Change exact grades to ranges???

[Carnage]

Maybe someone's had this idea before, but what if there was a move by 3rd-party grader's from exact grades to "range" grades.

 

For instance something that's now a "9.6" would come back "9.4 - 9.8". Using this method would let CGC concede the fact that there is some wiggle room for grading.

 

Not sure what I think of this myself, wanted to see what everyone else thought about it.

[Comicdey]

so the price would be $50-$100 ? Even in an imperfect world, it's better to try and nail the price/grade down for any transaction, so I'd just leave it as is and accept the fact that there will be anomolies.

[FFB]

This wouldn't be that different from what Sotheby's used to do with individual committee grades back in the 1990s. They'd have an overall ACG grade, then they'd list individual grades by each of the committee members. It sure didn't hurt the hammer price of the AF#15 White Mountain. Despite the pre-auction estimate of $14-17K, it sold for something like $40K. Here's the catalog listing from the 1993 Sotheby's auction.

 

[joe_collector]

But giving out those illusionary CGC 9.8, 9.9 and 10.0 grades are the ONLY reason speculators buy the books, and why comic books are in the midst of a slabbing bubble.

 

If you took away the "artificial rarity" factor, CGC would no longer have any reason to exist, and the specs would go back to buying sportscards and Beanie Babies.

[topofthetotem]

I can't understand how 100 books comming off the same presses, all stacked in the same manner,all boxed in the same fasion can only yeild a single 9.9 or 10.0 book.

I agree with JC somewhat.

9.8/9.9/10.0 are a false marker for rarity.

[Comicdey]

I can't understand how 100 books comming off the same presses, all stacked in the same manner,all boxed in the same fasion can only yeild a single 9.9 or 10.0 book.

I agree with JC somewhat.

9.8/9.9/10.0 are a false marker for rarity.

 

I'd tend to agree if I had thousands to look at and could compare the differences, as it is, the 9.8 and higher black box grades have me baffled.

[evilsly]

I personally will not buy anything higher than 9.6 due to what I feel is the artificial and arbitrary nature of the 9.8 and above grades.

[Anfield Fox]

I have 9.8 copies of ASM 151,153,155,159,163,164,169,175,186, 195 but you are probably not interested

[evilsly]

I'm interested, at 9.4 to 9.6 prices

 

 

anyone who really had those in 9.8 would be sticking them on ebay as fast as possible, as that's where the mad speculators tend to roam in packs.

[joe_collector]

I have 9.8 copies of ASM 151,153,155,159,163,164,169,175,186, 195 but you are probably not interested

 

Certainly not at CGC 9.8 Speculator-Induced pricing.

 

That's the whole key, that CGC has created an artificial level of CGC 9.8/9/9/10.0 grading that attracts some serious label-buyers.

 

Would I be interested the books, outside of a CGC label? Maybe.

 

Would I ever go near one at current specu-insufficiently_thoughtful_person market rates?

[Anfield Fox]

Hey Joe, i actually agree with you. I was just messing.

 

What i will say is that both 9.9 and 10 are as you say "artificial grades" and although there may be a way of distinguishing between them, it certainly can't be done with human eyes.

 

However i don't include 9.8 in that assumption. You can differentiate between a 9.6 and a 9.8 in the holder. I never grade a raw book higher than a NM+ but it is possible to distinguish them. Generally a 9.8 is "perfect" and that includes quality of production. No binary chips, good staple alignment, etc.

 

I think quality of production should count all the way through the grades but that's just me.

[FFB]

Hey Joe, i actually agree with you. I was just messing.

 

What i will say is that both 9.9 and 10 are as you say "artificial grades" and although there may be a way of distinguishing between them, it certainly can't be done with human eyes.

 

However i don't include 9.8 in that assumption. You can differentiate between a 9.6 and a 9.8 in the holder. I never grade a raw book higher than a NM+ but it is possible to distinguish them. Generally a 9.8 is "perfect" and that includes quality of production. No binary chips, good staple alignment, etc.

 

I think quality of production should count all the way through the grades but that's just me.

 

I think QP should get a separate score of its own. We've discussed this at length on the forums before. But it'll never happen.

[inconceivable]

Hey Joe, i actually agree with you. I was just messing.

 

What i will say is that both 9.9 and 10 are as you say "artificial grades" and although there may be a way of distinguishing between them, it certainly can't be done with human eyes.

 

However i don't include 9.8 in that assumption. You can differentiate between a 9.6 and a 9.8 in the holder. I never grade a raw book higher than a NM+ but it is possible to distinguish them. Generally a 9.8 is "perfect" and that includes quality of production. No binary chips, good staple alignment, etc.

 

I think quality of production should count all the way through the grades but that's just me.

 

I think QP should get a separate score of its own. We've discussed this at length on the forums before. But it'll never happen.

 

It better not. Comic book collectors are considered geeky enough as it is. Could you imagine the looks you would get if you pulled out your protractor to see if a book met your 3% tilt criteria? What happened if your wife caught you doing that?

 

Dan

[FFB]

Hey Joe, i actually agree with you. I was just messing.

 

What i will say is that both 9.9 and 10 are as you say "artificial grades" and although there may be a way of distinguishing between them, it certainly can't be done with human eyes.

 

However i don't include 9.8 in that assumption. You can differentiate between a 9.6 and a 9.8 in the holder. I never grade a raw book higher than a NM+ but it is possible to distinguish them. Generally a 9.8 is "perfect" and that includes quality of production. No binary chips, good staple alignment, etc.

 

I think quality of production should count all the way through the grades but that's just me.

 

I think QP should get a separate score of its own. We've discussed this at length on the forums before. But it'll never happen.

 

It better not. Comic book collectors are considered geeky enough as it is. Could you imagine the looks you would get if you pulled out your protractor to see if a book met your 3% tilt criteria? What happened if your wife caught you doing that?

 

Dan

 

Dude, with the number of CGC forum dinners she's been to and informal CGC local forum member gatherings she's been to at our house and others, she's seen me geek out plenty by now. A protractor wouldn't even phase her.

[inconceivable]

Hey Joe, i actually agree with you. I was just messing.

 

What i will say is that both 9.9 and 10 are as you say "artificial grades" and although there may be a way of distinguishing between them, it certainly can't be done with human eyes.

 

However i don't include 9.8 in that assumption. You can differentiate between a 9.6 and a 9.8 in the holder. I never grade a raw book higher than a NM+ but it is possible to distinguish them. Generally a 9.8 is "perfect" and that includes quality of production. No binary chips, good staple alignment, etc.

 

I think quality of production should count all the way through the grades but that's just me.

 

I think QP should get a separate score of its own. We've discussed this at length on the forums before. But it'll never happen.

 

It better not. Comic book collectors are considered geeky enough as it is. Could you imagine the looks you would get if you pulled out your protractor to see if a book met your 3% tilt criteria? What happened if your wife caught you doing that?

 

Dan

 

Dude, with the number of CGC forum dinners she's been to and informal CGC local forum member gatherings she's been to at our house and others, she's seen me geek out plenty by now. A protractor wouldn't even phase her.

 

 

Dan

[joe_collector]

Generally a 9.8 is "perfect" and that includes quality of production. No binary chips, good staple alignment, etc.

 

I've seen many poor-QP CGC 9.8's, which according to Borock "would have received a CGC 9.9 without the bad QP".

[Neurosis138]

I was talking with my boss who deals in graded sportscards, and the ones he showed me had sub-grades. They gave differrent grades for the edges, centering, etc, and then you have a main grade, which I believe is an average of the grades combined. Woudl this be a bad idea for comics, and if so, why?

 

-Chris

[joeypost]

I have 9.8 copies of ASM 151,153,155,159,163,164,169,175,186, 195 but you are probably not interested

 

Certainly not at CGC 9.8 Speculator-Induced pricing.

 

That's the whole key, that CGC has created an artificial level of CGC 9.8/9/9/10.0 grading that attracts some serious label-buyers.

 

Would I be interested the books, outside of a CGC label? Maybe.

 

Would I ever go near one at current specu-insufficiently_thoughtful_person market rates?

 

Here is a classic example of label buying. This book sells all day for under $20 in ultra high grade. Just take a look at the final price. Boggles the mind on a non-key, non anything book other than "the only 9.8".

 

Hulk 195

[topofthetotem]

I think that book will be relisted. "0" feedback buyers are almost always trouble.

[HouseofComics.Com]

That's true. Once Beth saw the whole Bay Area forum contingent sniffing comic books she lost the ability to be surprised by anything they do again.

 

Marc