Grading Logic

[bluechip]

The heart ot symbolic logic is the basic "modus ponens" or "If X, then Y" formula.

 

Applying it to grading (along with other objective and subjective criteria), you come up with some interesting conundumrs. Like this one.

 

If, this is a GOOD PLUS

 

 

Then this is a FINE/VERY FINE

 

 

 

And yet the labels say it not.

 

Faaaascinating.

[deathlok]

You lost me at 'conundumrs'.

[Point Five]

I was thinking the same thing when I saw that 2.0 posted recently. I think you just have to chalk that 2.5 up as one of those things that will never, ever make sense.

 

[ashrael]

The Suspense #3 (from multiple other threads) looks much nicer than 1.5, especially compared to that butt ugly Action 2.5.

 

CGC seems to be inconsistent with low grade comics and I think buyers need to ignore the label in a lot of cases.

[agro23]

I thought they just added up the defects cumulatively and x number of points puts a book in a certain grade. Do they weight cover condition more heavily than page brittleness or spine splits, etc.? I don't know but those two Actions would indicate to me that they don't.

[showcase4]

The heart ot symbolic logic is the basic "modus ponens" or "If X, then Y" formula.

 

Applying it to grading (along with other objective and subjective criteria), you come up with some interesting conundumrs. Like this one.

 

If, this is a GOOD PLUS

 

 

Then this is a FINE/VERY FINE

 

 

 

And yet the labels say it not.

 

Faaaascinating.

 

I'm with you on this one bluechip! We'd have to examine each book in person like CGC did to know for sure what we're really dealing with ( spine, back cover, interior pages ), but I can tell you the 1st book REGARDLESS of the interiors and back cover is a FR/GD 1.5 on a good day, and the 2.0 sure looks 3.0 to me.

[Silver Surfer]

I'm betting structurely the 2.5 copy is much more solid (aside from the missing piece which is gruesome) than the 2.0 copy which appears to have staple rust and probably issues with lose pages and interior damage. Still the 2.5 grade looks like a bit of a gift. If the damage was on the back cover I think most people would be fine with a 2.5 grade.

[whomerjay]

I'm betting structurely the 2.5 copy is much more solid (aside from the missing piece which is gruesome) than the 2.0 copy which appears to have staple rust and probably issues with lose pages and interior damage. Still the 2.5 grade looks like a bit of a gift. If the damage was on the back cover I think most people would be fine with a 2.5 grade.

 

It also seems to get a pass on the foxing or whatever that *spoon* is on the book.

[comicdonna]

I think the 2.5 should be resubbed and hope for a higher grade.

[innocuous]

Another argument for making graders notes fully available online. Seriously, I would pay for this access.

[tth2]

The 2.5 copy has been discussed and ridiculed at length on these boards. I think it's safe to say that it is one book that will never be cracked from the slab and resubbed.

[Mad Dog]

I'm betting structurely the 2.5 copy is much more solid (aside from the missing piece which is gruesome) than the 2.0 copy which appears to have staple rust and probably issues with lose pages and interior damage. Still the 2.5 grade looks like a bit of a gift. If the damage was on the back cover I think most people would be fine with a 2.5 grade.

 

It also seems to get a pass on the foxing or whatever that *spoon* is on the book.

 

I think that is mold... which doenst make it any better!

 

Atleast this is one comic that will never be part of the crack-resub game you have to be a class A spoon to remove those crumbling pages from its largely overgraded slab..

[whetteon]

The both look fugly to me. But if I had to choose, the 2.0 at least looks like it lives up to it's billing. No way would I pay 2.5 prices for an action comic 1 with a large piece of the cover missing and mold growing on the paper. I'd say 1.5 is the max this book could ever hope to achieve if cracked from the slab.

[ft88]

The thing I like most about these low grade Action #1's is that at some point, somebody came across it and realized what it was for the first time. Once it enters the dealer or collector ranks it becomes part of the inventory thats out there already. It trades hands a couple times, gets submitted, trades hands some more. Sometimes for a profit, sometimes for a loss.

 

But at one point somebody found it in a box in a basement and called a buddy or brought it to a store. That person saw the book and probably craipped their pants then and there. Good to think it could happen to you, kind of like the lottery.

 

Ed

[bluechip]

The both look fugly to me. But if I had to choose, the 2.0 at least looks like it lives up to it's billing. No way would I pay 2.5 prices for an action comic 1 with a large piece of the cover missing and mold growing on the paper. I'd say 1.5 is the max this book could ever hope to achieve if cracked from the slab.

 

I've seen plenty of 1.5s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've plenty of 1.0s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've even seen plenty of .5s that look better than that 2.5

 

A GIANT chunk missing from the cover and the books stays 2.5. But how many times have you seen a book with a split spine that was graded 1.0 or even .5 -- with little or even no paper missing. How many times have you seen one of those single staple book with a loose cover graded 1.0 because an infinitessimal piece of paper is missing at the staple? Yet when a book has a piece missing that ius literally thousands of times larger, it's ignored.

 

And I think the reason is they are going so far out of their way to let you kinow they've "caught" a defect you might not have noticed right away -- or a defect that is not even noticeale in the slab like a loose cover) that they loose virturally all sense of perspective as to how much the defect actually impacts the presentability of the book.

[Point Five]

I've seen plenty of 1.5s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've plenty of 1.0s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've even seen plenty of .5s that look better than that 2.5

 

Yep, yep and yep.

 

In the last week of December there was a Superman #4 on ebay with a coupon torn out of the back cover, not much bigger than the piece missing from the Action. The Supe #4 looked like an easy 5.0 or better from the front, vibrant colors, nice spine & no label notes other than the coupon...CGC grade was 1.5. Wish I'd saved the scans.

[whomerjay]

And I think the reason is they are going so far out of their way to let you kinow they've "caught" a defect you might not have noticed right away -- or a defect that is not even noticeale in the slab like a loose cover) that they loose virturally all sense of perspective as to how much the defect actually impacts the presentability of the book.

 

tend to agree

[The Black Hand ®]

Does anyone know who submitted this 2.5??

[adamstrange]

The both look fugly to me. But if I had to choose, the 2.0 at least looks like it lives up to it's billing. No way would I pay 2.5 prices for an action comic 1 with a large piece of the cover missing and mold growing on the paper. I'd say 1.5 is the max this book could ever hope to achieve if cracked from the slab.

 

I've seen plenty of 1.5s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've plenty of 1.0s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've even seen plenty of .5s that look better than that 2.5

 

A GIANT chunk missing from the cover and the books stays 2.5. But how many times have you seen a book with a split spine that was graded 1.0 or even .5 -- with little or even no paper missing. How many times have you seen one of those single staple book with a loose cover graded 1.0 because an infinitessimal piece of paper is missing at the staple? Yet when a book has a piece missing that ius literally thousands of times larger, it's ignored.

 

And I think the reason is they are going so far out of their way to let you kinow they've "caught" a defect you might not have noticed right away -- or a defect that is not even noticeale in the slab like a loose cover) that they loose virturally all sense of perspective as to how much the defect actually impacts the presentability of the book.

 

This is not an unreasonable position to take, but there are many that intensely dislike this defect because it has made it difficult to read and handle the book. From their perspective it's like having an antique car that is complete and in immactulate condition but with an engine that won't turn over. So if the standard were changed and the popped staple books were grade as Fines, then there would be another person on the boards screaming bloody murder about that.

 

I don't expect there to ever be a single standard that makes everyone happy. I'm certain that the standards that CGC and Overstreet promote today are not the standards of 20 years ago. I have no idea whether the standards will change again 20 years from now but I personally don't view them as fixed for all eternity.

[showcase4]

 

I've seen plenty of 1.5s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've plenty of 1.0s that look better than that 2.5

 

I've even seen plenty of .5s that look better than that 2.5

 

A GIANT chunk missing from the cover and the books stays 2.5.

 

I'm with you once again Bluechip! I voted for you as the best new guy on the Boards in my "CGC Gold Boards Awards" thread, and you are living up to that title.

I'm proud of you for standing up for what is right!