Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide

[ronm3-migration]

Just got this week's Scoop email. Weird how it contains an "article" saying that the Grading Terms were left out of the annual OPG intentionally, and then, a few links down, there's a link that's an ad for the new edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. What a coincidence.

 

[OldGuy]

Just got this week's Scoop email. Weird how it contains an "article" saying that the Grading Terms were left out of the annual OPG intentionally, and then, a few links down, there's a link that's an ad for the new edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. What a coincidence.

 

Shocking. A business promoting it self. What'll they think of next.

 

Next thing you know we could have a 3rd party comic book grading service.

 

What's the world coming to?

 

 

[Aman619]

Just got this week's Scoop email. Weird how it contains an "article" saying that the Grading Terms were left out of the annual OPG intentionally, and then, a few links down, there's a link that's an ad for the new edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. What a coincidence.

 

youre right. Someone didnt proofread their correction about bad proofreading!!!

 

they definitely say (in English grammar) that they left it out IN-tentionally

 

Additionally, some readers have mistakenly believed the grading definitions were unintentionally omitted. That was not the case. These definitions, other static material that continues in the Guide from edition to edition, and links to selected articles from and about the Guide, will be found online at www.gemstonepub.com/06_cbpg.asp, as was indicated in this year's "About This Book" section.

 

see the mistake? "mistakenly beieved it was unintentional" means they "were wrong thinking it was a mistake". yikes!!!

 

 

 

anyway, wasnt this whole broohaha about the "pressing" itself no longer being considered "restoration"? and NOT the deletion of an entire section?? The definitions are still there, they just mouth the CGC/PCS standards.... suddenly.

[FFB]

Just got this week's Scoop email. Weird how it contains an "article" saying that the Grading Terms were left out of the annual OPG intentionally, and then, a few links down, there's a link that's an ad for the new edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. What a coincidence.

 

youre right. Someone didnt proofread their correction about bad proofreading!!!

 

they definitely say (in English grammar) that they left it out IN-tentionally

 

Additionally, some readers have mistakenly believed the grading definitions were unintentionally omitted. That was not the case. These definitions, other static material that continues in the Guide from edition to edition, and links to selected articles from and about the Guide, will be found online at www.gemstonepub.com/06_cbpg.asp, as was indicated in this year's "About This Book" section.

 

see the mistake? "mistakenly beieved it was unintentional" means they "were wrong thinking it was a mistake". yikes!!!

 

 

 

anyway, wasnt this whole broohaha about the "pressing" itself no longer being considered "restoration"? and NOT the deletion of an entire section?? The definitions are still there, they just mouth the CGC/PCS standards.... suddenly.

 

I don't see anything grammatically incorrect about what is in the article. It basically says that the people who thought that Overstreet unintentionally omitted the grading standards were wrong. That's consistent with what Tom G. said here. It sounds to me like they removed the grading standards from the price guide on purpose, at least in part to promote sales of their grading guide. Whatever the wisdom of that decision, the definitions were not unintentionally omitted from the OSPG.

[Zonker]

No, aman619, I believe they were saying exactly what they meant to say, judging from recent posts by Tom G.

 

The Overstreet folks intended to remove the grading definitions from the book. They intended anyone who needed to refer to them to go to the web for those definitions and other "static content."

 

Personally, I think you would need to have at least a cursory definition of what you mean by NM-, VF, FN, VG, etc if you're going to use those terms on every single page of your price guide. But that's just me.

[Aman619]

hold on amigos. This thread and issue began with Esquire alerting u sthat Overstreet CHANGED the wording to omit 'pressing' from restoration techniques. heres a quote:

 

In fact, to make it even clearer that Overstreet (and I use the term generically and not necessarily to reference an individual) no longer apparently considers pressing to be a form of restoration, the term "pressing", for the first time in 36 years, is specifically defined in the Glossary as "the removal or reduction of creases, bends, spine roll, or other surface imperfections." No reference whatsoever or connection to "restoration".

 

Mark's contention was about CHANGES to the section, not the intentional omission of the section on grading. And Tom came on later and said this was an earlier proof that got printed. SO what am I missing here...?

[Aman619]

The glossary entry regarding the definition of restoration found in The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #36 was in error and is an unedited draft version. This error has been corrected in our files and the correct definition found in The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #35 will be printed in The Big Big Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #36.

 

Since the beginning of the Guide, Bob and the entire staff have not only been receptive to feedback, they have encouraged advisor and reader input in each and every edition of the book, even to the point of including full-page ads asking for feedback. In a less general sense, we have actively sought such feedback on specific issues such as the comic book ages changes made to the Guide following the articles in CBPG #33, Scoop, and CBPG #34.

 

While we had communicated this correction privately to several parties who had inquired, we noticed that no one had posted it.

 

Thank you.

 

this is Tom's first post on the issues Mark raised and was seeking answers about. So I think you guys have shifted the focus of this discussion away from its origins as an error or proofreading....

[mica]

aman

someone also pointed out the dropping of the grading definitions.

Sort of a 'speaking of _________' situation.

All good topics and concerns.

[Aman619]

Did you guys notice that this edition of the Guide omits any definitions of the grades along the 10 point scale? Seems to me kind of ludicrous to publish prices for Good, VG, Fine VF, VF/NM and NM-, but no where between the covers actually attempt to explain what those grades are. I guess you're supposed to buy the Grading Guide?

 

I noticed Pontoon (quoted below) mentioned this near the top of the thread, but I missed the significance until I went thumbing through this years Guide today. They do have a page on BLB grading (p 270), but nothing on comic books in the Comic Book Price Guide, despite the helpful hint on p. 67: "It's difficult to overstate how much accurate grading plays into getting a good price for your sales or purchases."

 

Maybe removing the grading definitions is Gemstone's way of telling us we should leave 100% of the grading of comics to the professionals at CGC! Don't try grading your own books, kiddees, it is so complicated we would have to devote 4 whole pages of text to give you an overview of the concept!

 

This is a bit of an aside to Mark's original post, but unless I missed it, the new guide for the first time ever has left out the usual info about the guide, values, grading, preservation etc etc. That stuff is second nature to anyone reading this thread, but isn't it valuable info to anyone new collector buying a guide for the first time? It seems really strange that its no longer there and also another indication of a fundamental shift and attempt to guide the hobby into a ceratin direction

 

Very worthy of an inquire, which I will do.

 

I think this post clears my conf=usion about why we are on different pages. Overstree did two things this year. Mark roiginally pointed out the pressing omission. Later on, someone else pointed out that the entire 10-pt grading section was gone, which was news to Mark (thats HIS quote above "very worthy etc".)

 

Now finally Overstreet has stated (if the grammar IS correct) that while the pressing omission was a mistake, the deletion of the grading scale WAS on purpose.

[Zonker]

Right. There are 2 separate issues here related to changes in this year's Guide.

 

1. The changed resto definition. Overstreet addressed this as an error on their part.

 

2. The grading definitions omission. Overstreet addressed this as intentional on their part.

 

I thought your first post in this thread this afternoon was all about the language they used to describe issue #2. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Additionally, some readers have mistakenly believed the grading definitions were unintentionally omitted. That was not the case. These definitions, other static material that continues in the Guide from edition to edition, and links to selected articles from and about the Guide, will be found online at www.gemstonepub.com/06_cbpg.asp, as was indicated in this year's "About This Book" section.

[Dick Pontoon]

aman

someone also pointed out the dropping of the grading definitions.

Sort of a 'speaking of _________' situation.

All good topics and concerns.

 

I believe the someone was moi.

 

I don't want to keep fanning this, but the argument that the grading descriptions can be found on the web and therefore don't need to be in the book is completely inane. Is this how price guides for other collectibles are published?

[marvelcollector]

 

 

Additionally, some readers have mistakenly believed the grading definitions were unintentionally omitted. That was not the case. These definitions, other static material that continues in the Guide from edition to edition, and links to selected articles from and about the Guide, will be found online at www.gemstonepub.com/06_cbpg.asp, as was indicated in this year's "About This Book" section.

 

I wasn't going to say anything, but it seemed to me the "availabilty of the definitions online" retort was overplayed by those defending the INtentional omission. I never knew until now they - along with other "static material" existed

online. and even if I did, I doubt I would have any use/ability to access it in that form very often..or ever....

 

[esquirecomics]

BEGIN TEXT

 

Overstreet Correction

Industry News, Scoop, Friday, April 21, 2006

 

As some of our perceptive readers have noticed, there was a mistake in the glossary section of The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #36.

 

The entry regarding the definition of restoration was in error and is an unedited draft version. This error has been corrected in our files and the correct definition found in The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #35 will be printed in The Big Big Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #36, which is due out in late May.

 

Since the book's inception, Bob Overstreet and the Guide staff have encouraged advisor and reader input in each and every edition of the book. This has included running full-page editorials asking for feedback, and of course reaching out via Scoop, just as was done with the comic book ages changes made following the articles in CBPG #33 and CBPG #34.

 

Additionally, some readers have mistakenly believed the grading definitions were unintentionally omitted. That was not the case. These definitions, other static material that continues in the Guide from edition to edition, and links to selected articles from and about the Guide, will be found online at www.gemstonepub.com/06_cbpg.asp, as was indicated in this year's "About This Book" section.

END TEXT

 

I've been called worse!

[Scheradon]

Maybe I won't be buying a guide this year after all. I think I can wait and see if everything is restored and correct for next year's edition.

 

I'm not buying it this year (first time in six years), but I can come up with several better reasons then this.

 

 

Well, shoot away then. I've never bought one before and was planning on making this the first year of doing so. I really wouldn't be using it until mid to late August anyway, so it wouldn't kill me to hold off until next year's issue where they may correct the restoration definitions and possibly put the grading section back in.

 

What's your reason(s)?

[esquirecomics]

I'd still like to know which Gemstone employee had the responsibility for the Glossary section to have allowed the "error" to have occurred.

 

And although it has been noted to have been an "error", let us not forget it was also stated that the included language was a draft. That means Gemstone was working on new definitions.

 

Q. Who was working on these new definitions?

 

Q. Why was someone working on these new definitions?

 

Q. What was the basis for the draft language change for the definitions of "restoration" and "pressing"?

 

Q. Who was being consulted from outside Gemstone for the language of these new definitions?

 

Q. What other definitions, if any, were being considered for modification?

 

[esquirecomics]

As far as the intentional omission of the grading standards, which I believe to be a terrible decision (geez, if you are going to cut something, how about keeping marketplace reports down to less than a novel!), I have the following questions:

 

Q. Whose idea was it to remove the grading standards?

 

Q. How high up did the decision go?

 

Q. What was the actual basis for the deletion?

 

I don't find it to be plausible that the sole reason, if any, was that two pages of space were needed for something else.

[ronm3-migration]

Good luck and good luck trying to get answers to all of those questions.

[Scheradon]

As far as the intentional omission of the grading standards, which I believe to be a terrible decision (geez, if you are going to cut something, how about keeping marketplace reports down to less than a novel!), I have the following questions:

 

Q. Whose idea was it to remove the grading standards?

 

Q. How high up did the decision go?

 

Q. What was the actual basis for the deletion?

 

I don't find it to be plausible that the sole reason, if any, was that two pages of space were needed for something else.

 

I also find it funny to omit two pages with a reasonning of rising paper costs. Seriously, put them back in and charge us the few extra pennies for it.

 

I think it has to do with trying to sell the grading guide, but that is my opinion.

[esquirecomics]

Good luck and good luck trying to get answers to all of those questions.

 

That's ok. Silence is a form of an answer as well. Sometimes more telling.

[Aman619]

As far as the intentional omission of the grading standards, which I believe to be a terrible decision (geez, if you are going to cut something, how about keeping marketplace reports down to less than a novel!), I have the following questions:

 

Q. Whose idea was it to remove the grading standards?

 

Q. How high up did the decision go?

 

Q. What was the actual basis for the deletion?

 

I don't find it to be plausible that the sole reason, if any, was that two pages of space were needed for something else.

 

I also find it funny to omit two pages with a reasonning of rising paper costs. Seriously, put them back in and charge us the few extra pennies for it.

 

I think it has to do with trying to sell the grading guide, but that is my opinion.

 

yeah, but the rising paper costs was said by Arnold, and he did NOT say it as THE reason.... just in passing that as the book gets bigger each year that rising paper costs are an increasingly serious issue and steps will have to be taken. I inferred that this years issues were not related to paper costs...