2023 CGC Grading Contest Season 2 Spring Edition (#6) Round 1 Results 3 3

[apocalypse76]

On 4/25/2023 at 3:25 PM, cchunn3 said:

Took another look at the Ver. There is some bending lower left BC w/o breaks. The top right BC does show evidence of an impact with a couple of bends but also not breaking. The tufting at the top and bottom of the spine is bindery. I think the camera flash makes these defects appear worse than they are. FWIW, I missed it HIGH at 9.8.

I appreciate someone making an insightful comment about this even though I don't agree with it. What appears to be slight color break on the creases mentioned being more pronounced due to the lighting / angle used is possible, but I would still say however, that creases like that even without color break, along with a few color - breaking ticks on the spine, and the overall poor presentation of a MODERN book from the 90's should have never gotten better than 9.2.

The significance of my point here has nothing to do with a CGC contest or just being a "sore loser". The point here is that because CGC badly mis graded this book some poor sap will probably pay hundreds of dollars for it when they could buy it in the same exact condition raw on EBAY for $25. Everyone seemingly going along with the grade like there's nothing wrong doesn't incentivize CGC to do a better job.

[cchunn3]

On 4/25/2023 at 3:59 PM, apocalypse76 said:

I appreciate someone making an insightful comment about this even though I don't agree with it. What appears to be slight color break on the creases mentioned being more pronounced due to the lighting / angle used is possible, but I would still say however, that creases like that even without color break, along with a few color - breaking ticks on the spine, and the overall poor presentation of a MODERN book from the 90's should have never gotten better than 9.2.

The significance of my point here has nothing to do with a CGC contest or just being a "sore loser". The point here is that because CGC badly mis graded this book some poor sap will probably pay hundreds of dollars for it when they could buy it in the same exact condition raw on EBAY for $25. Everyone seemingly going along with the grade like there's nothing wrong doesn't incentivize CGC to do a better job.

I would counter the era/age of a book should not factor into a grade. A fifty year old defect is the same as a 2 year old defect. You imply different era defects should be viewed through different lenses. A non-color-breaking bend is not a crease. It's not the majority "going along" with a grade, it's what the majority voted for before seeing the "grade".

So everyone else is wrong and we all badly mis-graded this book? c'mon

[apocalypse76]

On 4/25/2023 at 3:58 PM, timfinz said:

I'll weigh in!

I don't see the 1/2" crease you are referring to. It may be an issue with the way the image appears on your screen. I see only one small spine tic non-colour breaking LRHS, slight blunted corners or bindery tears of the spine top and bottom and the small crease on the bottom LCBC (appears to be slight colour breaking). I had the book at 9.6 but what I thought was dirt or smudges on the front cover below the UPC code knocked it down a grade for me to 9.4. I know this caught the eye of some other board members as well.

I think the book presents beautifully.

I would say you over graded the book even if I agreed with your assessment of the defects that are present on it.

[TC33]

So much for easier grading on the Golden Age 10 cent books!  Last competition I had that nailed, but this time around they graded them as tight or tighter than the silver age!

[divad]

On 4/25/2023 at 1:12 PM, apocalypse76 said:

Are you asserting that the defects in my previous message don't exist?

Yes.

[divad]

On 4/25/2023 at 1:59 PM, apocalypse76 said:

The significance of my point here has nothing to do with a CGC contest or just being a "sore loser". The point here is that because CGC badly mis graded this book some poor sap will probably pay hundreds of dollars for it when they could buy it in the same exact condition raw on EBAY for $25. Everyone seemingly going along with the grade like there's nothing wrong doesn't incentivize CGC to do a better job.

Your comments aren't going to "incentivise" CGC to do anything. CGC did not "badly mis grade[d]" the book. You have the severe disadvantage of grading a book from scans vs. grading it in hand, and yet for some reason you think your grade of 8.0 is correct. Scans can be tricky, and photos even worse. Good luck on the next round! 

[apocalypse76]

On 4/25/2023 at 4:08 PM, cchunn3 said:

I would counter the era/age of a book should not factor into a grade. A fifty year old defect is the same as a 2 year old defect. You imply different era defects should be viewed through different lenses. A non-color-breaking bend is not a crease. It's not the majority "going along" with a grade, it's what the majority voted for before seeing the "grade".

So everyone else is wrong and we all badly mis-graded this book? c'mon

If you don't think that the age of a book effects the overall grade you haven't been in this hobby for very long. Representatives of CGC such as Matt Nelson have admitted to that in interviews long ago already, it's a well-established fact, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or wrong.

I agree that a bend and a crease are not the same thing, but I see those two defects in question as color breaking creases and someone else has posted in this thread that they also believe that the defect in the lower left corner of back cover is a color breaking crease. You have even admitted that the two creases exist without color break. To me we can't really argue over what each other can or can't see but I would call into question the grades that were given for what people have admitted they do see. For instance, just based on the defects you have stated in your first post that you did see, how could you give a 9.8?

Obviously, people submitted their grades before they saw the actual grade but I am just shocked that so few people saw those defects, and the people who have commented so far all seem to think the grade is reasonable even though they have all admitted to seeing some of the defects that I have pointed out. That's what I am referring to by people going along, not that there is some conspiracy of some kind. 

[apocalypse76]

On 4/25/2023 at 4:39 PM, divad said:

Your comments aren't going to "incentivise" CGC to do anything. CGC did not "badly mis grade[d]" the book. You have the severe disadvantage of grading a book from scans vs. grading it in hand, and yet for some reason you think your grade of 8.0 is correct. Scans can be tricky, and photos even worse. Good luck on the next round! 

I never said that my grade is the "correct grade". The fact that I am grading based on scans lends to some degree of inaccuracy, such as the creases mentioned maybe being less color breaking than they appear to me, or the grader not using the same overall aesthetic interpretation as me. My main point that is irrefutable to anyone who has good eyesight and experience in grading is that 9.6 for this book is ridiculous and the fact that so many people gave it a 9.6 is shocking to me. 

I have been on these boards for several years and you can tell by the number of posts I have made that not very much that happens on here inspires me to comment on it, 99% of my posts are transactional.  I couldn't hold it in on this one, I had to know what people had to say. 

[Cat]

On 4/26/2023 at 12:09 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

@Cat 

Who are you, and what have you done with Cat? 

 

I can't stop laughing. I've never done grades so quickly, and THAT is the result?! I'm shocked! 

[EastEnd1]

On 4/25/2023 at 12:49 PM, apocalypse76 said:

Does anyone care to weigh in on the Veronica # 28? I can see by the statistics that most people graded the book 9.4 - 9.6. I can accept that I am way off in my grade of 8.0 if anyone can justify why a book that appears to have a 1/2" corner crease top right BC, 1/4" corner crease bottom left BC as well as a handful of color breaking spine ticks could acheive such superior grades?

Are people saying that because these defects only slightly break color they aren't actually there?

Glad you brought this up cause I originally had this book graded a 9.6, then thought I saw the defects you mention on closer inspection and lowered my grade to 9.0.  Only thing I can think of is that those defects were just scan reflections in the paper and not actual bends.

[WilliamLunt]

Not to beat a dead horse about Veronica, but I’ve got Covid and have more time than I know what to do with.

Re: back cover lower left corner, it caught my eye but looking at it I still believe it is a failure of the scan. It looks like a natural pattern that mimics a corner crease.

Re: back cover spine corners, dismissing bindery tears, I narrowed the grade to 9.4/9.6.

At this point it’s a coin flip for me as it is a scan after all but I decided that the books outstanding eye appeal merited a promotion to 9.6.

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 4/25/2023 at 6:06 PM, Cat said:

I can't stop laughing. I've never done grades so quickly, and THAT is the result?! I'm shocked! 

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 4/25/2023 at 6:40 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

 

Lol it was supposed to just say "round 2, fight!"

But I guess there are gifs that are longer

On 4/25/2023 at 6:06 PM, Cat said:

I can't stop laughing. I've never done grades so quickly, and THAT is the result?! I'm shocked! 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[Cat]

On 4/26/2023 at 9:59 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Lol it was supposed to just say "round 2, fight!"

But I guess there are gifs that are longer

 

As massive MK fan I enjoyed the longer GIF.  And that raccoon is absolutely how I feel, hanging out with the people who can legit grade right now. 

[Stefan_W]

I am good with a 5. At least I am not out of it in round one like I usually am. 

[trmoore54]

On 4/25/2023 at 2:43 PM, apocalypse76 said:

If you don't think that the age of a book effects the overall grade you haven't been in this hobby for very long. Representatives of CGC such as Matt Nelson have admitted to that in interviews long ago already, it's a well-established fact, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or wrong.

I agree that a bend and a crease are not the same thing, but I see those two defects in question as color breaking creases and someone else has posted in this thread that they also believe that the defect in the lower left corner of back cover is a color breaking crease. You have even admitted that the two creases exist without color break. To me we can't really argue over what each other can or can't see but I would call into question the grades that were given for what people have admitted they do see. For instance, just based on the defects you have stated in your first post that you did see, how could you give a 9.8?

Obviously, people submitted their grades before they saw the actual grade but I am just shocked that so few people saw those defects, and the people who have commented so far all seem to think the grade is reasonable even though they have all admitted to seeing some of the defects that I have pointed out. That's what I am referring to by people going along, not that there is some conspiracy of some kind. 

Round 1 butt hurt...and it's on!! Love it!!  

[cchunn3]

On 4/25/2023 at 4:43 PM, apocalypse76 said:

If you don't think that the age of a book effects the overall grade you haven't been in this hobby for very long. Representatives of CGC such as Matt Nelson have admitted to that in interviews long ago already, it's a well-established fact, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or wrong.

I agree that a bend and a crease are not the same thing, but I see those two defects in question as color breaking creases and someone else has posted in this thread that they also believe that the defect in the lower left corner of back cover is a color breaking crease. You have even admitted that the two creases exist without color break. To me we can't really argue over what each other can or can't see but I would call into question the grades that were given for what people have admitted they do see. For instance, just based on the defects you have stated in your first post that you did see, how could you give a 9.8?

Obviously, people submitted their grades before they saw the actual grade but I am just shocked that so few people saw those defects, and the people who have commented so far all seem to think the grade is reasonable even though they have all admitted to seeing some of the defects that I have pointed out. That's what I am referring to by people going along, not that there is some conspiracy of some kind. 

OK, so we have established CGC representatives are wrong. A 50 year old book is NM. Well, not really because it's 50 years old. If it were 30 years old, then yeah, sure, NM. 50? No way. Balderdash.

I gave it a 9.8 because the CGC graders are wildly inconsistent with what defect affects grade more than another, and seem fairly liberal on some defects. And non-breaking bends are allowed in high grade. So I "over-graded" to compensate for liberal graders. I didn't grade the book as I normally would, but how I thought a CGC grader would, which seems to me to be fairly liberal.

So you are shocked(!) the majority didn't agree with your actual grade, but their own actual grade? Preposterous. It's just that you give more weight to those perceived defects than the rest of us.

It looks like I'm going to get obliterated in this contest, so the debate is academic. Round over, man. Let's argue about round two when it's tallied.

[thehumantorch]

On 4/25/2023 at 2:59 PM, apocalypse76 said:

I appreciate someone making an insightful comment about this even though I don't agree with it. What appears to be slight color break on the creases mentioned being more pronounced due to the lighting / angle used is possible, but I would still say however, that creases like that even without color break, along with a few color - breaking ticks on the spine, and the overall poor presentation of a MODERN book from the 90's should have never gotten better than 9.2.

The significance of my point here has nothing to do with a CGC contest or just being a "sore loser". The point here is that because CGC badly mis graded this book some poor sap will probably pay hundreds of dollars for it when they could buy it in the same exact condition raw on EBAY for $25. Everyone seemingly going along with the grade like there's nothing wrong doesn't incentivize CGC to do a better job.

I had it at 9.6 and obviously agree with CGC

[AbsoluteCarnage]

 I had better books than that Veronica show up 9.2. I plopped that at 9.0. guess too many books graded by Johnny ultra grade CGC 

[AbsoluteCarnage]

Fun stuff at any rate