• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Qualified or Crapified?

Started by joe_collector,

312 posts in this topic

THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
What's the point of the grade......if it doesn't really mean anything? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Why doesn't it mean anything...you mean because it's a Poor by the Overstreet standards?

 

If you had to choose between this Amazing Fantasy 15 with 10 missing pages that looks otherwise Fine, and an Amazing Fantasy 15 with 10 missing pages that is so mangled that it would've been a Poor even if the 10 pages were intact...which one would you choose?

 

It's a no-brainer...we'd pick the nicer one. But...they grade the same by Overstreet standards! Therefore, I guess, the non-mangled one is not really nicer! But, still, 9 or 10 out of 10 people would pick the non-mangled copy...doesn't that mean the grade is still somehow better, even though they're both supposedly Poor?

 

I was refering to the Saddle Justice #8 that you posted.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
In what way does PR .5 refect the actual condition of that book?

 

I dunno because I'm not sure what the condition is beyond looking VG/FN-ish and missing the centerfold...I suspect there might be other looming defects I can't see. What do you think the condition is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illiterati-migration

Illiterati-migration

Posted
Posted
What's the point of the grade......if it doesn't really mean anything? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Why doesn't it mean anything...you mean because it's a Poor by the Overstreet standards?

 

If you had to choose between this Amazing Fantasy 15 with 10 missing pages that looks otherwise Fine, and an Amazing Fantasy 15 with 10 missing pages that is so mangled that it would've been a Poor even if the 10 pages were intact...which one would you choose?

 

It's a no-brainer...we'd pick the nicer one. But...they grade the same by Overstreet standards! Therefore, I guess, the non-mangled one is not really nicer! But, still, 9 or 10 out of 10 people would pick the non-mangled copy...doesn't that mean the grade is still somehow better, even though they're both supposedly Poor?

 

We probably need more grades at the bottom of the scale, or perhaps varying levels of incompleteness...

 

I am baffled that you will continue to defend a pile of toilet paper like this. It's missing TEN PAGES! Both of your examples are POOR. One looks nicer than the other, but they're still both POOR because they're missing TEN PAGES.

 

But hey, keep defending whatever counter-point you think you're making here (though the way all you twits struggle only to cannibalize and contradict one another I sorely doubt that any of you has any real thoughts on the matter)... basically, you buy covers, I'll buy comic books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugaboo-migration

Bugaboo-migration

Posted
Posted
I am baffled that you will continue to defend a pile of toilet paper like this. It's missing TEN PAGES! Both of your examples are POOR. One looks nicer than the other, but they're still both POOR because they're missing TEN PAGES.

Which is why it got a qualified grade with full disclosure. Simply grading them both as "poor" seems like it would be providing "less" information. I thought most of you were against that? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
I am baffled that you will continue to defend a pile of toilet paper like this. It's missing TEN PAGES! Both of your examples are POOR. One looks nicer than the other, but they're still both POOR because they're missing TEN PAGES.

Which is why it got a qualified grade with full disclosure. Simply grading them both poor seems like it would be providing "less" information. I thought most of you were against that? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

893blahblah.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illiterati-migration

Illiterati-migration

Posted
Posted
I am baffled that you will continue to defend a pile of toilet paper like this. It's missing TEN PAGES! Both of your examples are POOR. One looks nicer than the other, but they're still both POOR because they're missing TEN PAGES.

Which is why it got a qualified grade with full disclosure. Simply grading them both as "poor" seems like it would be providing "less" information. I thought most of you were against that? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

That's a foolish statement. "Poor" is "Poor". As it stands, it wouldn't even say that, it would only say "0.5". To call a "0.5" a "6.0" because the COVER is nice is misleading in the extreme.

 

Give the full disclosure for why it gets a "0.5"... but don't polish that turd and try to tell me that it's better than it actually is because it's "Qualified." Poor is Poor. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
And I wonder what CGC would grade a book if I just sent in a cover? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

What if I sent the cover from one book, and insides from another book...... together?

Mark Haspel said during the SD dinner that some books have been submitted like that. I forgot what he said about how it got labelled! tongue.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
And I wonder what CGC would grade a book if I just sent in a cover? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

What if I sent the cover from one book, and insides from another book...... together?

Mark Haspel said during the SD dinner that some books have been submitted like that. I forgot what he said about how it got labelled! tongue.gif

 

you mean they actually "slabbed" them? 893whatthe.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
And I wonder what CGC would grade a book if I just sent in a cover? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

What if I sent the cover from one book, and insides from another book...... together?

Mark Haspel said during the SD dinner that some books have been submitted like that. I forgot what he said about how it got labelled! tongue.gif

 

you mean they actually "slabbed" them? 893whatthe.gif

Why not? confused-smiley-013.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugaboo-migration

Bugaboo-migration

Posted
Posted
That's a foolish statement. "Poor" is "Poor". As it stands, it wouldn't even say that, it would only say "0.5". To call a "0.5" a "6.0" because the COVER is nice is misleading in the extreme.

 

Give the full disclosure for why it gets a "0.5"... but don't polish that turd and try to tell me that it's better than it actually is because it's "Qualified." Poor is Poor. Deal with it.

Who's trying to tell you it's better than it actually is? They gave it a Qualified lable (not Universal) and stated that 10 pages were missing. The cover and the rest of the book, including the complete Spider-Man story, are in 6.0 condition. That seems to offer FAR more information about the book than simply slapping it in a Universal label 0.5 holder, even if it did mention that 10 pages were missing. That would tell absolutely nothing about the condition of the incomplete book that is there. Why not tell what the apparent condition of the incomplete book is with a qualified label and full disclosure and let people decide for themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
And I wonder what CGC would grade a book if I just sent in a cover? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

What if I sent the cover from one book, and insides from another book...... together?

Mark Haspel said during the SD dinner that some books have been submitted like that. I forgot what he said about how it got labelled! tongue.gif

 

you mean they actually "slabbed" them? 893whatthe.gif

Why not? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Why? confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing