No More Grades, Just BIG NUMBERS!

[THE_BEYONDER]

ok, time to start a greggy vs Beyonder post.

 

All I'd have to do is use his best weapon against him.....

 

 

I'm afraid he may start posting scans of some of his HG Romance comics, and I'll be forced to surrender.

[greggy]

ok, time to start a greggy vs Beyonder post.

 

All I'd have to do is use his best weapon against him.....

 

 

I'm afraid he may start posting scans of some of his HG Romance comics, and I'll be forced to surrender.

[ninanina]

please forward all your responses on the new greggy vs beyonder post that I've just started up. (Gotta do something to save this one.)

[BronzeBruce13]

...It's pretty obvious what's going on. First grader notes are deleted due to seller complaints, and now we're moving to a totally numerical system, again likely due to sellers complaining that the CGC 9.4 Near Mint designation creates a line in the sand for investment gurus to latch onto.

 

Easy solution: Get rid of Near Mint, Very Fine/Near Mint, Fine and the like and just use a number. Most Americans can't read anyway, so dealers probably think they're limiting their market by using real words.

 

A MONSTROUSLY HUGE, MONOLITHIC CGC 9.0 sure looks better than Very Fine/Near Mint for the in the crowd...

 

 

 

Long time, good to hear from you Vince.

 

I've tried to catch up on the 2 lengthy related threads since I posted last night, but instead of spending the time to do so thoroughly, maybe I can ask you to elaborate on your opening post?

 

Maybe I am slow, but I'm sorry, even though I preferred the nomenclature too and am sensitive to many of the passionate arguments offered for their re-inclusion, I still fail to recognize anything "obvious going on" in regards to how the decision (to remove the nomenclature specifically) makes "selling for investment" easier, or was made to satisfy sellers? I just don't get the "line in the sand 9.4" statement, nor the "dealers probably think they're limiting their market by using real words"? Further, I also don't to see how a 9.0 "without the nomenclature" would be more appealing than a copy with... and how the absence would make the sale easier to an potential newbie buyer or investor? Wouldn't they have a limited understanding of the terminology anyway and wouldn't they be more influenced by the presentation and argument by the seller declaring the grade "investment quality" for whatever reason.. or their own pre-evaluations of the market?

 

Most of the "newbie collector/investor" types I encounter seem to "already" have a "Targeted Grade-Range Goal" in mind before they really get started. I'm not sure if they watch prices/trends/availability first or whatever, but they don't seem so oblivious in my experience that the presence or lack of terminology would guide their decision-making much. I buy and sell quite a bit and can honestly say, I never once encountered a situation where the terminology prevented the sale of a book.

 

I don't know you're buying habits or whom you network with... but did you talk to any dealers while forming this opinion? Also, I'm fairly certain that you don't sell any/many CGC books, but do you know others that do and have expressed comments "in favor" of the loss of the nomenclature... or that they feel it will aid in their sales? I only ask because all the dealers I've spoken with seem very indifferent to the loss of the nomenclature, although supportive of the larger grade. That is something I will say is obvious... the decision (to increase the size of the grade specifically) . Doing so clearly makes the grade more visible at conventions or when selling on eBay, etc. I think BlazingBob brought that deficiency up long ago and I assume many other convention sellers, trying to offer CGC books, offered similar input.

 

When I heard the label was changing and that the grade was to be enlarged, I thought the label would basically stay the same except the grade may be 3-4X larger. Turns out it went well beyond that and the text grade was eliminated. Perhaps its too big, and the text should have stayed (maybe at the original size with an enlarged number?), but I still can't see how the presence or absence makes much of an impact in anyone's decision making to buy a CGC book... whether newbie or experienced collector... well, at least not enough to be a major concern.

 

I certainly understand and relate to the preference for it to remain...it is part of comic history. I'd point out, most don't like change in general though, myself included, so that has something to do with it too. I was among the most vocal against the removal of the DRA's (Distribution Related Additions)off the label if you recall. I have to say that Carl's point about overseas markets seems to have some merit, although I hadn't considered that until he mentioned it... and "Lighthouse's" post also made a great deal of sense to me.

 

Judging from all the heartfelt opposition to the loss of the nomenclature, maybe CGC should give it a second review and/or try and give us a more detailed explanation beyond what's been offered thus far... since many feel that its not a "good one" or worse. I mentioned on the first thread that Steve has always been available to discuss an issue when I called. I suggest someone give him a call and ask him for more detail. If no one else will, I'll call again and try and relay what I learned... although he may be tired of talking to me by now.

[awe4one]

Welcome back Vince......

 

First off.....I pretty much agree 100% with you regarding CGC's motivation behind the label change.

 

But to play Devil's Advocate a bit.....

 

If one of the results of the change is a greater demand for 8.0 or 9.0 comics, how is this bad? One of the negative results since CGC grading came on the scene is the general distain in the market for comics below 9.4. Comics down to the 8.0-8.5 range are very very nice copies but have generally been disregarded by collectors since CGC started. This wasn't the case pre-CGC. VF comics were actively selling. If the new label creates more demand for these comics, I see it as a positive sign and more in line with previous collecting attitudes.

 

 

Jim

[joe_collector]

Further, I also don't to see how a 9.0 "without the nomenclature" would be more appealing than a copy with... and how the absence would make the sale easier to an potential newbie buyer or investor?

 

That's because you're a smart guy.

 

Have you ever worked for a large corporation, and some meathead comes up with a slightly different company logo, or plan, or mantra, or whatever, that market research has determined will increase profits?

 

I have, and it never turns out that way, as most people with cash are intelligent, and don't fall for stupid "quickie" tricks like that. Doesn't mean at companies won't keep trying them, especially as it's easier to create busy-work than to actually improve grading turnaround times, get magazine grading up and running, or improve customer service.

 

Instead, we get a crappy new label, and CGC's dealers/owners are ecstatic, since this is another step toward creating a seamless "comic investment commodity". Personally, I don't see it doing a whit of good (for the reasons you state), but the CGC dealers are hoping to catch the "insufficiently_thoughtful_person newbie investor" while maintaining their current investment/collecting "veteran" base.

[blazingbob]

For the record none of the dealers requested that the grade be taken off the new label. In fact we had very little input into the new design. It would be very nice if CGC sent out a sample of new label designs and asked for our feedback but that didn't happen.

[comicwiz]

The coalescense of the Overstreet Numerical Equivalent and CGC's grading scale (New 10 point Grading System -- see new OGG) a more logical explanation for the push towards indicating the numerical grade (ie. 8.0 instead of VF 8.0) on the new label.

 

I don't buy this theory that CGC is moving towards that old beaten path of CGC vs moronic collectors, but rather a push for something they have been working on since their inception -- UNIVERSAL GRADING STANDARDS. I like the new label, and have always bought the book inside the holder, never the label.

[joe_collector]

The coalescense of the Overstreet Numerical Equivalent and CGC's grading scale (New 10 point Grading System -- see new OGG) a more logical explanation for the push towards indicating the numerical grade (ie. 8.0 instead of VF 8.0) on the new label.

 

I have the new OGG and it in no way represents what CGC is doing. Here's a refresh of a previous post:

 

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?

 

[Smokinghawk]

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

 

The most blatant one was taking off the grader's comments like "date stamp on back cover," "name written on first page," etc. This one doesn't really affect their role as a reporter of the book's state since the numerical grades match up to the worded grades one to one, but the removal of those comments does reduce the functional usefulness of the label.

 

I really hope that new grading company Hughes is rumored to work for adds comments to the label. Right now, 3PG's reporting seems to be the most comprehensive in the industry.

 

This changes the topic away from the CGC label, but I just happened to have received my 3PG books back from a test submission.

 

Indeed, the grade is offered as both a number and a "classic" term. Additionally, the grader's notes are on the back of the label as a "report card," as well as a mapping system to help identify the area of the book on which a defect is noted.

 

I like the holder. It's rigid and sturdy, and features the microchamber paper, acid-free plexiglass, AND a UV light filter sheet (although the filter is a plastic film over the book over inside the holder, which means that at an angle you can see the slight "waves" of the film over the book). The holder appears to be actual "slabs" of plexiglass held by four edge pieces that "clamp" the whole apparatus for the entire length of each side, and interlock to prevent opening.

 

Grading was good.

 

Certainly worth the $7 for cost, and fast turnaround.

 

[drbanner]

I don't like a number-based system myself b/c I'm not "...used to it...", but unfortunately, the migration towards a numerical grading standard to replace an alpha-based grading standard has been going on for a long time. CGC did not invent the concept. First was PCE's numerical grading scheme, then the 100-point Overstreet scale, and finally the 10 point scale (which basically moved the decimal point on the 100 point scale) introduced by Steve Fischler, which was adopted by CGC and Overstreet. Like adoption of the euro, if you're going to use a new system, there needs to be initial overlap between the two before phasing out the old.

 

I'm all for a universal grading standard, and CGC has done more for the hobby in this respect than anyone by providing real-world "examples" of their standard. One dealer's NM has never been the same as CGC's, Bob's, Steve's, Jim's, or Joe's, but regardless of what it's called, we all now have a relative grading scale that can be used to move towards a universal standard. And now worries - your flat, tight, glossy, perfectly-centered, stress free Hulk 181 is still a flat, tight, glossy, perfectly-centered, stress free Hulk 181!

 

We don't like it, but change is never easy...is it?

[drbanner]

This changes the topic away from the CGC label, but I just happened to have received my 3PG books back from a test submission.

 

Let's have a look-see?!?!

[joe_collector]

We don't like it, but change is never easy...is it?

 

Banner, I'm never against change, assuming there is a valid reason for upsetting the status quo.

 

For example, my company has switched from formal to business casual and then back to formal over the years, but always with a valid reason. Open concept office redesign, business shifts, reorgs, etc. have all been the driving force.

 

On the other hand, if they asked all employees to dye their hair orange and wear big red noses, you could bet on some serious opposition to this new "plan".

 

If CGC came out and stated their real reason for going this route, such as "we're looking at a 100-point grading system in the future, as arbitrage will represent a large part of our business, and these alpha grades just don't fit", I'd be in agreement.

 

But to change it (supposedly) due to some who don't like the minus sign? If as Bob suggests, dealers had zero input into the new label, it makes me think that CGC should start worrying about their core business, and getting magazine grading up and running, rather than pickin gnat [!@#%^&^] from pepper.

[chromium]

On the other hand, if they asked all employees to dye their hair orange and wear big red noses, you could bet on some serious opposition to this new "plan".

 

Oh I don't know....it could be the new craze...

 

 

[drbanner]

If CGC came out and stated their real reason for going this route, such as "we're looking at a 100-point grading system in the future, as arbitrage will represent a large part of our business, and these alpha grades just don't fit", I'd be in agreement.

 

I really don't think CGC has to explicitly state a "reason" - the evolution of comic book grading to include numerical grades has been ongoing for several years. They're just taking it to the next, logical step, which is to carry the overlap for some period of time before switching over completely. Personally, I don't believe there will ever be enough refinement to have a true 100 point grading scale, and we basically now have a 25-point scale. But...if grading standards will evolve to the point of differentiating an 82 from an 83, the 10/100-point scale now used will accomodate this.

 

But to change it (supposedly) due to some who don't like the minus sign?

 

I agree, this sounds silly/trivial, but it's not the only reason Steve gave for the change.

[greggy]

I agree

[BronzeBruce13]

Further, I also don't to see how a 9.0 "without the nomenclature" would be more appealing than a copy with... and how the absence would make the sale easier to an potential newbie buyer or investor?

 

That's because you're a smart guy.

 

Have you ever worked for a large corporation, and some meathead comes up with a slightly different company logo, or plan, or mantra, or whatever, that market research has determined will increase profits?

 

I have, and it never turns out that way, as most people with cash are intelligent, and don't fall for stupid "quickie" tricks like that. Doesn't mean at companies won't keep trying them, especially as it's easier to create busy-work than to actually improve grading turnaround times, get magazine grading up and running, or improve customer service.

 

Instead, we get a crappy new label, and CGC's dealers/owners are ecstatic, since this is another step toward creating a seamless "comic investment commodity". Personally, I don't see it doing a whit of good (for the reasons you state), but the CGC dealers are hoping to catch the "insufficiently_thoughtful_person newbie investor" while maintaining their current investment/collecting "veteran" base.

 

 

No, I haven't worked for a large corporation... I've been self-employed for all but 5 years of my working adult life... but I hear you. I'm not convinced that what's really happening here?

 

However, I can't tell what you are basing this evaluation on even still, as you only responded to a small potion of my prior post (say that fast 3 times). Similar to your initial post, you make another statement that I'd like an elaboration on as I'd truly like to know how you formulated your theory in regards to nomenclature removal specifically. I think the intent of grade size enlargement is clear... to help buyers and sellers see the grade easier and to help facilitate more transactions.

 

..but the CGC dealers are hoping to catch the "insufficiently_thoughtful_person newbie investor" while maintaining their current investment/collecting "veteran" base

 

As mentioned, I have not heard from anyone, particularly any dealers, that seem very supportive of the loss of the nomenclature from a sales perspective ('House and Donut gave other reasons they supported it) ... most seem indifferent.

 

Blazingbob just posted that to his knowledge and personal experience, dealers were not consulted about the label change in general. Obviously, CGC knew that they, along with buyers would be supportive of the grade size enlargement (in concept) but it seems that CGC made the decision on their own. I'd like more clarification on the nomenclature issue too, but presently, I can't go along with this notion that it was done for the reasons you stated. I also feel CGC's brief explanation does not seem to be reason enough either. Maybe we'll hear from more dealers or someone will call Steve.

 

As for CGC adopting Overstreet standards... that was taken out of context to some degree. Read this thread...

What a Scoop! (CGC/Overstreet standards)

[awe4one]

As for CGC adopting Overstreet standards... that was taken out of context to some degree. Read this thread...

What a Scoop! (CGC/Overstreet standards)

 

Either CGC is using Overstreet standards or they aren't. All the articles I've seen after their announcement have been vague and gives the implication of backtracking on CGC's part.

 

The fact that CGC came out and said they were going to use Overstreet rules implies that they weren't using them to begin with........

 

 

Jim

[Smokinghawk]

This changes the topic away from the CGC label, but I just happened to have received my 3PG books back from a test submission.

 

Let's have a look-see?!?!

 

 

I'll scan when I get home from work (and get my scanner re-installed after a WinXP upgrade).

 

 

One thing I *don't* like about the 3PG holder is that their "universal grade" label is PURPLE...Anyone see a potential drawback to that??

 

[BronzeBruce13]

As for CGC adopting Overstreet standards... that was taken out of context to some degree. Read this thread...

What a Scoop! (CGC/Overstreet standards)

 

Either CGC is using Overstreet standards or they aren't. All the articles I've seen after their announcement have been vague and gives the implication of backtracking on CGC's part.

 

The fact that CGC came out and said they were going to use Overstreet rules implies that they weren't using them to begin with........

 

 

Jim

 

What I took from all that I heard and read was the CGC indeed "bases" their system on Overstreet's, BUT certainly added some of their own criteria and grading views to form their own process. I'm not sure it has to be "black or white".