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

Skybourne #1 3of2 Shenanigans or betrayal?5694

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


COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
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.


Try the scientific method. Of which you do not have enough data for. You have the CGC census. One needs more study to determine ratio accuracy.

Ex: Say the CBCS census was released, and it showed a 50:1 ratio. Could you then argue that CGC is suppressing 9.9s given the 100:1? Perhaps. One could then argue against that the companies have different standards, however, one could at least have some sort of statistic at their back.

As it is now, we have one set of data, at 100:1; not enough to draw much conclusion off of.

Now, if as you say you could put together a panel comparng high 9.8s with low 9.9s in an inverse condition, I still wouldnt conclude suppression; I would conclude shitty inconsistent graders lol.
Post 56 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
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.


Are you aware that a 9.8 is a "near perfection" grade...? And are you also aware that 9.6s have been awarded to a lot of "near perfect" books, too...? And that the ratio of 9.6 to 9.8 has a statistical bearing on the ratio of 9.8 to 9.9...?

Do you really imagine that there is some sort of hard line between 9.9 and "everything else below it"...?

If so, then you're still not understanding that grading is a spectrum, based on interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
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.


Or perhaps you misunderstood me.

I'll try again: grading is a spectrum, not a step ladder. There is significant overlap between grades, which is perfectly fine, and as it should be, because grading is subjective. It is open to interpretation.

Therefore...the ratio of 9.6s to 9.8s RELATIVE to the ratio of 9.8s to 9.9s has absolute bearing on this entire discussion, because grading is a spectrum...a distribution along a curved line...not a step ladder.

Are you familiar with how bell curves work...?
Post 57 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
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.


Try the scientific method.


That's what I've been trying to get you to do this entire discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
Of which you do not have enough data for.


Incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
You have the CGC census. One needs more study to determine ratio accuracy.


I have the CGC census, I have the statistics related to that census, I have an understanding of how bell curves work (as should you and everyone else interested in this discussion), I have an understanding of the physical conditions of a typical comic book in 9.6, 9.8, 9.9, and 10 (as should you and everyone else interested in this discussion), I have a hell of a lot of personal experience, having submitted well over 5,000 books...75% or more of which have graded 9.8...to CGC, and several hundred to CBCS, and I can show you many dozen examples of books that are INVERSELY related...that is, the lower assigned grade is BETTER than another with a higher assigned grade.

What more do you want, short of an admission from grading companies which is never going to come...?

What do you think scientists do...? They gather evidence. They determine whether that evidence proves, disproves, or is inconclusive. There is rarely a "smoking gun" in these sorts of situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
Ex: Say the CBCS census was released, and it showed a 50:1 ratio.


A 50:1 ratio of WHAT? 9.8:9.9? 9.6:9.8?

Be precise. If you're going to challenge someone, rather than have a casual conversation, you owe it to your opponent and everyone reading to be as precise with your language as you can possibly be.

And precision is the heart of this debate.

I assume you mean the ratio of 9.8 to 9.9. And if it was 50:1, while the 9.6 to 9.8 ratio is still 1:2...a WILDLY out of proportion relationship...then I'd still say that yes, on some level, to some degree, the 9.9 and 10 is being suppressed.

You're dealing with measurements in the 32nds and 64ths and 128ths of inches. Of COURSE there is going to be interpretation involved in how those defects affect the grade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb


Could you then argue that CGC is suppressing 9.9s given the 100:1? Perhaps. One could then argue against that the companies have different standards, however, one could at least have some sort of statistic at their back.


Of course there are factors involved which influence grading. I went through a laundry list of them earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
As it is now, we have one set of data, at 100:1; not enough to draw much conclusion off of.


True. In and of itself, that number has little meaning.

However, when you consider the rest of the evidence, as mentioned above, that number does start to say quite a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
Now, if as you say you could put together a panel comparng high 9.8s with low 9.9s in an inverse condition, I still wouldnt conclude suppression; I would conclude shitty inconsistent graders lol.


Yes, I would too...IF the PROPORTION of 9.8s to 9.9s was not so wildly out from the proportion of 9.6s to 9.8s, the next level down.

You have TWO TIMES the number of 9.8s that you do 9.6s...but you have ONE HUNDRED times the number of 9.8s that you do 9.9s. In a normal bell curve distribution...considering the REST OF THE CURVE, which you MUST do...that's the kind of result which would shock the scientists looking at the results.

And considering how close ALL THREE GRADES are to each other in an absolute physical sense...those numbers don't add up and say something else.

And it's not "inconsistent grading."
Post 58 IP   flag post
Moderator Jesse_O private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I have the CGC census, I have the statistics related to that census,


I would be very interested in reviewing those statistics. Do you have a link?
Post 59 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Yes, I would too...IF the PROPORTION 9.8s to 9.9s was not so wildly out from the proportion of 9.6s to 9.8s, the next level down.


Therein lies your problem, believing the environmental variables to be the same between grades. On 9.6 books we are talking handling defects. On 9.9 books we are NOT talking handling defects; we are talking production. Complete different sets of data and variables, they are not statistically related to each other, at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I can show you many dozen examples of books that are INVERSELY related...that is, the lower assigned grade is BETTER than another with a higher assigned grade


Inconsistent grading, human error

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I have an understanding of how bell curves work (as should you and everyone else interested in this discussion),


I dont doubt you know how they work; however, am beginning to doubt you know where they actually are applicable.
Post 60 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
I don't think the grading scale is an actual bell curve. It's whatever was sent in to be graded.
If nobody ever sent in a book worthy of getting 9.9 or 10, would that mean they don't exist? No, it just means nobody ever sent one in.

Just like when (#soon) the CBCS census gets published and there is some book that is hard to find a newsstand copy. We might have 4 newsstand copies on the census, but no direct editions. Does that mean there are no direct editions? No. It means nobody ever submitted one.

One last thing, in regards to books that fall between grades. Yes, that happens, and yes, that's a judgement call. Absolutely. It ultimately falls on the finalizer to make the final decision after reviewing the notes and grades from the other graders.

Ok. Now I'm done with the conversation. Glad I could contribute.
Post 61 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Back on topic, Got a bit more info.

2500 of these were sent to CGC. Somebody was supposed to destroy 2498 of them. Obviously they did not.

BOOM studios has told CGC not to grade the book (CGC has obliged), and B claims that nobody else will grade it because of their “influence”. I laughed at that, thinking no way Steve gets intimidated over this when it hits the grading room. We shall see.

This violates CGC’s standard contract in that a third-party has had influence over this book being graded and encapsulated. CGC has sent the book back unencapsulated, refunded the fees, and refunded membership fees.

Banhammers also handed out on the CGC facebook group over postng the same images that I posted here.

Assuming the book does not get “lost in the mail” back from CGC, it’s going straight to CBCS for VSP and grade.

People are getting mighty upset over this Ghost book lol
Post 62 IP   flag post
Moderator Jesse_O private msg quote post Address this user
I just want to point out one thing here concerning the "print run" and count on this and ANY other comic. There are ALWAYS a few more issues of a comic than the stated print run. There are copies made BEFORE the run that are sent out to various people for their approval. Whether it be advertisers, executives, proofreaders, artists, etc. I have not found anyone who knows EXACTLY who gets these copies, just that these copies DO exist. On occasion, these copies hit the open market. The Comic Mint had this happen a while ago. An extra copy or two DOES NOT mean that CGC or CBCS did NOT destroy the additional copies! Thy cannot destroy that which they never had. So, to assume that CGC didn't destroy all there copies is not an accurate assumption. It is quite possible that someone got a hold of a "proof copy" (for lack of a better term) and sold it to a shop. Just some relevant information about print runs. And before anyone asks, the number of "proof copies" out there per book is unknown. I would GUESS it'd be less than a couple dozen max and probably closer to 10-12.
Post 63 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
2500 of these were sent to CGC. Somebody was supposed to destroy 2498 of them. Obviously they did not.


Not necessarily true. When we did a similar promotion for a customer, and there were copies leaked onto eBay that did not come from us or the comic shop the variant originated. It likely did not get out of the CGC office.
Post 64 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Jesse beat me to it.
Post 65 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse_O
I just want to point out one thing here concerning the "print run" and count on this and ANY other comic. There are ALWAYS a few more issues of a comic than the stated print run. There are copies made BEFORE the run that are sent out to various people for their approval. Whether it be advertisers, executives, proofreaders, artists, etc. I have not found anyone who knows EXACTLY who gets these copies, just that these copies DO exist. On occasion, these copies hit the open market. The Comic Mint had this happen a while ago. An extra copy or two DOES NOT mean that CGC or CBCS did NOT destroy the additional copies! Thy cannot destroy that which they never had. So, to assume that CGC didn't destroy all there copies is not an accurate assumption. It is quite possible that someone got a hold of a "proof copy" (for lack of a better term) and sold it to a shop. Just some relevant information about print runs. And before anyone asks, the number of "proof copies" out there per book is unknown. I would GUESS it'd be less than a couple dozen max and probably closer to 10-12.


this is a very good point
Post 66 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse_O
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I have the CGC census, I have the statistics related to that census,


I would be very interested in reviewing those statistics. Do you have a link?


Already linked above, post #53.

Here it is again:

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/totals/
Post 67 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
I don't think the grading scale is an actual bell curve. It's whatever was sent in to be graded.
If nobody ever sent in a book worthy of getting 9.9 or 10, would that mean they don't exist? No, it just means nobody ever sent one in.


All distributions are bell curves.

Let me correct that: all distributions like a census are bell curves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SR

Just like when (#soon) the CBCS census gets published and there is some book that is hard to find a newsstand copy. We might have 4 newsstand copies on the census, but no direct editions. Does that mean there are no direct editions? No. It means nobody ever submitted one.


It's still a bell curve. It's just a bell curve with very few data points.
Post 68 IP   flag post
Collector BrianGreensnips private msg quote post Address this user
@shrewbeer I sent you a pm.
Post 69 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Yes, I would too...IF the PROPORTION 9.8s to 9.9s was not so wildly out from the proportion of 9.6s to 9.8s, the next level down.


Therein lies your problem, believing the environmental variables to be the same between grades.


Uh, no. A flaw is a flaw is a flaw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
On 9.6 books we are talking handling defects. On 9.9 books we are NOT talking handling defects; we are talking production. Complete different sets of data and variables, they are not statistically related to each other, at all.


According to whom...?

You think a book can't get a flaw from handling, and still grade 9.9? You think a book can't grade 9.6 solely because of a production flaw?

If so, you are mistaken.

And even IF your supposition was true, that's not how distributions work. Every data point in a distribution on a scale is related to every other data point. It is what makes up the data set. They aren't "completely different sets of data", because the flaw's affect on the grade IS NOT dependent on its origin.

It's ok, SB...you don't always have to be in disagreement with everything I say.

What is your experience with these types of books? How many books have you submitted for grading, and what percentage were 9.8s?

A flaw is a flaw is a flaw, whether it is a flaw caused by the cutting blades, or the stitcher, or the shipping box, or the customer pawing through the books on the rack.

Why?

Because you don't know where that flaw came from, and neither does the grader. All that matters is that it is a flaw that must be taken into account when assessing the grade of the book.

Whether a flaw is caused by PRODUCTION or by HANDLING, it's still a flaw, subject to interpretation as to just how much it affects the grade.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND: I am NOT talking about flaws that are STRICTLY production related, and can ONLY (generally) be caused by production...like printer's creases, or miswraps. I'm talking about flaws which can be caused anywhere along the line from production to the grading room, like bindery tears, and which don't identify themselves as being production flaws.

Where a flaw comes from almost always has absolutely no bearing on how it affects the grade of a book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I can show you many dozen examples of books that are INVERSELY related...that is, the lower assigned grade is BETTER than another with a higher assigned grade


Inconsistent grading, human error


Yeah. And...? You DO KNOW that that's the foundation of my argument, right...? INTERPRETATION! Ta da!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
I have an understanding of how bell curves work (as should you and everyone else interested in this discussion),


I dont doubt you know how they work; however, am beginning to doubt you know where they actually are applicable.


Same back atcha! Now, we can either take personal shots, or we can keep the discussion above board.
Post 70 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR CFP_Comics private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
I don't think the grading scale is an actual bell curve. It's whatever was sent in to be graded.
If nobody ever sent in a book worthy of getting 9.9 or 10, would that mean they don't exist? No, it just means nobody ever sent one in.

Just like when (#soon) the CBCS census gets published and there is some book that is hard to find a newsstand copy. We might have 4 newsstand copies on the census, but no direct editions. Does that mean there are no direct editions? No. It means nobody ever submitted one.

One last thing, in regards to books that fall between grades. Yes, that happens, and yes, that's a judgement call. Absolutely. It ultimately falls on the finalizer to make the final decision after reviewing the notes and grades from the other graders.

Ok. Now I'm done with the conversation. Glad I could contribute.


I have heard that a roommate, knocking over a stack of books left lying on a bed, can almost guarantee that none of the books will grade a 9.9. That and artists and creators manhandling books, so much so that it can leave the submitter in tears.
Post 71 IP   flag post
Collector DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user
It always ends in tears.
Post 72 IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFP_Comics
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
I don't think the grading scale is an actual bell curve. It's whatever was sent in to be graded.
If nobody ever sent in a book worthy of getting 9.9 or 10, would that mean they don't exist? No, it just means nobody ever sent one in.

Just like when (#soon) the CBCS census gets published and there is some book that is hard to find a newsstand copy. We might have 4 newsstand copies on the census, but no direct editions. Does that mean there are no direct editions? No. It means nobody ever submitted one.

One last thing, in regards to books that fall between grades. Yes, that happens, and yes, that's a judgement call. Absolutely. It ultimately falls on the finalizer to make the final decision after reviewing the notes and grades from the other graders.

Ok. Now I'm done with the conversation. Glad I could contribute.


I have heard that a roommate, knocking over a stack of books left lying on a bed, can almost guarantee that none of the books will grade a 9.9. That and artists and creators manhandling books, so much so that it can leave the submitter in tears.


lol

In case anyone's wondering, "CFP" here is referring to me.

Let's get the facts straight, though: the books weren't "left lying on a bed." They weren't "left" anywhere. And they weren't knocked over. They were ALMOST knocked over.

And no, I've never cried because someone manhandled books.

The real question is...why are you trolling me?




That said, if you have any issue with me that you'd like to actually resolve, rather than snipe at me from a distance like children do, you know how to contact me. As ever, I'm willing to listen.
Post 73 IP   flag post
201801 73 23
destitute