Giant Size X-Men #1 Just Graded 9.9. It Begins..... 7 7

[BrashL]

On 3/28/2024 at 1:19 PM, Axelrod said:

The very concept of a 9.9 "pre-screen" makes no sense (is that really something they are going to be offering?) given the historically comically low numbers of 9.9s (and 10s) given.

Unless what they are tacitly admitting/saying is that their 9.9 grading has been too stingy in the past and they are now going to be a bit more generous with that grading going forward.

Well, I guess ask yourself if this is the best GSX 1 you've ever seen. I pointed out some potential flaws earlier that would suggest maybe this is the opening salvo of changing the grading standards. 

[BrashL]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:00 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

Whether it was a "gift 9.9" for a high profile submitter, a PR stunt or an honest to goodness 9.9, does it have any affect on 99.99% of the collecting community? 

You forgot option D: Bronze and Modern will be graded on a different scale going forward and this is just the start. If that's the case then yes, that's a sea change.

[namisgr]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:00 PM, BrashL said:

Well, I guess ask yourself if this is the best GSX 1 you've ever seen. I pointed out some potential flaws earlier that would suggest maybe this is the opening salvo of changing the grading standards. 

It looks stunning to me, with the edges and corners really standing out, along with clean cover.  But I've only seen scans of 9.8s, and images don't always show everything there is to see, so I don't have much to compare it to.

Edited March 28 by namisgr

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:48 AM, Sigur Ros said:

He didn't say that, did he?

That would mean either:

a)  He's admitting they didn't grade them correctly and/or held off giving deserved 9.9's

b)  They've lowered their standards now.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/28/2024 at 11:19 AM, Axelrod said:

Unless what they are tacitly admitting/saying is that their 9.9 grading has been too stingy in the past and they are now going to be a bit more generous with that grading going forward.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/28/2024 at 11:04 AM, DC# said:

1% of that 16k as 9.9 would give you 162 - where there are none currently.

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:00 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

Whether it was a "gift 9.9" for a high profile submitter, a PR stunt or an honest to goodness 9.9, does it have any affect on 99.99% of the collecting community? 

It was definitely a gift, no matter who submitted it.

And no, it doesn't.

But I see nothing wrong with discussing it.

 

 

[COI]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:53 AM, Stefan_W said:

It is an even smaller wonder when using math and stuff instead of conspiracies. Here is a quick rundown:

From the point that CGC opened its doors up until now CGC had never awarded a 9.9 for a GSX 1, so this is the first. Through that entire time only 239 managed to get to 9.8. 

Mega dealers are the ones who submit the largest volume of high value books. 

So up until now, and just like anyone else, these massive dealers like Metropolis/Comic Connect etc had 9.8s for the best copies without a single 9.9. 

Since these big dealers submit the most books of this type (i.e., the highest grade of GSX) the probability is that one of the dealers will hit 9.9 first. To put it another way, if these folks submit 90% of the copies that are at least a 9.8 they are 90% likely to be the first to hit 9.9. 

So nothing even remotely "off" is happening here, at least so far. 

Conspiracy theories make my head hurt, especially when Occam's Razor applies. 

I appreciate your reluctance to go full tin foil hat, but I'm not sure your conclusion is supported by this breakdown.

The problem is, there's nothing mathematical or inevitable about hitting a 9.9 on a GSX 1, because the assigning of that grade is a subjective call made by humans. It's hard to ignore the myriad of incentives that could have potentially played a role in assigning a 9.9 to this particular copy at this particular time. So I don't think Occam's Razor applies here; it might just be a straight up 9.9, or it could just as easily be a marketing decision. There's no way to know for sure, so everyone is just going to believe what they will. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/28/2024 at 12:14 PM, COI said:

I appreciate your reluctance to go full tin foil hat, but I'm not sure your conclusion is supported by this breakdown.

The problem is, there's nothing mathematical or inevitable about hitting a 9.9 on a GSX 1, because the assigning of that grade is a subjective call made by humans. It's hard to ignore the myriad of incentives that could have potentially played a role in assigning a 9.9 to this particular copy at this particular time. So I don't think Occam's Razor applies here; it might just be a straight up 9.9, or it could just as easily be a marketing decision. There's no way to know for sure, so everyone is just going to believe what they will. 

[Rip]

9.9's have always frustrated me. They should be more common than what they actually are.

It's a not so open secret CGC rebranded them as more of a give/favor for various things more than an honest grade. Not that all of them are like that.
But the grading on them as been so horribly inconsistent with many 9.8's far better than some 9.9's.
At least this one looks like a nice 9.8.

Edited March 28 by Rip

[Chip Cataldo]

"Monetary incentives?" 

[Stefan_W]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:14 PM, COI said:

I appreciate your reluctance to go full tin foil hat, but I'm not sure your conclusion is supported by this breakdown.

The problem is, there's nothing mathematical or inevitable about hitting a 9.9 on a GSX 1, because the assigning of that grade is a subjective call made by humans. It's hard to ignore the myriad of incentives that could have potentially played a role in assigning a 9.9 to this particular copy at this particular time. So I don't think Occam's Razor applies here; it might just be a straight up 9.9, or it could just as easily be a marketing decision. There's no way to know for sure, so everyone is just going to believe what they will. 

I kind of agree with this, but I believe it still goes in a direction that I believe is flawed, which is to conflate CGC motivations with grader decisions. 

The basic argument I am seeing again and again is that CGC may have some motivation for books to be graded in particular ways. But CGC management who has this motivation is not sitting in the trenches grading mountains of comic books. So if this line of argument is correct, how does word get out that they are supposed to give out extra 9.9s especially to "friends" of said management? Is there a memo or something that is circulated that tells graders to start giving out some type of quota of 9.9s? Is there a tag put on books in the anonymous grading process that says "this is a friend book *wink wink*". Does management come along after the fact and erase a bunch of 9.8s in the forms and put in 9.9s?

What sounds reasonable kind of starts to break down in my eyes when one begins to unpack the in-the-trenches process. 

[Chip Cataldo]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:42 PM, Stefan_W said:

What sounds reasonable kind of starts to break down in my eyes when one begins to unpack the in-the-trenches process. 

...but no one really knows what that process is. Matt himself could be walking a particular book through the process if he so chooses...we don't know.

Given the last big scandal, an employee could have printed a 9.9 label and put it on a supposed 9.8, right?

I mean, you'd hate to assume that, but the probability of that happening isn't 0.0%

[COI]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:42 PM, Stefan_W said:

I kind of agree with this, but I believe it still goes in a direction that I believe is flawed, which is to conflate CGC motivations with grader decisions. 

The basic argument I am seeing again and again is that CGC may have some motivation for books to be graded in particular ways. But CGC management who has this motivation is not sitting in the trenches grading mountains of comic books. So if this line of argument is correct, how does word get out that they are supposed to give out extra 9.9s especially to "friends" of said management? Is there a memo or something that is circulated that tells graders to start giving out some type of quota of 9.9s? Is there a tag put on books in the anonymous grading process that says "this is a friend book *wink wink*". Does management come along after the fact and erase a bunch of 9.8s in the forms and put in 9.9s?

What sounds reasonable kind of starts to break down in my eyes when one begins to unpack the in-the-trenches process. 

I saw an interview Matt Nelson did sometime in the last few months where he said that the decision to give a book like this a 9.9 is made by multiple people. As in, when the grader decides this is a potential 9.9, more people are called to weigh in. Based on that alone, you could see how a number of circumstances (like introducing a 9.9 prescreen, recently making an official video about 9.9s and 10s, and so on) might impinge on that decision process. 

Again, we don't know, but if you're a fan of simple explanations, it doesn't seem far fetched to bump a high profile book to 9.9 because it dovetails nicely with a new marketing initiative. That doesn't mean this is what actually happened, but I think it's much more plausible than you're making it out to be.

[Stefan_W]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:48 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

...but no one really knows what that process is. Matt himself could be walking a particular book through the process if he so chooses...we don't know.

Given the last big scandal, an employee could have printed a 9.9 label and put it on a supposed 9.8, right?

I mean, you'd hate to assume that, but the probability of that happening isn't 0.0%

Too tin foil hat for me. But even if one is completely distrustful of CGC, there is are still practical considerations that come into play. For instance, if shady stuff like what you describe is happening, at least some employees will notice. In any organization people come and go, and not all leave on the best terms. So if what you are describing is going on the door would be open for a disgruntled employee to start talking about grade manipulation, which is extremely serious. 

Again, it doesn't make any sense when you unpack the process. But people will believe whatever they believe. 

[Stefan_W]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:55 PM, COI said:

I saw an interview Matt Nelson did sometime in the last few months where he said that the decision to give a book like this a 9.9 is made by multiple people. As in, when the grader decides this is a potential 9.9, more people are called to weigh in. Based on that alone, you could see how a number of circumstances (like introducing a 9.9 prescreen, recently making an official video about 9.9s and 10s, and so on) might impinge on that decision process. 

CGC states directly that all books are evaluated by more than one person. Having more than one person look at a book is their normal process. 

[Chip Cataldo]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:56 PM, Stefan_W said:

Too tin foil hat for me. But even if one is completely distrustful of CGC, there is are still practical considerations that come into play. For instance, if shady stuff like what you describe is happening, at least some employees will notice. In any organization people come and go, and not all leave on the best terms. So if what you are describing is going on the door would be open for a disgruntled employee to start talking about grade manipulation, which is extremely serious. 

Again, it doesn't make any sense when you unpack the process. But people will believe whatever they believe. 

I get that, but we've never heard anything about anything on how they do things and they've obviously had a lot of people leave.

Not one person has said boo about Ewart, the invisible books or the Clayton Crain garbage. They've had the same employees in all departments this entire time?

I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy, but the lack of ONE person talking to anyone about their former employer and what's gone on there (positive or negative) is strange.

Edited March 28 by Chip Cataldo

[Mr. Zipper]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:02 PM, BrashL said:

You forgot option D: Bronze and Modern will be graded on a different scale going forward and this is just the start. If that's the case then yes, that's a sea change.

I think Option D is a giant leap and requires a lot of assumptions.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. 

[COI]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:58 PM, Stefan_W said:

CGC states directly that all books are evaluated by more than one person. Having more than one person look at a book is their normal process. 

I get that. Matt Nelson said that in a case like this, more people weigh in than is usually. His point was that decisions like this aren't made through the normal process because they're unusual. It's a major key, where the difference in grade could mean hundreds of thousand of dollars, and this is the first 9.9. I think it's more far-fetched to believe something like this would just go through the normal process.

[Chaos_in_Canada]

Definitely the B-E-S-T GS XM1, front & back covers are nicely centered.

I feel sorry for holders of CGC9.8s