No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[joe_collector]

Analogy between coins and comics.

 

Correct me if I be wrong, please! But don't coins STILL use an alpha/numeric grading system? Don't they still use slab coins as AU 58, XF 40, VF 30 etc?

 

 

Yep:

 

[PovertyRow]

I can't fathom why some people think the old-style nomenclature and the relatively newer numerical expression represent two different systems. They're exactly the same.

 

Bring it on home, brother! Bring it on home!

[lighthouse]

and the reason it's not in use is because "We should allow time for a transition to let people get used to the new system..."

 

Whoa, slow down there Fidel...

 

I had expected you would make it further into this discussion before resorting to name-calling. I guess I was wrong...

 

 

I am a Canuck, and I measure my gasoline and milk in litres, while I use Cups and Teaspoons while cooking. That's my choice and I'm happy with the freedom a dual-standard in measuring tools offers me.

 

There will always be alternate measurements used in cooking. The day they stop measuring salt in "pinch"es is a sad day indeed...

 

You seem to prefer the hardline approach, and instituting your personal preference by carrying a big standard.

 

You also ASSUME that your opinions are the BEST/ONLY option. You say NUMBERS are better than LETTERS and I disagree, and there is no way to prove either of us "right". It's personal choice and freedom.

 

There are two different arguments I have been making in these threads. The first is that a numerical standard is superior to an alphabetical one. The second is that when changing from one standard to another it is better to do so abruptly.

 

A few people here have agreed with my first argument. And some of those have disagreed with my second one...

 

I stated in my first reply to this batch of threads that I would feel hypocritical if I didn't present my unpopular opinions as well as my popular ones, and that I fully expected the majority of people here to disagree with me. I have not been "carrying a big standard" here, and I clearly don't assume my opinions are the only option. There are folks here whose opinions I respect who have presented their arguments disagreeing with me. There are also folks here who have expressed opinions similar to mine. That is the nature of a "forum." I haven't made post after post saying the exact same thing. I presented my arguments for numerical over alphabetical in my opening posts and left it at that. Since then, the topic of gradual change vs abrupt change has come up, and I addressed my thoughts on it in a couple posts... I hardly see how that makes me a "standard-bearer"....

 

But since you seemed interested in me addressing this to you, I will...

 

New systems are instituted to fix flaws and improve the consistency of an older system. The guys at Metropolis developed the 10.0 system as a compromise between the older "Good-Fine-Mint" system and the unwieldy 100-pt scale that had been in use for a decade. The 10-pt system provides a substantial improvement in database management over the "Good-Fine-Mint" system, and it is much easier to use than the 100-pt system. Does it have parallels to the older systems and is conversion possible? Of course... You can also multiply inches by 2.54 anytime you want to find out the measurement in centimeters...

 

Advantages of 10.0 system

[*] Easily sortable and searchable in databases

[*] Easier to use internationally

 

Advantages of Good-Fine-Mint system

[*] It's been around a long time

 

"It's been around a long time?" This is the logic for keeping it?

 

There's no other advantage since as ten people here have already said, a VF book and an 8.0 book are the same. If the only difference is in the lexicon, then there can be no other advantages to using the Good-Fine-Mint system. None... "It's been around a long time".... That's it...

 

As to the question of using both systems simultaneously, do you really want to have to describe every book you have using both names every time? If we all agree that a VF book and an 8.0 book are exactly the same, do you want to list VF 8.0 every time you describe one? Clearly not.

 

If there's another advantage to the "words" system I would love to hear it... But I really don't see how there can be... We're 150 posts into this discussion already and it's the only argument anyone has made... "It's been around a long time"...

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I don't want to get into too protracted a discussion about this, but I'm still mystified by your statement. What is it about the number-only label that so offends you? Let's forget the CGC/Overstreet/whose standards arguments. Let's look at it on just the surface. If someone hands you a 9.4 and you think in your head, "Ah, a Near Mint," what difference does it make to you that those words are not actually printed on the label? Can you not simply make the translation to nomenclature in your head? Don't want to give you more work .

 

Arnold

[ArAich]

I can't fathom why some people think the old-style nomenclature and the relatively newer numerical expression represent two different systems. They're exactly the same.

 

Bring it on home, brother! Bring it on home!

 

Don't encourage him... ...he's too level-headed...we're looking for radical uncomprimising opinions here...

 

And they are two differant systems...one is a "letter" system and the other is a "number" system....sheesh...

[joe_collector]

If there's another advantage to the "words" system I would love to hear it... But I really don't see how there can be... We're 150 posts into this discussion already and it's the only argument anyone has made... "It's been around a long time"...

 

Why do I read comics? Why do I collect comics? There is obviously more enthralling and popular entertainment in movies and TV, while literature is more high-brow and much higher quality in classic books and novels.

 

Because I want to. I enjoy it, it brings me some level of satisfaction, and I could care less what others think.

 

I feel the same way about Near Mint, and I could care less if it's not "mathematically better" than BIG NUMBERS, just the same way I don't give a rat's butt if Jane Eyre is better written than Fantastic Four 121.

[BronzeBruce13]

Put the alpha grade under the big number grade and I no longer have a complaint.

The alpha grade can be the same size as the old blue label. CGC should not have removed the alpha grade...PERIOD!! It is giving the person LESS information then he had before and DOES NOT create confusion since the numeric grade and the alpha grade are equivalent. Again, I ask, WHY TAKE THE ALPHA GRADE OFF!! It makes no sense.

 

If you're speaking to me directly Michael... I never supported the exclusion of the nomenclature. I just didn't feel as empassioned about its removeal as some. I felt the "grader's note" removal was a FAR bigger issue a ways back, but everyone feels the way they feel. I personally don't see a real upside to the removal at this point... hopefully we'll get a clearer picture as the topic/debate continues.

[joe_collector]

If someone hands you a 9.4 and you think in your head, "Ah, a Near Mint," what difference does it make to you that those words are not actually printed on the label? Can you not simply make the translation to nomenclature in your head? Don't want to give you more work .

 

It's the same reason I don't buy Depends for my baby, or Huggies for the old folk's home.

 

If CGC wants to market their product to /newbies, why should I continue to support them?

[lighthouse]

... and I could care less what others think.

 

JC, I am happy you are back on the forums, and I appreciate the time you take to express your views here... but I have a very hard time believing this statement...

[joe_collector]

I felt the "grader's note" removal was a FAR bigger issue a ways back, but everyone feels the way they feel.

 

That definitely plays into some of the negativity, as CGC has shown a willingness to buckle under and delete valuable info from the label. Is Page Quality next?

 

And as everyone knows, the buyer is usually the one who needs that info to make an informed decision. Draw the line where ever you want from there.....

[joe_collector]

but I have a very hard time believing this statement...

 

Yeah, I'm a real board-conformist and CGC sheep, aren't I?

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I literally have no substantive reply for this. I'm done.

 

Arnold

[comicwiz]

Now the listing could be construed as accurate but the book has an 8.0 grade in big numbers and a "moronic newbie" would have no way to make the connection that 8.0 does not mean anything close to NM/M. This is only a quick example of scams yet to come because of the advent of a less informative label...

 

Good point Rick. The rules of caveat emptor will always need to be in force, just as the old adage states: "plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose" -- translated : the more things change, the more things stay the same). CGC colour-coordinated its labels to make it clear when a book was unrestored/restored/qualified/ss, and still, there are instances where sellers still try to change the hue/saturation of the purple labels on their scans to look blue, and blame the results on poor scanner capabilities. Does one blame CGC for this type of activity? No. The blame and responisibility for this type of activity lays squarely on the seller. My point was not to say that the label, or the new grading scale will deter or rid this type of activity or abuse, but rather directed towards the notion that there is an underlying conspiracy at work with CGC's new label.

[BronzeBruce13]

.. but the store "still" was taking care of your "needs" in your example...or did I miss something?

 

It's all to do with perceptions and target market. If a business changes the rules, shifts their marketing strategy or changes how they do business towards a younger/older/dumber clientele, then I support a new business that serves my needs better.

 

I'm a whitey, but this is actually quite common in the ethnic communities, and if a business makes it hard on visible minorities or doesn't carry their preferred products, then no one shops there. Trust me on this one.

 

Also, If the number was enlarged for the above reasons and the nomenclature remained...would you still have a beef with the new label? if so, what would be your complaint in that instance?

 

I would still think it's ugly, but I wouldn't have a gripe about it, and probably wouldn't have make a reappearance on the CGC forums.

 

At a very base level, the abrupt deletion of the Alpha Grade struck me as an abrogation of the silent agreement between myself and CGC, and has caused me to not bid on any of their BIG LETTER books.

 

It's no different with any business. Kick a customer in the groin and they won't come back.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification... so, its more the removal of the nomenclature than the size increase that bothers you. I wasn't quite sure if was ALL of it or not.

 

Problem is, in most instances, businesses have to try and cater to more than one demographic. Incuding new ones may indeed reduce the appeal of another. As long as my needs were fulfilled, that would be my bottom line for the most part.

 

If the store you spoke of "still" had all the books I wanted to find there. I would not have sought out another place that only catered to my needs... but that's me. I might need the other option some day or may consider thay are doing what it takes to stay competiive in order to keep in business and/or keep the prices on the items I want, stable. There's a lot of potential variabes to consider.

 

I still don't feel the debate thus far concerning the "nomenclature removal" supports your original post's premise, in which you indicate you feel it was "likely" the result of "seller pressure" in hopes of opening additional newbie markets. It seems the sellers were not consulted, nor complained about its presence by and large, or at all... if you accept Bob's statement... which I do. The given CGC answer may indeed be the primary reason for all we know. It may not be a compelling/convincing one to most of us, but until we ask CGC directly for more detail, or they offer it... all we have is guessing really.

[drbanner]

My point was not to say that the label, or the new grading scale will deter or rid this type of activity or abuse, but rather directed towards the notion that there is an underlying conspiracy at work with CGC's new label.

 

If it wasn't the dropping of alph-grades on the label, it would be the color of the label, the FMV system, the prices, the turnaround times, or something else. To some, there's a conspiracy behind every move that CGC makes (and it's never good!).

[NoImSpartacus]

Good point!

 

Spartacus - are "raw" coins still assigned alpha grades, or their numeric counterpoints? I know the bottom specimens are simply "circulated", but what about raw high-grade or rare coins?

 

Sorry, I was off line for a hour before reading posts again. Raw coins have alpha grades but here is the thing. First, they have gotten more specific than compared to the way it was 10 years ago. Now, Brilliant Uncirculated is SUPPOSED to be different from GEM Uncirculated. What is supposed to be and what actually happens from the exect definition to reality is a lot of leeway. The problem is, I dont trust anyone selling me a coin with those terms. If someone says Brilliant Uncirculated I dont give it another thought and just move on. SImply because his nomenclature of Brilliant Uncirculated can mean TO HIM MS65 or MS63. Depends if he is honest, unscrupulous, or does not know what he is doing. If there is any doubt on my end, I just eliminate the problem by not buying the item and passing. If someone says MS65 to me , then okay (THEY HAVE NOW LOCKED THEMSELVES INTO PLACE) and I have locked myself into place as well because now we both know exactly what he is selling and exactly what I should be getting in the number expectation. Its not that the way our hobby describes things in two different ways as being wrong, its just that a specific number nails it down as to expectation. I guess the real problem is that there is too much leeway in word terms. Not leeway in what terms like VF/NM mean but how they are interpreted by the seller and or his demeanor. Honest, unscrupulous or just honestly not knowing. When a novice hears VF/NM or NM/MT does he really know what he is to expect. Tell him he has a 9.0 though and then his mind has something to go by.

[drbanner]

Ok, thanks. I don't see alpha-grades going away for raw comics any time soon, but there are good reasons for using one system or the other (not both) for graded books. A 9 is a 9 is a 9 is a...well, not all the time, but I get your point!

[Rip]

My two cents. I'll keep it short. Left with the choice of having ONLY a numerical grade OR a numerical grade AND a word type designation...

I'll take BOTH any day of the week. It serves as a double check and it's something that makes things just a little clearer to the buyer and seller. Any step in the reduction of communication between the buyer and seller is a bad idea IMO.

[NoImSpartacus]

One of the small confusions asked earlier is do coins have alpha numerics attached to them. The problem is not in the lower grades like F -fine, XF-extra fine, or AU about uncirculated. The problems arise when we get into MS or Mint state categories MS60, 61, 62, 63 etc. This is interesting only cause it seems to be in the exact areas the comics have the problems too. 8.0 on up an especially from 9.0 to 9.8 in alpha term interpretation. Not interpretation but exact book definition but interpretation by seller as to his description cause of his demeanor. This is an interesting topic cause just like the coin market so will the comic market change. I see it as nothing more than change as the comic market becomes more specialized and prices rise making it harder for misinterpreation of product. From my own point of view ( SOMEONE WHO IS NEAR SIGHTED) I may not like the way the new slab looks but I also have to be honest and say that "Hey, Now I can see the grade from in front of the buyers table!!!! I couldnt do that before and it saves me a lot of time just going by scanning tables and eliminating 5.0 etc and gets me to the grade I want fast.

[OldGuy]

I won't stop using the NM, VF, etc description in my auctions. Why would I?

 

Using the alpha grades (which is the only grading nomenclature I use on my raw books anyway) is not a problem...if the title matches the description!!

 

The problem is that some ebay sellers list their items with "CGC NM" in the title, but the description actually clarifies that it's a "CGC 9.2" (or whatever). People selling raw books do the same thing to some extent, but with the alpha-numeric combo grades it's easier to make it all a little fuzzy...

 

Ok, I see what you're saying. I miss-understood.