Qualified or Crapified?

[Illiterati-migration]

Bug has no point. He doesn't even have an informed opinion on the matter. He's just going to be contrary to anything you say... (It's his special little manner of atoning for all of his previous dink-isms.)

 

I'm starting to see this pretty clearly. I'm gonna start a few "The Earth is NOT Flat" threads and see what "evidence" he brings to the table to disagree with my opinions.

This coming from the person that does nothing but spout anti-cgc rhetoric in here on a daily basis......along with his sidekick, Khaos, knealing steadfastly in front of him.

 

As usual, you're not even tangentially relevant with your response, Buglet. In fact, your response actually makes no sense at all. I'd tell you you're stupid, but would you even understand?

[Bugaboo-migration]

Go play with Bug, as it's patently obvious you don't hold any other forum members to these standards.

 

Bug repeats the same "you gave it a 1.8" comment ad infinitum, greggy and co. converse in emoticons, banner leaps in from time to time to give me a shot, and you seem to think I need to improve my level of writing?

 

Take a look around you, this is wasteland of North America; comic-reading adults!!

What seems odd to me is that someone who doesn't care for the way that CGC does it's business is always compelled to come back to their forum. Do you think it's your moral duty to try to warn people of the evil empire?

 

Says the lad who has taken it upon himself to pledge allegiance to whatever cause is in opposition to JC's. (Granted, that may be all of them...) You need a drink to wash down that bitter irony, Bugling?

Says the forum troll. It looks like I'm going to have to put you on the payroll again. It's no secret that you aren't a fan of CGC either, Khaos. Perhaps I oppose Joe because he seems to blindly opposes CGC in almost every post that he makes. I think CGC does a good job. Seems to make sense to me that I would oppose a lot of what he says. Do you see the irony there in missing such a simple and logical conclusion, trollster?

[Illiterati-migration]

QUALIFIED sounds more like trying to pass off some junk as brand new.

It's amazing that they can accomplish that with full disclosure about the missing pages right there on a different colored label.

Full disclosure would be to call the book what it really is. A .5 . Not a "could be" 6.0 if it wasn't missing 10 pages.

 

This is what I believe CGC should of done in this case....

Grade the book .5, note 10 missing pages and note that the remaining pages are in 6.0 condtion. Then that would be full disclosure.

 

Every time I've looked at a QUALIFIED graded book, I look at it like its a lesser book trying to be passed off as a better book. Not once have I seen a QUALIFIED book that deserves the grade given. I say call it like it is. Don't mask the actual condition with some "WHAT IF" grade. And that in effect is what a QUALIFIED grade is. A "WHAT IF". What if the book wasn't missing 10 pages? 6.0 then? Your guess is as good as mine. But if CGC says the remaining pages are in 6.0 condition, then they probably are. But no way is the book a 6.0 as is. Qualified or not. This has to be a big mistake on CGC's part. They should really re-think the QUALIFIED grading. I don't think QUALFIED grading is helping anyone.

The whole "point" of the qualified label is that it's not a universal label. It signifies that if not for the defect listed on it, this book would grade at a 6.0. I think the qualified grade makes much more sense than just slapping this book in a blue label and calling it a 0.5.

 

Why?

 

Instead of aping a response that you've read from the people you're trying so desperately to impress, why don't you share some original thoughts on the matter?

 

Indeed, it's NOT a Universal label. Good for you. Anyone who can read and isn't colorblind could make that distinction. Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

[joe_collector]

At this point, those agreeing with Joe and I are in the majority with the voting standing at 22-13 in favor of the use of the Qualified Grade.

 

Agreeing with a CGC Edict.. on a CGC forum.. full of CGC fanboys... Say it ain't so Banner!!

 

Seriously though, I have stated I have no problem with the Qualified policy, as long as it's used in the way it was intended, to deal with comics with ONE MAJOR DEFECT in an otherwise nice comic. A clipped coupon, a detached staple, a filled-in offer, etc.

 

If there's anyone on God's green Earth who thinks that ripping TEN FULL PAGES out of a comic represents a single defect, then I truly feel sorry for them and would be scared to see what they submit to CGC.

 

The main problem with what CGC has done with the AF 15 is where does it end? Can I rip out 20 pages? The whole book? Rip the comic into 10 pieces? Send in half a cover? Send in an empty comic bag, with my word that a comic I lost was really in NM?

[ninanina]

Ok, I've read all the pages of this thread, except for pages 8-15. Seems that where 15 started, 8 left off - so I don't think I missed much. JC, I do enjoy your ramblings and opinions but you are WRONG with this one. You are talking about a Universal grade and it's not Universal. That makes CGC right.

 

But I do respect your opinion. Now, if you can somehow get around the fact your placing Universal values on a Qualified label, you'd be right. And I'm certainly willing to listen.

 

If not......could you admit you were wrong?

 

[Bugaboo-migration]

Bug has no point. He doesn't even have an informed opinion on the matter. He's just going to be contrary to anything you say... (It's his special little manner of atoning for all of his previous dink-isms.)

 

I'm starting to see this pretty clearly. I'm gonna start a few "The Earth is NOT Flat" threads and see what "evidence" he brings to the table to disagree with my opinions.

This coming from the person that does nothing but spout anti-cgc rhetoric in here on a daily basis......along with his sidekick, Khaos, knealing steadfastly in front of him.

 

As usual, you're not even tangentially relevant with your response, Buglet. In fact, your response actually makes no sense at all. I'd tell you you're stupid, but would you even understand?

I can see that you're never going to understand a logical response. I could try to explain it out to you mathematically, but you'd probably try to prove me wrong by swallowing your tongue or covering your ears so you can't see what's on your computer screen.

[fantastic_four]

Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

 

Because comic books fill several major types of functions for different collectors. This book fails the reading function, but it still partially fulfills the aesthetic display function. It's a nice-looking book...and just because I appreciate it as a nice looking book doesn't mean I don't read comics, please don't climb up on that moral high horse of yours again.

 

This particular copy doesn't even fail the reading function for the part 99% of us give a hoot about, although with respect to the CGC Qualified grade, it's admittedly a moot point since most books would be unreadable with 10 pages missing.

[ninanina]

At this point, those agreeing with Joe and I are in the majority with the voting standing at 22-13 in favor of the use of the Qualified Grade.

 

Agreeing with a CGC Edict.. on a CGC forum.. full of CGC fanboys... Say it ain't so Banner!!

 

Seriously though, I have stated I have no problem with the Qualified policy, as long as it's used in the way it was intended, to deal with comics with ONE MAJOR DEFECT in an otherwise nice comic. A clipped coupon, a detached staple, a filled-in offer, etc.

 

If there's anyone on God's green Earth who thinks that ripping TEN FULL PAGES out of a comic represents a single defect, then I truly feel sorry for them and would be scared to see what they submit to CGC.

 

The main problem with what CGC has done with the AF 15 is where does it end? Can I rip out 20 pages? The whole book? Rip the comic into 10 pieces? Send in half a cover? Send in an empty comic bag, with my word that a comic I lost was really in NM?

 

I don't know, if half the story was missing along with the 10 pages.....? It's the story that makes the comic desirable, and it's all there. Maybe CGC would have treated it more like you think it should have if the missing pages effected the story? Certainly a Universal grade would have or could have been used.

[Illiterati-migration]

Bug has no point. He doesn't even have an informed opinion on the matter. He's just going to be contrary to anything you say... (It's his special little manner of atoning for all of his previous dink-isms.)

 

I'm starting to see this pretty clearly. I'm gonna start a few "The Earth is NOT Flat" threads and see what "evidence" he brings to the table to disagree with my opinions.

This coming from the person that does nothing but spout anti-cgc rhetoric in here on a daily basis......along with his sidekick, Khaos, knealing steadfastly in front of him.

 

As usual, you're not even tangentially relevant with your response, Buglet. In fact, your response actually makes no sense at all. I'd tell you you're stupid, but would you even understand?

I can see that you're never going to understand a logical response. I could try to explain it out to you mathematically, but you'd probably try to prove me wrong by swallowing your tongue or covering your ears so you can't see what's on your computer screen.

 

Not scathing, not funny, not even innovative or clever. Yep, classic Bug.

Now you try to turn my own statement around on me. Aaaaaannnnnd GO!

[Bugaboo-migration]

QUALIFIED sounds more like trying to pass off some junk as brand new.

It's amazing that they can accomplish that with full disclosure about the missing pages right there on a different colored label.

Full disclosure would be to call the book what it really is. A .5 . Not a "could be" 6.0 if it wasn't missing 10 pages.

 

This is what I believe CGC should of done in this case....

Grade the book .5, note 10 missing pages and note that the remaining pages are in 6.0 condtion. Then that would be full disclosure.

 

Every time I've looked at a QUALIFIED graded book, I look at it like its a lesser book trying to be passed off as a better book. Not once have I seen a QUALIFIED book that deserves the grade given. I say call it like it is. Don't mask the actual condition with some "WHAT IF" grade. And that in effect is what a QUALIFIED grade is. A "WHAT IF". What if the book wasn't missing 10 pages? 6.0 then? Your guess is as good as mine. But if CGC says the remaining pages are in 6.0 condition, then they probably are. But no way is the book a 6.0 as is. Qualified or not. This has to be a big mistake on CGC's part. They should really re-think the QUALIFIED grading. I don't think QUALFIED grading is helping anyone.

The whole "point" of the qualified label is that it's not a universal label. It signifies that if not for the defect listed on it, this book would grade at a 6.0. I think the qualified grade makes much more sense than just slapping this book in a blue label and calling it a 0.5.

 

Why?

 

Instead of aping a response that you've read from the people you're trying so desperately to impress, why don't you share some original thoughts on the matter?

 

Indeed, it's NOT a Universal label. Good for you. Anyone who can read and isn't colorblind could make that distinction. Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

Why?

 

Why don't you go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread. I've gave reasons why several times and am not going to repeat it for you everytime you say "why".

 

Instead of you trying to act like this anti-cgc rebel, why don't you actually try contributing to this thread instead of just trolling people in it. I realize you contributed the ever insightful "but it's missing 10 pages" response.......but why don't YOU share some original thoughts on the matter. I know that goes against your nature, trollster.....but try anyway.

[Illiterati-migration]

Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

 

Because comic books fill several major types of functions for different collectors. This book fails the reading function, but it still partially fulfills the aesthetic display function. It's a nice-looking book...and just because I appreciate it as a nice looking book doesn't mean I don't read comics, please don't climb up on that moral high horse of yours again.

 

This particular copy doesn't even fail the reading function for the part 99% of us give a hoot about, although with respect to the CGC Qualified grade, it's admittedly a moot point since most books would be unreadable with 10 pages missing.

 

So a Green label is more "aesthetically pleasing" than a Blue label? Or is it that the number "6.0" is more aesthetically pleasing than its ugly, ugly counterpart nasty ol' "0.5"?

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

[Bugaboo-migration]

Bug has no point. He doesn't even have an informed opinion on the matter. He's just going to be contrary to anything you say... (It's his special little manner of atoning for all of his previous dink-isms.)

 

I'm starting to see this pretty clearly. I'm gonna start a few "The Earth is NOT Flat" threads and see what "evidence" he brings to the table to disagree with my opinions.

This coming from the person that does nothing but spout anti-cgc rhetoric in here on a daily basis......along with his sidekick, Khaos, knealing steadfastly in front of him.

 

As usual, you're not even tangentially relevant with your response, Buglet. In fact, your response actually makes no sense at all. I'd tell you you're stupid, but would you even understand?

I can see that you're never going to understand a logical response. I could try to explain it out to you mathematically, but you'd probably try to prove me wrong by swallowing your tongue or covering your ears so you can't see what's on your computer screen.

 

Not scathing, not funny, not even innovative or clever. Yep, classic Bug.

Now you try to turn my own statement around on me. Aaaaaannnnnd GO!

I would but your responses are putting me to sleep. Your posts are better than a whole bottle of Nytol.

[Illiterati-migration]

QUALIFIED sounds more like trying to pass off some junk as brand new.

It's amazing that they can accomplish that with full disclosure about the missing pages right there on a different colored label.

Full disclosure would be to call the book what it really is. A .5 . Not a "could be" 6.0 if it wasn't missing 10 pages.

 

This is what I believe CGC should of done in this case....

Grade the book .5, note 10 missing pages and note that the remaining pages are in 6.0 condtion. Then that would be full disclosure.

 

Every time I've looked at a QUALIFIED graded book, I look at it like its a lesser book trying to be passed off as a better book. Not once have I seen a QUALIFIED book that deserves the grade given. I say call it like it is. Don't mask the actual condition with some "WHAT IF" grade. And that in effect is what a QUALIFIED grade is. A "WHAT IF". What if the book wasn't missing 10 pages? 6.0 then? Your guess is as good as mine. But if CGC says the remaining pages are in 6.0 condition, then they probably are. But no way is the book a 6.0 as is. Qualified or not. This has to be a big mistake on CGC's part. They should really re-think the QUALIFIED grading. I don't think QUALFIED grading is helping anyone.

The whole "point" of the qualified label is that it's not a universal label. It signifies that if not for the defect listed on it, this book would grade at a 6.0. I think the qualified grade makes much more sense than just slapping this book in a blue label and calling it a 0.5.

 

Why?

 

Instead of aping a response that you've read from the people you're trying so desperately to impress, why don't you share some original thoughts on the matter?

 

Indeed, it's NOT a Universal label. Good for you. Anyone who can read and isn't colorblind could make that distinction. Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

Why?

 

Why don't you go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread. I've gave reasons why several times and am not going to repeat it for you everytime you say "why".

 

Instead of you trying to act like this anti-cgc rebel, why don't you actually try contributing to this thread instead of just trolling people in it. I realize you contributed the ever insightful "but it's missing 10 pages" response.......but why don't YOU share some original thoughts on the matter. I know that goes against your nature, trollster.....but try anyway.

 

Answer the question, Bug. FF did.

[Bugaboo-migration]

Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

 

Because comic books fill several major types of functions for different collectors. This book fails the reading function, but it still partially fulfills the aesthetic display function. It's a nice-looking book...and just because I appreciate it as a nice looking book doesn't mean I don't read comics, please don't climb up on that moral high horse of yours again.

 

This particular copy doesn't even fail the reading function for the part 99% of us give a hoot about, although with respect to the CGC Qualified grade, it's admittedly a moot point since most books would be unreadable with 10 pages missing.

 

So a Green label is more "aesthetically pleasing" than a Blue label? Or is it that the number "6.0" is more aesthetically pleasing than its ugly, ugly counterpart nasty ol' "0.5"?

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

Again....someone offers some insightful reasons for why this book deserves a qualified grade and this is all you can come up with? Cripes, you really are becoming more pathetic as time goes on. I didn't think that was possible.

[Bugaboo-migration]

QUALIFIED sounds more like trying to pass off some junk as brand new.

It's amazing that they can accomplish that with full disclosure about the missing pages right there on a different colored label.

Full disclosure would be to call the book what it really is. A .5 . Not a "could be" 6.0 if it wasn't missing 10 pages.

 

This is what I believe CGC should of done in this case....

Grade the book .5, note 10 missing pages and note that the remaining pages are in 6.0 condtion. Then that would be full disclosure.

 

Every time I've looked at a QUALIFIED graded book, I look at it like its a lesser book trying to be passed off as a better book. Not once have I seen a QUALIFIED book that deserves the grade given. I say call it like it is. Don't mask the actual condition with some "WHAT IF" grade. And that in effect is what a QUALIFIED grade is. A "WHAT IF". What if the book wasn't missing 10 pages? 6.0 then? Your guess is as good as mine. But if CGC says the remaining pages are in 6.0 condition, then they probably are. But no way is the book a 6.0 as is. Qualified or not. This has to be a big mistake on CGC's part. They should really re-think the QUALIFIED grading. I don't think QUALFIED grading is helping anyone.

The whole "point" of the qualified label is that it's not a universal label. It signifies that if not for the defect listed on it, this book would grade at a 6.0. I think the qualified grade makes much more sense than just slapping this book in a blue label and calling it a 0.5.

 

Why?

 

Instead of aping a response that you've read from the people you're trying so desperately to impress, why don't you share some original thoughts on the matter?

 

Indeed, it's NOT a Universal label. Good for you. Anyone who can read and isn't colorblind could make that distinction. Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

Why?

 

Why don't you go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread. I've gave reasons why several times and am not going to repeat it for you everytime you say "why".

 

Instead of you trying to act like this anti-cgc rebel, why don't you actually try contributing to this thread instead of just trolling people in it. I realize you contributed the ever insightful "but it's missing 10 pages" response.......but why don't YOU share some original thoughts on the matter. I know that goes against your nature, trollster.....but try anyway.

 

Answer the question, Bug. FF did.

Go back and read my responses in this thread and you'll find that I already did. I know that goes against the purpose of your trolling, but do it anyway.

[Illiterati-migration]

Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

 

Because comic books fill several major types of functions for different collectors. This book fails the reading function, but it still partially fulfills the aesthetic display function. It's a nice-looking book...and just because I appreciate it as a nice looking book doesn't mean I don't read comics, please don't climb up on that moral high horse of yours again.

 

This particular copy doesn't even fail the reading function for the part 99% of us give a hoot about, although with respect to the CGC Qualified grade, it's admittedly a moot point since most books would be unreadable with 10 pages missing.

 

So a Green label is more "aesthetically pleasing" than a Blue label? Or is it that the number "6.0" is more aesthetically pleasing than its ugly, ugly counterpart nasty ol' "0.5"?

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

Again....someone offers some insightful reasons for why this book deserves a qualified grade and this is all you can come up with? Cripes, you really are becoming more pathetic as time goes on. I didn't think that was possible.

 

I think FF understands my question about the aesthetic values. You don't. Sorry, dummy.

[fantastic_four]

So a Green label is more "aesthetically pleasing" than a Blue label? Or is it that the number "6.0" is more aesthetically pleasing than its ugly, ugly counterpart nasty ol' "0.5"?

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

 

I meant the book itself is more aesthetically pleasing than a beat-to-[!@#%^&^] Poor typically would be...but since you love stereotypes...I know you were trying to paint me as someone fixated on a label, so I'll ignore it.

 

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

 

Why did you quote PART of what I said out of context? You changed the meaning of what I actually said.

[greggy]

Boy...you guys made me scroll (not read) more than 60 posts on this thread!

[Bugaboo-migration]

Now, WHY does it make more sense to ignore some defects and not others? WHY should there be two different labels?

 

Because comic books fill several major types of functions for different collectors. This book fails the reading function, but it still partially fulfills the aesthetic display function. It's a nice-looking book...and just because I appreciate it as a nice looking book doesn't mean I don't read comics, please don't climb up on that moral high horse of yours again.

 

This particular copy doesn't even fail the reading function for the part 99% of us give a hoot about, although with respect to the CGC Qualified grade, it's admittedly a moot point since most books would be unreadable with 10 pages missing.

 

So a Green label is more "aesthetically pleasing" than a Blue label? Or is it that the number "6.0" is more aesthetically pleasing than its ugly, ugly counterpart nasty ol' "0.5"?

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

Again....someone offers some insightful reasons for why this book deserves a qualified grade and this is all you can come up with? Cripes, you really are becoming more pathetic as time goes on. I didn't think that was possible.

 

I think FF understands my question about the aesthetic values. You don't. Sorry, dummy.

Looks like you were wrong. And I'm not even sure if you understand your own retarded questions, trollster. I'll try reading them backwards later.

[Bugaboo-migration]

So a Green label is more "aesthetically pleasing" than a Blue label? Or is it that the number "6.0" is more aesthetically pleasing than its ugly, ugly counterpart nasty ol' "0.5"?

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

 

I meant the book itself is more aesthetically pleasing than a beat-to-[!@#%^&^] Poor typically would be...but since you love stereotypes...I know you were trying to paint me as someone fixated on a label, so I'll ignore it.

 

 

A book missing ten pages "doesn't even fail the reading function"? You're saying this because it's an older, "important" book, eh?

 

Why did you quote PART of what I said out of context? You changed the meaning of what I actually said.

Why?

 

Because he's a troll, FF........that's what he does.