Old Label vs New Label

[kc120us]

According to CGC's web site:

 

10.0 Mint

9.9 Mint

9.8 Near Mint/Mint

9.6 Near Mint +

9.4 Near Mint

9.2 Near Mint -

9.0 Very Fine/Near Mint

8.5 Very Fine +

8.0 Very Fine

7.5 Very Fine -

7.0 Fine/Very Fine

6.5 Fine +

6.0 Fine

5.5 Fine -

5.0 Very Good/Fine

4.5 Very Good +

4.0 Very Good

3.5 Very Good -

3.0 Good/Very Good

2.5 Good +

2.0 Good

1.8 Good -

1.5 Fair/Good

1.0 Fair

.5 Poor

 

I don't understand the confusion.

[KingOfRulers]

King:

 

Don't the Comic Companies (like Valiant, Image etc in the 90s) simply respond to the demand in the market place from speculators buying thousands of copies or whatever spiking and artificially inflating demand?

 

To me, you can't have one without the other, and that's when a crash can ensue, because the demand isn't real.

 

That is the fault of the store or dealer that orders the books. It is up to them to order the correct amount of product. Its not the buyer's fault that the books are supplied to them. It is the dealer's. It is up to the dealer to make decisions regarding order numbers--nobody elses. You'd think after a time of talking to customers and serving customers with 50 copies of whatever, that they'd get the idea at some point in the future its going to collapse. That is one of the undeclared jobs of any salesman--to predict market trends, and to counteract unwanted activity in that market.

 

I'm not saying speculators were not a part of it. I'm just pointing out that anyone calling a speculator the only actor responsible for the crash is just plain wrong, because that would be impossible. There was more then one actor in the cause of the crash. Heck, one could take it back a step further and ask, "what caused the speculator to begin speculating in this industry in the first place?" The answer to that would be having read in the paper that many tens of thousands of dollars were being spent on old collections (now pedigree collections).

[arexcrooke]

According to CGC's web site:

 

10.0 Mint

9.9 Mint

9.8 Near Mint/Mint

9.6 Near Mint +

9.4 Near Mint

9.2 Near Mint -

9.0 Very Fine/Near Mint

8.5 Very Fine +

8.0 Very Fine

7.5 Very Fine -

7.0 Fine/Very Fine

6.5 Fine +

6.0 Fine

5.5 Fine -

5.0 Very Good/Fine

4.5 Very Good +

4.0 Very Good

3.5 Very Good -

3.0 Good/Very Good

2.5 Good +

2.0 Good

1.8 Good -

1.5 Fair/Good

1.0 Fair

.5 Poor

 

I don't understand the confusion.

Even though they have the same nomenclature, it doesnt mean that it aligns with what the Overstreet (the accepted arbiter of grading in our hobby until CGC came and offered their own unique and so far unknown) says is and is not acceptable in those grade ranges.

[KingOfRulers]

 

Go back and read postings from last night, wherein I explained that the numerical system is not defined. That was the 'good reason' I had already given.

 

Who is talking about the grading system of CGC? I am talking simply relating the numerical system to the older system. The actual numbers in the system. They can be used the same way as the older system to mean the same quality of a book, just easier for the common collector to understand. I'm not refering to the way in which CGC interprets the numerical system to identify the given quality of a book.

 

 

No, that is how you apply it. It's not how CGC necessarily apply it, and it's certainly not the way I apply it (colour-breaking corner creases in NM-).

 

I am aware of that. And as mentioned before I am talking the numbers compared to the older system. I am not talking the ideas behind the numbers--just the numbers themselves. CGC does not own the number "9.2" or "9.8". They can be applied to be synonomous with the older system, but be more practical in its application as to be simple for everyone to understand whether new or old to the hobby.

[Flaming_Telepath]

According to CGC's web site:

 

10.0 Mint

9.9 Mint

9.8 Near Mint/Mint

9.6 Near Mint +

9.4 Near Mint

9.2 Near Mint -

9.0 Very Fine/Near Mint

8.5 Very Fine +

8.0 Very Fine

7.5 Very Fine -

7.0 Fine/Very Fine

6.5 Fine +

6.0 Fine

5.5 Fine -

5.0 Very Good/Fine

4.5 Very Good +

4.0 Very Good

3.5 Very Good -

3.0 Good/Very Good

2.5 Good +

2.0 Good

1.8 Good -

1.5 Fair/Good

1.0 Fair

.5 Poor

 

I don't understand the confusion.

Even though they have the same nomenclature, it doesnt mean that it aligns with what the Overstreet (the accepted arbiter of grading in our hobby until CGC came and offered their own unique and so far unknown) says is and is not acceptable in those grade ranges.

 

Correct. And there are ten of thousands of examples, many of which we have seen posted here on these boards, the prove that the two don't tally.

 

But one system is clearly defined in the most prestigious comic-related publication of all time, available to all and understood by all who read and study it.

 

And the other system is written on the back of Steve Borock's old cigar pack and kept top secret.

 

So....remind me again which is the 'better' system?

[arexcrooke]

 

Go back and read postings from last night, wherein I explained that the numerical system is not defined. That was the 'good reason' I had already given.

 

Who is talking about the grading system of CGC? I am talking simply relating the numerical system to the older system. The actual numbers in the system. They can be used the same way as the older system to mean the same quality of a book, just easier for the common collector to understand. I'm not refering to the way in which CGC interprets the numerical system to identify the given quality of a book.

 

 

No, that is how you apply it. It's not how CGC necessarily apply it, and it's certainly not the way I apply it (colour-breaking corner creases in NM-).

 

I am aware of that. And as mentioned before I am talking the numbers compared to the older system. I am not talking the ideas behind the numbers--just the numbers themselves. CGC does not own the number "9.2" or "9.8". They can be applied to be synonomous with the older system, but be more practical in its application as to be simple for everyone to understand whether new or old to the hobby.

What you are missing King is what I posted above. While they use the same NM scale that Overstreet uses, there is no concrete definition from CGC about what constisutes THEIR NM.

[KingOfRulers]

 

Go back and read postings from last night, wherein I explained that the numerical system is not defined. That was the 'good reason' I had already given.

 

Who is talking about the grading system of CGC? I am talking simply relating the numerical system to the older system. The actual numbers in the system. They can be used the same way as the older system to mean the same quality of a book, just easier for the common collector to understand. I'm not refering to the way in which CGC interprets the numerical system to identify the given quality of a book.

 

 

No, that is how you apply it. It's not how CGC necessarily apply it, and it's certainly not the way I apply it (colour-breaking corner creases in NM-).

 

I am aware of that. And as mentioned before I am talking the numbers compared to the older system. I am not talking the ideas behind the numbers--just the numbers themselves. CGC does not own the number "9.2" or "9.8". They can be applied to be synonomous with the older system, but be more practical in its application as to be simple for everyone to understand whether new or old to the hobby.

What you are missing King is what I posted above. While they use the same NM scale that Overstreet uses, there is no concrete definition from CGC about what constisutes THEIR NM.

 

I am not missing that, as I have stated more then once I am refering to the numbers themselves, not any given idea or definition CGC gives to the numbers.

[Flaming_Telepath]

That is the fault of the store or dealer that orders the books. It is up to them to order the correct amount of product. Its not the buyer's fault that the books are supplied to them. It is the dealer's. It is up to the dealer to make decisions regarding order numbers--nobody elses. You'd think after a time of talking to customers and serving customers with 50 copies of whatever, that they'd get the idea at some point in the future its going to collapse. That is one of the undeclared jobs of any salesman--to predict market trends, and to counteract unwanted activity in that market.

 

I'm not saying speculators were not a part of it. I'm just pointing out that anyone calling a speculator the only actor responsible for the crash is just plain wrong, because that would be impossible. There was more then one actor in the cause of the crash. Heck, one could take it back a step further and ask, "what caused the speculator to begin speculating in this industry in the first place?" The answer to that would be having read in the paper that many tens of thousands of dollars were being spent on old collections (now pedigree collections).

 

Oh, for fuc...

 

Look, that's not how supply and demand works. It's not how capitalism works.

 

You have a product. It's in demand. You do whatever you can to meet that demand. It might be a temporary demand. It might be a false demand.

 

But you attempt to meet it regardless.

 

When was the last time you rocked up at McDonald's and got told that there were no more Cheeseburgers available because that month, the American public had already eaten more than were good for them?

[arexcrooke]

 

Go back and read postings from last night, wherein I explained that the numerical system is not defined. That was the 'good reason' I had already given.

 

Who is talking about the grading system of CGC? I am talking simply relating the numerical system to the older system. The actual numbers in the system. They can be used the same way as the older system to mean the same quality of a book, just easier for the common collector to understand. I'm not refering to the way in which CGC interprets the numerical system to identify the given quality of a book.

 

 

No, that is how you apply it. It's not how CGC necessarily apply it, and it's certainly not the way I apply it (colour-breaking corner creases in NM-).

 

I am aware of that. And as mentioned before I am talking the numbers compared to the older system. I am not talking the ideas behind the numbers--just the numbers themselves. CGC does not own the number "9.2" or "9.8". They can be applied to be synonomous with the older system, but be more practical in its application as to be simple for everyone to understand whether new or old to the hobby.

What you are missing King is what I posted above. While they use the same NM scale that Overstreet uses, there is no concrete definition from CGC about what constisutes THEIR NM.

 

I am not missing that, as I have stated more then once I am refering to the numbers themselves, not any given idea or definition CGC gives to the numbers.

I promised myself I wouldnt get sucked in to this, but if the numbers have no meaning, how can that help the consumer? They are buying a number with no idea as to what the number means.

That doesnt help anyone and how does this make the new system better?

[Flaming_Telepath]

Because that system was stupid to begin with With a numerical system even those not as familiar with grading would have an idea to the quality of the book. Everyone would have an idea what a 2.5 out of 10 would look like--although a GD+ would be a mystery to many. "Is it really a "good" book???" The old system was a bad idea from the start.

 

Your second post in the thread.

 

I especially like the bit about Everyone would have an idea what a 2.5 out of 10 would look like--although a GD+ would be a mystery to many.

 

What's it to be? That numbers are simply easier to understand than letters, as you are now claiming?

 

Or that a 2.5 is know to all, but a GD+ is a mystery to all, as you originally claimed?

 

[kc120us]

Even though they have the same nomenclature, it doesnt mean that it aligns with what the Overstreet (the accepted arbiter of grading in our hobby until CGC came and offered their own unique and so far unknown) says is and is not acceptable in those grade ranges.

 

If you mean that the slabbed books grades are not always consistent, well that could be due more to the subjective nature of grading and to the truly insignificant differences between a grade (i.e 9.2(NM-) and 9.4(NM)) than the chosen nomenclature. I don't see that many books graded NM that should be graded Fine. Perhaps, an experiment is in order. If someone has a copy of the OS grading guide handy, find a slabbed book, call CGC and get the grader's notes, than compare the notes with what is listed in the guide for the given grade. See if they are in alignment. I would suggest a book graded lower than 9.6 since Steve has said that modern's graded 9.6 or higher won't have notes.

[arexcrooke]

Even though they have the same nomenclature, it doesnt mean that it aligns with what the Overstreet (the accepted arbiter of grading in our hobby until CGC came and offered their own unique and so far unknown) says is and is not acceptable in those grade ranges.

 

If you mean that the slabbed books grades are not always consistent, well that could be due more to the subjective nature of grading and to the truly insignificant differences between a grade (i.e 9.2(NM-) and 9.4(NM)) than the chosen nomenclature. I don't see that many books graded NM that should be graded Fine. Perhaps, an experiment is in order. If someone has a copy of the OS grading guide handy, find a slabbed book, call CGC and get the grader's notes, than compare the notes with what is listed in the guide for the given grade. See if they are in alignment. I would suggest a book graded lower than 9.6 since Steve has said that modern's graded 9.6 or higher won't have notes.

No, im not talking about grades being inconsistent. What I am talking about is:

1-CGC has switched to a numbers only nomenclature

2-Even though they call them "NM" it doesnt neccesarily align with OS

3-Because they dont align with OS, there is no meaining behind the #

[Flaming_Telepath]

I promised myself I wouldnt get sucked in to this, but if the numbers have no meaning, how can that help the consumer? They are buying a number with no idea as to what the number means.

That doesnt help anyone and how does this make the new system better?

 

I could suggest that it is designed to cater to the speculators who have no idea what they're actually buying, or what it's truly worth, and could not be arsed to do some research into the grading criteria laid out decades past, that has served the hobby/industry superbly in all of that time.

 

BSD 1 'Hey, how do we get more money across the counters from fat-walleted geeks looking for a killing?'

 

BSD 2 'Big numbers, man! Get rid of all the alphabet and just give 'em big numbers! They love big numbers!

[KingOfRulers]

 

Oh, for fuc...

 

Look, that's not how supply and demand works. It's not how capitalism works.

 

You have a product. It's in demand. You do whatever you can to meet that demand. It might be a temporary demand. It might be a false demand.

 

Thats not how supply and demand works, but it is sure how capitalism works. That is what seperates a good business man from a bad one. You attempt to meet the demand, while considering other factors related to it. If you always flock to meet something simply because its hot at the time, you will at some point get burned. I thought this was a basic concept that just about everyone knew...

 

But you attempt to meet it regardless.

Wrong. As can be seen in this very point we are arguing If you attempt to meet a demand without thinking you could very well be digging your own grave. Going on a mad dash to meet demand may work sometimes...it may work most of the time, but it can also backfire. Meeting a demand by itself does not make you a good businessman. A good businessman has reasoning and foresight skills.

[arexcrooke]

 

Oh, for fuc...

 

Look, that's not how supply and demand works. It's not how capitalism works.

 

You have a product. It's in demand. You do whatever you can to meet that demand. It might be a temporary demand. It might be a false demand.

 

Thats not how supply and demand works, but it is sure how capitalism works. That is what seperates a good business man from a bad one. You attempt to meet the demand, while considering other factors related to it. If you always flock to meet something simply because its hot at the time, you will at some point get burned. I thought this was a basic concept that just about everyone knew...

 

But you attempt to meet it regardless.

Wrong. As can be seen in this very point we are arguing If you attempt to meet a demand without thinking you could very well be digging your own grave. Going on a mad dash to meet demand may work sometimes...it may work most of the time, but it can also backfire. Meeting a demand by itself does not make you a good businessman. A good businessman has reasoning and foresight skills.

Look, if you dont meet that demand, the customers will go somewhere else and buy from someone who will. In your high-minded "I know what is best for me, you, and the market" idiology you get the honor of closing your doors when you go out of business while the guy who caters to customer gets to keep his doors open.

[KingOfRulers]

Because that system was stupid to begin with With a numerical system even those not as familiar with grading would have an idea to the quality of the book. Everyone would have an idea what a 2.5 out of 10 would look like--although a GD+ would be a mystery to many. "Is it really a "good" book???" The old system was a bad idea from the start.

 

Your second post in the thread.

 

I especially like the bit about Everyone would have an idea what a 2.5 out of 10 would look like--although a GD+ would be a mystery to many.

 

What's it to be? That numbers are simply easier to understand than letters, as you are now claiming?

 

Or that a 2.5 is know to all, but a GD+ is a mystery to all, as you originally claimed?

 

 

Is it really so difficult for you to understand.

 

It is easier for any given person to comprehend a 2.5 when in the context of being out of a possible 10, then it is a person to understand what a GD+ means from a FN- to a NM.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Is it really so difficult for you to understand.

 

It is easier for any given person to comprehend a 2.5 when in the context of being out of a possible 10, then it is a person to understand what a GD+ means from a FN- to a NM.

 

Is it? Is it really?

 

So, what is allowable in a '2.5'? Or not allowable? What can you expect from your '2.5'?

 

Is it a quarter as good as a 10.0? Or 400% better than a 0.5? And in what way?

 

And where do you go to find out the answer to these important questions?

[arexcrooke]

Is it really so difficult for you to understand.

 

It is easier for any given person to comprehend a 2.5 when in the context of being out of a possible 10, then it is a person to understand what a GD+ means from a FN- to a NM.

 

Is it? Is it really?

 

So, what is allowable in a '2.5'? Or not allowable? What can you expect from your '2.5'?

 

Is it a quarter as good as a 10.0? Or 400% better than a 0.5? And in what way?

 

And where do you go to find out the answer to these important questions?

[KingOfRulers]

 

Oh, for fuc...

 

Look, that's not how supply and demand works. It's not how capitalism works.

 

You have a product. It's in demand. You do whatever you can to meet that demand. It might be a temporary demand. It might be a false demand.

 

Thats not how supply and demand works, but it is sure how capitalism works. That is what seperates a good business man from a bad one. You attempt to meet the demand, while considering other factors related to it. If you always flock to meet something simply because its hot at the time, you will at some point get burned. I thought this was a basic concept that just about everyone knew...

 

But you attempt to meet it regardless.

Wrong. As can be seen in this very point we are arguing If you attempt to meet a demand without thinking you could very well be digging your own grave. Going on a mad dash to meet demand may work sometimes...it may work most of the time, but it can also backfire. Meeting a demand by itself does not make you a good businessman. A good businessman has reasoning and foresight skills.

Look, if you dont meet that demand, the customers will go somewhere else and buy from someone who will. In your high-minded "I know what is best for me, you, and the market" idiology

 

you get the honor of closing your doors when you go out of business while the guy who caters to customer gets to keep his doors open.

...for another month before he too closes his doors to be stuck with $25,000 worth of leftover inventory because he made poor long run business decisions. If the crash was going to happen it was going to happen. That is the product of poor business decisions from the industry as a whole. I am just saying that entire fiasco could have been avoided had correct longrun business decisions been made. Businesses that focus purely on the shortrun are doomed for failure. If you want to go off the premise that the industry was going to crash no matter what, then the first guy to close was actually better off because of it. His longrun decision making saved him from being stuck with a load of unwanted inventory.

[Aman619]

I dont want to interrupt. but as fo rthe 90s speculators? yeah they did fuel excess demand and cause printy runds to climb. But, remember what really killed the goose. Whenthe baseball card game cooled, many of the cardstores jumped into the HOT HOT comic market. So inaddition to colectors buying multiples, there were now twice as many stores all ordering BIG to sell out AND have cases left over for when th eprices spiked. And, of course all these xtra orders printed and shipped never had enuff buyers for them cause collector demand didnt increase at that point, just RETAILER demand! SO most of the excess books printed etc just sat there unsold. XMen#1 sold 5 million copies----- TO RETAILERS!! Nobody knows how many were actually resold to actual collector/speculators,,,

 

and anyway, whats all that got to do with Al Capps?? That was a different kind of price specu;ation that I THOUGHT you were gonna discuss!