Qualified or Crapified?

[PedigreeMan]

If you truly, wholeheartedly believe in this digital view of the world, then more power to you!

 

By digital do you mean binary--as in "black or white"? As in a subjective point of view?

 

Exactly. Tom Clancy used it as a descriptor in his latest novel, and I've sort of co-opted it.

 

If Joe truly has this viewpoint, I would like to hear some arguments from him that use it as a foundation. Again, I'm not trying to bait anyone here ... I would genuinely like to get inside the head of someone who thinks like this.

 

Alan

[joe_collector]

Although......it does lose some of it's humor when you have to explain it out to the simple minded like this.

 

Yes Bug, we're all too simpleminded to get your convoluted and ilogical attempts at humor. That's the ticket; it can't be because of you... it's us...

 

Now go take you pills and have yer momma tuck you in.

[joe_collector]

Exactly. Tom Clancy used it as a descriptor in his latest novel, and I've sort of co-opted it.

 

There's your problem right there; go read some quality fiction. That Clancy tripe will rot your brain quick.

[Bugaboo-migration]

Although......it does lose some of it's humor when you have to explain it out to the simple minded like this.

 

Yes Bug, we're all too simpleminded to get your convoluted and ilogical attempts at humor. That's the ticket; it can't be because of you... it's us...

 

Now go take you pills and have yer momma tuck you in.

My apologies, Joe, but you seem to be the only one that failed to get those two obvious jokes. I actually thought you were just kidding around at first......then I realized that you really didn't get them.

 

C'mon Joe. Just admit that in your attempt to try to come back with a witty put-down, you simply misread what I had wrote.........twice.

 

Although, it's easy to see by your reverting to the "momma" jokes that you don't have any witty put-downs left.

[supapimp]

Exactly. Tom Clancy used it as a descriptor in his latest novel, and I've sort of co-opted it.

 

There's your problem right there; go read some quality fiction. That Clancy tripe will rot your brain quick.

 

ever have anything pleasant to say?

[joe_collector]

But you've never given any rebuttal of substance when faced down by someone who doesn't share your beliefs.

 

I really don't get this. Every published grading guide I've ever seen has stated that even a slightly incomplete comic (clipped coupon, etc.) can achieve no higher than a VG and it goes downhill from there depending on the excessiveness of the damage. In the Overstreet mantra, that translates into Poor.

 

Now my point is that fudging the numbers is deceptive to many buyers, especially as CGC has stated that some newbies called up to complain about the "-" on their slabs, thinking it was a mark against it.

 

Do you get that? Newbies buyers were complaining about a minus sign? Now what do you think John Newbie Investor is supposed to think of the AF 15 CGG 6.0 Qualified? I have a hard time figuring out the rules behind the CGC Qualified grade, as I've seen multiple inconsistencies with it, (it usually pertains to the value/collectibility of the book), so how are newbies who go into a sweat at the sight of a "-" supposed to understand that this really isn't a 6.0 in any universe except CGC's?

[supapimp]

BOTTOM LINE is that CGC is here to make you/me money, they don't LIE about it. just checkout their AD's in CBG, it's all about the cabbage!

[THE_BEYONDER]

so how are newbies who go into a sweat at the sight of a "-" supposed to understand that this really isn't a 6.0 in any universe except CGC's?

 

Maybe the CGC Universe is where that newbie wants to play....

 

[joe_collector]

BOTTOM LINE is that CGC is here to make you/me money, they don't LIE about it. just checkout their AD's in CBG, it's all about the cabbage!

 

Of course Pimpy, but I like it when people are upfront about the motives, rather than running around here trying to rationalize the fact that a comic with 10 pages missing received a 6.0 grade from CGC.

 

I always thought Qualified was intended for a comic with one major flaw from an otherwise nice grade comic. 10 pages missing is far from a single flaw, any more than a comic ripped in 10 pieces is.

[Bugaboo-migration]

I really don't get this. Every published grading guide I've ever seen has stated that even a slightly incomplete comic (clipped coupon, etc.) can achieve no higher than a VG and it goes downhill from there depending on the excessiveness of the damage. In the Overstreet mantra, that translates into Poor.

I'm still wondering how you would assign a universal 1.8 Good- grade to a comic missing 10 pages.

 

Oh.....I forgot......you were trying to be nice.

[joe_collector]

['m still wondering how you would assign a universal 1.8 Good- grade to a comic missing 10 pages.

 

Oh.....I forgot......you were trying to be nice.

 

You guys have no leg to stand on, so like puppies with a bone, you trot around with this, somehow thinking it means something.

 

Overstreet says Poor, CGC says Fine. That's the comparison.

 

By your own admission you don't give a rat's butt what I think EVER, so stop the stupid act... if it is an act?

[Bugaboo-migration]

Of course Pimpy, but I like it when people are upfront about the motives, rather than running around here trying to rationalize the fact that a comic with 10 pages missing received a 6.0 grade from CGC.

 

I always thought Qualified was intended for a comic with one major flaw from an otherwise nice grade comic. 10 pages missing is far from a single flaw, any more than a comic ripped in 10 pieces is.

How are they not being up front? The book has a major flaw......ten pages are missing.....the rest of the book grades out at a 6.0. They assign a different colored label to you to alert you to this fact, and have full disclosure of this information on the label. You don't agree with it. We get that. But that's your opinion, and in Joes little world, his opinion is the only one that matters, even if it's wrong.

[Bugaboo-migration]

You guys have no leg to stand on, so like puppies with a bone, you trot around with this, somehow thinking it means something.

 

Overstreet says Poor, CGC says Fine. That's the comparison.

 

By your own admission you don't give a rat's butt what I think EVER, so stop the stupid act... if it is an act?

If we don't have a leg left to stand on, then you don't even have a bloody stump left to prop yourself up with.......not after giving a straight 1.8 Good- grade to this book.

 

And somehow you think that's better than a qualified label with full disclosure.

[joe_collector]

How are they not being up front? The book has a major flaw......ten pages are missing.....the rest of the book grades out at a 6.0. They assign a different colored label to you to alert you to this fact, and have full disclosure of this information on the label. You don't agree with it. We get that. But that's your opinion, and in Joes little world, his opinion is the only one that matters, even if it's wrong.

 

So you're saying that newbie investors who got all worked up about a "-" on the lable and called CGC, are somehow smart enough to understand all the nuances of the Qualified grade.

 

Here's a test Bug, why don't you tell me EXACTLY what a Qualified Grade is and isn't, and then I'll post examples that dispute your criteria. How does that sound, 'o flaming fan of CGC?

 

I'd guarantee that even CGC would admit they have not used their Qualified grading with any consistency.

[joe_collector]

Bug, you are really something else, and I mean that. Not many people could regurgitate the same stuff over and over, all without even giving notice to the real question:

 

Overstreet: Poor

CGC: Fine Q

 

If this was a live debate, you'd probably try tap dancing to really wow us.

[Bugaboo-migration]

So you're saying that newbie investors who got all worked up about a "-" on the lable and called CGC, are somehow smart enough to understand all the nuances of the Qualified grade.

 

Here's a test Bug, why don't you tell me EXACTLY what a Qualified Grade is and isn't, and then I'll post examples that dispute your criteria. How does that sound, 'o flaming fan of CGC?

 

I'd guarantee that even CGC would admit they have not used their Qualified grading with any consistency.

CGC is the first to admit it's not an exact science. They've said that numerous times. Why don't you post all of these examples of books that you don't feel should be qualified and explain why, 'o flaming foe of CGC?

 

I do know one thing.......CGC giving this book a qualified grade with full disclosure is much more fair to these "newbies" you keep mentioning than some gypsy, tramp, and thief palming it off on them as a straight 1.8 Good- graded book.

[PedigreeMan]

Exactly. Tom Clancy used it as a descriptor in his latest novel, and I've sort of co-opted it.

 

There's your problem right there; go read some quality fiction. That Clancy tripe will rot your brain quick.

 

 

You're still skirting the issue, Joe.

 

And yeah, Clancy is pure pop-fiction (re: "tripe" in your black & white world), but sometimes you just need to partake in a tasty, empty-calorie meal. It tends to clear the pallete ....

[Bugaboo-migration]

Bug, you are really something else, and I mean that. Not many people could regurgitate the same stuff over and over, all without even giving notice to the real question:

 

Overstreet: Poor

CGC: Fine Q

 

If this was a live debate, you'd probably try tap dancing to really wow us.

You've been regurgitating the same tripe for 15 pages now, so what's your point?

 

Overstreet: Poor

Joecollector: Good-

 

If this truly were a live debate, someone would need to take your pulse. That would be the only way to prove you're not a robot with anti-CGC tape recordings set to repeat over and over.

[joe_collector]

You're still skirting the issue, Joe.

 

Ummm, please see Bug's responses above for a definition of this term...

 

He's dancing around likea broken record, spouting the same gibberish, and not even thinking about the topic at hand.

 

I want to see one sane reason for grading a comic with 10 PAGES missing a 6.0, based on what is left?

 

And I also want to know how far this goes. Can a NM cover get a NM Q grade with "missing entire book" notation? Can I rip a book in half and get a NM Qualified? What about if I rip out the middle 10 pages of a off-the-shelf USM book, will it get a Qualified NM?

 

Why are other nice comics with serious issues like detached covers, rusty/stained covers, missing pages, etc. NOT given a Qualified high-grade, but instead receive a Poor. And these are not 3.5 or below either, but high-grade comics whose internal pages weren't examined closely enough.

 

Well, at least this AF 15 doesn't have THAT problem..

[PedigreeMan]

But you've never given any rebuttal of substance when faced down by someone who doesn't share your beliefs.

 

I really don't get this. Every published grading guide I've ever seen has stated that even a slightly incomplete comic (clipped coupon, etc.) can achieve no higher than a VG and it goes downhill from there depending on the excessiveness of the damage. In the Overstreet mantra, that translates into Poor.

 

Now my point is that fudging the numbers is deceptive to many buyers, especially as CGC has stated that some newbies called up to complain about the "-" on their slabs, thinking it was a mark against it.

 

Do you get that? Newbies buyers were complaining about a minus sign? Now what do you think John Newbie Investor is supposed to think of the AF 15 CGG 6.0 Qualified? I have a hard time figuring out the rules behind the CGC Qualified grade, as I've seen multiple inconsistencies with it, (it usually pertains to the value/collectibility of the book), so how are newbies who go into a sweat at the sight of a "-" supposed to understand that this really isn't a 6.0 in any universe except CGC's?

 

Hey, I'm not slamming your opinion, Joe! My comments were directed towards your labelling Bug a "CGC Love Slave" for disagreeing with you. Rather harsh, but consistent with your all-or-nothing view of life ... a view I happen to believe is extremely short-sighted. But since I also believe in hearing a person out, I've asked you to clarify your point of view, especially with regards to morally ambiguous issues that seem to contradict your philosophy.

 

Needless to say, I'm still waiting.

 

Alan