To be original here's another "New CGC Label" thread, with a twist!

[Shield]

Sooo..................

 

 

What I want to know is this:

 

Had CGC removed the numbering altogther (9.0, 4.5, etc.) and went with a strictly alpha grading classification (I.E. VG/FN, VF, NM) would you be more or less upset?

 

In your replies, you're not allowed to use the word "nomenclature".

[mr_highgrade]

[PovertyRow]

Sooo..................

 

 

What I want to know is this:

 

Had CGC removed the numbering altogther (9.0, 4.5, etc.) and went with a strictly alpha grading classification (I.E. VG/FN, VF, NM) would you be more or less upset?

 

In your replies, you're not allowed to use the word "nomenclature".

 

I like the combo of both. Call me boring.

[Illiterati-migration]

Sooo..................

 

 

What I want to know is this:

 

Had CGC removed the numbering altogther (9.0, 4.5, etc.) and went with a strictly alpha grading classification (I.E. VG/FN, VF, NM) would you be more or less upset?

 

In your replies, you're not allowed to use the word "nomenclature".

 

Less. Language (words) will always be more descriptive than numbers.

[fantastic_four]

I would refuse to buy any CGC books with that label. I buy the book and not the label...unless the label really pisses me off.

[blowout]

Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less.

 

 

Yeah! Rabble rabble rabble! ::oops - sorry:: But I DO agree!

[greggy]

Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less.

 

 

Yeah! Rabble rabble rabble! ::oops - sorry:: But I DO agree!

Too bad you guys still can't grade!

[PovertyRow]

Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less.

 

 

Yeah! Rabble rabble rabble! ::oops - sorry:: But I DO agree!

Too bad you guys still can't grade!

 

You talking to me? You talking to ME? Huh - Well I'll have you know....oh! It is only Greggy. Nevermind!

[Shield]

Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less.

 

 

That wasn't my question. I agree with you. However, changing to an "all number" classification seems to have caused an uproar. I'm curious if CGC adopting the opposite would've been more or less controversial, that's all.

 

Time for a poll!

 

 

 

 

[blowout]

Too bad you guys still can't grade!

 

You are one to talk. We've all seen your latest CGC graded books vs. greggy predictions.

[greggy]

Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less.

 

 

Yeah! Rabble rabble rabble! ::oops - sorry:: But I DO agree!

Too bad you guys still can't grade!

 

You talking to me? You talking to ME? Huh - Well I'll have you know....oh! It is only Greggy. Nevermind!

No...I'm talkin' to the general population when they SELL! Not when they buy or in a grading forum question!

[blowout]

That wasn't my question. I agree with you. However, changing to an "all number" classification seems to have caused an uproar. I'm curious if CGC adopting the opposite would've been more or less controversial, that's all.

 

I answered your question. Changing to an all number system has caused an uproar mainly because information has been removed from the label (revealing less).

The numbers are not the problem, removing useful information is.

[greggy]

Too bad you guys still can't grade!

 

You are one to talk. We've all seen your latest CGC graded books vs. greggy predictions.

Sell me a raw book and let's see!

[Bugaboo-migration]

Nomenclature.

[Aman619]

they should go back to listing BOTH. Putting just the numbers assumes one of two erroneous conclusions: that the worded grades no longer matter, and that CGCs new numbers have now replaced obsolete terms like NM etc. OR two, that all of us have memorized the word equivalents of the the CGC numbers and that they are of no use to us anymore.

 

I dont think either is true. I prefer the new label and like the bigger number grade - - but they need to add the letter grade as well.

[Shield]

[Shield]

That wasn't my question. I agree with you. However, changing to an "all number" classification seems to have caused an uproar. I'm curious if CGC adopting the opposite would've been more or less controversial, that's all.

 

I answered your question. Changing to an all number system has caused an uproar mainly because information has been removed from the label (revealing less).

The numbers are not the problem, removing useful information is.

 

No, actually you said this: " Both notations need to be on there. I am for MORE information not less. "

 

I didn't ask if there should be more or less information. I asked if there would have been more or less of an uproar had the numerical grade had gone away and only the alpha stayed. I think you're reading this as my asking "should there be more or less information on the label" based upon your answer, which isn't what I'm looking for.

[Joanna]

Both is preferable, but if I had to choose I'd definitely go with the traditional grades instead of the numbers. I just don't pay attention to the numbers in anything below 9.0.

[blowout]

I didn't ask if there should be more or less information. I asked if there would have been more or less of an uproar had the numerical grade had gone away and only the alpha stayed.

 

You are mis-interpreting what I am trying to say. I understood your question fine.

 

What I am saying is there would be no more or less of an uproar either way. Whether you have JUST the alpha grade or JUST the numerical grade you will have LESS information than you would had with both.

 

My preference is for both grade types. To specifically answer your ACTUAL question, then I would be equaly disturbed by a switch to ONLY the alpha grade. Each grade type serves a different portion of the CGC buying public and to remove either one would be bad news for someone.