No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[jbud73]

An interesting topic but if anything the 400 posts and most of them not supporting should illustrate that there are issues with the new label. This is if nothing else another reason NOT to view CGC as a independent, transparent, objective, 3rd party service. They can and do exert undue influence on the hobby in their direct interests. I'm not saying that CGC is a bad service, just that they seem to operate under the facade of objectivity.

[fantastic_four]

"9.2 = "limited number of minor defects," translates to 1/16" to 1/8"

* 9.0 = "limited number of defects,""

 

Nope, not a misprint. In my mind, the addition of the word "minor" here indicates that the defects are not as severe. "Defects" are bad, "minor defects" are not as bad, see? So the 9.2 is not as severely damaged as the 9.0, that's the idea anyway.

 

Yea, I thought about that after I wrote it that this statement doesn't make sense UNLESS you're considering the descriptors from the chart on the bottom of page 128. What led me to say that "minor defects" are worse than "defects" wasn't that the words themselves inferred that conclusion, but the fact that the "minor" descriptor translates to 1/8" to 1/4" severity and the lack of the word "minor" but the presence of the word "limited" points towards the 1/16" to 1/8" range in that table on page 128. The word "minor" is in the table, but the lack of that descriptor isn't.

 

I hope I got the numbers right...I don't have my guide near me and did that on memory.

[fantastic_four]

That's the whole point I was trying to get across. What the terms mean is secondary, but OS definitely takes printing defects as grading defects, and many of their diagrams and grading examples highlight miswraps and list them under the defect header.

 

This is different than what CGC does, which as Steve has mentioned before, only becomes a factor in those rare EXTREME examples.

 

When did Steve use the word "extreme"?

 

Have you seen CGC books that are 10.0s or 9.9s with miswraps greater than 1/16"? Have you seen a 9.8 with a miswrap greater than 1/8"?

 

That second question should be the controversial one. In thinking about how to account for a comic with a low number of defects which are more severe than are normally allowable in a grade, it occurred to me that linear extrusion of the Overstreet quantitative standards is one possibility to help account for this hole in their grading guidelines.

 

Here's an example of what I mean by "linear extrusion." Assume we've got a perfect 10.0 book in our hands that only has one problem--miswrap. What would the grade be if it had:

 

• a 1/32" miswrap?
• a 1/16" miswrap?
• a 1/8" miswrap?
• a 1/4" miswrap?

The easiest case is the first one. Going by my interpretation of the guidelines, the 1/32" miswrap is still allowable under the 10.0 grade.

 

What about the 1/16" miswrap? Because they use the word "slightest" for 10.0 and "subtle" for 9.9, I can only assume (lacking more specific guidance from the guide) that subtle is worse because it doesn't have the "est" suffix on the end, so it's inferring the lower end of the 1/32" to 1/16" scale. So the 1/16" miswrap is a 9.9.

 

What about the 1/8" miswrap? Here's where we're going outside the bounds of the stated guidelines and the controversy begins. It occurs to me that there are two possibilities for determing the grade on this:

 

• Bump the book straight down to the 9.2 grade because that's the highest one that specifies that a 1/8" miswrap is allowable.
• Count this one defect as two defects--in other words, treat it as two 1/16" miswraps added together. This is what I meant by "linearly extruding"

Which of these two approaches is the best one? I find the first approach to be rather severe as a blanket rule for all books that have low defect counts with one of the defects being more severe than is normally allowed in the grade...in fact, it's this kind of excessive downgrading for a single defect on an otherwise defect-free book that led dealers and CGC to start using "Qualified" grades. Doing this also doesn't differentiate a 10.0 book with a 1/8" miswrap from books with 3-4 9.2-level defects in addition to that 1/8" miswrap. I'm wondering whether we shouldn't linearly extrude the defect by splitting it up evenly (linearly) into smaller defects so that it fits into the current Overstreet quantitative ranges more easily. So what grade should a 10.0 book with two 1/16" miswraps get? Well, it's two defects, and they both fit within the guidelines for 9.4 and up since they're only 1/16" long. Where it fits at it VERY open to interpretation. Two defects could place it anywhere into the 9.4 to 9.8 range...I'm not sure we can tell from the current guidelines where this 10.0 book with two 1/16" miswraps should go.

 

Perhaps a miswrap that is 1/8" can't be directly split into two 1/16" defects...I say this because a 1/8" miswrap is MUCH more noticable than a 1/16" miswrap. Maybe we don't linearly divide it...perhaps we divide into three, or four defects. What equation to use to divide a defect is a tough call, but for a 1/8" miswrap, it seems to me that the aesthetic effect is definitely greater than the sum of two 1/16" parts. I'll have to keep thinking this over more, especially as it should apply to other defects besides miswraps. The 1/8" miswrap could be anywhere from 9.4 to 9.8 using linear extrusion, or possibly worse if we use a more steeply sloped mathematical formula to divide it, such as an exponential formula.

 

What about the 1/4" miswrap? It's either 9.2 directly, or you split it up into four 1/16" miswraps. Of course, even if you split it up, it's still too many defects for 9.4 to 9.8, so it's a 9.2 either way you cut it.

 

I've been trying to find a way to tie defect counts to defect severities for a while...dividing a severe defect up into X number of smaller ones might just work for books that we'd otherwise consider to be "Qualified." Gotta give it more thought.

 

Math class is over for today...please make your way to the exit and proceed quietly to your next class.

[fantastic_four]

This is if nothing else another reason NOT to view CGC as a independent, transparent, objective, 3rd party service.

 

Or a reason that the Overstreet guidelines need some refinement. Most of the posts here regarding miswrap have been related to that.

 

I still wonder what they mean by "centering" as a defect under the "cover wear" category since it doesn't mean a miswrap. Could it mean what we sometimes call "recessed staples"? The other descriptions of that category talk about how the cover attaches to the interior, so maybe it does mean how recessed the staples are...but I dunno, seems like a stretch to describe that as "centering".

 

I've been saying this for a year or more and getting called a "CGC apologist" for it...but I don't care, it's still true...the grading guidelines for the industry as a whole are too young and unrefined to hold CGC accountable for all the grading ills of the world. I can almost guarantee you that CGG, 3PG, and the company Hughes is rumored to be grading for will suffer the exact same problems as CGC for the exact same reason, which is that the "reach" (i.e. expectations) of the average high-end collector exceeds the "grasp" of the industry-standard (Overstreet) grading guidelines.

[musicmeta]

Although the alpha grade my help clarify in a small way, it is really unneeded and redundent. It's not removing information, the information is still provided by the number grade

 

It's not a matter of is the alpha grade needed, it's the fact that CGC is removing information that has always been there and there is plenty of room for the alpha grade on the label somewhere. You are giving the seller/buyer LESS information then you HAD before without any benefit. Heck, why not just give the bar code and an 800 number to call for details(grade, Page Quality...etc)

 

I still don't see how it is providing less information, the information is still there. The same information was just presented two different ways. I can see how people liked seeing the information available both ways but to me it was just redundent.

 

"9.4" IS providing less than "9.4 NM" . Yes, I'm not arguing that they BOTH mean the same, but clearly "9.4 NM" took just a tad bit more ink to put on the label.

You do indeed have less information THAN YOU DID BEFORE THE LABEL CHANGE. You may interpret this to be one and the same, but if "NM"(or some other alpha grade) is not printed on the label, then you CLEARLY have LESS information to VIEW.

Newbies don't have to "Go look it up" and can clearly see what the alpha grade relates to the numeric grade and vice- versa.

My point, is that the alpha grade HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE and now it's gone.

What was the advantage?? NONE as far as I can see.

[fantastic_four]

My point, is that the alpha grade HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE and now it's gone.

What was the advantage?? NONE as far as I can see.

 

You didn't see a disadvantage to the "minus" grade modifier?

 

All the people who didn't mind the "minus" modifier, please send me all your 9.9s so I can replace the "Mint" descriptor with "Mint Minus" text. Also, since you're all so able to see past the negativity of such a trivial little thing as a word, I'd like you to all to choose the names for your next child that is born to one from the following list:

 

Minus

Defect

Negative

Adverse

Detrimental

Unfavorable

Con

Lesser

Less

Fewer

Not as much as

Downer

Disadvantage

Excluding

Without

Lacking

Not Including

Exclusive of

 

To get the ball rolling, I shall change my name as of right now to "Unfavorable fantastic_four". Only, I don't think that name is descriptive enough, so please refer to me from now on in your posts as Unfavorable James "Jamie" "Jim" "Jimmy" "Jimbob" "fantastic_four" Ashley Rudd.

[ArAich]

This is not in response to anyone in particular...I just thought it would be a good time to interject this to keep the thread relevant....

 

The quick answer and bottom line here is that the grade needed to be bigger so people could see it from far away. It was a pain, at conventions, to see the grade on the label on a sellers wall from in front of their table. Also, Nomenclature was removed, not only to make the grade bigger but it was fast becoming absolete to many buyers of certified comics. When we give out grades over the phone we don't say 3.5 VG minus, we just say 3.5. It is very rare that I hear a customer talking to me about a grade and saying very fine to near mint, they just say 9.0. Finally, and you may not believe this, but we have gotten calls from people who are new to comics and hate anything with a minus next to it. One guy did not care that his book was a 3.5, he just did not understand why he had a minus sign, what he called a negitive, on his book.

 

 

 

Sborock 8/24/03

 

[drbanner]

I've been saying this for a year or more and getting called a "CGC apologist" for it...but I don't care, it's still true...the grading guidelines for the industry as a whole are too young and unrefined to hold CGC accountable for all the grading ills of the world. I can almost guarantee you that CGG, 3PG, and the company Hughes is rumored to be grading for will suffer the exact same problems as CGC for the exact same reason, which is that the "reach" (i.e. expectations) of the average high-end collector exceeds the "grasp" of the industry-standard (Overstreet) grading guidelines.

 

The fact is, if the next, great grading company compromises and assumes the "average" grading criteria of all collectors is the correct one, half will feel they're too strict, and half will feel they're too lenient. Also, a quick examination of the grading criteria outlined in Overstreet 1-33 makes it quite obvious that grading standards have continually evolved, which is even easier to see when comparing the 2 versions of the grading guide.

[Rip]

9.9 is not mint minus. Some dealers on ocasssion use mint minus.

[joe_collector]

When did Steve use the word "extreme"?

 

Actually, this was a comment from Bruce, regarding the conversations he's had on the subject with Steve:

 

"Miswraps (or CGC miscuts) CAN be factored into the grade on High Grade books too... but it seems to be very rare and only in extreme cases..."

 

Sorry for any confusion.

[joe_collector]

All the people who didn't mind the "minus" modifier, please send me all your 9.9s so I can replace the "Mint" descriptor with "Mint Minus" text.

 

Thanks for confirming that you work for CGC, since obviously no one else could make such a bold claim.

[joe_collector]

Finally, and you may not believe this, but we have gotten calls from people who are new to comics and hate anything with a minus next to it. One guy did not care that his book was a 3.5, he just did not understand why he had a minus sign, what he called a negitive, on his book.

 

So essentially, the lunatics are running the asylum?

[musicmeta]

My point, is that the alpha grade HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE and now it's gone.

What was the advantage?? NONE as far as I can see.

 

You didn't see a disadvantage to the "minus" grade modifier?

 

 

Nothing wrong with seeing "9.2 NM-" as opposed to just "9.2".

The alpha grade USED to be on the label along with the numeric grade is I'm pointing out. IMHYWO the alpha grade should have remained on the label WITH the numeric grade.

 

[Darthdiesel]

It's Arkham and the Joker's "going all out, up in here, up in here.."

[Rip]

You should ask him which would you rather have the girls say.

You look like an 8.0...... or.... You look VERY FINE!!!!!

 

Which would you rather have your wife say.

"You were a 4.0 in bed last night"

or

"You were Very Good in bed last night."

 

[jonnydouble]

You should ask him which would you rather have the girls say.

You look like an 8.0...... or.... You look VERY FINE!!!!!

 

Actually ,...they say both...

 

J.D.

 

[drbanner]

Okey-dokie then...after 400+ replies we've come full circle and are now back to whence we came - quoting earlier posts in the thread, CI saying JR works for CGC and making various lunatic/insufficiently_thoughtful_person comments, and most importantly, the punchline that sums up the majority opine:

 

"The alpha grade USED to be on the label along with the numeric grade...the alpha grade should have remained on the label WITH the numeric grade."

 

 

(Ok, probably not, but I was just dying to try out my new graphic! )

[Rip]

Aside from a few crazy posts, its gone amazingly well. Too bad Steve wouldn't input anything.

[drbanner]

Steve's input is quoted above, and as in the past when he's stated CGC's position on various topics and issues, it comes as a one-shot. He would be on here 24-hours a day if he started responding/discussing/arguing with the "lunatics", and then our books would never get graded (numerized?)!!

[ArAich]

"Bones, Logic dictates, This thread must continue."