zzutak

Nothing wrong with that. Believe it or not, I've never owned or used a cell/smart phone. If you're old school, I'm Neanderthal!

Congrats to you too! CGC 6.0 is a pretty darn generous grade on that Supes. My first inclination was 4.5, which I then bumped up one grade increment because I've erred on the low side this entire competition. That TRC scuff/tear looks like it was caused by removing a piece of tape.

Grades in (for better or for worse).

I did the exact same thing with Book 19 (the Web of Spidey) -- initially had it at a 6.5 and, at the last second, dropped it to a 6.0. I mean, a book with a 6" long color-breaking crease can't be only one grade increment away from the lower end of the VF range (7.0) can it?

Mike's results indicate @apocalypse76 was the player who scored 5 bullseyes in Round 4!

And here are the book era and CGC grade distributions in Contests C1 thru C10 -- a total of 200 challenges! Era Era Σ C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 Gold 1930s-1940s 43 4 3 4 5 3 6 3 10 5 0 Atomic 1950s 51 4 3 6 2 5 2 8 10 11 0 Silver 1960s 45 5 7 4 6 5 5 7 0 1 5 Bronze 1970s 34 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 0 2 6 Copper 1980s 16 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 5 Modern 1990s-2020s 11 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 Σ 200 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 CGC Grade Σ C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 0.5 0 1.0 0 1.5 3 1 1 1 1.8 0 2.0 1 1 2.5 5 1 1 1 2 3.0 11 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 3.5 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 4.0 14 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 4.5 15 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 5.0 22 2 1 1 4 1 4 3 6 5.5 10 1 3 2 1 1 2 6.0 11 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 6.5 13 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 7.0 16 2 1 2 1 1 5 3 1 7.5 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8.0 9 1 1 1 1 5 8.5 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9.0 16 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 9.2 10 1 1 1 2 1 4 9.4 11 2 2 1 2 4 9.6 7 2 1 1 3 9.8 1 1 Σ 200 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Range CGC Grades Σ C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 V. Low 0.5~1.8 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Low 2.0~3.5 24 4 4 2 3 4 2 1 4 0 0 Mid 4.0~6.5 85 6 9 7 10 9 5 11 12 15 1 High 7.0~8.5 43 4 3 4 3 4 5 7 4 3 6 V. High 9.0~9.8 45 5 4 6 4 3 8 0 0 2 13 Σ 200 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Best of luck @Cerebus3000

My experience with CGC dates back to the early 2000s, when CGC had only a handful of graders, and three different staff members independently assigned a numerical grade to each book. Any collector could easily learn what those three grades were with a simple (and very short) phone call to CGC. I made several of those calls to assess whether a CGC certified/encapsulated book I was considering purchasing was, for example, "a weak 8.0" (7.5, 8.0, 8.0), "a solid 8.0" (8.0, 8.0, 8.0), or "a strong 8.0" (8.0, 8.0, 8.5). My experience with CGC convinced me that CGC's "system" (the precision of its condition grading rubric, and the skill of the individuals who are tasked with properly interpreting and applying that rubric) is only reproducible to + or - one grade increment, at best. Hence, any player with a total score of 20 or less in any single CGC Contest is almost certainly an outstanding grader -- as good as most of the individuals CGC currently has on staff. My conclusion is supported 100% by the cumulative results of these quarterly CGC Grading Contests. Just look at the "average scores" of the contestants that @Superman2006 has determined to be in the Top-10 thru Contest 9 (his MVP and Diamond Club rosters) -- all clustered around 20, which represents an average deviation from CGC's official assessment of exactly one grade increment: CGC's proprietary grading rubric necessarily allows for judgment, and different graders may interpret/apply a given standard differently. Blemishes/defects can be overlooked or discounted for any number of reasons. The bottom line is that a given book may not always receive the same CGC grade if it's submitted several times (although the various grades assigned will almost certainly be within an increment or two of each other). This fact (not opinion) will be obvious to anyone who's done an initial pre-screen and then had the rejected books accepted on a later, identical, pre-screen. This is not meant to be a slam against CGC; I know of no collector who can/will assign the exact same grade to every one of his/her books every time he/she looks at 'em. An average score over several contests of about 20 is the best we're going to see. And yes, @TheGeneral is a beast.

Agreed. Your effort (which is much appreciated ), so your call.

Yep, the level of color-breaking wear on the SS #10 was comparable to the Avengers #10 (Book 1) and the Flash #122 (Book 11). Tiny ink flakes along left half of top edge; partial color-breaking bend across top-right corner; tiny chip out at top-right corner; color-breaking stress along right edge and at bottom-right corner; light scuff/wear of black line along middle third of spine. In my mind, these are far too many blemishes to warrant any grade above VF+.

Fixed that for ya!

Three grading companies? I personally would not honor PGX by placing it in the same category as CGC and :censored:. PGX has whiffed more than once on issues like completeness, condition grade, and well-established pedigree markings. But maybe you're not thinking of PGX.

The thing I found most interesting about Book #13 (Secret Wars #8) was the distribution of rust/staining at the bottom staple -- clean at the cover but heavy at the centerfold. In my experience, quite unusual.

Why not just use the same set of books, but specify that these x1 folks will be competing for spots 1, 2, and/or 3, and these x2 folks will be competing for spot 6 (where x1 and x2 represent specific rosters). Two "tiebreakers" simultaneously run with the same set of books (and the same "in case of a tie" rules that you've always used in the past, but applied independently/separately to the 1-2-3 group and the 6 group). For example, let's assume the top scores after Round 4 are as follows: Score Player 14 A 14 B 15 C 15 D 15 E 15 F 15 G 15 H Players A & B would complete the tiebreaker to determine 1st Place and 2nd Place, while Players C thru H would simultaneously complete the exact same tiebreaker to determine 3rd Place and 6th Place. Here's a second example: Score Player 14 A 15 B 15 C 15 D 16 E 17 F 17 G 17 H Players B, C & D would complete the tiebreaker to determine 2nd Place and 3nd Place, while Players F, G & H would simultaneously complete the exact same tiebreaker to determine 6th Place. Player E would not play (since he/she is guaranteed to be in 5th Place). I haven't had my coffee yet, and my brain still feels a bit fuzzy. So, feel free to point out (with an actual example, if possible) why this approach would NOT work.

More gloss and camera glare!

Actually, that was my reasoning as well.

I just checked the two scans available on Heritage. I was wrong -- both copies have this same blemish!

Yeah, this stumped me as well. It doesn't seem straight enough to be a color-breaking crease, it's too wide in spots to be a simple scratch, and it's wholly contained within the yellow portion of the coupon (so it's probably not scanner related). I haven't seen this anomaly on other copies of this issue, so it's probably not a printing plate defect, and ink roller blemishes are generally not diagonal. I have no clue, although it does not appear that CGC treated it as a defect deserving of a grade deduction. ++++++++++++ Correction: I just checked the two scans available on Heritage. I was wrong above -- both Heritage copies have this same blemish! So this could be a manufacturing defect common to most/all copies (in which case it probably would not warrant a grade deduction).

Would the WWII Era be possible? Specifically, a rendition of a camp that held German POWs on U.S. soil. From what I can see, the prisoners don't look "cartoonishly" Asian (North Korean or Chinese), and the PW stencil on one prisoner's shirt is typical of those placed on the clothing worn by the German prisoners held in these U.S.-based camps. A pretty good summary may be found here. But WWII Era could easily be wrong, as German prisoners were generally not strongly motivated to mount escape attempts from these U.S. camps. In any event, I think a close-up of the prisoners' facial features would tell the tale.