|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 10:29:54 GMT -8
More TROUBLE At CGC COMICS?!? MEGA GRAILS Graded WRONG!?! Man, some of these YouTube videos are so bad they make me want to gouge my eyes out. But I suppose they make them because people continue to watch them. The guys are grading books from 2D scans, which is basically impossible, and then worse they only look at front covers. They have no idea what they're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 12:16:10 GMT -8
More TROUBLE At CGC COMICS?!? MEGA GRAILS Graded WRONG!?! Man, some of these YouTube videos are so bad they make me want to gouge my eyes out. But I suppose they make them because people continue to watch them. The guys are grading books from 2D scans, which is basically impossible, and then worse they only look at front covers. They have no idea what they're talking about. We all know that your job only exists through CGC. But keep trying to defend them. Your past speaks for itself. Most people who buy and sell slabs do it with scans. Duh. And this latest CGC scandal was discovered with scans. Front covers have the greatest effect on a book's grade, especially CGC's. And if a scan proves a book is overgraded, it probably looks worse in person and out of the slab. Duh#2.
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 16:09:57 GMT -8
Man, some of these YouTube videos are so bad they make me want to gouge my eyes out. But I suppose they make them because people continue to watch them. The guys are grading books from 2D scans, which is basically impossible, and then worse they only look at front covers. They have no idea what they're talking about. We all know that your job only exists through CGC. But keep trying to defend them. Your past speaks for itself. Most people who buy and sell slabs do it with scans. Duh. And this latest CGC scandal was discovered with scans. Front covers have the greatest effect on a book's grade, especially CGC's. And if a scan proves a book is overgraded, it probably looks worse in person and out of the slab. Duh#2. You know nothing about me and it shows. Most people buying and selling slabs don't know how to grade...including these two guys. Duh. From what I've seen, most of these YouTubers are ignorant and me pointing out their ignorance has nothing to do with defending CGC. For example, they're pointing out small white areas on the All Star #8, which has been blown up to 10 times it's normal size, but you can't even tell whether it's on the book ir it's a product of the scanner / plastic slab, which is often the case. Nor can you tell whether it's wear on the book or from the printing process. Duh. And them comparing a modern, which had much better Quality of Production, to a GA book that used very different paper, was produced in much larger numbers and suffered many more quality control issues than a mid 80's modern is like comparing the quality of a Ford Model T to a Ford 1985 Ford Mustang, when cars were made with automated systems and had much higher quality control. You just can't compare them that way. Corners OFTEN weren't sharp on GA books and they were FULL of other production issues with slanted covers, pages, miswraps, all sorts of issues that don't appear on a Secret Wars #8. if these guys had ANY clue, they'd be comparing it to ANOTHER GA BOOK of the same era. These guys are doing a Kindergarten level of analysis, and you defending them just shows your own ignorance. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 16:25:06 GMT -8
We all know that your job only exists through CGC. But keep trying to defend them. Your past speaks for itself. Most people who buy and sell slabs do it with scans. Duh. And this latest CGC scandal was discovered with scans. Front covers have the greatest effect on a book's grade, especially CGC's. And if a scan proves a book is overgraded, it probably looks worse in person and out of the slab. Duh#2. You know nothing about me and it shows. Most people buying and selling slabs don't know how to grade...including these two guys. Duh. From what I've seen, most of these YouTubers are ignorant and me pointing out their ignorance has nothing to do with defending CGC. For example, they're pointing out small white areas on the All Star #8, which has been blown up to 10 times it's normal size, but you can't even tell whether it's on the book ir it's a product of the scanner / plastic slab, which is often the case. Nor can you tell whether it's wear on the book or from the printing process. Duh. And them comparing a modern, which had much better Quality of Production, to a GA book that used very different paper, was produced in much larger numbers and suffered many more quality control issues than a mid 80's modern is like comparing the quality of a Ford Model T to a Ford 1985 Ford Mustang, when cars were made with automated systems and had much higher quality control. You just can't compare them that way. Corners OFTEN weren't sharp on GA books and they were FULL of other production issues with slanted covers, pages, miswraps, all sorts of issues that don't appear on a Secret Wars #8. if these guys had ANY clue, they'd be comparing it to ANOTHER GA BOOK of the same era. These guys are doing a Kindergarten level of analysis, and you defending them just shows your own ignorance. Duh. Their biggest issues with the grades were because of rounded corners, spine ticks, and worn/torn up edges. All easily seen in a scan. You're just showing your own ignorance. But keep ripping people off Chip.
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 16:58:49 GMT -8
These guys are doing a Kindergarten level of analysis, and you defending them just shows your own ignorance. Duh. Their biggest issues with the grades were because of rounded corners, spine ticks, and worn/torn up edges. All easily seen in a scan. You're just showing your own ignorance. But keep ripping people off Chip. I just finished explaining to you why you can't compare a GA book to a Modern book and you continue to plod (no pun intended) on. GA books often didn't have sharp corners, which is why I stated you can't compare production quality of a GA book to a modern book, and they mentioned defects that may not even be on the book itself. If you have nothing substantial to add to a discussion and have to resort to name calling, you'd be better of just throwing up a white flag.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 17:25:41 GMT -8
Their biggest issues with the grades were because of rounded corners, spine ticks, and worn/torn up edges. All easily seen in a scan. You're just showing your own ignorance. But keep ripping people off Chip. I just finished explaining to you why you can't compare a GA book to a Modern book and you continue to plod (no pun intended) on. GA books often didn't have sharp corners, which is why I stated you can't compare production quality of a GA book to a modern book, and they mentioned defects that may not even be on the book itself. If you have nothing substantial to add to a discussion and have to resort to name calling, you'd be better of just throwing up a white flag. All strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with overgrading. You're just showing off your weak arguments and defending CGC.
We've all seen GA books. We know what they look like, and we know when they're overgraded. But keep trying Chip.
GA books didn't roll off the production line with rounded corners, chewed up edges and deep spine ticks genius. Duh#3
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 18:23:25 GMT -8
I just finished explaining to you why you can't compare a GA book to a Modern book and you continue to plod (no pun intended) on. GA books often didn't have sharp corners, which is why I stated you can't compare production quality of a GA book to a modern book, and they mentioned defects that may not even be on the book itself. If you have nothing substantial to add to a discussion and have to resort to name calling, you'd be better of just throwing up a white flag. All strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with overgrading. You're just showing off your weak arguments and defending CGC.
We've all seen GA books. We know what they look like, and we know when they're overgraded. But keep trying Chip.
GA books didn't roll off the production line with rounded corners, chewed up edges and deep spine ticks genius. Duh#3
They certainly did. Rough edges, rounded corners, missing chips ( ), miscut interior pages, miscut covers...all sorts of defects. And you conveniently, twice have sidestepped anything that may prove you're wrong, like the phantom defects brought on with digital imaging. None of these are strawmen and all directly related to how to grade a GA book. You obviously haven't seen many GA books. No defense of CGC at all. Just the facts.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 18:43:59 GMT -8
All strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with overgrading. You're just showing off your weak arguments and defending CGC.
We've all seen GA books. We know what they look like, and we know when they're overgraded. But keep trying Chip. GA books didn't roll off the production line with rounded corners, chewed up edges and deep spine ticks genius. Duh#3
They certainly did. Rough edges, rounded corners, missing chips ( ), miscut interior pages, miscut covers...all sorts of defects. And you conveniently, twice have sidestepped anything that may prove you're wrong, like the phantom defects brought on with digital imaging. None of these are strawmen and all directly related to how to grade a GA book. You obviously haven't seen many GA books. No defense of CGC at all. Just the facts. Nope. You're argument only works if all GA books had those defects. They don't. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 19:12:07 GMT -8
They certainly did. Rough edges, rounded corners, missing chips ( ), miscut interior pages, miscut covers...all sorts of defects. And you conveniently, twice have sidestepped anything that may prove you're wrong, like the phantom defects brought on with digital imaging. None of these are strawmen and all directly related to how to grade a GA book. You obviously haven't seen many GA books. No defense of CGC at all. Just the facts. Nope. You're argument only works if all GA books had those defects. They don't. End of story. Not all GA books have the same defects. Not all SA books have the same defects. Not all BA books have the same defects. Defects will even vary across a print run of a single issue, but CGC grades books differently BASED ON THE PREVIOUS DEFECTS THEY'VE SEEN ON EACH SPECIFIC ISSUE. And since we're discussing CGC grading, and you can't compare an All Star #8 to a Secret Wars #8 except for rough ballpark, their video is completely out to lunch and so NONE of what you're arguing and name calling about removes the fact that these guys are doing Kindergarten level analysis. Strawman indeed.
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 19:18:45 GMT -8
Your main problem you always have is that you're trying to discredit me wrong personally, rather than discredit the actual point being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 19:27:30 GMT -8
Nope. You're argument only works if all GA books had those defects. They don't. End of story. Not all GA books have the same defects. Not all SA books have the same defects. Not all BA books have the same defects. Defects will even vary across a print run of a single issue, but CGC grades books differently BASED ON THE PREVIOUS DEFECTS THEY'VE SEEN ON EACH SPECIFIC ISSUE. And since we're discussing CGC grading, and you can't compare an All Star #8 to a Secret Wars #8 except for rough ballpark, their video is completely out to lunch and so NONE of what you're arguing and name calling about removes the fact that these guys are doing Kindergarten level analysis. Strawman indeed. Your arguments make no sense. CGC uses that weak sauce bulls*** to excuse their own inconsistent grading. Everyone knows this including you. You should probably stop talking now, you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper. Ever hear of the Big Book Bump, or the GA Bump genius? Ever seen restored GA books in blue labels? These are all examples of poor grading that everyone who can grade knows about. Duh#4.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 19:29:52 GMT -8
Your main problem you always have is that you're trying to discredit me wrong personally, rather than discredit the actual point being discussed. If you say stupid stuff I'm going to call you on it. If you don't like it, stop saying stupid stuff.
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 27, 2024 20:11:00 GMT -8
Not all GA books have the same defects. Not all SA books have the same defects. Not all BA books have the same defects. Defects will even vary across a print run of a single issue, but CGC grades books differently BASED ON THE PREVIOUS DEFECTS THEY'VE SEEN ON EACH SPECIFIC ISSUE. And since we're discussing CGC grading, and you can't compare an All Star #8 to a Secret Wars #8 except for rough ballpark, their video is completely out to lunch and so NONE of what you're arguing and name calling about removes the fact that these guys are doing Kindergarten level analysis. Strawman indeed. Your arguments make no sense. CGC uses that weak sauce bulls*** to excuse their own inconsistent grading. Everyone knows this including you. You should probably stop talking now, you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper. Ever hear of the Big Book Bump, or the GA Bump genius? Ever seen restored GA books in blue labels? These are all examples of poor grading that everyone who can grade knows about. Duh#4. You're conflating missed resto with inconsistent grading? Two totally different things. One is human error, the other you're accusing CGC of doing on purpose. I don't think you understand how logic works because you're certainly not using it. Digging deeper indeed. EDIT: Ah, you're talking about slight Glue or CT making it into Universal labels. This is a totally different discussion. If the glue or CT DOES NOT RAISE THE GRADE, it's counted as a defect rather than resto and the defect is factored into the grade. I can't disagree with that logic. ----------------------------------------------- You're obviously a pro grader, right? Then you would know that because the GA books are published using different Quality of Production from SA and BA books, they are GRADED DIFFERENTLY. This isn't a CGC phenomenon, though. It stems back from Overstreet. Since the beginnings of the hobby, GA books HAVE ALWAYS been graded differently than SA and BA books. The Overstreet Price Guide makes this clear. Pay attention: Have you ever read the Overstreet grading standards at the beginning of the OSPG? The EXACT SAME DEFECTS are sometimes factored differently into the grade DEPENDING ON THE ERA YOU ARE GRADING. That's straight from the OSPG. So what you're accusing CGC of doing as some nefarious activity has been built into the grading system since the beginnings of the hobby. Duh. You have no idea what you're talking about while insulting someone who is simply correcting you. Keep digging. Your main problem you always have is that you're trying to discredit me wrong personally, rather than discredit the actual point being discussed. If you say stupid stuff I'm going to call you on it. If you don't like it, stop saying stupid stuff. Yeah, I'm the one staying stupid stuff.
|
|
|
Post by crossingtherubicon on Jan 27, 2024 20:48:02 GMT -8
Nope. Like I said before, we've all seen GA books and know the defects and how to grade them. Except you I guess.
Now you're just playin dumb while moving the goal posts again.
Keep defending CGC genius. PS - they don't like you Chip. That's why they banned you. You're a major pain in the byoutox. And you have a terrible record. Like when you used to adjust the color on your scans. I don't have much respect for CGC dealers, and you're one of the worst.
I've got a life and things to do besides this. Later Hulk Grader.
|
|
scoot
Junior Member
Joined: January 2019
Posts: 40
|
Post by scoot on Jan 28, 2024 9:19:05 GMT -8
New ad from CBCS. link
|
|