• 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.

2017 Green Eggs Grading Contest Round 5
4 4

180 posts in this topic

26 minutes ago, Ron C. said:

I'm sorry, this is not fair. I saw this listing and yet I thought that this comic was worth less. Please, in the future, make sure that the comics to be graded are not easily accessible on the census.https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Jo-Jo+Comics&publisher=Fox+Features+Synd.&issue=7&year=1947&issuedate=7%2F47

:whatthe:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thirdgreenham said:

well, I'm not going to be calling anyone a cheater here, but I will be choosing a little more wisely going forward. (thumbsu 

if we see people starting to stumble that will be damning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kav said:

if we see people starting to stumble that will be damning

Maybe, maybe not. I'm usually good at grading older books not so good at grading newer stuff in the 9.0 to 9.8 range. I don't want to get lumped in with the steroid users lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thirdgreenham said:

well, I'm not going to be calling anyone a cheater here, but I will be choosing a little more wisely going forward. (thumbsu 

Andy...I love your contest and that is why I am playing in it...in spite of other things in my life telling me I don't have time for this nonsense.  But it is a lot of fun and for me a very pleasurable diversion from the day to day I have to contend with.  So please understand my comments IN NO WAY were in ANY FORM disparaging against you as our wonderful host...believe me I am sincere when I say I greatly appreciate the effort you and sckao put forth in this truly fun and escapist frivolitry.  Just a shot at anyone who gamed their grades. Although having said that, if you went there for pure research, how could you put a lower grade perhaps...

It's all good!  Happy Friday...Happy Weekend! :headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, thirdgreenham said:

Well, Ron, the fault really falls on me.  I like to use books in my contests that are either cool, rarely seen, have special defects that will be interesting to see how CGC handles it, and so on and so forth.  From doing this, I'd say that perhaps 6-8 of my 20 books used will have fairly low census numbers.  I will pay closer attention and try to use books that are harder to just look up.

As far as the census checking goes, I cannot control this.  I know that some here (perhaps many) will check the census to see how many graded copies there are out there.  This becomes less of a grading contest and more of a research project.  But, it is one of many tools that people use to ascertain what they think these books grade out as.  I must admit, I have used it too, but only after I've actually graded the book.  

It would be a shame to not be able to use the books that I want to use, but I do see that my choices need a little fine tuning.

Sorry everyone. :foryou: 

Man, I thought these were all yours.

 

 

And just so y'all know, I earned 65th place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

Man, I thought these were all yours.

 

 

And just so y'all know, I earned 65th place

Yes, the books are all mine. Congrats on the 65th place, btw. Now let's start climbing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes - tough round but at least I got the bullseye pretty much everyone got.  Who knew heavy marking would drop it down that far - always learn something in these contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, thirdgreenham said:

It would be a shame to not be able to use the books that I want to use, but I do see that my choices need a little fine tuning.

Sorry everyone. :foryou: 

The only apologies necessary are from the ones who now necessitated 5 more rounds of 9.8's that look like 9.2's.

Census be damned, I loved looking at those old books!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really sorry. I didn't mean to say anything negative. This is a contest that I look forward to... even if I am not all that great. I only wanted to make my likely incorrect choices based on what I am seeing/not seeing and not what has been graded in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I wasn't going to post this, but since the topic is out there, here is a statistical breakdown of the first four rounds. The 'easy to spot in the census' books are in brown. The 'hard/impossible to spot' in green. The blue is a normal distribution of the number of players and a fitted standard deviation (in non-wonk speak, it's what you'd expect from honest guesses).

Capture.PNG.bf479e1a38aec8f46cb07f5a9295af2c.PNG

There are about 100 more bulls than you'd expect. I think it will look much worse after round 5.

This is really disappointing, and shows disrespect to Andy and Shin, who work hard to put together a fun contest. 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this makes me want to quit playing.  whats the point.  Let the cheaters circle jerk.

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being in Englandville I always miss all the fun. Just woke up to see how I did, with a level of excitement unbecoming of a man my age. I thought the Jo Jo was an obvious 3.0 but had no idea how CGC would treat the ink marks on Gay so went down the middle. But I see I did ok, and have inched up a few more places.

Regarding all the 'cheating', I feel sorry for two groups.  The organisers who are putting in so much effort - and the people who scored bullseyes fairly. They must now feel that others will be wondering whether they looked them up. So a bit of the fun has gone out of it. 

Out of respect for Thirdgreenham and Sckao I'll keep on playing fairly to the end and will just have to hope that whoever claims my prize offering is worthy of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel a lot of these bulls eyes are the result of older, lower graded books. Several of us were talking about how we find it harder to nail down a grade on a high grade book versus reader grade copies. The cumulative effect of what level of damage is acceptable at those lower ranges actually narrows what to look for imo. On the high grade books-- it becomes more of a needle in the haystack you are trying to identify-- which is made even more difficult when dealing with the plastic casing and other general problems you imagine you are seeing. And how those high grade flaws are scored at the time CGC has them just makes it that much more difficult.

That is not to say that some people might be using census info to help with their entries. I checked out the census after reading RoyC's comments using his link and I can see how some might assume that is the case with the Jo-Jo as it has only the 3.0 as the lowest out of 20 books. Not sure if the Gay Comic 31 is as easy to assume "cheating" with only 3 graded copies with 1 at 4.0 and 2 at 5.0 - though most guesses were made between 4.0 and 5.0 according to sckao's chart. I'd like to think it is because people try hard and have a lot of experience attempting to grade books, combined with making guesses that fit their range of where the book might fall in CGC's grading. I also always assumed that the books being graded might have been taken off the census itself- which apparently is not necessarily true.

Edited by 01TheDude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of lucked out. I have been submitting my grades super quick based on my initial opinion and didn't pay attention to all the red junk on the Gay Comics and almost submitted 6.0. I was debating between 4.5 and 5.0 after I noticed it. Slightly surprised they hammed it down to a straight 4.0, especially being GA.

Edited by NinjaSealed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4