keys first before I can't afford them, then pick up the rest of the run? 

I'm not spending $100,000 on "keys" then looked at as undesirable for the registry, only to spend $200,000 more on run filler (that run people even call it that themselves) to pay $25 per slab to win $500 in grading credit

that said break those 1000+ issues into sets of 100? and we got a deal!  as long as those awards eventually get picked.

idk, just