Superman2006

I would have liked your post, but laughed at your graphic (carping bricks) : )

No problem!

See below for CGC Grading Contest Awards Based on Cumulative Performance Through Contest #10 + Other miscellaneous stats through Contest #10 As usual, the cumulative CGC grading contest rankings ignore tie breaker rounds. Following are the "MVP", "Diamond Club", and "Honor Roll" award winners based on performance through the first 10 CGC grading contests (as usual, I set the qualifying requirement at 50% x total contests to date - 0.25 = 50% x 10 - 0.25 = 4.75 contests). P.S. For anyone that isn't included on the list below (either because they haven't met the 4.75 contests requirement, or because their average score is below the cutoff): If you'd like to know your average score / rounds completed, etc., either reply in this thread if you want me to post your details here, or shoot me a PM and I'll respond via PM.

Thanks, buddy, and congrats on the awesome finish. It would have been good enough for Top Rookie, but as it is, it helps with your overall overage. With 4 total rounds, you're getting close to meeting the number of rounds requirement for the cumulative rankings results that I put together.

Anytime! Thanks to you, Matt, and CGC for putting on another great contest!!

Based on results of the survey I am preparing updated cumulative top 50 rankings through contest #10 now, and will release the results shortly. @CGC Mike - As part of my updates, I also update the "Rookie of the Year" (which I should probably call "Top Rookie" since we have 4 contests per year). To that end: I am seeing what appears to be a new entrant named @Nschenks in contest #10, however, I see that there was an Nsschenks that participated in 3 prior contests. Do you know if that is the same boardie? Is there a subforum that provides name changes that you can point me to? If so, then maybe I can reference that in order to better keep all cumulative rankings together for a given participant across all of their usernames. Presumably not too many name changes, so probably not a big deal.

Congrats to the @Axelrod @zzutak @Cerebus3000 on your top 3 finishes, and to @Ride the Tiger on winning the 6th place award donated by @Get Marwood & I! @CGC Mike - Based on the grades posted for each participant in the version you posted for me, I came up with the same total scores for each participant in my spreadsheet, so your math looks good to me. I'll update the cumulative top 50 rankings through contest #10 and post the results in an hour or two.

You are correct. I'll set the minimum contest requirement to qualify for the top 50 cumulative rankings list through contest #10 at 4.75 contests (as usual, I take total contests divided by two subtract 0.25 = 10 / 2 - 0.25 = 4.75). by completing all 4 rounds of this contest you'll have 5 total contests under your belt through contest #10.

There were a couple of books this contest where I felt a bit disadvantaged by not having a copy of the CGC grading guide. I missed one of the two books by 1 point, but missed the other (SW #8) by 4 points!

Hi @Cerebus3000 In terms of CGC consistency/inconsistency, I did some analysis a while back, through the 6th grading contest, in an attempt to follow Aristotle's "wisdom of the crowd" concept, whereby "large groups of people are collectively smarter than individual experts...". As a result of that analysis, I found that the CGC grader(s) would have ranked 3rd overall if measured against the performance of the top 50 graders through the 6th grading contest (with an average score just 1.5 behind @jbpez and just 0.2 behind @TheGeneral through the first 6 contests). To me that is a very very impressive ranking, and within the margin of error of being the best grader out of all participants. I could refresh that analysis through the first 10 contests if you'd like. As part of that refreshed analysis, I could provide an alternative cumulative grading test top 50 for everyone else as well, as measured against the top 50 boardies average grade per book. I could reduce the top 50 to say the top 25, or top 10 like you suggest. I think that would provide you with some comfort about CGC grading consistency. Individually and as a group we may occasionally disagree with the grade CGC has given a book(s) in this contest, but I for one am sure that I have "missed the mark" on some books a lot more than CGC has. Let me know that would provide what you're looking for (if not, it's getting late and I have a headache, so that's my excuse )

Yup, so far 3 votes for cracked and nil for the other options

Thanks, buddy, and good luck to you and all other remaining contenders for this contest, in finishing in the top 3, or picking up the generous 6th place prize offered up by @Get Marwood & I!

Back when I joined the CGC boards in 2006, it seemed like every poll had a crack option. I think it's basically an option for those that read the poll that don't really care either way. Someone else more familiar with the history or the "crack option" may be able to provide a clearer definition (or if no one else knows what I'm talking about, then maybe I'm on crack lol)

I haven't started a poll in forever, so hopefully I did this right : )

Ditto for me, 8 pts, knowing that the SW8 could kill my score. I graded it a 6.0 as well due to the horrendous looking staples / stains. I wanted to give it a 6.5 at first, but brought it down to a 6.0. I figured it would end up somewhere between a 4.0 and 8.0, so I split the difference.

Got it. Thanks!

That sounds great. Thanks again for all that you do Mike! You are awesome! And thanks again to @Get Marwood & I for the generous donation, giving hope to me and others that aren't optimistic about sniffing a top 3 finish this time around!

That's very generous of you, @Get Marwood & I! Given my expected results on this last round of books, I'll be lucky if I'm in a position to compete for 6th place Following are the 6th place results from the prior contests: C1: 4 participants tied for 3rd through 6th place. C2: 4 participants tied for 6th through 9th place. C3: 5 participants tied for 5th through 9th place. C4: 2 participants tied for 6th through 7th place. C5: 3 participants tied for 6th though 8th place. C6: 3 participants tied for 5th through 7th place. C7: 5 participants tied for 3rd through 7th place. C8: 8 participants tied for 6th through 13th place. C9: 1 participant finished alone in 6th place. One option to settle the tie for 6th place would be to have those tied for 6th place to grade a set of tie breaker books (could use the same books that any participants that are tied for 1st, 2nd &/or 3rd use for their tie breaker), etc. Then need to decide what to do from there, such as giving the 6th place prize to the winner of the tie-breaker (with or without allowing 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finisher to win more than one prize; see C1 and C7 above for example), or some other approach (note that giving the 6th place prize to the winner of tie-breaker would prevent someone from trying to tank it in the tie-breaker, e.g. if 3 players tied for 4th through 6th, and 6th place prize given to someone that finished in 6th including the tie-breaker, then all players might grade every book a 0.5, or a 9.8 in the tie-breaker to try to get the worst score in the tie-breaker). Or @CGC Mike could just pull a number from a hat, or do something else that doesn't take a lot of additional effort!

It’s the 3rd Print Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up!

Interesting. I'm not a Transformers #1 expert, but I checked out some graded copies on eBay and I noticed the same thing. @CGC Mike - in the off chance that the back cover posted doesn't correspond to the Transformers #1 front cover that was posted, one option is for CGC to give the book a hypothetical grade based on the front and back cover scans provided. That would seem to be seem to be a fair enough approach, since that's what everyone who has submitted grades so far would have done (and it wouldn't require striking out, or replacing a book which could be a pain for you).

Great start, @genrlzod!

Awesome. Thanks, Mike!

I only started publishing Rookie of the Year winners after Contest #8, if I recall correctly. Here are the Rookie of the Year winners for all contests to date: Honorable mention to others that did well in their first outing, especially those in the first contest (including @Motor City Rob who had a 14) as that was the toughest contest to win RoY, as it included the legendary @Squirrel Guy (who would be ranked first overall if he had enough qualifying rounds and maintained his current average over 3 rounds), and many other top ranked graders, including three that are currently in the top ten cumulative rankings (@jbpez, @Point Five and @zzutak).

You'd have a 22.5 average if not for your worst two rounds of 35 (rounds 2 and 7). Your best score was a 2 (in contest #1 and again in contest #8); your worst was a 15 in contest #7. Your 2nd worse was a 13 in in contest #4; you had just 11 total points across the other 3 rounds in that contest!

This is so cool. Thanks Supes! I for one would love you to continue to do this and I think that we - those who participate in the grading contest - should start a fund for you as a way of saying thanks. Enough for you to go buy something nice for yourself in the Marketplace here Thanks, Kramerica! I had recalled at least one negative comment in the past from someone that didn't care for some of my cumulative rankings (and sometimes for every one complaint there are more that feel the same way), but based on the feedback in this thread, I plan to continue updating the cumulative rankings going forward. It's worth the effort to me since it sounds like more people enjoy the rankings and other stats I provide than not. I really appreciate the gesture, but I would request that no fund be started on my behalf. Similar to the efforts from @CGC Mike, @Get Marwood & I and @zzutak, and everyone that comment in the grading threads (I'm usually more of a reader than a commenter lol), I'm just trying to chip in, in some way. Just consider this my little contribution to the boards!