Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
CBCS Comics
Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »

Skybourne #1 3of2 Shenanigans or betrayal?5694

Collector CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user
Oh and WRT Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
that is a statistical impossibility, UNLESS there was some active suppression of higher grades going on. The difference between a "typical" 9.9 and a nice 9.8 is barely noticeable even by professionals.


According to the folks at CBCS, the difference is obvious if one knows what to look for.


And that's where the folks at CBCS are on very thin ice. Grading not only IS subjective, it must be subjective, or it exposes the one doing the grading to liability.

If CBCS...or anyone...states that, unequivocally, there's a "method" to separating this grade from that grade, that is knowable and applicable in all cases (as that was the claim that was made, remember), then at some point, they may be held to that standard.

That's why in industry there's the concept of "tolerance"...so long as the product is between X measurement and Y measurement, it has met the specifications, and is a saleable product. That's subjectivity.

Consider the Overstreet Grading Guide, second edition. On page 145, you see a Hulk #38 graded "9.9"...and the reason given for why it's not a 10 is because of an "ink blotch" behind Hulk's neck. They call it a "printing defect." But...CGC doesn't, generally, consider ink blotches to be defects that count against the grade. AND...to make matters more complicated...there are some graders at CGC who DO, and some who DON'T. I don't have enough information to tell what CBCS would do with this specific book, but I DO have enough information to know that a post 1980 book better have excellent quality of production (centering and the like), or it's not going to grade 9.8 or better.

Then look at page 151, with a Daredevil #1 (1998) in 9.8. The only defects they found were "color flecks" along the gatefold. But the paper used during that period was AWFUL, and those "flecks" are on every single copy printed. By the OGG's interpretation, an otherwise perfect book will, because of these totally unavoidable production flaws, never, ever be graded higher than 9.8. And that is THEIR interpretation. And, it is clearly CGC's interpretation as well, because there are no copies higher than 9.8, even though...statistically...there should be at least 1. I suspect there will never be a 9.9 or 10, which is fine, but this is a function of interpretation, rather than a measurable set of "standards."

Consider Marvels from 1989-1991. It is ULTRA COMMON to find them with about an inch long "crease" on the back cover, in the middle. That's a production flaw, and is found on many books from the era, including New Mutants #98. Now, someone who is aware of that flaw will not discount for it, because it is a common production flaw. And by common, I mean it's found on perhaps 1/4 or more of all copies of books found with that flaw.

But I had a Silver Surfer #34 that someone at CGC graded a 9.2...it's easily a 9.6-9.8...with the notes including "crunch center of back cover." That's someone who didn't know what they were looking at.

So there will eventually be a body of 9.8s, 9.9s, 10s, etc from CBCS, and someone will be able to gather them up, and objectively demonstrate how a certain portion of 9.9s are in WORSE condition than a certain portion of 9.8s...and if CBCS or anyone says "no, the differences are obvious"...that is, establishing a standard...then they stand a very good chance of being held to that standard, and it won't be pretty, because there will be no excuse for why that weak 9.9 is clearly in worse condition than that really nice 9.8.

But if grading is subjective...as it must be...then the defense is simple: "that's what that/those grader/s at that point in time adjudicated that book to be."

The End. No fuss, no muss.

So grading must be subjective, and there cannot be "differences are obvious if one knows what to look for", because that's the only way to account for interpretation and human variance. Fred needs to be able to say "mmm..I think it's this" and be free to change his mind, and disagree with Bob, who thinks it's that. To suggest that, in all cases, all of the time, the difference between a 9.8 and a 9.9 is "obvious if one knows what to look for"...and ostensibly, if you're grading for CBCS, you know what to look for...then there can never be any variance from that, everyone grading the book must agree all the time, and for all time, and you can see why such a policy would never work.

I would bet $10,000 on it. If I gathered 50 or 100 9.9s and 10s...CBCS OR CGC...and resubbed them, most of them would be graded 9.8. And that's perfectly ok, so long as everyone is giving their honest, educated evaluation.


Agreed 110% WRT the thin ice bit.

I understand CBCS's stance on stating their grading guidelines, acceptable defects and so on, which they did from the start.

It is pretty clear to see that this is a marketing ploy on CBCS's part to show they are transparent in their grading and CGC is not quite as transparent.

So yeah, I understand why CBCS takes this stance, as far as a measure to up competitiveness with CGC.

I am not in agreement with CBCS on this though, for the reason you cited and the fact that grading is considerably more nuanced than CBCS's guidelines would indicate.

Such as an issue of a book with a chunk out of the back cover...or a detached cover on a early silver age DC that has OW or OW/W pages and would otherwise anywhere from a 6.0 to a 9.4...CBCS would cap the grade at a certain grade, that published grade in CBCS's grading guide is the highest grade a book with a detached cover can get per CBCS's grading guidelines.

Am I saying that the CBCS graders do not know that grading is nuanced and ultimately subjective?

No, I'm not saying or suggesting that. Not at all.CBCS graders know exactly what they are doing, as much as any human being can, when it comes to grading books.

The CBCS graders would account for the fact that most DC books from that period have subpar page quality and the spine integrity on those books is often weakened, corresponding to the oxidized paper stock.

But that amount of nuance cannot be explained in an online published grading guideline, as CBCS has put forth. That is just one example of what a grader has to consider when grading a book.

It is pretty much impossible, or at least very impractical, to relate the metric eff ton of variables that goes into grading a book, to the average consumer/collector.

My hat is off to CBCS for publishing their grading guidelines and so on....but grading books is really too subjective to relate to the "comic book layman", IMO.
Post 26 IP   flag post
Collector 1243782365 private msg quote post Address this user
I don't understand how someone can look at those CGC emails and say that CGC can't determine if the books are real.

There are several books CGC will not grade, here is just one example and I am pretty sure this is what happens with the OP's book.

- The Hero Initiative Walking Dead Blanks - the extra blanks - will not be graded by CGC or CBCS. Why will CGC and CBCS not grade these? Is it because they're fake? No - its because the charity they were made didn't get any money from the sale of the additional blank books.
Post 27 IP   flag post
Collector poka private msg quote post Address this user
@DocBrown you are back!

Quick question - I believe you are collecting coins as well. Would the thesis hold for coins as well for 68, 69 and 70?
Post 28 IP   flag post
Collector Oxbladder private msg quote post Address this user
I'm not sure what the problem is beside there being an extra copy of a book. CGC clearly had some sort of deal about grading just two of these books. The problem, I believe, is that there is another copy floating around out there not whether or not it is a "authentic" copy.

As for CBCS saying there is a clear difference between a 9.9 and a 9.8. I don't think it is so much them walking a fine line as it is stating that their graders know and can recognize a 9.9 when they have one in their hands. Do actually expect them to say. "you're right _____ it is just luck of the draw that we recognize a 9.9 or 10.0." That sure as heck isn't a good business decision. Now could they make a mistake and grade a 9.8 higher? I would say yes but I would say that the more likely scenario is that most 9.9/9.8 debate in house are resolved by "playing it safe" and grading it lower. Or it could just be the end result of grading books on a sliding scale like the grading companies do. This is the problem you have when you don't have true standards and are left with and abundance of subjectivity.

Standards in much of my business are solid concrete things. Yes there are tolerance limits as Doc mentions but it is not a subjective thing it is decided by testing by many sources and mathematically setting the tolerances. Once the certified value and limits are set there is no deviation allowed. You either meet that range or you fail. If you keep failing then you have to investigate why it is happening. It may not be the product. It could be the method, it could be other variables, but your standard tells you whether or not you have a problem. It is not subjective in the slightest.

The grades that our professional graders have are more guideline than anything else. The industry has input, and other variables have input and values and ranges are set but there are all sorts of things that move those limits all over the map. yes they do set up a system to try and enforce consistency but the fact remains that these "standards" are affected by all sorts of outside influence, even market value. The goal is to be fair to the book and not to the integrity of the "standards". Real standards are managed apart from what they regulate and it is the duty of the businesses using them to abide by them. System standards like ISO aren't set by the businesses that use them that would compromise the standards.
Post 29 IP   flag post
Collector CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1243782365
I don't understand how someone can look at those CGC emails and say that CGC can't determine if the books are real.

There are several books CGC will not grade, here is just one example and I am pretty sure this is what happens with the OP's book.

- The Hero Initiative Walking Dead Blanks - the extra blanks - will not be graded by CGC or CBCS. Why will CGC and CBCS not grade these? Is it because they're fake? No - its because the charity they were made didn't get any money from the sale of the additional blank books.


Define your usage of the words; "real" and "fake".

How do you know that the third book is not a reproduction or bootleg?

Seems that there is plenty of motive to make a bootleg of this book, If o my 2 copies were printed.

Bootlegger sells the repro copy to a shop, or the shop is the bootlegger themselves.

All a shop owner would have to do is say some dude came in off the street and brought books in to sell them to the shop.

Shop owner would have plausible deniability.

That is just one possibility.

What you are overlooking, is that CGC cannot risk certifying any book that they are not certain is not a counterfeit copy or was obtained thru questionable means.

I may be wrong but based off the limited info in this thread, that is the only logical conclusion I see.

I also see nothing stated WRT the print run of this variant.

All I see is that CGC had some sort of contract in which they certified/graded 2 copies.

A third was subbed to CGC and CGC denied the submitter's request for certification, as they should have.
Post 30 IP   flag post


Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
I don't think it is so much them walking a fine line as it is stating that their graders know and can recognize a 9.9 when they have one in their hands. Do actually expect them to say. "you're right _____ it is just luck of the draw that we recognize a 9.9 or 10.0."


You're looking at the grading process like many people look at it: as if every book "is a certain grade", and it only takes an educated grader to identify it.

That is an inaccurate, incorrect way to look at grading. It's also why people lose their minds when they find out that "the grade changed!" upon resubmission. That's why that "Rob Beachler" dope on the "Liefeld quits CGC" twitter thread is such a dope. He doesn't understand grading, so he thinks it's a "scam."

I'd love to be Rob Beachler's boss, and demand that he do everything exactly the same way every single time, and if there's any variance, no matter how slight, I'd accuse him of perpetrating a "scam." He'd get the point then.

Because that's not how grading works. Grading is a judgment call by people who are, generally, educated. And when you get into the nosebleed grades, the tiniest flaws now are in play to make a SUBJECTIVE judgment call. If one grader thinks a book is a 9.8, and another thinks it's a 9.9, which one is wrong?

The answer, of course, is neither of them. It's a judgment call. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "luck." It's simply a judgment call.

Here:




There's no way CBCS would grade that book a 9.9, because of the miswrap. CBCS has gone on record that post-1980 books better also have near perfect PRODUCTION as well as a lack of wear to grade 9.8 or better.

So who's correct? CGC? CBCS? They both are, because grading is subjective, grades are educated judgment calls.

What the market hopes for is that external factors are minimized (because they cannot be eliminated.) And what are those external factors?

They are conscious AND subconscious conditions unrelated to the physical condition of the book in front of them, which influence, positively or negatively, how someone views that book.

For example: if a grader sees a book that is one of his or her favorites, guess what? That has a subconscious influence on the grade. And if a grader sees a book that he/she hated, THAT has an influence on the grade.

It's why graders aren't supposed to know whose books they are grading, because that WILL influence how they grade the books. It's why graders aren't supposed to commercially buy or sell books, too.

What other factors can influence the grade, that are totally unrelated to the book in their hands? Lighting in the room. The eyesight of the grader. Whether the grader is hungry or not. Whether the grader is tired or not. Whether the grader has just gotten back from a break, or they've been grading 2 hours straight. Whether the grader is hot or cold.

That's also why people joke that they want their books graded after the grader had sex the previous night, or why they want their books graded at 3 PM on Friday, rather than 9 AM on Monday. They're not really joking.

And anyone saying that external factors don't influence them is lying, either to you, themselves, or both. And no matter how educated someone is, no one...no one at all...can take a stack of 25 books, grade them, and then set them aside, return to them in 6 months, and grade them all the same. Maybe if the books are all 9.8s, but certainly not if the books are a mixture.

So, no, there's no such thing as "this is the correct grade for this book, and it only takes an educated person to identify it." And that's a good thing, because if graders can't be free to make judgment calls, but instead are expected to "discover" the "correct" grade of a book, they will burn out very quickly, and it exposes the grading companies to liability, for the reasons I laid out above.
Post 31 IP   flag post
Collector ComicHaulics private msg quote post Address this user
@DocBrown Well said
Post 32 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by poka
@DocBrown you are back!

Quick question - I believe you are collecting coins as well. Would the thesis hold for coins as well for 68, 69 and 70?


I do not know; I have never submitted a coin myself for grading. Since you can submit coins under an MS or PR/PF 69 pre-screen, I would imagine not.

I have submitted thousands of books to CGC, and several hundred to CBCS (and used their handy dandy pre-screen feature!), and deal almost exclusively in the nosebleed section of grading, so I have some direct experience with that process.
Post 33 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComicHaulics
@DocBrown Well said


Thank you!
Post 34 IP   flag post
Collector Oxbladder private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
I don't think it is so much them walking a fine line as it is stating that their graders know and can recognize a 9.9 when they have one in their hands. Do actually expect them to say. "you're right _____ it is just luck of the draw that we recognize a 9.9 or 10.0."


You're looking at the grading process like many people look at it: as if every book "is a certain grade", and it only takes an educated grader to identify it.

That is an inaccurate, incorrect way to look at grading. It's also why people lose their minds when they find out that "the grade changed!" upon resubmission. That's why that "Rob Beachler" dope on the "Liefeld quits CGC" twitter thread is such a dope. He doesn't understand grading, so he thinks it's a "scam."

I'd love to be Rob Beachler's boss, and demand that he do everything exactly the same way every single time, and if there's any variance, no matter how slight, I'd accuse him of perpetrating a "scam." He'd get the point then.

Because that's not how grading works. Grading is a judgment call by people who are, generally, educated. And when you get into the nosebleed grades, the tiniest flaws now are in play to make a SUBJECTIVE judgment call. If one grader thinks a book is a 9.8, and another thinks it's a 9.9, which one is wrong?

The answer, of course, is neither of them. It's a judgment call. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "luck." It's simply a judgment call.

Here:




There's no way CBCS would grade that book a 9.9, because of the miswrap. CBCS has gone on record that post-1980 books better also have near perfect PRODUCTION as well as a lack of wear to grade 9.8 or better.

So who's correct? CGC? CBCS? They both are, because grading is subjective, grades are educated judgment calls.

What the market hopes for is that external factors are minimized (because they cannot be eliminated.) And what are those external factors?

They are conscious AND subconscious conditions unrelated to the physical condition of the book in front of them, which influence, positively or negatively, how someone views that book.

For example: if a grader sees a book that is one of his or her favorites, guess what? That has a subconscious influence on the grade. And if a grader sees a book that he/she hated, THAT has an influence on the grade.

It's why graders aren't supposed to know whose books they are grading, because that WILL influence how they grade the books. It's why graders aren't supposed to commercially buy or sell books, too.

What other factors can influence the grade, that are totally unrelated to the book in their hands? Lighting in the room. The eyesight of the grader. Whether the grader is hungry or not. Whether the grader is tired or not. Whether the grader has just gotten back from a break, or they've been grading 2 hours straight. Whether the grader is hot or cold.

That's also why people joke that they want their books graded after the grader had sex the previous night, or why they want their books graded at 3 PM on Friday, rather than 9 AM on Monday. They're not really joking.

And anyone saying that external factors don't influence them is lying, either to you, themselves, or both. And no matter how educated someone is, no one...no one at all...can take a stack of 25 books, grade them, and then set them aside, return to them in 6 months, and grade them all the same. Maybe if the books are all 9.8s, but certainly not if the books are a mixture.

So, no, there's no such thing as "this is the correct grade for this book, and it only takes an educated person to identify it." And that's a good thing, because if graders can't be free to make judgment calls, but instead are expected to "discover" the "correct" grade of a book, they will burn out very quickly, and it exposes the grading companies to liability, for the reasons I laid out above.


Um, you completely missed my point. I don't question the subjectivity of it at all. What I debated is your comment that CBCS saying that they can identify a 9.9 over a 9.8. You might take that comment as a declaration of fact and ready yourself for the blowback that may come someday but I look at it as if they say anything else they will look weak. It's PR bluster just like the term "soon" being used to explain when they are going to get a feature or TATs up and running or back in line. I certainly won't hold them to it.

The rest is about your loose association that there are actually standards in this industry and that subjectivity is common when using them. It isn't. A standard is independent and you either meet it or you don't. With grading comics there is a sliding scale and all sort of variables AND subjectivity and that is fine because you are never ever going to get the community to agree to what is and isn't a solid standard that ALL other books must meet to get that specific grade. Never mind the fact that there all sorts of long standing issues, such as how do you grade a book that has one major defect but is in every other way a much higher grade book? There is really no way to apply any sort of standard to comic grading. So, knowing this, a comment like CBCS graders knowing a 9.9 every single time is pure PR bluster. I think that if you believe that the CBCS alleged comment is trouble then you are more likely the one that is "looking at the grading process like many people look at it: as if every book "is a certain grade", and it only takes an educated grader to identify it." Because I sure am not. The fact that I have said for years that CGC (and now CBCS) do not work with any true standards (read they is mostly a subjective (community) guidelines) should show you that I know darn well how the grading works.
Post 35 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids
based off the limited info in this thread, that is the only logical conclusion I see.


Based on what info?

CGC employees have given two (one, really) reasons why it cannot be certified (grading deal with boom, and permission from boom).

You have given one reason of your own, that the book is fake, based on what evidence?

CGC guys know their stuff, especially fakes. If they didnt, they wouldnt be “CGC”. They have been very specific that the book cannot be graded. I dont see why this is even an argument point lol
Post 36 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
Um, you completely missed my point.


No, I got it just fine. I just disagree with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
I don't question the subjectivity of it at all. What I debated is your comment that CBCS saying that they can identify a 9.9 over a 9.8.


This sentence doesn't make sense the way it is structured. What are you debating, my comment, or CBCS saying? But I'll take it to say "What I debated was your position concerning CBCS' contention that they can identify a 9.9 over a 9.8."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
You might take that comment as a declaration of fact and ready yourself for the blowback that may come someday but I look at it as if they say anything else they will look weak. It's PR bluster just like the term "soon" being used to explain when they are going to get a feature or TATs up and running or back in line. I certainly won't hold them to it.


I'm sure. However, it can come back to bite them, because someone can...and may...assemble a body of 9.9 graded books that are clearly, objectively in lower condition than a body of very nice looking 9.8s, and then CBCS would be in trouble for making such a clear claim, that you can "always identify 9.9s over 9.8s, if you know what you are looking for."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
The rest is about your loose association that there are actually standards in this industry and that subjectivity is common when using them.


No. That is an incorrect interpretation of my post. I don't know what you mean by "loose association", but if you mean my position is that there are "actually standards", you are incorrect. Grading...as I said at great length in my previous post...is a judgment call. So, if you saw something different than that, you are incorrectly interpreting what you think I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
It isn't. A standard is independent and you either meet it or you don't.


That is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
With grading comics there is a sliding scale and all sort of variables AND subjectivity and that is fine because you are never ever going to get the community to agree to what is and isn't a solid standard that ALL other books must meet to get that specific grade.


Errrrm...mostly correct.

I do not know what you mean by "sliding scale", unless you mean the entire grading scale, but yes, that was the point of what I said: you are never going to get the market to agree about how specific flaws affect grades in specific ways, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
Never mind the fact that there all sorts of long standing issues, such as how do you grade a book that has one major defect but is in every other way a much higher grade book? There is really no way to apply any sort of standard to comic grading.


That is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
So, knowing this, a comment like CBCS graders knowing a 9.9 every single time is pure PR bluster.


Uh huh. So you say. I daresay, if it ever came to that, a disinterested judge would almost certainly see it differently than you.

There are things you can say in an official capacity, and there are things you CANNOT say in that capacity. Making claims about your grading process, despite someone attempting to apologetic it away as just "PR bluster", is certain to expose someone to a measure of liability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
I think that if you believe that the CBCS alleged comment is trouble then you are more likely the one that is "looking at the grading process like many people look at it: as if every book "is a certain grade", and it only takes an educated grader to identify it."


Um, no. Did you read my post that you quoted...? Because it says the very opposite of what you contend here, at some length. If someone says "I think the sky is a lovely shade of blue", you can't contend that they're really saying it's green.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
Because I sure am not. The fact that I have said for years that CGC (and now CBCS) do not work with any true standards (read they is mostly a subjective (community) guidelines) should show you that I know darn well how the grading works.


So, you're offended that I suggested you are looking at the grading process inaccurately...? Is THAT what this whole response is about...?

I'll say it again: if you say things like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
I don't think it is so much them walking a fine line as it is stating that their graders know and can recognize a 9.9 when they have one in their hands. Do actually expect them to say. "you're right _____ it is just luck of the draw that we recognize a 9.9 or 10.0."


...then you are indicating that you don't understand the grading process, because that's not how it works. Their graders do not know and can recognize a "9.9" when they have one in their hands, because that isn't how grading works. Graders decide what is a 9.9 and what is a 9.8, because it is a judgment call.

But if that's not what you actually meant, ok.

I'm not quite sure where you believe the disagreement lies.
Post 37 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I'm sure. However, it can come back to bite them, because someone can...and may...assemble a body of 9.9 graded books that are clearly, objectively in lower condition than a body of very nice looking 9.8s, and then CBCS would be in trouble for making such a clear claim, that you can "always identify 9.9s over 9.8s, if you know what you are looking for."


Who said this, and what was the context?
Post 38 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I'm sure. However, it can come back to bite them, because someone can...and may...assemble a body of 9.9 graded books that are clearly, objectively in lower condition than a body of very nice looking 9.8s, and then CBCS would be in trouble for making such a clear claim, that you can "always identify 9.9s over 9.8s, if you know what you are looking for."


Who said this, and what was the context?


You did, in a thread from last year.

I believe the exact quote was "the difference between a 9.8 and 9.9 or 10 is obvious, if one knows what to look for."

It was in a discussion much like this one.
Post 39 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
I am incorrect. Here's the actual quote:

"There is a difference that is visible 100% of the time if you know what you're looking at," in reference to 9.9s, 10s, and lower.

There is more, but that is in the context of personal e-mail correspondence between us. But the above quote was from a public thread, posted on this board.
Post 40 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Neither of those quotes came from me. If you're going to put quotes around something, I ask that you use the actual text.

The quote that you are probably looking for is, "There is a difference that is visible 100% of the time if you know what you're looking at," which was in reference to someone speculating that CBCS gives 9.9 and 10 grades out on a whim, but usually just gives those books a 9.8 grade. For whatever reason.

You're way over analyzing this. Is there subjectivity in a grade? Sure there is. What I was trying to say, probably not so clearly, was that there is absolutely a difference in a 9.8 and a 9.9 (or 10). It is not a grade that is passed out without merit. If a book gets a grade of 9.9 or 10, it met that criteria.
Post 41 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Neither of those quotes came from me. If you're going to put quotes around something, I ask that you use the actual text.


That's not correct, as I noted in the post above, which I corrected. The second quote is an actual quote, from you, in an e-mail written by you, to me, referencing a quote which was originally posted on this board.

Before I posted the exact quote...and I'd be happy to forward you back the e-mail you sent to me, if you no longer have it yourself...I stated what I believed, meaning I was paraphrasing. The sentiment is exactly the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SteveRicketts"
The quote that you are probably looking for is, "There is a difference that is visible 100% of the time if you know what you're looking at," which was in reference to someone speculating that CBCS gives 9.9 and 10 grades out on a whim, but usually just gives those books a 9.8 grade. For whatever reason.


That is incorrect. Nobody said CBCS gives out 9.9 and 10 grades "on a whim." The contention is that those grades are, to an extent, artificially capped...consciously OR subconsciously...to preserve legitimacy to the grading process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SteveRicketts"
You're way over analyzing this.


Disagree.

And I would expect the official position of the #2, hopefully #1, grading service in the hobby would be "WE over-analyze, so you don't have to!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts"
Is there subjectivity in a grade? Sure there is. What I was trying to say, probably not so clearly, was that there is absolutely a difference in a 9.8 and a 9.9 (or 10). It is not a grade that is passed out without merit. If a book gets a grade of 9.9 or 10, it met that criteria.


If you're going to say something is "100% of the time", that's a pretty unambiguous statement.

If you are now saying that what you originally said...and, again, the exact quote, which was preserved in an e-mail to me, from you, in which you restated it...was not as clear as you meant, that's fine.

It's to protect CBCS from painting themselves into a corner that I say these things. Grading is subjective. There is not "100% of the time" on ANYTHING...grades, restoration detection, whatever...because the world is imperfect by nature. It doesn't matter if you use the word "criteria" or "standard", because both of them are incorrect. It is a judgement call, and has to be, of necessity.

My concern is that there not be any artificial suppression of the top grades, consciously or not, because of the reasons I laid out.
Post 42 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
My concern is that there not be any artificial suppression of the top grades, consciously or not, because of the reasons I laid out.


There is no artificial suppression of top grades. We love giving 9.9's, but they're not easy to achieve.
Post 43 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
My concern is that there not be any artificial suppression of the top grades, consciously or not, because of the reasons I laid out.


There is no artificial suppression of top grades. We love giving 9.9's, but they're not easy to achieve.


Nor should they be.

But CGC DOES, demonstrably, artificially suppress 9.9s and 10s.

When there are two+ 9.8s for every 9.6, but only a single 9.9 for every one hundred 9.8s, when the actual physical differences between those grades is incredibly minor, and which does not accurately reflect a truly randomized statistical curve in respect to those differences...then there is artificial suppression going on.

And it's not a conspiracy. It's just a business decision, which accommodates both the expectations of the market and the imperfection of human observation.
Post 44 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Just one more reason to roll out the census, eh...?
Post 45 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
I can't answer for CGC. Just curious how you're coming up with the number of what you think the ratio should be.

As for the census, yes, I'm ready to have that behind us. Unfortunately I don't know how to program websites. Not that I'd have time to work on it. Either way, we're at the mercy of the people doing the work.
Post 46 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
I can't answer for CGC.


No, but they're the only body of research material we have for the moment, and these things don't occur in a vacuum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Just curious how you're coming up with the number of what you think the ratio should be.


I'm not. I'm simply saying that the answer is NOT 9.6:9.8 = 1:2, while 9.8:9.9 = 100:1, given the way grading works and how close together those grades actually are. If a statistician saw results like that, they'd conclude the same thing: external factor affecting the distribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SteveRicketts"
As for the census, yes, I'm ready to have that behind us. Unfortunately I don't know how to program websites. Not that I'd have time to work on it. Either way, we're at the mercy of the people doing the work.


Easy, tiger. No one's blaming you for not having the census.
Post 47 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I'm simply saying that the answer is NOT 9.6:9.8 = 1:2, while 9.8:9.9 = 100:1,


Do you have any actual data to back this up?

IE how would you know if there is/isnt a particular defect on 99% of books that hold them to 9.8? That is not an impossibility, as neither CBCS nor CGC give us their exact grading training/data.

The fact that lenticulars and Grimm books get a much higher percentage, tells us that there is in fact a defect more common on standard print stock paper.

It is entirely plausible that 9.8:9.9 is 100:1. We are talking near perfection here, not the difference in a 9.6 vs 9.8, which statistically has no bearing for comparison. The only true comparison youll get is if cbcs releases a census so that you can compare the same data across two companies.
Post 48 IP   flag post
Collector Oxbladder private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I'm simply saying that the answer is NOT 9.6:9.8 = 1:2, while 9.8:9.9 = 100:1,


Do you have any actual data to back this up?

IE how would you know if there is/isnt a particular defect on 99% of books that hold them to 9.8? That is not an impossibility, as neither CBCS nor CGC give us their exact grading training/data.

The fact that lenticulars and Grimm books get a much higher percentage, tells us that there is in fact a defect more common on standard print stock paper.

It is entirely plausible that 9.8:9.9 is 100:1. We are talking near perfection here, not the difference in a 9.6 vs 9.8, which statistically has no bearing for comparison. The only true comparison youll get is if cbcs releases a census so that you can compare the same data across two companies.


Meh he's throwing out all sorts of information that is questionable in the hopes of talking himself into a win. Pepper in a few veiled insults and you have his typical. I'm right and you are wrong so shut the hell up argument. You can take the numbers and manipulate them any way you want but there is nothing there to tell you that there is any conscious effort on any grading company's part to force some statistical trend.

Each company has grade criteria and the books either fit in it or not. I would suspect they use that criteria quite effectively because, one the whole, the number of what we would determine to be mistakes are very small. If one result grade ends out being more prevalent in a census then it says more about the people submitting and their grading skills then anything about the companies. When it comes to moderns they would like to hit the 9.8 threshold at least because that is where the more significant money lies. With the much improved printing techniques, materials used, grading skill and pressing it is much, much easier to obtain those higher grades.

While Doc reads into the counts that 9.9's are being suppressed I read that the criteria is very tight, as the grading companies have said all along. While Doc discounts that experience of the grader plays a factor here the numbers would refute that. Heck in the end I don't know what he is really wanting to say because he contradicts himself a lot. He says there is criteria and tolerances then he says its all subjective implying that graders are not trying to follow a set of criteria that book needs to meet in order to be assigned a certain grade. It's quite frustrating because he wraps it all in a pretty grammatically sound little bundle that along with the experience he has in the hobby makes it seem like the truth when it is really just another opinion that one can either choose to agree with or not.
Post 49 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Just curious how you're coming up with the number of what you think the ratio should be.


I'm not. I'm simply saying that the answer is NOT 9.6:9.8 = 1:2, while 9.8:9.9 = 100:1, given the way grading works and how close together those grades actually are. If a statistician saw results like that, they'd conclude the same thing: external factor affecting the distribution.


Apples and oranges. The grades are completely different. The difference between 9.6 to 9.8 is not at all comparable to 9.8 to 9.9. The higher on the scale you get, the closer to perfection you get. Perfection is hard to achieve.

Again, I can't speak for CGC, but we don't have a buzzer in the grading room that goes off every 500 books (or whatever number) that alerts us that it's time to give a book a 9.9. That's a ridiculous thing for me to suggest, but I'm trying to make a point.

As someone mentioned above, the ratio on certain books/publishers is a lot higher than on others due to the fact that the materials they print on, and the methods in which they produce their books, is a LOT more likely to result in a 9.9 or 10 grade. Linticular covers for example. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd bet close to 50% of the copies submitted gets a 9.9 or 10 grade. That's due to the perfection they achieve in manufacturing. There's no quota on the grades.

99.9998% of books that get a 9.8, don't get a 9.9 because of a very tiny tear on the top/bottom of the spine. That is the result of the production of the comic. It's there on almost every comic printed. In the rare case that a comic gets produced without those tears, it has to be handled, and stored in a condition that doesn't give it the slightest defect. So that cuts that number of potential 9.9's down from that pool of perfectly produced comics by another significant margin.

Can a book get a 9.9 with a tiny tear on the spine? Yes. But it has to be incredibly tiny, and the rest of the book would need to be perfect. A 9.9 isn't perfect, but it's close.

A 9.9 or 10 is rare. There is a standard for it, but the planets almost have to align perfectly to have a possibility of it happening. There isn't a quota for limiting them, any more than there would be a quota of an "acceptable number" of them in your, or anyone else's mind. It either is, or is not. If there were a quota there would be same percentage of Amazing Spider-Man #129's in 9.9 as there are Do You Pooh #1. Like I said, apples and oranges.

That said, I'm done with the topic for now. I hope I explained it a little better this time.
Post 50 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Just curious how you're coming up with the number of what you think the ratio should be.


I'm not. I'm simply saying that the answer is NOT 9.6:9.8 = 1:2, while 9.8:9.9 = 100:1, given the way grading works and how close together those grades actually are. If a statistician saw results like that, they'd conclude the same thing: external factor affecting the distribution.


Apples and oranges. The grades are completely different. The difference between 9.6 to 9.8 is not at all comparable to 9.8 to 9.9.


So you say. But grading is a spectrum, not a step ladder. There is not a clear delineation between grades, nor should there be. There is substantial overlap, because grading is subjective.

You don't explain HOW they are different, you just say they are "completely different."

What are you talking about? AVERAGE grades? Because the difference between a really nice 9.6 and a subpar 9.8 is INVERSE. That is, that 9.6 is a BETTER BOOK than that 9.8.

And the difference between a really nice 9.8 and a subpar 9.9 is the same. That is, that really nice 9.8 is a BETTER BOOK than that subpar 9.9.

And that's because grading is a spectrum, a judgment call, subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"
The higher on the scale you get, the closer to perfection you get. Perfection is hard to achieve.


Obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR
Again, I can't speak for CGC, but we don't have a buzzer in the grading room that goes off every 500 books (or whatever number) that alerts us that it's time to give a book a 9.9. That's a ridiculous thing for me to suggest, but I'm trying to make a point.


No one has ever suggested anything of the sort. You're arguing against a position that no one is taking, nor has ever taken. Of course it's a completely ridiculous thing for anyone to suggest, and anyone doing so has no concept of how comics are graded.

The argument is about analyzing statistics, not determining them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"
As someone mentioned above, the ratio on certain books/publishers is a lot higher than on others due to the fact that the materials they print on, and the methods in which they produce their books, is a LOT more likely to result in a 9.9 or 10 grade. Linticular covers for example. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd bet close to 50% of the copies submitted gets a 9.9 or 10 grade. That's due to the perfection they achieve in manufacturing. There's no quota on the grades.


Of course. No one suggested otherwise. This isn't in contention, although EVERY book has its own special weaknesses. Lenticular covers may be made of high quality plastic, but they are VERY susceptible to scratching (which includes "chromium" covers, which are another form of plastic.) It may be had to stress the corners to the point where they will have bindery tears, but that doesn't mean they can't easily be scratched and knocked right out of that 9.9 or 10.

I've got lots and lots of chromium covers that are flawless in terms of corners, but those scuffs...

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"
99.9998% of books that get a 9.8, don't get a 9.9 because of a very tiny tear on the top/bottom of the spine.


Here's where we get to the very heart of the debate: what does "very tiny" mean...?

1/8"? 1/64"? 1/128"? "Very tiny" is a qualitative term that means different things to different people. Measurements are quantitative terms, which mean the same thing to everyone.

I can argue with your interpretation of "very tiny" all day long, and you can mine. NEITHER of us can argue that that very tiny tear is 1/16" long, if that's what it is.

Did you read everything I wrote in this discussion, or did you just skim it, like most everyone else does...? Because I addressed that very thing...the condition of the very top and bottom of the spine...in an earlier post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"


That is the result of the production of the comic. It's there on almost every comic printed. In the rare case that a comic gets produced without those tears, it has to be handled, and stored in a condition that doesn't give it the slightest defect. So that cuts that number of potential 9.9's down from that pool of perfectly produced comics by another significant margin.


Of course. Not in contention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"
Can a book get a 9.9 with a tiny tear on the spine? Yes. But it has to be incredibly tiny, and the rest of the book would need to be perfect. A 9.9 isn't perfect, but it's close.


Again, you're using qualitative, rather than quantitative, terms.

What does "incredibly tiny" mean...?

Your use of qualitative terms handily demonstrates that grading is up to interpretation, as it should be.

But if it IS up to interpretation, then you MUST concede that there are at least SOME percentage of books...and it's not ".0002%", which is a meaningless number outside of millions of examples...that are interpreted as a 9.8, which would also be perfectly acceptable interpreted as a 9.9.

Otherwise...your entire argument collapses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"
A 9.9 or 10 is rare. There is a standard for it, but the planets almost have to align perfectly to have a possibility of it happening. There isn't a quota for limiting them, any more than there would be a quota of an "acceptable number" of them in your, or anyone else's mind. It either is, or is not. If there were a quota there would be same percentage of Amazing Spider-Man #129's in 9.9 as there are Do You Pooh #1. Like I said, apples and oranges.


Of course. None of this is in contention.

Back before CGC went nutso, I got six 10s out of a submission pool of about 300 books. This would have been before 2011. Was I special? Were the planets aligned? No. I simply identified books that were perfect, and submitted them. Since then, I have received ZERO 10s and TWO 9.9s.

Did my ability to identify perfect books disappear? Was I submitting from a different pool of books? Did my eyesight fail?

No.

Where you're still missing the point is that, statistically, there shouldn't be such a vast dropoff in the number of 9.9s vs. 9.8s, compared to the relative number of 9.8s to 9.6s (or any other grade), because grading is a spectrum.

That does not have anything to do with "quotas", nor is anyone making any sort of argument along those lines. I'm sorry that you're misunderstanding this so badly, and I'm sorry that I'm not smart enough to explain it better, but analyzing statistics has nothing to do whatsoever with a PROACTIVE determination of what SHOULD BE...it only looks at what IS and what HAS BEEN, and tries to figure out why. Statistics is about analyzing what already exists, not determining what will or might or should exist in the future.

Totally different concepts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SR"
That said, I'm done with the topic for now. I hope I explained it a little better this time.


Thanks for the discussion!
Post 51 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder


Meh he's throwing out all sorts of information that is questionable in the hopes of talking himself into a win. Pepper in a few veiled insults and you have his typical.


This is not the way to have a debate. You have just done, in the same breath, what you accuse me of doing: "pepper in a few veiled insults and you have his typical."

If you can't have a debate without making personal comments about the opposing side..."...you have his typical"...you don't belong having any debate at all.

You are doing the exact thing here that you accuse me of doing: "I'm right and you are wrong so shut the hell up argument."

Physician, heal thyself.
Post 52 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I'm simply saying that the answer is NOT 9.6:9.8 = 1:2, while 9.8:9.9 = 100:1,


Do you have any actual data to back this up?


Yes. Statistical analysis.

Start here:

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

Then go to the Overstreet Grading Guide, the only set of standards that is public, and compare the actual physical differences between 9.6s, 9.8s, and 9.9s, and remember that those are AVERAGE copies, chosen specifically for their AVERAGE condition in those grades.

Then, at some future date, you can come to a panel where I set up and display several dozen examples that illustrate the point I'm making. I can do that NOW, but you're not here, so it makes it a bit difficult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "SB"


IE how would you know if there is/isnt a particular defect on 99% of books that hold them to 9.8? That is not an impossibility, as neither CBCS nor CGC give us their exact grading training/data.


Because I can show you multiple examples of inverse situations...9.9s that are objectively worse...or "have that particular defect"...and 9.8s that are objectively better...or "don't have that particular defect" (whatever defect that may be; I assume it's non-specific for the sake of the argument.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by "sb"
The fact that lenticulars and Grimm books get a much higher percentage, tells us that there is in fact a defect more common on standard print stock paper.


Of course there is. No one's contending that there isn't.

The issue is the fact that grading is a matter of interpretation, not "specs." In fact, it is the very presence of those ultra high quality books that gives the census as many examples of 9.9s and 10s as there are...otherwise, the census would look even worse with respect to 9.8s vs. 9.9s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "sb"

It is entirely plausible that 9.8:9.9 is 100:1.


Sure...if 9.6:9.8 was 50:1. Or 20:1. Not 1:2, as it stands now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "sb"
We are talking near perfection here, not the difference in a 9.6 vs 9.8, which statistically has no bearing for comparison.


You just argued that the statistics for 9.8:9.9 DO have a bearing, but then, in the very next sentence, you're arguing that 9.6:9.8...the next level down...does not...?

Come on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "sb"
The only true comparison youll get is if cbcs releases a census so that you can compare the same data across two companies.


That's not true at all. Censuses are skewed for all sorts of reasons, many of which have been touched on in this thread. And if there's active (even if UNCONSCIOUS) suppression of the very highest grades going on, comparing the two censuses IS NOT going to reflect that.

Remember: since grading is up to interpretation, there is a percentage...and it's NOT ".0002%", nor is it even 1%, as the CGC census suggests...of books that are interpreted as 9.8s that could reasonably be interpreted as 9.9s.
Post 53 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:
Originally Posted by "sb"
We are talking near perfection here, not the difference in a 9.6 vs 9.8, which statistically has no bearing for comparison.


You just argued that the statistics for 9.8:9.9 DO have a bearing, but then, in the very next sentence, you're arguing that 9.6:9.8...the next level down...does not...?

Come on.


Absolutely. SR said it as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
The difference between 9.6 to 9.8 is not at all comparable to 9.8 to 9.9


Doc, Your comparison of 9.6:9.8 has zero bearing on the ratio of 9.8:9.9.

Or perhaps you misunderstood me. We are no strangers to that.
Post 54 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
While Doc discounts that experience of the grader plays a factor here the numbers would refute that.


I have never said anything like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ob
Heck in the end I don't know what he is really wanting to say because he contradicts himself a lot.


I would ask for examples of those contradictions, but as is the case with people who make discussions personal, the sun will have passed its red giant stage before any examples will be forthcoming.

That's because, where "oxbladder" is concerned, the goal isn't honest and open debate, but "scoring points" and "winning."

And that does no one any good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ob
He says there is criteria and tolerances


You have now repeated this twice. I have corrected you once. I would appreciate if you would not claim I said things that I have not.

One more time: there isn't "criteria" and there are no "standards." The one who mentioned "tolerances" was YOU.

There are broad, general GUIDELINES, but the ultimate decision is a matter of INTERPRETATION, because that's how grading works.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ob
then he says its all subjective implying that graders are not trying to follow a set of criteria that book needs to meet in order to be assigned a certain grade.


They are following general guidelines. Those guidelines ensure that one grader doesn't grade a book a 6.5, while another grades it 9.2. Ultimately, however, the decision is one of interpretation.

I realize that the distinction is subtle enough to seem non-existent to some, but it is that very distinction that is critical when dealing with the ultra high grades.

It is a matter of interpretation. Always has been, and always will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ob
It's quite frustrating because he wraps it all in a pretty grammatically sound little bundle that along with the experience he has in the hobby makes it seem like the truth when it is really just another opinion that one can either choose to agree with or not.


Again: if you can't debate the points, without debating the person, you have no business debating at all.
Post 55 IP   flag post
184642 73 30
destitute