CGC Pressing = big mistake! 2 2

[piper]

19 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

I used to think I had a very good grasp of what made a book a 9.8. My submission results would validate that I did indeed have a good grasp of it. Then I buy a CGC 9.8 book and when I get it there are literally more than 10 spine ticks. And some of the spine ticks are gargantuan. It messed with my thoughts on grading and once again I have no idea what a 9.8 book is. So I have a large pile of books I am thinking of sending in, and check them over and I would have rejected a lot of them based on my previous criteria. But since obtaining that ugly 9.8 I have become convinced gradng is completely random and every book I sent could be a 9.8.

It worked CGC! You made me submit more books than I would have. Enjoy my money.

If this Harley Quinn 1 is a 9.8 I own a TON of 9.8 books.

That’s not a 9.8!

[Buzzetta]

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Buzzetta

[ADAMANTIUM]

Well I learned not to joke about unethical, being implied or inferred to someone else, but then i shouldn't use myself as the example. And for sure dont make it biblical, then want to take it back, even though its humor

 I've learned!

40 lashes for the sake of the game!

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by ADAMANTIUM

[Coverless 9.8]

9 hours ago, piper said:

That’s not a 9.8!

I wonder if those grader's notes could provide some insight or at least a fresh wrinkle!  

Edited November 5, 2020 by Coverless 9.8
Correction

[Crops068]

8 hours ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

9 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

If you'd like a little more information about the folks currently grading comics at CGC, just open the "About CGC" menu and find the "Our Grading" section. Click "learn more" and it should display all the current graders, as well as one extremely competent consultant.

https://www.cgccomics.com/grading/cgc-graders/

I never knew this was there.  Thank you, it is nice to have faces with those that put their grubby paws all over my valuables!

(Seriously thanks for this!)

[Hollywood1892]

10 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

Never underestimate the other guy's greed.

 

[Jeffro.]

10 hours ago, piper said:

10 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

I used to think I had a very good grasp of what made a book a 9.8. My submission results would validate that I did indeed have a good grasp of it. Then I buy a CGC 9.8 book and when I get it there are literally more than 10 spine ticks. And some of the spine ticks are gargantuan. It messed with my thoughts on grading and once again I have no idea what a 9.8 book is. So I have a large pile of books I am thinking of sending in, and check them over and I would have rejected a lot of them based on my previous criteria. But since obtaining that ugly 9.8 I have become convinced gradng is completely random and every book I sent could be a 9.8.

It worked CGC! You made me submit more books than I would have. Enjoy my money.

If this Harley Quinn 1 is a 9.8 I own a TON of 9.8 books.

Spoiler

 

 

 

That’s not a 9.8!

Agreed. It's either a labeling error or the grader needs to be retrained. Definitely not a 9.8 

[Spawnfreak]

19 hours ago, telerites said:

Similar, no doubt, to:

A convergence space is a set SS together with a relation →\to from FS\mathcal{F}S to SS, where FS\mathcal{F}S is the set of filters on SS; if F→xF \to x, we say that FF converges to xx or that xx is a limit of FF. This must satisfy some axioms:

1. Centred: The principal ultrafilter Fx={A|x∈A}F_x = \{ A \;|\; x \in A \} at xx converges to xx;
2. Isotone: If F⊆GF \subseteq G and F→xF \to x, then G→xG \to x;
3. Directed: If F→xF \to x and G→xG \to x, then some filter contained in the intersection F∩GF \cap G converges to xx. In light of (2), it follows that F∩G→xF \cap G \to x itself. (Strictly speaking, the relation should not be called directed unless also every point is a limit of some filter, but this follows from 1.)

It follows that F→xF \to x if and only if F∩FxF \cap F_x does. Given that, the convergence relation is defined precisely by specifying, for each point xx, a filter of subfilter?s of the principal ultrafilter at xx. (But that is sort of a tongue twister.)

A filter FF clusters at a point xx, written F⇝xF \rightsquigarrow x, if there exists a proper filter GG such that F⊆GF \subseteq G and G→xG \to x.

The definition can also be phrased in terms of nets; a net ν\nu converges to xx if and only if its eventuality filter converges to xx.

The morphisms of convergence spaces are the continuous functions; a function ff between convergence spaces is continuous if F→xF \to x implies that f(F)→f(x)f(F) \to f(x), where f(F)f(F) is the filter generated by the filterbase {f(A)|A∈F}\{f(A) \;|\; A \in F\}. In this way, convergence spaces form a concrete category ConvConv.

Note that the definition of ‘convergence’ varies in the literature; at the extreme end, one could define it as any relation whatsoever from FS\mathcal{F}S (or even from the class of all nets on SS) to SS, but that is so little structure as to be not very useful. An intermediate notion is that of filter space, in which (3) is not required. Here we follow the terminology of Lowen-Colebunders.

You dumb #$%&, point 3 does NOT say that F∩G→xF \cap G \to x ! It used to say that, but then you know who became involved. Pay attention, wiilya!

[comicdonna]

19 hours ago, telerites said:

Similar, no doubt, to:

A convergence space is a set SS together with a relation →\to from FS\mathcal{F}S to SS, where FS\mathcal{F}S is the set of filters on SS; if F→xF \to x, we say that FF converges to xx or that xx is a limit of FF. This must satisfy some axioms:

1. Centred: The principal ultrafilter Fx={A|x∈A}F_x = \{ A \;|\; x \in A \} at xx converges to xx;
2. Isotone: If F⊆GF \subseteq G and F→xF \to x, then G→xG \to x;
3. Directed: If F→xF \to x and G→xG \to x, then some filter contained in the intersection F∩GF \cap G converges to xx. In light of (2), it follows that F∩G→xF \cap G \to x itself. (Strictly speaking, the relation should not be called directed unless also every point is a limit of some filter, but this follows from 1.)

It follows that F→xF \to x if and only if F∩FxF \cap F_x does. Given that, the convergence relation is defined precisely by specifying, for each point xx, a filter of subfilter?s of the principal ultrafilter at xx. (But that is sort of a tongue twister.)

A filter FF clusters at a point xx, written F⇝xF \rightsquigarrow x, if there exists a proper filter GG such that F⊆GF \subseteq G and G→xG \to x.

The definition can also be phrased in terms of nets; a net ν\nu converges to xx if and only if its eventuality filter converges to xx.

The morphisms of convergence spaces are the continuous functions; a function ff between convergence spaces is continuous if F→xF \to x implies that f(F)→f(x)f(F) \to f(x), where f(F)f(F) is the filter generated by the filterbase {f(A)|A∈F}\{f(A) \;|\; A \in F\}. In this way, convergence spaces form a concrete category ConvConv.

Note that the definition of ‘convergence’ varies in the literature; at the extreme end, one could define it as any relation whatsoever from FS\mathcal{F}S (or even from the class of all nets on SS) to SS, but that is so little structure as to be not very useful. An intermediate notion is that of filter space, in which (3) is not required. Here we follow the terminology of Lowen-Colebunders.

 

[telerites]

4 minutes ago, comicdonna said:

 

[Spawnfreak]

5 minutes ago, comicdonna said:

 

Boy, was I wrong!  I only got to the 64th move in the Sicilian defense! Nice catch. I agree with telerites!

[theCapraAegagrus]

9 minutes ago, comicdonna said:

 

[The Lions Den]

19 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

used to think I had a very good grasp of what made a book a 9.8. My submission results would validate that I did indeed have a good grasp of it. Then I buy a CGC 9.8 book and when I get it there are literally more than 10 spine ticks. And some of the spine ticks are gargantuan. It messed with my thoughts on grading and once again I have no idea what a 9.8 book is. So I have a large pile of books I am thinking of sending in, and check them over and I would have rejected a lot of them based on my previous criteria. But since obtaining that ugly 9.8 I have become convinced gradng is completely random and every book I sent could be a 9.8.

It worked CGC! You made me submit more books than I would have. Enjoy my money.

If this Harley Quinn 1 is a 9.8 I own a TON of 9.8 books.

I wouldn't adjust your grading criteria based on this one book. CGC graders are only human, and there are times when they miss things just like anyone else. There's also the possibility that if there were multiple copies of the same book in the same invoice, a book could receive the wrong grade due to the grader getting the books in the invoice mixed up. 

In any event, I don't like 9.8 based on what I see with this particular copy...just my .  

[James J Johnson]

8 hours ago, comicdonna said:

 

That's the equation for measuring short distances. Or if you don't have pencil and paper, you can always use a ruler. 

[piper]

9 hours ago, comicdonna said:

 

Brings back bad memories from University...

[kav]

bah.  that math problem is simple.  You want hard here's hard:

[catman76]

  serves ya right. Read your comics and stop being a slave to some meaningless, made up grading scale. It's really pathetic.