No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[awe4one]

I feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

 

Uh, Joe? Don't look now, but there's someone out on the wing of the plane!

 

Looks alot like Chuck looking for the MH4 collection!

 

 

Jim

[drbanner]

Uh, Joe? Don't look now, but there's someone out on the wing of the plane!

 

I have no doubt that Joe checks out the wings, the tail, the history of the pilot, and the maintenance record of each and every plane he flies. There's a conspiracy around every corner you know!

[Darthdiesel]

People today are getting too lazy IMO - instant gratification, need to have everything on the label, letters, graders notes

 

 

Whoa baby....you sure seemed riled up today....Do you really think when someone sees 3.5 VG- that they automatically know what that means??? ..I'm far from lazy and I still have to referance my OS guide to see if what defects are contained in certain grades...

 

I know because I've been sold so many books as FN and came back in that GD or VG range that I can tell now what I have with a 3.5 VG-; I never said that notation was all they needed in order to know al about the product. It takes a good responsible seller to educate their buyer correctly, so that they can fend for themselves in the future.

 

I don't think it's fair to say that lazyness or instant gratification is the reason...this issue is far deeper then that...

 

NO the laziness comment was just for you Rick

 

geez...before i eat a processed product I like to read (on the label) what is in it....should I carry a digest with me when I go grocery shopping...I don't think so...

 

Lay off the processed dairy substitutes and you'll live longer Now that you mention it, I see folks carrying around the Atkins diet carb counter books everywhere in the stores

[lighthouse]

Do you really believe that an OS 9.9 book must be less-well centered than a CGC 9.6?

 

Of course I don't... but you started this whole centering discussion by suggesting that CGC was using a vastly different standard from Overstreet, and proceeded to attempt to quote from the Bible to prove your point... Well, the Bible itself is flawed, so I hardly see the conclusive evidence that there is a different standard on centering...

 

Having published books in the past, I have no doubt that the text on page 138 was intentionally placed there. Now it is certainly possible that the intention was to replace that text later, after further discussion. But it's clear to me that during the process of putting the book together, there was some doubt as to where to draw the line on centering... And that doubt wound up in the final product...

 

You can continue to point out the picture on page 233 all you like... We all have seen outliers in the dataset. They don't invalidate the data in any way... The fact that Darth, or Donut, or BigMan grades one book poorly doesn't mean they don't know how to grade, or that they are grading using a different set of guidelines...

 

I do not see conclusive evidence that there is a difference in grading between Overstreet and CGC regarding centering.

[Rip]

any long time collector/seller of comics will not have to look it up - they should KNOW it!

 

 

I do know it. However, I DO have to think an extra few seconds sometimes.

 

Any responsible seller will describe what the traits are behind the number grade

 

Good then please tell CGC to better describe the traits(Yes I know they are a not seller per se)

 

aAny newbie will benefit nothing from having an archaic abbreviated term for condition printed next to the number.

A declaritive statement with nothing to support it doesn't help your case.

 

Numbers can be ranked easily, greater than-less than are concepts that we all learned in the first grade. Some folks dies at a ripe old age of 100 and not ever learn what is behind the PR, FR, GD, VG, FN, VF, NM, MT scale. Some folks are still stuck on GD-FN-MT scale and still lobbying for a return to that.

 

All true statements.

 

I don't agree with it being a step down. It actually makes people think more, and there is definitely nothing wrong with that. Redundancy is actually what "dumbs down" the label, IMO. It is not MORE information, it is the same information being presented.

Yes it does make people think more. They have to figure out what a 5.5 is for a few seconds where before they did not. It is not redundancy if it helps CLARIFY. As long as it helps a large segment of collectors by having a VF type grade being there the removal of this information is a step down.

 

[Darthdiesel]

Uh, Joe? Don't look now, but there's someone out on the wing of the plane!

 

Yeah, it's Darth, Banner, Lighthouse and FF trying to get ahold of my OS Grading Guide. There's some dangerous info in there that non-CGC acolytes were never intended to see.....

 

This makes you Will Shatner

[ArAich]

Now that you mention it, I see folks carrying around the Atkins diet carb counter books everywhere in the stores

 

Yeah thats fine for hot dogs and pork rhines but what about bread and nachos....

 

...or do I have that backwards....

[garthgantu]

GO LOOK IT UP!

 

WHY in the world should we, especially when we didn't have to BEFORE??

Why make things HARDER for the buyer??

Clearly this is a step down. Not a huge one, but it is.

 

 

any long time collector/seller of comics will not have to look it up - they should KNOW it!

...But Darth, at what point do we decide that something should simply be known by everyone? What about the many collectors who've sat on the sidelines debating whether to submit books to CGC...some or perhaps many of those people have used the alpha grading system for decades, and are much more familiar with it.

 

Any responsible seller will describe what the traits are behind the number grade.

...And as we've seen, all four of the responsible sellers on eBay do this regularly...but what about the legions of less-than-responsible sellers?

 

Any newbie will benefit nothing from having an archaic abbreviated term for condition printed next to the number. Numbers can be ranked easily, greater than-less than are concepts that we all learned in the first grade. Some folks dies at a ripe old age of 100 and not ever learn what is behind the PR, FR, GD, VG, FN, VF, NM, MT scale. Some folks are still stuck on GD-FN-MT scale and still lobbying for a return to that.

...this is your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. Further, if you take the alpha grades away, how will such people - newbies or old fogies - ever learn the numerical grades?

 

I don't agree with it being a step down. It actually makes people think more, and there is definitely nothing wrong with that. Redundancy is actually what "dumbs down" the label, IMO. It is not MORE information, it is the same information being presented.

...sorry you're frustrated with this line of debate. I would respectfully submit to you that "thinking more" is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes instant assimilation of straightforward data is what I'm after... I could read the in-depth weather report in the paper, or just glance at today's projected highs and lows... I choose the latter. Having the letter grade facilitates that for me, and maybe others.

 

Frankly, I don't see how those arguing FOR the number-only grade can do so with a straight face. It's in no way a better system, but for many people - as this thread illustrates - it's a less sufficient system.

[Darthdiesel]

Now that you mention it, I see folks carrying around the Atkins diet carb counter books everywhere in the stores

 

Yeah thats fine for hot dogs and pork rhines but what about bread and nachos....

 

...or do I have that backwards....

 

 

It's all in there...

[joe_collector]

I do not see conclusive evidence that there is a difference in grading between Overstreet and CGC regarding centering.

 

No?

 

[Lantern]

...pick up an Overstreet CB Price Guide or OS Grading Guide Cha ching!!! Not much of a barrier IMO. What did they tell us when we were young and didn't recognize or know the meaning of a word from something we were reading? GO LOOK IT UP! People today are getting too lazy IMO - instant gratification, need to have everything on the label, letters, graders notes

 

With this line of thought the CGC label should have nothing but the numeric grade on it. After all, that is the only information or service that CGC has been paid to supply. Why should the CGC label have the Title, number, interior artist, cover artist, first appearance, cameo appearance, etc, etc, listed on it. If a collector does not already know about the CGC graded book that they are looking to purchase then they should look all of that information up.

 

 

 

[Illiterati-migration]

I do not see conclusive evidence that there is a difference in grading between Overstreet and CGC regarding centering.

 

No?

 

 

[Rip]

Frankly, I don't see how those arguing FOR the number-only grade can do so with a straight face. It's in no way a better system, but for many people - as this thread illustrates - it's a less sufficient system.

 

Exactly,......... STEVE are you here......please explain you rational.

 

Thanks

[ArAich]

Sometimes instant assimilation of straightforward data is what I'm after...

 

Gawd...I love that line....

[Illiterati-migration]

...pick up an Overstreet CB Price Guide or OS Grading Guide Cha ching!!! Not much of a barrier IMO. What did they tell us when we were young and didn't recognize or know the meaning of a word from something we were reading? GO LOOK IT UP! People today are getting too lazy IMO - instant gratification, need to have everything on the label, letters, graders notes

 

With this line of thought the CGC label should have nothing but the numeric grade on it. After all, that is the only information or service that CGC has been paid to supply. Why should the CGC label have the Title, number, interior artist, cover artist, first appearance, cameo appearance, etc, etc, listed on it. If a collector does not already know about the CGC graded book that they are looking to purchase then they should look all of that information up.

 

 

 

Intern, I know you're being facetious so I won't pull your skull free from its epidermal wrapping... this time.

[ArAich]

Intern, I know you're being facetious so I won't pull your skull free from its epidermal wrapping... this time

 

Ah...so it was you on the wing of that plane...

[garthgantu]

You think he's being facetious, but when CGC switches to an arcane code to replace the numeric grade, and then charges you $20 for the decoder ring, you'll know the truth...!

[Lantern]

...facetious ...epidermal ...

 

Dagnabit...where is that darn dictionary I am going to have to look those up.

 

[joe_collector]

I do not see conclusive evidence that there is a difference in grading between Overstreet and CGC regarding centering.

 

No?

 

 

 

I'll bet you $50 the CGC acolytes didn't think I had a scanner present.

 

And just a P.S. that horribly-cut Fine 6.0 Conan book has fewer non-production defects than the CGC 9.4's in the Grading Guide.

[Darthdiesel]

any long time collector/seller of comics will not have to look it up - they should KNOW it!

 

 

I do know it. However, I DO have to think an extra few seconds sometimes.

 

 

so then the removal is a non-issue for you..as it is for me...

 

Any responsible seller will describe what the traits are behind the number grade

 

Good then please tell CGC to better describe the traits(Yes I know they are a not seller per se)

 

I don't run CGC nor have any influence on getting them to reliquish their "secret recipe" If I sold you a book, via ebay, then I would tell you what I graded the book at and if there are any outstanding flaws, quirks existing. I still beleive in full disclosure. Nothing has changed that. I remember working the last Tysons Show with Donut and we both had the OS Big Book, the harcover price guide, the Wizard Zero, and OCPR present and had to refer to it a couple of times for grading criteria to prove to someone that we weren't off on our grading. At least I had to , but that will happen regardless of the presence of the letters on the label. so I still don't see the need or the big fuss of its disappearance.

 

 

aAny newbie will benefit nothing from having an archaic abbreviated term for condition printed next to the number.

A declaritive statement with nothing to support it doesn't help your case.

 

I was just using plain logic here. A true newbie is a blank slate and has not a clue on what GD - MT scale means in regards to condition. The numbers ranking however, can give the newbie an easier methid of comparison if they needed to, unless for some reason they would think a CGC 3.5 is better than a CGC 6.0 of the same book, with the same color label??? So that is why I'm saying that a newbie can derive anything of immediate use from MT, NM, VF... being on the label.

 

 

 

I don't agree with it being a step down. It actually makes people think more, and there is definitely nothing wrong with that. Redundancy is actually what "dumbs down" the label, IMO. It is not MORE information, it is the same information being presented.

Yes it does make people think more. They have to figure out what a 5.5 is for a few seconds where before they did not. It is not redundancy if it helps CLARIFY. As long as it helps a large segment of collectors by having a VF type grade being there the removal of this information is a step down.

 

The only ones who have to do any figuring are those who know of the Letter scale. And even you said that they'd get it after thinking about it a little. Where is the clarification? Is it necessary, is my point? with the letters gone YOU still know what a 3.5 is; (VG-) a 9.8 (NM/MT) - what about a newbie? the number means more and is easier to understand than the letters...