The elusive 9.9 - 10.0 1 1

[valiantman]

This chart shows various (always asymmetrical) grade distributions:

While the median is almost always 9.8, there's no symmetry for 10.0 and 9.9 on the left compared to 9.6 and 9.4 on the right... then all the extra copies from 9.2 down to 5.0 add more asymmetry since there's nothing above 10.0.

What's more fun is that all these lines of distribution in the chart are for the same comic.  This is the CGC census for Spider-Man #1 (1990) regular edition at different points in CGC's history 2001 to present.

Left of the 9.8 mark, CGC 10 has been as low as 0.2% and as high as 0.8%.  CGC 9.9 has been as low as 1.6% and as high as 4.4%.  The current numbers are 0.4% and 2.3%.

Right of the 9.8 mark, CGC 9.6 has never been lower than 11.8%, so we're already asymmetrical at all time periods (compared to 9.9 and 10) without even looking at 9.4 and below.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by valiantman

[Hollywood1892]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

This chart shows various (always asymmetrical) grade distributions:

While the median is almost always 9.8, there's no symmetry for 10.0 and 9.9 on the left compared to 9.6 and 9.4 on the right... then all the extra copies from 9.2 down to 5.0 add more asymmetry since there's nothing above 10.0.

What's more fun is that all these lines of distribution in the chart are for the same comic.  This is the CGC census for Spider-Man #1 (1990) regular edition at different points in CGC's history 2001 to present.

Left of the 9.8 mark, CGC 10 has been as low as 0.2% and as high as 0.8%.  CGC 9.9 has been as low as 1.6% and as high as 4.4%.  The current numbers are 0.4% and 2.3%.

Right of the 9.8 mark, CGC 9.6 has never been lower than 11.8%, so we're already asymmetrical at all time periods (compared to 9.9 and 10) without even looking at 9.4 and below.

 

You should build rockets.

You are a complete genius, it's almost as though you see the puzzle before it is built, and I don't mean put together, I refer to the pieces being built.

[trcondon]

On 10/15/2019 at 10:32 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Only if they are Lady Death or Batman Damned.

Ha, I recently got my Batman Damned signed and subbed at a con this year, and was blown away when it came back 9.9.  Then i checked the census...

[valiantman]

On 10/15/2019 at 9:58 PM, kav said:

On 10/15/2019 at 9:32 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Only if they are Lady Death or Batman Damned.

Batman Damned and Notti & Nyce get 10.0's up the yin yang.

There are a lot more than those. 

(But nothing comes close to Batman Damned) 

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/cgc10/

[valiantman]

Moving the discussion about Amazing Fantasy #15 to a more appropriate area of the board... 

 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

There are a lot more than those. 

(But nothing comes close to Batman Damned) 

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/cgc10/

Funny though.  See a huge spike for The Crossed..Which most of those came from that direct to CGC and the Alan Moore CGC SS.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/17/2019 at 11:53 AM, romanheart said:

The median is the chosen middle item of the submitted samples. In every case you should see the semblance of a bell curve. Most samples should hover towards the 50th percentile (top of the bell).

For moderns you will likely see the higher end of the curve only, since most people will submit only the high end items for grading. For older items, you are more likely to see the full shape.

I don't think a 9.9 should be a unicorn. There should be a pattern to their occurrence.

Exactly correct. There's a metric ton of white noise in this discussion, trying to muddy the argument, but this is the essence of the situation. 9.9 should not be a unicorn. It should be a relatively predictable occurrence, but it's not.

[kav]

Are batman damned 10.0 values low due to high # of 10.0s?

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/17/2019 at 12:25 PM, valiantman said:

You're describing a symmetrical bell distribution.

It will not be symmetrical bell for comic books... ever.

Yes, it's never going to be a symmetrical bell for comic books, precisely because of the mitigating factors involved: the increasing tendency of preservation over time, the presence of a greater number of collectors, the value of the books and how that effects submissions, the cost of submissions, etc.

But...his point is taken, in that there should be a bell curve of SOME sort for virtually every book. And there is...until you get to 9.9 and 10. For most books, it's not a bell....it's a steep incline and a sheer cliff.

[kav]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Exactly correct. There's a metric ton of white noise in this discussion, trying to muddy the argument, but this is the essence of the situation. 9.9 should not be a unicorn. It should be a relatively predictable occurrence, but it's not.

pls refrain from the condescension and reply to the points being made instead.

[kav]

The argument seems to be "I can grade as good as if not better than CGC so if I see a 9.9 or a 10.0, that's what it should get"

Do you know how CGC grades? No

Do you know what resources they might have available when grading high grade books? No

Do you know what discoveries they may have made and shared internally regarding these issues? No I dont know that either but I do know I can grade as well as them-

Edited October 18, 2019 by kav

[WoWitHurts]

What it comes down to for me is that 9.8 is really the top and 9.9/10 just seem arbitrary. There are some superb graders on these boards and I have bought my fair share of raw books here but I can not recall ever seeing someone make that claim. Would any of you by a raw comic from a dealer grading it at 10? Even those dealers that are superb graders would be suspect at such a declaration yet CGC has the only graders on the planet that can determine it? Without knowing their criteria/SOP for such a grade it just seems silly to me. There are those that are into those grades and god bless if that is your jam but as for me I am suspect anytime I see one.

[RockMyAmadeus]

22 hours ago, valiantman said:

1) Comics which are 9.9 and 10 are essentially flawless, but the process of creating comic books doesn't protect comics from damage, they're (unfeeling) machine-pulled, pushed, rolled, smashed, stacked, and then (uncaring) human-handled, boxed, rehandled, shelved.

True, but this only affects tendency: books tend to be very difficult to find in 9.9 and 10 condition. But it's just tendency. It does not preclude 9.9s and 10s from being the examples that were the exceptions that make the rule. It only tends to make them very rare, which is to be expected.

23 hours ago, valiantman said:

3) The average comic book is in "the best condition it will ever be" the first day it is on sale and increases damages from that point forward.

Generally. Pressing and other methods can mitigate that. While virtually all flaws that preclude a standard "CGC 9.9/10" grade aren't pressable, generally, pressing can reverse certain types of damage over time.

23 hours ago, valiantman said:

7) Comics which are 9.9 and 10 are (almost literally) shiny objects, which draw attention to themselves, and are submitted to CGC more quickly than lower grade copies, meaning that the rate of 9.9 and 10 submissions to CGC for any comic should always decrease over time.

The nature of submission is much too random for this to be true, except theoretically. Your Spiderman #1 example is a good demonstration of this.

Also...one has to consider whether multiple copies of a single very high grade book has any influencing effect on handing out 9.9s or 10s. I suspect that an invoice consisting entirely of a single book in very high grade is much more likely to get a 9.9 or 10 than a random (but deserving) single book is. 

Here's the important consideration: no one knows what CGC's standards are except CGC. However...it is possible to extrapolate, through the examination of many examples, the "average" condition for each grade level. This is how people can say with confidence that a specific book is demonstrably (meaning "people can point out and demonstrate the differences") better than "the average", and yet is still graded at the same level as the "average" (and even "below average") examples.

There are nearly 2 million 9.8s on the census; by far, the most common grade (for all the factors mentioned before.) 50% of that number is 9.6. On the other side, a mere 1% is 9.9.

That's wildly out of sync.

[Lazyboy]

52 minutes ago, kav said:

The argument seems to be "I can grade as good as if not better than CGC so if I see a 9.9 or a 10.0, that's what it should get"

Do you know how CGC grades? No

I think I have a pretty good idea of how CGC grades.

I guarantee that people who've submitted thousands of comics have a much better idea than me or you.

[kav]

4 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

I think I have a pretty good idea of how CGC grades.

I guarantee that people who've submitted thousands of comics have a much better idea than me or you.

Not unless CGC sends them detailed info on how they grade after they have submitted 'thousands of comics'.  No one knows the details of how CGC grades except those who work at CGC.  Claiming you have a 'pretty good idea' of how they grade with no data, then claiming they are 'grading wrong', ie purposely withholding 9.9s and 10.0s, is illogical.  "I dont know exactly how they do task X, but I know they arent doing it right.  Because I want more money."

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, kav said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Exactly correct. There's a metric ton of white noise in this discussion, trying to muddy the argument, but this is the essence of the situation. 9.9 should not be a unicorn. It should be a relatively predictable occurrence, but it's not.

pls refrain from the condescension and reply to the points being made instead.

I'm sorry, where do you see your name or any reference to you in my comment? Quit trying to provoke fights. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm sorry, where do you see your name or any reference to you in my comment? Quit trying to provoke fights. 

Maybe I'm wrong-who was the 'white noise' you were referring to?  Whoever they were, if you are saying it is not me-claiming their point of view is 'white noise', is condescension.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, kav said:

Maybe I'm wrong-who was the 'white noise' you were referring to?  Whoever they were, if you are saying it is not me-claiming their point of view is 'white noise', is condescension.  

Your continued attempts to engage are UNWELCOME. 

[kav]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Your continued attempts to engage are UNWELCOME. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/16/2019 at 3:10 AM, jason4 said:

I talked to a dealer at comic con this year (I forget which one but on of the big guys selling books) who said hes submitted tons (thousands?) of books for grading and only got back a few 9.9s and zero 10s. He said he gets 1-2 9.9s per 100 submissions that he believes are 9.8 on average.

1-2 in 100 chance? I would never crack a 9.8 to hope for that. 

I wish I got 1-2 9.9s in every 100 9.8 submissions.