The 2010 Nik Memorial Grading Contest *Round 6*

[Mr.Diggler]

I sent in my grade. Hopefully it speeds things up.

 

, I'll wait until the very last minute.

The way your grading, I'd just take the zero.

I under grade.

[drewincanada]

Hey Joe, are you sure you didn't switch scans on us, my eyes are straining just to see the flaws you speak of. Maybe that's why I'm in the middle of the grading pack ::

 

Oh yea, Round 6 grade submitted....and the tag team response

 

(thumbs u I applaud your conviction.

 

Just like Joan or Arc.

Burned.

 

There's a clue hidden in there.

 

They "applaud your conviction, just like Joan OR Arc."

 

What famous Joan was convicted of anything? Joan Rivers? Joan Collins? Joan Crawford?

 

Or do they mean Conviction Arc?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Berserk_chapters

 

The Conviction Arc: Chapter of the Lost Children was part of the Berserk manga series.

 

That must be it. They're telling you your grade was berserk.

 

 

I'm going to sleep now.

[toro]

When you invert the MP1 that crease doesn't seem that large. I also think some of the other If you look on Comiclink and maybe heritage there are some 9.0 books of this that have some spine tiks (not as many as that book, but still quite a few)

[mikenyc]

When you invert the MP1 that crease doesn't seem that large. I also think some of the other If you look on Comiclink and maybe heritage there are some 9.0 books of this that have some spine tiks (not as many as that book, but still quite a few)

 

 

Wow, you are no joke!

[zuckuss2003]

Hulk is much cooler inverted!

[VintageComics]

When you invert the MP1 that crease doesn't seem that large. I also think some of the other If you look on Comiclink and maybe heritage there are some 9.0 books of this that have some spine tiks (not as many as that book, but still quite a few)

 

Sure, I can check the census, invert scans, etc but then you are no longer just grading from a scan with a level playing field.

 

I've avoided doing that even though I know it's what some people do. I thought it was a form of "cheating" myself.

 

If everyone is doing it maybe I should start.

 

[Jeffro.]

It's risky business trying to compare images of slabbed books in order to try to help you figure out grades for this contest. If you look at a slabbed book on CLink, you are only seeing the front cover and have no idea what's going on (if anything) on the insides of the book. How many times have we seen people post 9.0 examples with seemingly no front cover flaws?

 

 

[joe_collector]

Sure, I can check the census, invert scans, etc but then you are no longer just grading from a scan with a level playing field.

 

I've avoided doing that even though I know it's what some people do. I thought it was a form of "cheating" myself.

 

If everyone is doing it maybe I should start.

 

Obviously people are using all CGC Census/grading notes data and techniques available to them, as the level of precision some are showing is impossible in a straight "grade the covers" type contest.

 

I remember in one of Nik's contests, someone told me to the effect of "I initially graded it 9.4 but then I checked the Census and there were no books above 9.0, so I graded it a 9.0". (the right grade BTW).

 

It's up to you whether you join in to keep up with the Joneses.

[drewincanada]

Sure, I can check the census, invert scans, etc but then you are no longer just grading from a scan with a level playing field.

 

I've avoided doing that even though I know it's what some people do. I thought it was a form of "cheating" myself.

 

If everyone is doing it maybe I should start.

 

Obviously people are using all CGC Census/grading notes data and techniques available to them, as the level of precision some are showing is impossible in a straight "grade the covers" type contest.

 

I remember in one of Nik's contests, someone told me to the effect of "I initially graded it 9.4 but then I checked the Census and there were no books above 9.0, so I graded it a 9.0". (the right grade BTW).

 

It's up to you whether you join in to keep up with the Joneses.

 

I seem to recall that with Nik's contests, CGC withheld the graded books from the census until after contest. So even though the census showed a 9.0 as the highest grade, it's possible the contest book could have been a higher grade.

 

Am I mistaken about this?

[He11blazer]

Sure, I can check the census, invert scans, etc but then you are no longer just grading from a scan with a level playing field.

 

I've avoided doing that even though I know it's what some people do. I thought it was a form of "cheating" myself.

 

If everyone is doing it maybe I should start.

 

Obviously people are using all CGC Census/grading notes data and techniques available to them, as the level of precision some are showing is impossible in a straight "grade the covers" type contest.

 

I remember in one of Nik's contests, someone told me to the effect of "I initially graded it 9.4 but then I checked the Census and there were no books above 9.0, so I graded it a 9.0". (the right grade BTW).

 

It's up to you whether you join in to keep up with the Joneses.

 

Suppose that an educated guess has a 1 in 3 chance of a bullseye. After four rounds you would expect 1 in 81 people to have a perfect score. After five rounds, 1 in 243.

 

After four rounds we had one perfect score.

After five rounds we had none.

 

OK so each book is different. Some have a greater spread of 'good' guesses, like 1 in 5, while some are more obviously either 9.6 or 9.8. Still, the simple statistical example given proves that the level of precision shown thus far is far from 'impossible'. It looks about right

 

[Old Fashion PB and J]

That I dont know.I always thought it ridiculous to check the census. Its a game!

[He11blazer]

Sure, I can check the census, invert scans, etc but then you are no longer just grading from a scan with a level playing field.

 

I've avoided doing that even though I know it's what some people do. I thought it was a form of "cheating" myself.

 

If everyone is doing it maybe I should start.

 

Obviously people are using all CGC Census/grading notes data and techniques available to them, as the level of precision some are showing is impossible in a straight "grade the covers" type contest.

 

I remember in one of Nik's contests, someone told me to the effect of "I initially graded it 9.4 but then I checked the Census and there were no books above 9.0, so I graded it a 9.0". (the right grade BTW).

 

It's up to you whether you join in to keep up with the Joneses.

 

I seem to recall that with Nik's contests, CGC withheld the graded books from the census until after contest. So even though the census showed a 9.0 as the highest grade, it's possible the contest book could have been a higher grade.

 

Yes, because I did check the census in one of the old contests and was caught out this way! My original guess was right, but I changed it after looking at the census (Nik allowed some changes) and torpedoed myself. Nik was good naturedly unsympathetic

 

That scuttled the idea that the census would help, for me!

[joe_collector]

Sure, I can check the census, invert scans, etc but then you are no longer just grading from a scan with a level playing field.

 

I've avoided doing that even though I know it's what some people do. I thought it was a form of "cheating" myself.

 

If everyone is doing it maybe I should start.

 

Obviously people are using all CGC Census/grading notes data and techniques available to them, as the level of precision some are showing is impossible in a straight "grade the covers" type contest.

 

I remember in one of Nik's contests, someone told me to the effect of "I initially graded it 9.4 but then I checked the Census and there were no books above 9.0, so I graded it a 9.0". (the right grade BTW).

 

It's up to you whether you join in to keep up with the Joneses.

 

I seem to recall that with Nik's contests, CGC withheld the graded books from the census until after contest. So even though the census showed a 9.0 as the highest grade, it's possible the contest book could have been a higher grade.

 

Am I mistaken about this?

 

I think that is WHY they started doing it that way, as not only could you check the Census overall data, with a bit of ingenuity, you could also mine the actual book via the scan code.

[VintageComics]

I seem to recall that with Nik's contests, CGC withheld the graded books from the census until after contest. So even though the census showed a 9.0 as the highest grade, it's possible the contest book could have been a higher grade.

 

Am I mistaken about this?

 

I don't think it was a conscious decision on CGC's part specifically because of the grading game. I think it was simply because CGC upgraded the census much slower in years past. I now see updates within two weeks.

[joe_collector]

Suppose that an educated guess has a 1 in 3 chance of a bullseye. After four rounds you would expect 1 in 81 people to have a perfect score. After five rounds, 1 in 243.

 

After four rounds we had one perfect score.

After five rounds we had none.

 

OK so each book is different. Some have a greater spread of 'good' guesses, like 1 in 5, while some are more obviously either 9.6 or 9.8. Still, the simple statistical example given proves that the level of precision shown thus far is far from 'impossible'. It looks about right

 

Your first assumption is incorrect, as a couple of the books already shown had a much wider variance than simply 1 in 3. The Secret Wars did (and even it was 1 in 4 if you include 9.9 risk-takers) but not even close on the Marvel Premiere, so right off the bat, your numbers are all up.

 

One in 5 so far would be more fair.

[joe_collector]

I seem to recall that with Nik's contests, CGC withheld the graded books from the census until after contest. So even though the census showed a 9.0 as the highest grade, it's possible the contest book could have been a higher grade.

 

Am I mistaken about this?

 

I don't think it was a conscious decision on CGC's part specifically because of the grading game. I think it was simply because CGC upgraded the census much slower in years past. I now see updates within two weeks.

 

No, I think one contest they did, just because of some problems in the past - it was when Nik's grading contest started to become a real event and CGC played along to make it 100% above-board with no cheating.

[Reno McCoy]

Wow, you guys put a lot of effort into this. It never even crossed my mind to do some of the things others have done. I simply look at the covers, grab my copy of the grading book for support, and make a guess.

 

Of course, maybe that's why I'm a guess away from being in last place. Well, that and the fact that if it ain't HG, I don't know what I'm doing.

[VintageComics]

I seem to recall that with Nik's contests, CGC withheld the graded books from the census until after contest. So even though the census showed a 9.0 as the highest grade, it's possible the contest book could have been a higher grade.

 

Am I mistaken about this?

 

I don't think it was a conscious decision on CGC's part specifically because of the grading game. I think it was simply because CGC upgraded the census much slower in years past. I now see updates within two weeks.

 

No, I think one contest they did, just because of some problems in the past - it was when Nik's grading contest started to become a real event and CGC played along to make it 100% above-board with no cheating.

 

Fair enough.

[He11blazer]

Suppose that an educated guess has a 1 in 3 chance of a bullseye. After four rounds you would expect 1 in 81 people to have a perfect score. After five rounds, 1 in 243.

 

After four rounds we had one perfect score.

After five rounds we had none.

 

OK so each book is different. Some have a greater spread of 'good' guesses, like 1 in 5, while some are more obviously either 9.6 or 9.8. Still, the simple statistical example given proves that the level of precision shown thus far is far from 'impossible'. It looks about right

 

Your first assumption is incorrect, as a couple of the books already shown had a much wider variance than simply 1 in 3. The Secret Wars did (and even it was 1 in 4 if you include 9.9 risk-takers) but not even close on the Marvel Premiere, so right off the bat, your numbers are all up.

 

One in 5 so far would be more fair.

 

Maybe, but that assumes all players are equal. Some players will have more experience than others in CGC's grading standards. Surely more (but not all) of the outliers are due to inexperience, and more (but again not all) of the bullseyes are due to better educated guesswork.

[Jeffro.]

Wow, you guys put a lot of effort into this. It never even crossed my mind to do some of the things others have done. I simply look at the covers, grab my copy of the grading book for support, and make a guess.

 

Yeah, me too.

 

My belly button has been puckering and unpuckering all day in anticipation of 8 pm.