When (and why) did CGC stop using grade names?

Shakespeare · Post by **Shakespeare** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:41:16 pm

On their new cases, you can't find a NM or a NM- or a NM/MT anywhere. It's only 9.4, or 9.2, or 9.8. Anybody know why?

S

mrwoogieman · Post by **mrwoogieman** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:11:24 pm

When they converted to the newer labels with the bigger numbers, a decision was made to eliminate the grading jargon on the label in favor of the numerical equivalents alone because a) dealers reported anecdotal evidence that people were hesitant to buy books that were 'something minus' on the theory that labeling the book as a minus of any grade was unattractive; and b) in a nod to the speculators of the world, CGC decided it was too confusing for those unfamiliar with comic grading to get a handle on the vernacular and opted to only put the number grade so that non-collectors could assess their prospective purchases strictly by the label without having to concern themselves with the actual condition of the book.

I'm not making this up.

TLC55555 · Post by **TLC55555** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:19:37 am

mrwoogieman wrote:When they converted to the newer labels with the bigger numbers, a decision was made to eliminate the grading jargon on the label in favor of the numerical equivalents alone because a) dealers reported anecdotal evidence that people were hesitant to buy books that were 'something minus' on the theory that labeling the book as a minus of any grade was unattractive; and b) in a nod to the speculators of the world, CGC decided it was too confusing for those unfamiliar with comic grading to get a handle on the vernacular and opted to only put the number grade so that non-collectors could assess their prospective purchases strictly by the label without having to concern themselves with the actual condition of the book.

I'm not making this up.

I had heard that the request for bigger numbers was coming from 1) Dealers that kept books on their back wall displays at shows. Customers couldn't see the grades from the distance 2) Internet sellers that scanned books. The smaller grades were also harder to see.

Philflound · Post by **Philflound** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:35:21 am

Yes, dealers were complaining that the customers were not able to see the number grade from the aisles at shows. So CGC made the number large. You know, I got back books a few weeks ago and didn't even notice the removal of the grade name. That's how much I pay attention.

Phil

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:33:59 pm

mrwoogieman wrote:When they converted to the newer labels with the bigger numbers, a decision was made to eliminate the grading jargon on the label in favor of the numerical equivalents alone because a) dealers reported anecdotal evidence that people were hesitant to buy books that were 'something minus' on the theory that labeling the book as a minus of any grade was unattractive; and b) in a nod to the speculators of the world, CGC decided it was too confusing for those unfamiliar with comic grading to get a handle on the vernacular and opted to only put the number grade so that non-collectors could assess their prospective purchases strictly by the label without having to concern themselves with the actual condition of the book.

I'm not making this up.

That's hilarious. Gotta hand it to silly humans. "Oh, this says NM MINUS, so it therefore must NOT be as good as VF PLUS!'

Philflound · Post by **Philflound** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:47:50 am

Zeph, are you from Mars? I like the phrase "silly humans"

Phil

depluto · Post by **depluto** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:20:59 pm

I always tried to tell my Mom that a C-plus was as good as a B-minus!

Shakespeare · Post by **Shakespeare** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:40:31 pm

I think in Overstreet terminology, that's a C/B, much like F/VF.

S

whetteon · Post by **whetteon** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:53:35 pm

Sticking with the grades analogy, I like people who list the condition of the comics as VG/NM. I guess that would be like telling your parents you have recieved a grade for the course somewhere between 40% and 95% but don't try to get me any more specific that that because I'm not a professional teacher.

depluto · Post by **depluto** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:11:06 pm

whetteon wrote:Sticking with the grades analogy, I like people who list the condition of the comics as VG/NM. I guess that would be like telling your parents you have recieved a grade for the course somewhere between 40% and 95% but don't try to get me any more specific that that because I'm not a professional teacher.

I did take one "jock" class where the curve was 90-100=A, 70-90=B, 30-70=C, 10-30=D, less than 10=F.

And there were only three tests. I took the first one, aced it, figured I had a C wrapped up so I quit going. Ah, the life of a football player!

Philflound · Post by **Philflound** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:06:55 pm

I guess that's part of the no one gets left behind plan. I still don't understand that. Though 90% of the crap you learn in school is useless. I remember when I graduated from NJIT back in 1993 with a computer engineering degree. I had done co-op with IBM in 1991 programming. So I get my degree and apply for about 100 jobs in 2 months. Either they didn't respond, told me I didn't have enough experience, or said they wanted someone who could do networking. Fargin' NJIT didn't teach networking. So what we learned was pretty much useless.

That Sept was when I opened my own comic store. I lasted longer with that store than any other job I've had since.

Phil

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:42:03 pm

Resurrecting, it really irks me that CGC has completely done away with the nomenclature. I have to physically THINK about what a 1.8 is, or a 4.5, or a 7.5, after having letter grades forever burned into my brain.

whetteon · Post by **whetteon** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:24:39 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:Resurrecting, it really irks me that CGC has completely done away with the nomenclature. I have to physically THINK about what a 1.8 is, or a 4.5, or a 7.5, after having letter grades forever burned into my brain.

I'm just the oposite. I look at NM and think 9.4 and a VF/NM as 9.0 ect.. What annoyes me is when something is a "+". I have to mentally remeber to add another .5 to the grade.

lobo · Post by **lobo** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:25:21 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:Resurrecting, it really irks me that CGC has completely done away with the nomenclature. I have to physically THINK about what a 1.8 is, or a 4.5, or a 7.5, after having letter grades forever burned into my brain.

Yea me too. CGC can keep the big bold number grade but I wish they put the classic abbreviation of the grade somewhere on the label.

Peter Parker · Post by **Peter Parker** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:53:25 pm

Just to be technically accurate here fellas'...

its the Alpha Numeric grading system they did away with

BTW...I'm Baaaaaaaaaack..miss me

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:54:35 pm

Peter Parker wrote:Just to be technically accurate here fellas'...

its the Alpha Numeric grading system they did away with

BTW...I'm Baaaaaaaaaack..miss me

You have bee MIA for a long time. What have you been up to?

Peter Parker · Post by **Peter Parker** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:03:58 pm

Hey XO...

Thanks for at least asking :littlesmile:

I was inudated with tons of litigation..many, many moons spent in state facilities, and dealings with surly people

Add a vacation or two along the way, a new hone, and new human in my life, and it all takes up time. Also, i'm not truly a "valiant" loyalist like most nice folk in here...and started to feel unwelcomed, so I just went back to posting when I could on the CGC boards.

Nothing personal of course, you were always one of the "good guys" in here

Hope all is well with you

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:53:15 pm

Peter Parker wrote:Hey XO...

Thanks for at least asking :littlesmile:

I was inudated with tons of litigation..many, many moons spent in state facilities, and dealings with surly people

Add a vacation or two along the way, a new hone, and new human in my life, and it all takes up time. Also, i'm not truly a "valiant" loyalist like most nice folk in here...and started to feel unwelcomed, so I just went back to posting when I could on the CGC boards.

Nothing personal of course, you were always one of the "good guys" in here

Hope all is well with you

Did you happen to see some of the Vlaint CGC books that have sold recently? Like the Harbinger #1 CGC 9.8 and the CEAR CGC 9.8?

There has been some crazy prices.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:36:57 am

Peter Parker wrote:Just to be technically accurate here fellas'...

its the Alpha Numeric grading system they did away with

BTW...I'm Baaaaaaaaaack..miss me

You're about 4 months too late, ya bastich.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:39:06 am

Peter Parker wrote:Hey XO...

Thanks for at least asking :littlesmile:

I was inudated with tons of litigation..many, many moons spent in state facilities, and dealings with surly people

Add a vacation or two along the way, a new hone, and new human in my life, and it all takes up time. Also, i'm not truly a "valiant" loyalist like most nice folk in here...and started to feel unwelcomed, so I just went back to posting when I could on the CGC boards.

Nothing personal of course, you were always one of the "good guys" in here

Hope all is well with you

You were never unwelcomed on my part. You were the only one willing to go toe to toe with me AND keep it above the belt.

Coulda used you about 4 months ago, but things have changed. We'll see.