No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[read_em-migration]

Not sure if he's still reading this thread, but...

Arnold - does Overstreet have any plans to eliminate the letter grades and just go with the numerical grades?

 

 

[musicmeta]

Not sure if he's still reading this thread, but...

Arnold - does Overstreet have any plans to eliminate the letter grades and just go with the numerical grades?

 

 

I certainly hope not. LONG LIVE THE LETTER GRADE!! USE BOTH

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

No, of course not, at least not that I'm aware. But to get back to the general point, I just can't grasp why some react so strongly to the notion of listing just a number. It's the same grade, people! Call it NM, call it 9.4, call it Frank, you're still referring to the same grade (again, let's leave perceived differences between companies and graders out of this argument, we're just talking the nomenclature). I've even seen people state that by adopting only the number, it tries to reduce grading to a line item that doesn't take into account all the factors involved. So what exactly does it mean when you say a book is "VF/NM?" Does that not reduce the grade to a line item? I just don't see the difference except for letters vs. numbers.

 

But no no no, Overstreet is not getting rid of the traditional grade designations, still room on the page for both.

[joe_collector]

Arnoldt, buying CGC comics has (for me at least) always been a give-and-take scenario.

 

I like the prospect of getting a better-graded comic than the majority of EBay dealers, but I dislike the fact the comic is entombed. I understand this concession in the face of potential fraud and accept it. I dislike the "speculator mentality" but the always like to stick their hand in and get burned when any new fad pops up.

 

There were two facets of CGC grading that I really liked: Grader's Notes and the fact that the dumbed-down Numerical Grading was supplemented with an Alpha Grade so that all potential buyers were being served.

 

Grader's Notes were a biggie, since I dislike production flaws and date stamps (remember, I collect Bronze) and I hated receiving a NM comic with a big date or store stamp in the back cover. With the original CGC label, this allowed some flaws like this to be easily viewed through a quick look at the label, rather than enlarging huge, high-rez files and searching for an hour for any stamp or writing.

 

Sure, the label didn't cover everything, but it WAS BETTER THAN NOTHING. Now that CGC has bent to dealer/seller influence and deleted this info, we have nothing. Strike 1.

 

Now CGC has deleted the Alpha Grade and taken the HUGE NUMBER format for all their new submissions. Strike 2 in my book, and yet another indication that CGC is looking for "new dollars" from the eyesight-impaired, newbie speculator.

 

So at the present time, the give-and-take ratio is heavily weighted against my interests and needs as a buyer. Everything I liked about the label is gone and what I dislike has been enlarged to such ridiculous levels, that even a chimp could become a potential CGC investor.

[joe_collector]

I just don't see the difference except for letters vs. numbers.

 

Then why in the world would a company delete this info and risk ticking off a segment of their market? As you stated there's "room on the page for both".

 

I'd feel exactly the same way if I walked into a store here in Metric-Land and found measuring cups had gotten rid of the Imperial standard. There's plenty of room on the other side of the cup, guys!!

[ArAich]

Arnold...with all due respect...you seem to be missing the point...

Of course they are the same...but it is nomenclature that has been used for many, many years and it is what is and has been reletive info to newbie collectors as well as the seasoned veterans...

 

Should OS drop the numeric data in there grade fields...I don't think so....so why should CGC drop the alpha designation...

This data may seem redundant but sometimes it is redundancy that makes a system better...

As a quick example...Why include "Charles Biro cover art" in the description when the signature is clear as day on the front cover???...

 

VF and 8.0 may be the same thing but most new collectors would have to look up what 8.0 correlates too whereas if you had said that the book is VF 8.0 they would grasp the meaning immediatly...I mean how many GA collectors would know right of the top of their head what a 3.5 is???...

 

[joe_collector]

VF and 8.0 may be the same thing but most new collectors would have to look up what 8.0 correlates too whereas if you had said that the book is VF 8.0 they would grasp the meaning immediatly...I mean how many GA collectors would know right of the top of their head what a 3.5 is???...

 

But that's the entire goal of the new label.

 

Less info = less buyer consideration = more buying.

[musicmeta]

The main point I'm trying to make is that CGC HAD the letter grade on the slab WITH the number grade. It is now GONE!!! WHY TAKE IT OFF? You have the room, just put the letter grade(same size as before) below the Oversize number grade and case closed. You can even put elsewhere on the slab, just don't get rid of it. This way NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN REMOVED and the person viewing the slab knows immediately what each corresponds too!

LEAVE THAT LETTER GRADE ON THE SLAB!

 

[Rip]

Arnoldt, removing information from the slab only make it more difficult to figure out the grade.

Having both also helps educate new collectors so they can better translate.

Honestly I have to think about it when someone says 3.5 or 5.5. And I've been collecting for about

20 years. I am also willing to bet I have graded and priced more books than most of the forum members here.

 

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I can admit when I'm wrong...

 

After reading some of your comments here, Joe Collector and others, I see what you guys are getting at, and I have to admit, I was focusing on the wrong part of the argument. I particularly couldn't get why just listing a number could be seen as "dumbing down," but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I'm so close to the subject matter. But yes, I do see the argument. Without the written nomenclature, it presents a potential barrier to understanding what grade is what.

 

So I definitely see the argument. Whether it's really going to have that effect or not, that's hard to say. But I'm not in the dark about what you guys are talking about anymore at least.

 

Arnold

[fantastic_four]

Well, I have the Second Edition (Now with New 10 Point Grading) and it spells it out exactly as I mentioned above.

 

I'm pretty sure that the new Grading Guide says "Well centered" for 10.0 and "Generally well centered" for 9.9 and below...I don't have mine near me right now but I'll check it when I get home and scan the 9.9 page if you vehemently disagree, or correct myself if I'm mistaken.

 

 

Arnoldt has stated before that there were notable issues with the original Grading Guide and that this new one was supposed to fix those up and be "The Bible" for grading.

 

The scans are also much better and there is even a great example of a "slight miswrap" where a smidgen of White is showing. All other 9.4 and above scans are perfectly centered, while the lower-grade ones start showing more white and worse centering.

 

At the VF and F ranges, there are progressively worse Mis-Wrapped Cover notations, all of which are not even close to some CGC 9.8 and 9.6 copies I've seen.

 

You're making the assumption here that the Grading Guide authors intentionally picked copies without a miswrap to illustrate that they're not allowed in the higher grades. It's possible you're correct, but it's also possible that they didn't mean to do this. The first miswraps don't even show up on the examples until you get to the 8.0 grade, yet all grades below 9.2 make no explicit claim as to how well-centered a book needs to be at those levels. So because there are no examples in the guide for 9.0 or 8.5 books, does this mean you can't have a miswrap for those grades? The descriptions don't say anything about it, so you can't assume just because there are no miswrapped examples that the intent was to communicate that they're not allowed.

 

 

But this really isn't the point. It's that OS without a shadow of a doubt takes centering and miswraps seriously at high grades and CGC does not.

 

There is no "gray area" when CGC grades a comic 9.6 and the "2" in 25-cents is wrapped totally to the back, along with some of the cover text. Ask 100 people if that book is "Well Centered" (as OS requires above 9.4) and no sane respondent (who isn't a dealer) would answer Yes.

 

I'm pretty sure that the most recent Overstreet Grading Guide says that the 9.6 grade needs to be "Generally Well Centered"...please go check your copy again and I'll check mine when I get back to where my copy is at. However, even if it did say "Well Centered," both Arnold Blumberg in these forums and the guide's text itself state that the guidelines we're debating about here weren't meant to be taken with the absolute strictness that you're attempting to read into it. Most of us would like to have the very well-defined, strict guidelines that you're pining for, but unfortunately, the Overstreet standards aren't to that level yet, which Arnold has said on several occassions in the past when people tried to take them too literally.

 

And as we can see from the scan of Strange Adventures 21, at the time of CGC's inception in 2000, the Overstreet Grading Guide did definitely allow miswraps (and offset staples and translucency) all the way up to the 9.9 level. In the 2002 Grading Guide, I agree that there is evidence that they're trying to suggest that miswraps aren't allowed, but for the reasons I mentioned earlier, there IS a shadow of a doubt about the Overstreet stance on the issue. Maybe they meant to change it, and maybe they didn't. If they did mean to change it, then it's possible that CGC hasn't noticed...or that they came to the same conclusion that I did, that the guide is unclear about the question.

[ArAich]

So I definitely see the argument. Whether it's really going to have that effect or not, that's hard to say. But I'm not in the dark about what you guys are talking about anymore at least.

 

...just a thought...but howzabout yelling down the hallway and seeing what Bob O. has to say about this???....

[awe4one]

JC's right. I got the Grading guide right next to my computer. 9.6-10.0 are described as "Well Centered". 9.4 starts the "Generally Well Centered" notation.

 

 

Jim

[fantastic_four]

JC's right. I got the Grading guide right next to my computer. 9.6-10.0 are described as "Well Centered". 9.4 starts the "Generally Well Centered" notation.

 

Goshdarnit, I double-checked that last night when I wrote it...I guess either I misread it or my pre-release advance copy is different from the final one. I probably misread it.

 

Either way, it's a vaguely qualitative description, and the absence of a pictorial example doesn't necessarily mean they didn't mean to allow it. It infers the fact that they did, but it doesn't communicate their thinking "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Most of the high grade samples in the guide are very new books, and from what I've seen, very few books from the last 5 years or so have much of a miswrap. I wish Arnold or Gemstone would chime in to clarify whether they meant to differ with CGC's and the previous Grading Guide's opinion on this.

[Darthdiesel]

But yes, I do see the argument. Without the written nomenclature, it presents a potential barrier to understanding what grade is what. So I definitely see the argument. Whether it's really going to have that effect or not, that's hard to say.

 

But this barrier can easily be overcome. How?? Well they could go on CGC's website and click under Grading link, or 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

 

You want to know what 3.5, 9.4, 8.0 means? GO LOOK IT UP!

You want to know why you got the 2.5 on your book when you were expecting a 9.8? CALL UP CGC and ASK FOR GRADERS NOTES on SERIAL NUMBER ##########

 

I can understand how this make you work harder if you are buying something, but isn;t it worth it if you are planning on spending a chunk of money? Not on a $20 - $50 purchase that we can blow off, mind you. But something where you'll be feeling the effect of until the next paycheck "heals" that dent in your account. It is always smart to invest the time into researching something for deals of this magnitude in importance. I wouldn't be satisfied or feel comfortable just because some letters appear next to a number in a situation like this

[joe_collector]

I'm pretty sure that the new Grading Guide says "Well centered" for 10.0 and "Generally well centered" for 9.9 and below...I don't have mine near me right now but I'll check it when I get home and scan the 9.9 page if you vehemently disagree, or correct myself if I'm mistaken.

 

I await your solemn apology.

 

I feel like I'm betting someone that a sport's replay will turn out differently the next time it airs...

 

You're making the assumption here that the Grading Guide authors intentionally picked copies without a miswrap to illustrate that they're not allowed in the higher grades.

 

Please do us all a favor and open up the latest OS Grading Guide before you get too far in. OS notes the mis-cuts and miswraps with arrows and lists them under DEFECTS in the grading notes.

 

And like I said before, check out page 233 for an excellent example of the differences between CGC and OS. OS grades a poorly cut, mis-wrapped book with minute "wear-related" issues 6.0 and that same type of comic I've seen in CGC 9.6 holders.

[joe_collector]

JC's right. I got the Grading guide right next to my computer. 9.6-10.0 are described as "Well Centered". 9.4 starts the "Generally Well Centered" notation.

 

 

Jim

 

Can you check out Page 233 and give us your expert opinion?

[awe4one]

Most of the high grade samples in the guide are very new books

 

2 of 6 9.9s examples are pre-1965 comics.

 

2 of 6 9.8s are pre-1957 comics.

 

5 of 8 9.6s are pre-1975 comics (4 are pre-1951 comics).

 

 

Jim

[drbanner]

Unfortunately, while the new grading guide is good/better and all, there are multiple instances of the text description of the grade saying a defect is "not allowed", and the corresponding pictures showing that exact defect. The issue of centering notwithstanding, these inconsistencies illustrate that there are no lines in the sand that can be drawn from either the text OR the pics.

[lighthouse]

I'm pretty sure that the new Grading Guide says "Well centered" for 10.0 and "Generally well centered" for 9.9 and below...I don't have mine near me right now but I'll check it when I get home and scan the 9.9 page if you vehemently disagree, or correct myself if I'm mistaken.

 

I await your solemn apology.

 

I feel like I'm betting someone that a sport's replay will turn out differently the next time it airs...

 

You won't get mine... Because he's right!

 

Page 138 of the current grading guide.

 

MINT 9.9

"Generally well centered and firmly secured to interior pages