Is it possible..

[Pirate]

break the suspense and send it off.

[B-Smooth]

Its a fantastic book but Im trying to acheive a (9.8 like) grade for my own info. Do I plan on grading these books of mine, no. Do I want them to be of the highest quality, ala (9.8), yes. Im just trying to follow a standard CGC has set. Im actually PRO CGC as far as their grading goes despite their recent problems.

[shrunkenhead]

. Do I want them to be of the highest quality, ala (9.8), yes. Im just trying to follow a standard CGC has set.

 

That would be the "standard" that's never been publically released anywhere, right?

 

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

[B-Smooth]

but its just a lowly GI JOE #4.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think you'll drive yourself mad attempting to figure out the standards CGC have set. They are not published, they have gone through various shifts, they differ from era to era, they are subject to many, many 'human errors' (go find the thread about the GS X-Men #1 that got bumped from an 8.5 to a 9.2 with a cover tear!)...

 

I'm very much pro the concept of CGC (an independent, third party grading company with the interests of the collector at the forefront of their minds), but this bunch are currently hitting none of those marks and are dropping the ball in too many respects for my liking.

[Flaming_Telepath]

. Do I want them to be of the highest quality, ala (9.8), yes. Im just trying to follow a standard CGC has set.

 

That would be the "standard" that's never been publically released anywhere, right?

 

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

 

Yo, Tom! Enjoy the bird?

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

[shrunkenhead]

 

Yo, Tom! Enjoy the bird?

 

My wife did cook a mean turkey, and the homemade cranberry sauce was mighty fine.

 

It's payback time, though, and I'm due to cook a surf & turf dinner this weekend.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

 

[B-Smooth]

I think you'll drive yourself mad attempting to figure out the standards CGC have set. They are not published, they have gone through various shifts, they differ from era to era, they are subject to many, many 'human errors' (go find the thread about the GS X-Men #1 that got bumped from an 8.5 to a 9.2 with a cover tear!)...

 

I'm very much pro the concept of CGC (an independent, third party grading company with the interests of the collector at the forefront of their minds), but this bunch are currently hitting none of those marks and are dropping the ball in too many respects for my liking.

 

After looking at hundreds of graded books, I have a good "feel" for how they grade. Of course, there are exceptions as they are only human. Truth is, as we all know, grading is subjective and a "set of guidelines" would be extremely tough to produce because every book is different with different flaws. Its no where near as cut and dry like baseball cards.

[B-Smooth]

Yes, and I have seen 9.8s with multiple color breaking spine stresses on the back. Boardmember Klozd24-7 has a copy of the last issue of Maxx (can't remember the number) with 2 or more spine cracks on the back that break color. I saw it in person and I was pretty surprised it got a 9.8.

 

I was surprised also, Andrew . If I can get the book to you this weekend, perhaps you can post a scan for good ol' Dungeon, eh???

 

I can try, but my scanner isn't big enough to scan slabs properly. I doubt it would show up well at all.

 

Ever get the old scanner up and running?

[dc360]

To me, it sounds like you're going for a label rather than an actual grade, here. You're saying that a couple flecks shouldn't bring down a 9.8, but if you're going by most commonly accepted grading standards, it does. Really, it sounds like you don't have a 9.8, and you're just hoping for one of CGC's many inconsistencies to work in your favour....