No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[joe_collector]

Another thing that bugs me about this change is that it came on the heels of the CGC statement that they were now grading by Overstreet standards.

 

I've taken my Overstreet Grading Guide out (which should be the Bible for CGC graders) to confirm, and at the top of each page I see the Grading Term (capitalized), followed by a Numerical Equivalent.

 

As in:

 

NEAR MINT 9.4

 

NEAR MINT - 9.2

 

and so on....

 

So how is a big BLOB of a number grading by Overstreet, when the OS Price Guide has used NM/VF/F, etc for-like-ever, and even their Grading Guide formalizes these terms quite nicely?

[greggy]

What if we go something like this.....

 

 

Old timers can still see enuf of the cover around the border to know its a X-Men #10,...and new time buyers get the security they need when buying a graded book.

We should do it for your WW books, as they're silly in most cases anyways!

[joe_collector]

What if we go something like this.....

 

Now that was funny, but on a serious note, don't give the commodity brokers at CGC any ideas.

[joe_collector]

Hey Greggy, you have been hereby formally requested to change your sig line to the following, in order to conform with the new CGC strategy:

 

WTB: CGC 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 or 10.0 DC 100 Page Giant and 9.0, 9.2 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 or 10.0 Super DC Giant books!

[greggy]

Done....with slight alterations!

[blowout]

CGC needs to start providing MORE information for buyers, not constantly deleting label info due to their owner's (dealers) complaints.

 

Sums it up for me in a nutshell. This is the most blatant dealer pandering so far from CGC.

[ArAich]

I guess the next step is CGC stating that "we're bigger than Jesus".

 

...I can see the slogan now...."How would Jesus grade"....

[Bugaboo-migration]

Raisins are natures candy.

[joe_collector]

NEWS SCOOP:

 

CGC's upcoming "Investing for Newbies" label unveiled:

 

 

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and give my reasons why foregoing the standardized nomenclature might actually be beneficial to the hobby in the long run.

 

Namely, the old accepted grading definitions of "Good", "Very Good", "Fine" and what not are a clunky, unwieldy hodge-podge of terms and definitions that, while reflecting the history and grading evolution of the hobby, are very difficult for newbies to wrap their wee minds around. If you ask someone with no experience in comics what should be nicer, a "Very Good" or a "Fine" comic, most people (like myself well before my comic education) would think, simply from the name alone, that the VG term would indicate a nicer book But that isn't the case.

 

Also, the "half-grades" of Very Good/Fine, Very Fine/Near Mint, etc, also tend to cause a certain confusion for newcomers into the hobby. If a Very Fine can be defined by one set of criteria, and a Near Mint by another, than how exactly do you get a grade that's exactly half-way between the two? For us old pros, its not a problem, we know what a VF/NM looks and feels like, compared to a NM- or NM, or VF, or VF+ etc. But it took me YEARS of experience to understand the nuiances of what a VF/NM book is, and for a hobby that needs to bring in new blood to sustain itself, a simplified numerical system based on the old tried and true 1-10 scale may be for the better. Simply put, a comic collector may not want to spend years trying to pick up the complex Overstreet grading system, certainly not when a simplified numerical scale will do.

 

Myself, I was thrilled when the old ONE (Overstreet Numerical Equivalent) grading system was introduced in the early 90s. I thought the time had come for the hobby to shed its bulky, antiquated grading terminology and embrace something anyone can understand; a number scale. But, the ONE system had problems of its own, and it past into relative obscurity, until a revised numerical system came along with the advent of CGC.

 

Bottomline, I do think that the old grading terms, while cumbersome, do mean a lot to those of us who took the time to learn them, and I will be sad to see them go. But change is inevitable, and if the hobby is going to go more mainstream, especially with the success of several recent comic-related movies, it has to adapt the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) factor to appeal to the broadest range of people. The numerical scale can accomplish that much better than the old terminology.

 

 

[joe_collector]

But JiveTurky, CGC comics already had an easy-to-use numerical scale, running from 1.0 to 10.0. That's been there since Day 1, and is an obvious nod to the lowest common demoninator you spoke of.

 

What we're talking about is not a shift from old-school grading terms to a new numerical basis, but the destruction of the dual-grading number/text scheme (that seemed to satisfy just about everyone) to a numbers-only scenario that leaves people like me out in the cold.

 

What did you think was so bad about having a CGC 9.4 (for the newbs) Near Mint (for the collectors) grade?

[PovertyRow]

The total protection holder.

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

What did you think was so bad about having a CGC 9.4 (for the newbs) Near Mint (for the collectors) grade?

 

Personally, nothing. However, taken from the perspective of someone who is just getting into the hobby, why have two overlapping sets of criteria (terms and numbers) when one will do? I agree that it seems to be short-sighted considering that this hobby is being supported mainly by those who have been in it for years, but I'm afraid an unalterable shift to a purely numerical system is well underway.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

why have two overlapping sets of criteria (terms and numbers) when one will do?

 

Well, that is the core of the discussion - a lot feel that just one won't do!

[rob_react]

... until a revised numerical system came along with the advent of CGC.

 

 

Just for clarity's sake, and in the hopes that mentioning his name will get him to come on here and share his opinion on the matter, the 1-10 scale was actually introduced by Steve Fishler from Metropolis.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

... until a revised numerical system came along with the advent of CGC.

 

 

Just for clarity's sake, and in the hopes that mentioning his name will get him to come on here and share his opinion on the matter, the 1-10 scale was actually introduced by Steve Fishler from Metropolis.

 

You are corrent, I should have noted that CGC helped popularize it, but did not introduce it.

[blowout]

Personally, nothing. However, taken from the perspective of someone who is just getting into the hobby, why have two overlapping sets of criteria (terms and numbers) when one will do?

 

But not everyone is 'just getting into the hobby' and don't you think it possible that some long time collectors may not understand the numerical grading system?

It seems to me that having BOTH types of grading system on the label satisfies all types of collector. I don't mind the fact that CGC has increased the size of the numbers to make them clearer, but they should not be doing it at the expense of the old grading notations.

 

At least not until they explain to buyers what the numbers mean. The numerical system just has not been around long enough to completely replace the VF, NM type grades.

[Bugaboo-migration]

[clobberintime]

Good topic Joe and I agree with your views on this matter. It seems CGC has taken the attitude "the less information the better." I greatly disliked their decision to stop placing negative info on the labels such as remarks about cover writing and other defects. I however have a slightly different take on the new label thing. Remember a while ago there was discussion about CGC stating that cgc holders should be replaced like every 3 years? I think the creation of this new label will create the thought amongst some that books in the old holders are inferior or decaying. A good way for CGC to make money by having eveyone send in their pre-July 2003 books to have them reslabbed! Because newer label is obviously superior to old label with too much info.

[greggy]

Mmmm....another resurrection from the grave!