No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[ArAich]

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.

 

 

Ermmmm...you seem to be arguing rather passionatly...

 

[joe_collector]

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.)

 

Come on, every week or so, we have a insufficiently_thoughtful_person popping in with "Do you think XXX is a good investment", where XXX is usually an Ultimate title, a Venom 9.9 or the latest "definitive, absolutely last word (until we change it) Origin Story".

[OldGuy]

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...

 

It's not a problem for Darth because he only buys books that fall in the 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 or 10 grades, he only has to translate 5 numbers. The rest of us poor saps that collect other then modern books have to deal with grades from 2.0 to 9.+. It's easy for him to say "look it up" because he wont have to.

[Darthdiesel]

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?

 

 

Actually I'm indifferent to it. I'm not sending in my current blue labels for a bigger numberical grade, nor did I send in my modern red labels for regrading when they changed them. I can see the positive aspects of a bigger grade. don't necessarily agree with the negatives made on here and the best reason of all... I love to bust everyone's chops on here

[Darthdiesel]

We can email sullypython and find out...

[drbanner]

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.

 

Are you talking about this?

[joe_collector]

It's not a problem for Darth because he only buys books that fall in the 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 or 10 grades, he only has to translate 5 numbers. The rest of us poor saps that collect other then modern books have to deal with grades from 2.0 to 9.+. It's easy for him to say "look it up" because he wont have to.

 

[Darthdiesel]

as just the sight of that book drove men to kill, women insane, and little kids to drink.

 

So that's why greggy's been acting so funny

[lighthouse]

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.

 

I fully expect you to take this with a grain of salt, but I think collectors are far more adaptable than we give them credit for... I removed all letter grades from my books over 2 years ago, both in the shop and at shows, and I have had a grand total of two customers in all that time who have complained...

 

Most customers don't expect the books they buy to be in the condition marked anyway. That's just reality. They bid on eBay books listed as VF+ hoping for a Fine. They see books on a wall in a store and hope they are within three grades. They pull books out of boxes at a show fully expecting to not agree with the grades. Heck, I doubt one-third of the comics for sale at most shows even have grades listed... Even the collectors that have no clue whatsoever about the 10-pt scale will rummage through my boxes, never asking me what the numbers mean, and they know that the higher numbers are the better books... They'll pull out a 7.5 and see that it's about the condition they are looking for (which could be their version of Fine or their version of NM) and they will continue on through the boxes looking at other books around 7.5 or better. It doesn't matter to them a bit what the 7.5 means. Not one bit...

 

The average collector in this country does not use Overstreet... That's a stone cold fact... The reason they don't is because dealers have never been consistent in their grading. If two guys both claim to use Overstreet and they each grade the same book a VF- and a NM-, why would the buyer ever pay attention to the Overstreet system? The average collector is looking for books that meet with their own expectations. They buy a book because it looks like what they want their books to look like. Whether that's in person, or looking at a scan. People don't buy books online because the seller says it's a VF. They just don't. They buy the book because it looks like what they want...

 

Customers go through my boxes and pull out a book or two. They see the numeric grades, find one that matches what they are looking for, and then look for more books like that... Every once in a while a customer will ask what the numeric grades mean, but the very knowledgeable collectors already know, and the less knowledgeable ones are just looking for books they like. And it's a whole lot easier to explain "the higher the number, the better the grade" than it is to try to line up "FN, GD, NM, MT, PR, VF, and VG" for them...

[Darthdiesel]

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.

 

 

Ermmmm...you seem to be arguing rather passionatly...

 

I think it was Garth's posts from last night that brought me back in

[joe_collector]

Are you talking about this?

 

Nope, and I have to remember two things:

 

1) I've been away for a bit, so my sense of "CGC forum time" is off.

2) Hammer/Meth/etc. complains about a lot of books.

 

I'd like to find that Sully Batman book, as it was repulsively cut.

[Darthdiesel]

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.)

 

Come on, every week or so, we have a insufficiently_thoughtful_person popping in with "Do you think XXX is a good investment", where XXX is usually an Ultimate title, a Venom 9.9 or the latest "definitive, absolutely last word (until we change it) Origin Story".

 

Ah, my shill IDs have been having a fun time of it all

[garthgantu]

There just isn't a logical explanation for this...

 

I agree wholeheartedly. What's the logic behind this move? Given that CGC's logic and my logic may not align perfectly, what would CGC's motive for doing this be?

I know this has been considered in a few posts to this thread, but it seems as though this is the real question... not whether CGC will do this - we know the answer to that already - but WHY ?

 

I will forego conspiracy theories and simply say that CGC moves in mysterious ways fairly frequently, from my perspective, and this is definitely one of those instances. It's right up there with:

- Not removing re-slabbed books from the census

- Not adhering to the OS grading guidelines with respect to page quality, mis-cuts, mis-wraps, rusty staples and other 'defects' after announcing that they did/would

- Not clearly delineating the criteria for their grading system

- Not clearly stating the criteria for determining a given book to be restored

(or at the least, not applying the same criteria to books from different Ages, and not specifying how those differing criteria are applied to each era of books)

 

I don't object to CGC having it's own formula for ANY of the above; I think that CGC can be a good thing for the back issue market, if it helps standardize certain aspects of the grading, restoration, pedigree and other pressing conundrums. But CGC is kinda like the Wizard of Oz, in my opinion: handing down directives to the Munchkins without providing the necessary rationale, and more importantly, from my perspective, without seeming to consider the needs/expectations/demands of the market.

 

I laughed when I saw the "pro-numeric grade only" folks stating forcefully that no dealers/investors/speculators that they knew were involved in this latest decision from CGC. Doesn't that scare you? Because CGC sure didn't ask the average collector. So who did they ask? Anyone?

 

How much does a day-long focus group cost to run? $20,000 including airfare for 10 or 20 participants? Wouldn't you want to get the input of the target audience before instating new policies/procedures like this numeric-only grading? Heck, couldn't CGC have just posted a query on these boards and received 100 responses in 24 hours? Even if that's far from scientific, it would give those of us who obviously care *some* sense of being involved in the decision...

[greggy]

as just the sight of that book drove men to kill, women insane, and little kids to drink.

 

So that's why greggy's been acting so funny

[lighthouse]

I'm off to have lunch with the wife, and I will be back to this thread later. But before I left I wanted to publicly thank JC for returning to the forum...

 

This is easily the longest on-topic comic-related thread in months, and probably the longest in the short history of these forums. And despite the occasional jab here and there, it has remained remarkably civil. Most people on these forums know to ignore anything after post #100 on a thread because by then it has certainly degenerated into a smiley-fest... But not this thread.

 

Thanks JC. You and I may disagree. But I, for one, am glad you're back...

[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.

 

Are you talking about this?

 

OK and answer to JC - looks like it could be an optical illusion due to the scanner playing light tricks with the black background and dark colors on the right edge and it could also be overhang that was "bent" so slightly to throw it off. COmicwiz drew up a grid and shows that the edge is straight? It really does "look" like it is bowed inward ... and it is a CGC 7.5

[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...

 

It's not a problem for Darth because he only buys books that fall in the 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 or 10 grades, he only has to translate 5 numbers. The rest of us poor saps that collect other then modern books have to deal with grades from 2.0 to 9.+. It's easy for him to say "look it up" because he wont have to.

 

 

Secret's out! Actually because if those darned waterlogged variants, I have to know 0.5 to 6.0 very well

[joe_collector]

It really does "look" like it is bowed inward ... and it is a CGC 7.5

 

Nah, that's not it, and like I said before, I've been gone for a bit, so what's "recent" to me....

[Darthdiesel]

I will forego conspiracy theories and simply say that CGC moves in mysterious ways fairly frequently, from my perspective, and this is definitely one of those instances. It's right up there with:

- Not removing re-slabbed books from the census

- Not adhering to the OS grading guidelines with respect to page quality, mis-cuts, mis-wraps, rusty staples and other 'defects' after announcing that they did/would

- Not clearly delineating the criteria for their grading system

- Not clearly stating the criteria for determining a given book to be restored

(or at the least, not applying the same criteria to books from different Ages, and not specifying how those differing criteria are applied to each era of books)

 

-CGC corrects the census if the label is turned in when regrading. They even offer an incentive to return the label, if I recall correctly

 

-You are seeing examples of newly slabbed books that don't agree with the Overstreet Grading standards within reason after they CGC made the statement in the Scoop release?

 

-they never have; nor will I expect them to...ever

 

- it's in the small print on the back of every CGC label. As for how they determine or what they count as restoration earning the PLOD, talk to the resident CGC restoration expert...

 

But CGC is kinda like the Wizard of Oz, in my opinion: handing down directives to the Munchkins without providing the necessary rationale, and more importantly, from my perspective, without seeming to consider the needs/expectations/demands of the market.

 

the Wizard of Oz was a fraud; so does this imply that I'm a Munchkin

 

I laughed when I saw the "pro-numeric grade only" folks stating forcefully that no dealers/investors/speculators that they knew were involved in this latest decision from CGC. Doesn't that scare you? Because CGC sure didn't ask the average collector. So who did they ask? Anyone?

 

It doesn't scare me. CGC should be able to make a simple business decision with input from within its own infrastructure. I would have been more bothered and worried if they have to check with you on everything they plan on doing, as that is a sign of inability.

 

How much does a day-long focus group cost to run? $20,000 including airfare for 10 or 20 participants? Wouldn't you want to get the input of the target audience before instating new policies/procedures like this numeric-only grading? Heck, couldn't CGC have just posted a query on these boards and received 100 responses in 24 hours? Even if that's far from scientific, it would give those of us who obviously care *some* sense of being involved in the decision...

 

So, they could just wow you with a smokescreen and go ahead with their original plans and you'd be just as happy all because they went thru the motions. what's with this need to be involved...you want involvement..go work for CGC...simple as that. Otherwise, what entitles the average collector or dealer privileged information and influence in the daily outcomes of CGC's projects?

[garthgantu]

Ermmmm...you seem to be arguing rather passionatly...

 

I think it was Garth's posts from last night that brought me back in

 

Oh, sure... blame it all on me!