Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 9:13:33 GMT -8
Which is, of course, something a professional grader would never say. There's no such thing as "100% of the time" when you're dealing with opinions.
Grades...even the highest grades, like 9.8, 9.9, and 10, where differences are so minute as to be non-existent...are RANGES. There are LOW 9.8s, MIDDLE 9.8s, and HIGH 9.8s. Yes, even 9.8s! So, it's entirely possible (and I can show with actual examples), that a book graded 9.9 is WORSE THAN a 9.8...not just equal to, but WORSE THAN...and objectively!
Because you're dealing with OPINIONS, which is the only way it works. As such, a professional grader would never...or SHOULD never...say "if a book is a 9.8 it is given that grade."
...because on a different day, the SAME grader looking at the SAME book, under IDENTICAL conditions, might decide it's a 9.9...or a 9.6! What then? I thought it "is a 9.8"!
I agree with him that 9.9s and 10s are NOT given out to books at random, but that's a smokescreen for the actual issue, and has no bearing on the discussion. The actual issue is that CGC...and almost certainly CBCS...artificially holds back these grades from books that deserve them, and defaults to 9.8. A book has to be extra-special minty perfect to get those grades most of the time, and for 10s, that's fine...but 9.9s? Not so much.
I also agree that there is a GENERAL LOOK for 9.9s and 10s. No doubt. But to say "100% of the time" demonstrates that you're an amateur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeffro on Aug 1, 2017 9:54:22 GMT -8
That's a very interesting statement for him to make. 100% doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Curious  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 11:31:33 GMT -8
That's a very interesting statement for him to make. 100% doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Curious Well, he's got a habit of doing some interesting things. I wonder if he was really shunted off to "pressing" because of his lack of knowledge and experience.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jeffro on Aug 1, 2017 17:03:59 GMT -8
That's a very interesting statement for him to make. 100% doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Curious Well, he's got a habit of doing some interesting things. I wonder if he was really shunted off to "pressing" because of his lack of knowledge and experience....If that's the case then you have to wonder why he's still employed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 19:44:04 GMT -8
Well, he's got a habit of doing some interesting things. I wonder if he was really shunted off to "pressing" because of his lack of knowledge and experience....If that's the case then you have to wonder why he's still employed I don't know what the relationship between CBCS and "CBCS Pressing" is, but maybe he isn't employed by them. |
|
|
|
Post by mrwoogieman on Aug 11, 2017 12:24:44 GMT -8
Many a time I've taken unsold items and re-graded/re-listed them for sale and adjusted some of the grades, upwards and downwards.
For those who might say that a 9.4 is a 9.4 whether it's April or November, well I would respond by saying that grading is subjective. Today's 9.4 could be tomorrow's 9.2 or 9.4 or 9.6 and nothing at all happened to the book in the interim. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Aug 11, 2017 12:40:31 GMT -8
Many a time I've taken unsold items and re-graded/re-listed them for sale and adjusted some of the grades, upwards and downwards.
For those who might say that a 9.4 is a 9.4 whether it's April or November, well I would respond by saying that grading is subjective. Today's 9.4 could be tomorrow's 9.2 or 9.4 or 9.6 and nothing at all happened to the book in the interim. Yup, just another reason not to incorporate grades like 9.3, 9.5 and 9.7 into the system. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 14:19:35 GMT -8
Many a time I've taken unsold items and re-graded/re-listed them for sale and adjusted some of the grades, upwards and downwards.
For those who might say that a 9.4 is a 9.4 whether it's April or November, well I would respond by saying that grading is subjective. Today's 9.4 could be tomorrow's 9.2 or 9.4 or 9.6 and nothing at all happened to the book in the interim. Yup. Which is why grades like 9.7, 9.5, etc, are so necessary. The difference isn't the grade...the difference is in the prices paid. 9.7, 9.5, etc, will smooth over the price differences. And, if a grader says "eehhhhh....could be a 9.4, could be a 9.2", they'd have a 9.3 to deal with it. Trust me, very few coin buyers can tell the difference between an MS62 and 63, or 63 and 64. The market will understand that "9.5" is better than 9.4, not quite as nice as 9.6. It's the natural progression of things. If it doesn't exist in 10 years, I'll be very, very surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by Bryan on Oct 23, 2018 21:35:48 GMT -8
I miss simpler times when comics were advertised as "fine or better" and that's as close as you could get to high grade copies, no guarantee of NM.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 17:15:26 GMT -8
That's a very interesting statement for him to make. 100% doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Curious Well, he's got a habit of doing some interesting things. I wonder if he was really shunted off to "pressing" because of his lack of knowledge and experience.... I wonder if these public comments contributed to my being banned at CBCS.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 5, 2018 17:37:02 GMT -8
Well, he's got a habit of doing some interesting things. I wonder if he was really shunted off to "pressing" because of his lack of knowledge and experience.... I wonder if these public comments contributed to my being banned at CBCS. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 5, 2018 17:41:54 GMT -8
BTW I saved this when I ran across it a while back because I wanted to remember their grading criteria.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 21:13:23 GMT -8
BTW I saved this when I ran across it a while back because I wanted to remember their grading criteria. It's just absolute nonsense, and demonstrates that my judgment of Mr. Ricketts several years ago was accurate. He really had no idea what I was talking about, and doesn't understand statistical distribution. His going on about "ringing a bell at every 500 books" and "quotas", which no one even remotely suggested, is ample demonstration of that. No one was talking about production defects, either, but he devoted the majority of his post to that. His patronizing explanation also didn't help. He was in way, way over his head, and it showed. He simply wasn't capable of understanding my point...I imagine he's still not. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 5, 2018 21:28:44 GMT -8
BTW I saved this when I ran across it a while back because I wanted to remember their grading criteria. It's just absolute nonsense, and demonstrates that my judgment of Mr. Ricketts several years ago was accurate. He really had no idea what I was talking about, and doesn't understand statistical distribution. His going on about "ringing a bell at every 500 books" and "quotas", which no one even remotely suggested, is ample demonstration of that. No one was talking about production defects, either, but he devoted the majority of his post to that. His patronizing explanation also didn't help. He was in way, way over his head, and it showed. He simply wasn't capable of understanding my point...I imagine he's still not. What I got out of that discussion was that, at least at CBCS, I could lower that distribution ratio with a brand new razor blade. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 21:34:31 GMT -8
BTW I saved this when I ran across it a while back because I wanted to remember their grading criteria. It's just absolute nonsense, and demonstrates that my judgment of Mr. Ricketts several years ago was accurate. He really had no idea what I was talking about, and doesn't understand statistical distribution. His going on about "ringing a bell at every 500 books" and "quotas", which no one even remotely suggested, is ample demonstration of that. No one was talking about production defects, either, but he devoted the majority of his post to that. His patronizing explanation also didn't help. He was in way, way over his head, and it showed. He simply wasn't capable of understanding my point...I imagine he's still not. Also by the way...people  and complain about "tone" and "civility", I'd like to point out that people can be perfectly uncivil, while maintaining a veneer of civility...like the above post by Mr. Ricketts. How so? "Apples and oranges." That is a very rude, very dismissive comment to make to ANYONE. They're basically telling you that you're so stupid, you can't tell the difference that is as obvious to THEM...and by implication, should be to you and everyone else...as the difference between an apple and an orange. It tells me that Mr. Ricketts, despite whatever experience he may have gained while working at CBCS, never studied the results of slabbing, over thousands of examples, like many people have. The difference between a 9.6 and a 9.8 can be, and occasionally is...maybe 2-10% of the time...nothing. What is a 9.6 on one day would grade a 9.8 on another. So, for him to suggest that the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.8, vs. the difference between a 9.8 and a 9.9 is an "apples to oranges comparison," demonstrates his lack of real world experience with slabs on the other side of the slabbing process. As I pointed out before, the ratio of 9.6 to 9.8 at CGC on the census is roughly 1:2...2 9.8s for every 9.6. This seems about right, especially given the facts that: 1. CGC overgives out the 9.8 grade, for reasons I can speculate, but which are, nonetheless, quite true. 2. Submissions are dominated by 1980-up books, which are, themselves, dominated by ultra high grade examples being the only ones generally "worth" submitting. 3. The pre-screen process, which tells us how many 9.8s we get, but doesn't tell us how many "not 9.8" (or whatever the pre-screen is set at) books were in the submission. The material difference between an average 9,6, an average 9.8, and an average 9.9....books that are representative of AND DESERVE those grades...is very, very little. But, they do exist. HOWEVER...the RATIO of 9.8s to 9.9s is still an astonishing 100:1. For every 9.9 slab, there are 100 9.8s. That distribution is completely out of whack, especially when one considers the absolute number of 9.8s submitted...approaching 2 million at this point...the actual PHYSICAL difference between a typical 9.8 and a typical 9.9...AND the ratio of the next grade down, 9.6 to 9.8. A realistic distribution would be somewhere in the neighborhood of perhaps 10 or 20 to 1, based on the 1:2 relationship of 9.6s to 9.8s. That would make 9.9s roughly 5 to 10 times rarer than 9.6...not the 50 times rarer that they are right now. And it has absolutely nothing to do with "quotas" of any sort. That should be the NATURAL distribution, given the actual differences in physical preservation between those 3 grades, and it would be, except both companies artificially hold back the 9.9 and 10 grades. So if you ever see someone tell you you're making an "apples to oranges" comparison...you ought to tell them those are fighting words... |
|
and complain about "tone" and "civility", I'd like to point out that people can be perfectly uncivil, while maintaining a veneer of civility...like the above post by Mr. Ricketts.