No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[joe_collector]

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

 

I totally agree Darth, but the funny thing is, CGC listed numerical grades since Day 1. The newbie's needs have been, and will continue to be, served, and us old-timers aren't asking for a similarly asinine request of deleting the numbers, just a return to both numbers and alpha grades.

 

You make it seem that CGC X.X numerical grading suddenly appeared with the new BIG NUMBER labels.

[lighthouse]

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No?

 

No I don't... Obviously I have my copy of the Grading Guide in front of me or I couldn't have quoted you page 138... And if you plan to go through life predicting trends based on outliers you will wind up a very poor man indeed...

 

The OS Guide stops mentioning centering at 9.0... after that it is apparently a judgment call as to how it fits with the rest of the grading. The OS would apparently suggest that it's just one more factor to consider, not a limiting factor...

 

And without a protractor and a few dozen copies to work with, I don't think you can get a clear picture of what miscuts are acceptable in which grades to either Overstreet or CGC. In the grading guide there is one severely miscut book, a book that is not graded by CGC (which makes it a weak example of any "difference"). We have no other examples of miscuts to compare it with. We've all seen a couple of CGC books that looked too miscut for their grade. So? There was a 9.0 book floating around with a missing chip the size of a postage stamp. That's no conspiracy, that's an outlier... I would suggest that you take the time to learn the difference...

 

I stand behind my original statement. I do not see conclusive evidence that there is a difference in grading between Overstreet and CGC regarding centering (or miscuts, which are a different flaw entirely).

[Darthdiesel]

Joe, this 6.0 Conan book is both miscut and miswrapped. I've seen miswraps in higher CGC grades (9.4 and up range) but not miscuts?

[drbanner]

 

This is your proof!?!?

 

I'm at work and don't carry the guide in my briefcase, but I was certain that you were using an off-center book in your example, not a miscut book that looks more like a math problem than a comic book!! I've seen first-hand an example of how CGC hammered an otherwise pristine book MISCUT like this into the mid-grades. Sorry bud, but you're gonna have to do better than that...spine stress, rounded corners, and various funkadelia along the right edge of that book would keep it out of the 9.4 range even if it was perfectly CUT.

[ArAich]

Carl...What about raw books......Are we going to assimilate the number only system for these books also???...if so then OS will have to drop the alpha designation..and...logically...I don't see that happening..

Tha alpha system will remain for quite some time (IMO) so why try to rock the collecting world by dropping it in the CGC label...

Even Spock would see this as illogical...I mean c'mon...are the CGC bean counters just tryin to save money by using less ink by not printing the alpha...There just isn't a logical explaination for this...

[Illiterati-migration]

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.

 

What a bunch of filthy, filthy, CGC-shilling, money-swilling, longbox-filling... ah, hell's bells. I have lost my ability for coherent alliteration. My quest to become the next Stan The Man ends here.

[Darthdiesel]

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.

I thought they were paid to codify the info gathered from grading the book, which includes Title, Issue, Volume, Printing, Pedigree - the artist/writer and the "first app" or "Appearance of" notes are inconsistent and should be looked up in OS. They do differ at times....

 

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.

 

 

I move for a numbeer only label - take all these silly words away!

[ArAich]

I have lost my ability for coherent alliteration.

 

That's been missing for some time now...

[Illiterati-migration]

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

 

I totally agree Darth, but the funny thing is, CGC listed numerical grades since Day 1. The newbie's needs have been, and will continue to be, served, and us old-timers aren't asking for a similarly asinine request of deleting the numbers, just a return to both numbers and alpha grades.

 

You make it seem that CGC X.X numerical grading suddenly appeared with the new BIG NUMBER labels.

 

Again, the newbie thing? Ridiculous. When was the last time any of us met a "newbie" COLLECTOR (not reader) who wasn't a dreaded Spec?

[joe_collector]

Joe, this 6.0 Conan book is both miscut and miswrapped. I've seen miswraps in higher CGC grades (9.4 and up range) but not miscuts?

 

Look harder Darth.

 

There was a Silver Age X-Men being complained about by Hammer a few weeks back (CGC 9.2) that was more severely mis-cut than the Conan book. This started off a wave of similar "CGC doesn't take production flaws into account" threads.

 

I've seen many others similar to this Conan book (with probably more wear/defects) in CGC 9.2-9.0 slabs, and maybe someone else has some scans?

 

[Rip]

Getting too many quotes here but I'll address the points.

 

No, the removal is not a non issue. As I stated, I have to think about it a little longer.

My friends, people I deal with, some don't even know the numerical system.

As I stated before, its not a big step down but a step down none the less.

Maybe It seems I am making too big of a stink over this but I do believe its a mistake.

Its not a big one CGC has made worse.

 

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.

OK a TRUE newbie with a blank slate wouldn't be affected.

But how many collectors does that entail vs non newbies?

 

The only ones who have to do any figuring are those who know of the Letter scale.

Strongly agreed!!!!

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...

 

Sure they would get it, but you just made it a little harder.

[Darthdiesel]

Carl...What about raw books......Are we going to assimilate the number only system for these books also???...if so then OS will have to drop the alpha designation..and...logically...I don't see that happening..

Tha alpha system will remain for quite some time (IMO) so why try to rock the collecting world by dropping it in the CGC label...

Even Spock would see this as illogical...I mean c'mon...are the CGC bean counters just tryin to save money by using less ink by not printing the alpha...There just isn't a logical explaination for this...

 

I made no such comments or applications of my previous statements above to raw books. This label change applies only to a CGC slab. That's why I probabby wasn't fazed much by their decision to remonve the letters. They can make their decisions about the aesthetics of their product without my input, they're a big company...it doesn't do anything for raw books...If, by saving money on less ink used , they don't double prices for grading, then I'm all for wiping up the entire label except for the grade!

[joe_collector]

Joe, this 6.0 Conan book is both miscut and miswrapped. I've seen miswraps in higher CGC grades (9.4 and up range) but not miscuts?

 

I remember some whacky Detective or Batman book that Sully was foisting off on EBay, and it was high-grade 9.6 or 9.4 and had a horribly mis-cut cover. It was so off-angle in the holder that it started a laugh-in thread on the EBay comic boards.

 

I thought I kept a scan for posterity, but I have been unable to locate it as yet.

 

Is this striking a bell with anyone?

[ArAich]

If, by saving money on less ink used , they don't double prices for grading, then I'm all for wiping up the entire label except for the grade!

 

 

Perhaps they could just stamp the grade on the cover...

[Darthdiesel]

...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.

 

You can extend your line of debate to those who are using the 3 point system. Do we feel any worse for those guys? I highly doubt that the appearance of an Alpha grade would make or break the decision for those on-the-fence folks to send their books in finally. My opinion

 

...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?

 

Don't support them. Don't buy from them. Stick to the 4 honest ones. You vote with your wallet and when you affect their bottom line enough, they will see the light. As for the outright frauds, report them.

 

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?

 

Overstreet / CGC website / informed sellers / fellow collectors / these forums - there is a plethora of resources for educating the comic newbie. Don't put all your eggs in one CGC alpha graded 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.

...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.

 

Again, it is a matter of preference and frame of reference. You are a knowledgeable collector. Put yourself in the newbies shoes and THINK about which label is less cluttered and less confusing and more representative of the condition of the book.

 

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.

 

I honestly can't see how folks are arguing so passionately over a personal prefernce matter and applying it to the rest of the crowd? ALso pulling in the conspiracy theories and money making schemes and screw the established community rhetoric...maybe that's just me.

[joe_collector]

I honestly can't see how folks are arguing so passionately over a personal prefernce matter and applying it to the rest of the crowd? ALso pulling in the conspiracy theories and money making schemes and screw the established community rhetoric...maybe that's just me.

 

Newsflash to Darth:

 

You like the new BIG NUMBERS system, we don't. Why would you complain or voice dissent when it's coming up roses?

[Darthdiesel]

Joe, this 6.0 Conan book is both miscut and miswrapped. I've seen miswraps in higher CGC grades (9.4 and up range) but not miscuts?

 

Look harder Darth.

 

There was a Silver Age X-Men being complained about by Hammer a few weeks back (CGC 9.2) that was more severely mis-cut than the Conan book. This started off a wave of similar "CGC doesn't take production flaws into account" threads.

 

I've seen many others similar to this Conan book (with probably more wear/defects) in CGC 9.2-9.0 slabs, and maybe someone else has some scans?

 

Thanks JC - I know which one you were talking about. I'll have to take a better look here and get back to you.

[garthgantu]

Again, the newbie thing? Ridiculous. When was the last time any of us met a "newbie" COLLECTOR (not reader) who wasn't a dreaded Spec?

 

Actually, I've seen a number of them pop up on these boards recently, and none of them appeared to be speculators. (Granted, appearances can be deceiving, but these seemed like next-generation collectors sincerely interested in the art, stories, etc.)

 

More specifically, a thread from FlyingDonut, I think, titled "when you're done lurking" prompted several such folks to make their first official posts...

[joe_collector]

Thanks JC - I know which one you were talking about. I'll have to take a better look here and get back to you.

 

Do you remember that freaky-scary mic-cut Batman comic 9.6-9.4 that Sully was pawning off? I think he still has it, as just the sight of that book drove men to kill, women insane, and little kids to drink.

[Illiterati-migration]

Again, the newbie thing? Ridiculous. When was the last time any of us met a "newbie" COLLECTOR (not reader) who wasn't a dreaded Spec?

 

Actually, I've seen a number of them pop up on these boards recently, and none of them appeared to be speculators. (Granted, appearances can be deceiving, but these seemed like next-generation collectors sincerely interested in the art, stories, etc.)

 

More specifically, a thread from FlyingDonut, I think, titled "when you're done lurking" prompted several such folks to make their first official posts...

 

Right, they might be "newbies" to CGCed books, or "newbies" to the message board... but how many are actual newbies to collecting back issues? (I don't know that I saw Donut's thread?)

 

And if they're interested in the art and stories, what the hoary hades are they doing HERE?!?!