No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[awe4one]

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

 

Well it's not an expert opinion but.....yep I've seen at least 9.2s that are as severely cut as the 6.0 example. In fact one was on eBay not too long ago. I'll see if I can find it.

 

 

Jim

[Rip]

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.

[drbanner]

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

 

[fantastic_four]

I await your solemn apology.

 

There are no apologies in debate...those are reserved for arguments. The truth is what is important, not the individual's ego. I'll admit I made a mistake once I go check my guide, but apology infers that this was personal...which it wasn't, it was a discussion of fact. The only reason I engated with you on this is because you seemed willing to debate neutrally for the first time in I don't know how long...please don't ruin that now, it detracts from your otherwise excellent thinking.

 

I've told you a zillions times before--I hate miswraps too--but our personal opinions wasn't what the debate is about, it's the difference between what Overstreet and CGC think.

 

 

Please do us all a favor and open up the latest OS Grading Guide before you get too far in.

 

That's what I worked from, until I noticed the lack of clear guidance regarding miswrap. That's when I went back to the older guide, which is what would have influenced CGC when they started.

 

 

OS notes the mis-cuts and miswraps with arrows and lists them under DEFECTS in the grading notes.

 

Gemstone lists them as defects in the old guide too, but they allow them in the higher grades.

 

 

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.

 

I will

[joe_collector]

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

 

The OS Grading Guide clearly lists differing levels of centering for 9.6 and above (Well Centered) and for 9.4 to 9.0 (Generally Well Centered), so I cannot understand why anyone would think that OS does not take centering into account.

 

The Guide pictures and defects arrows/lists also confirm this. Now, exactly what the terms mean is irrelevant, it's only important to my point that OS does make the distinction.

 

Once again, if you have any question what I'm talking about, please turn to Page 233 of the latest OS Grading Guide. If this is somehow "confusing" to you, then it's pretty obvious what's going on.

 

CGC never has made any distinction on centering or mis-cuts, and prefers to just the strucutre outside of printing flaws. Steve has admitted as much, so what's the big hubbub?

[lighthouse]

Strangely, in the text portion of the grade breakdowns, 9.8 and 9.6 are both described as "generally well centered" and 9.4 is described as "well centered" before going back to "generally well centered" with 9.2...

 

Sounds to me like there was some discussion during the production of the book as to where to draw those lines, and even in the final version of the book, the lines are not clear...

[awe4one]

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

 

Then go to the next page and see Cover Wear "Well Centered" for all notations until 9.4.

 

 

Jim

[Rip]

Note to CGC: I collect Near Mint comics, not numbers!!

 

 

[musicmeta]

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

 

WHY? The letter grade WAS on the slab before. Why take something off that immediately gave meaning to the number or vice-versa.

If CGC first came out without the letter grade and here we are today living without it and nobody said anything about the letter grade missing that's one thing,

but to REMOVE information that was already there is pointless!

BRING BACK THE LETTER GRADE BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE SLAB BEFORE!

 

[lighthouse]

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

 

Then go to the next page and see Cover Wear "Well Centered" for all notations until 9.4.

 

 

Jim

 

I'm well aware, Jim... and that's the point I was making... JC was acting like Jamie was a nutjob for saying the OS said anything about "Generally well centered" in 9.9... Clearly he's not...

 

Clearly, Arnold and Bob had some questions of their own as to where to draw the line and didn't get those questions answered before the book went to press... Because the book quite clearly says both...

[ArAich]

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

 

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...

[joe_collector]

Lighthouse, I'm talking about the detailed grading criteria spelled out on the subsequent page. Any dolt can see that the text is a typo, as the CGC 9.6 "text" on Page 154 states "Well Centered" and then switches to "Generally Well Centered" at 9.4.

 

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

 

Then again, this typo on the newbie description page is probably enough to get the CGC acolytes all hot and bothered, and thinking that a CGC 9.9 has to be less-centered than a CGC 9.6.

 

Use your brain and the detailed grading criteria for each grade.

[drbanner]

What don't you understand? Yes, centering is accounted for in the grading guide, and your point was that OS delineates EXACTLY where the cutpoint is, but it's quite obvious from the discussion that it DOES NOT. End of story...and yes, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.

[Darthdiesel]

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

[joe_collector]

End of story...and yes, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.

 

Yep, certain people who derive income through the sale of CGC comics are becoming quite vehently opposed to anything that may put CGC in a bad light.

 

No surprise, as this has been going on for years. Money talks.

[garthgantu]

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

 

Arnold, I think you're the first person on these boards to actually step forward and acknowledge they were wrong about something, without qualifiers, without "ifs, ands or buts" - just flat out admitting to being wrong! (Nothing to be ashamed of there, I'm wrong about 203 times a day - though NEVER on these boards )

 

Five stars to Arnold for just being him and being a stand-up guy.

[awe4one]

[because the book quite clearly says both...

 

 

 

Jim

[joe_collector]

[because the book quite clearly says both...

 

 

 

Jim

 

These CGC dealers will grab any port in a storm. Infuriating.

[garthgantu]

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!

[joe_collector]

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.....