• 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.

What to do when you receive a CGC 9.8 really isn't a 9.8?
1 1

194 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, kav said:

Then they would want CGC to ease up on the 10s-untils 10s were dime a dozen and a 10.0 modern aint worth squat.

Be careful what you wish for.

They are not easing up on anything. A 10.0 is a 10.0. 

The argument is that more 9.8s should be 9.9s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kav said:

but people are arguing they are sending in flawless books-even with a loupe-and getting 9.8s-

I'm not sure if you are correct with this assumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, newshane said:

They are not easing up on anything. A 10.0 is a 10.0. 

The argument is that more 9.8s should be 9.9s. 

I think they should have 9.85, 9.86 etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These arguments are bad, coming from a source which does not submit books to CGC, has never submitted a book to CGC, and neither knows nor cares about grading "in the nosebleeds."

No one is suggesting that 9.9s "become the new 9.8s." That's a fallacious argument. The argument isn't that the scale should be shifted up...the argument is that books that legitimately deserve 9.9, and that every experienced grader outside of CGC would call a 9.9, are defaulting to 9.8.

There are, as of now, 1,710,209 9.8s on the census. There are 17,753 9.9s.

That means, for every 9.9 on the census, there are a hundred (100) 9.8s. The number of 9.9s is a mere 1% of the number of 9.8s.

That's not "1% of all graded books are 9.9s." That's 1% of all the books graded in the next highest grade to 9.9.

There is, quite obviously, something not right with the process if there exists such a massive variation between two grade levels right next to each other. That number should reasonably be 5-15%...not 1%.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never played in the NBA either but I feel I can make pertinent observations about the game of basketball.

The argument "If you dont submit, you dont know ___" is a flawed one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who has never played in the NBA would never be able to explain Lebron James' weakness on a layup. Someone who has never skated at an Olympic level would never be able to explain the precise touch the hand should make to the ice on a corner. Someone who has never performed surgery would never be able to explain just the right amount of pressure needed on a scalpel to cut just the right amount. Someone who has never cooked before would never be able to explain the precise time and temperature to make a perfect al dente.

The argument "I can learn all there is to know merely from observation" is a flawed one. There are many things only experience can teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I read that somewhere.  cant vouch for it thats why I said isnt it true instead of making a definite statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Someone who has never played in the NBA would never be able to explain Lebron James' weakness on a layup. Someone who has never skated at an Olympic level would never be able to explain the precise touch the hand should make to the ice on a corner. Someone who has never performed surgery would never be able to explain just the right amount of pressure needed on a scalpel to cut just the right amount. Someone who has never cooked before would never be able to explain the precise time and temperature to make a perfect al dente.

The argument "I can learn all there is to know merely from observation" is a flawed one. There are many things only experience can teach.

These are all physical actions needing body knowledge.  Grading does not require body knowledge, only observation skills.  As far as al dente you can find cooking times for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summation, I do not need to submit books to know if they loosened up on 9.9s, 9.9s would become less valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kav said:

These are all physical actions needing body knowledge.  Grading does not require body knowledge, only observation skills.  As far as al dente you can find cooking times for that.

The erroneous nature of your statement aside, how many comic books have you handled, graded, and observed personally...? Do you think that observing from the bleachers is the same thing as playing the game, then...?

11 minutes ago, kav said:

In summation, I do not need to submit books to know if they loosened up on 9.9s, 9.9s would become less valuable.

Nobody is arguing that they should start giving books that grade 9.8 "9.9." The argument is that they stop giving books that grade 9.9 "9.8."

Who cares if they're "less valuable"? That's entirely relative, and, as of now, functionally impossible to determine. There are only a tiny handful of books (10 or so) for which a market for 9.9 can even be established, much less affected by the presence of more examples. And what if the 9.9 is too valuable...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

These arguments are bad, coming from a source which does not submit books to CGC, has never submitted a book to CGC, and neither knows nor cares about grading "in the nosebleeds."

No one is suggesting that 9.9s "become the new 9.8s." That's a fallacious argument. The argument isn't that the scale should be shifted up...the argument is that books that legitimately deserve 9.9, and that every experienced grader outside of CGC would call a 9.9, are defaulting to 9.8.

There are, as of now, 1,710,209 9.8s on the census. There are 17,753 9.9s.

That means, for every 9.9 on the census, there are a hundred (100) 9.8s. The number of 9.9s is a mere 1% of the number of 9.8s.

That's not "1% of all graded books are 9.9s." That's 1% of all the books graded in the next highest grade to 9.9.

There is, quite obviously, something not right with the process if there exists such a massive variation between two grade levels right next to each other. That number should reasonably be 5-15%...not 1%.

Precisely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kav said:

In summation, I do not need to submit books to know if they loosened up on 9.9s, 9.9s would become less valuable.

I'm not arguing against that idea. Higher quantities would make them less valuable. Of course. 

The argument is that there SHOULD BE MORE 9.9s awarded. If that makes them less valuable, so what? It doesn't mean that the expectations for a 10.0 would be lowered. You can't lower the expectation for "perfect." Gem mint implies perfect. There is no such assumption with a 9.9, which can still show a single flaw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kav said:

I have never played in the NBA either but I feel I can make pertinent observations about the game of basketball.

The argument "If you dont submit, you dont know ___" is a flawed one.

If you don't submit, then perhaps you have owned a 9.9. How many? 

How can you make your assumptions without owning and observing books that have been awarded 9.9s? 

To run with your analogy, how can you make "pertinent observations" about basketball without attending games or watching them on TV? 

Of course people who submit and buy hundreds of high grade slabs are going to have the edge when it comes to these sort of observations. You are grasping at straws at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kav said:

These are all physical actions needing body knowledge.  Grading does not require body knowledge, only observation skills.  As far as al dente you can find cooking times for that.

I can also argue that I can visually observe what an athlete's issue is as to what their weakness is in performing an action in their sport and I can do that without any experience what-so-ever in actually performing the action myself.

Example: I can watch Vinnie Garopolo lift his back foot instead of planting it when he throws and know that the throw is not going to be as strong or as accurate.

I will say the more experience someone has at grading and submitting to CGC, the more likely they are to be able to predict what the CGC grade will be.

 

Edited by Artboy99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Artboy99 said:

I can also argue that I can visually observe what an athlete's issue is as to what their weakness is in performing an action in their sport and I can do that without any experience what-so-ever in actually performing the action myself.

Example: I can watch Vinnie Garopolo lift his back foot instead of planting it when he throws and know that the throw is not going to be as strong or as accurate.

I will say the more experience someone has at grading and submitting to CGC, the more likely they are to be able to predict what the CGC grade will be.

 

and that is true but I didnt want to get into it as I could see a wall of text in my future if I did. 

2 hours ago, newshane said:

If you don't submit, then perhaps you have owned a 9.9. How many? 

How can you make your assumptions without owning and observing books that have been awarded 9.9s? 

To run with your analogy, how can you make "pertinent observations" about basketball without attending games or watching them on TV? 

Of course people who submit and buy hundreds of high grade slabs are going to have the edge when it comes to these sort of observations. You are grasping at straws at this point. 

I get my experience from the grading contests and I do progressively better each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGC must be aware of the difference in value from a 9.6, 9.8, 9.9

Eg

9.6 $200.00

9.8 $350.00

9.9 $3000.00

Or you can take new mutants 98 and work the monetary scale that way....

Because a 9.9 sold for 11k USD whereas a 9.8 sells for about $900 USD. 

My point being grading needs to be a defined science with minimal to no room for error.

Edited by Hollywood1892
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
1 1