Which rare book do you own or know of, that is drastically being short-changed in terms of its CGC point value?
In this segment of Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets, I will be discussing reasons in which the CGC should consider reassigning point values for certain rare/ low-print run books, and the possibility of designing a point value system for recognizing pedigree books.
Before I begin, I just want to thank all of you who contributed to my previous journal, which addressed "Page Quality Points!" Some of you came up with some interesting solutions and ideas, and I was very pleased with all of your feedback!
With that said, the topic of reassigning point values for low-print run books and whether or not pedigree books should be allotted bonus points came up quite often. So let's get the ball rolling on this topic and see where it takes us!
First of all, I have to give the CGC credit for explaining how they generate a point value for each book based on their current method. I am not sure if all of you read this information, but if you drag your mouse over "My Collection" and scroll down to "Registry and Ranking Info," they delineate the various methods they used to generate a point value system from when the Registry was first created up until now.
Basically, early attempts towards deriving a book's score were based on price value & individual grades. However, both of these methods proved to be impractical towards the CGC's goal of creating a "competitive but fun vehicle for both serious and beginning collectors to gain recognition for their sets."
Due to the constant and unpredictable fluctuations with market value prices, and the fact that grades alone could not account for a book's 'rarity,' their solution was to create a scoring algorithm to venture beyond these limitations. To quote the CGC specifically, "The goal of the scoring algorithm used by the Comics Registry is to represent accurately each comic book's scarcity, desirability, and value, while ensuring a fun and competitive collecting environment."
If you continue to read the CGC's explanation as to how they calculate a book's final score, you will learn that they begin with a 'raw' score that equates to the market value of a Near Mint copy of that book (which we will never know of), which is then multiplied by a figure of "standard weights," - which is definitely ambiguous. In contrast, the CGC states that "The algorithm attempts to weigh the relative value, scarcity, and desirability for each grade and category, and varies based on the comic age and other variables."
I think that based on this information, the CGC has come a long way since its inception. However, I believe it is now time for the CGC to update their algorithm and to analyze the market more thoroughly, in order to generate a point system that more accurately reflects specific books.
For instance, I will use my copy of Wolverine #145 Dynamic Forces Edition CGC SS 9.8 with White Pages (see image below). This is one of the rarest books of the entire Wolverine (1988) series! There were only a total of 3,000 copies printed and most of them were signed for promotional purposes, without a CGC affiliate being present to witness the signing, so at best most of the books would be graded as a Qualified (green label) example. To provide more insight, a raw near mint copy of this 1999 published Marvel book will sell for $222.00 on Mile High Comic's online store! That is pretty expensive for a book nearly published in 2000!
Now if any of you are familiar with the rare issue of Wolverine #145 Nabisco Variant Cover, which one had to mail a specific amount of UPC's in order to attain a copy of this book, the CGC has allotted a whopping 352 registry points for a CGC SS 9.8 example - which I also currently own! Aside from issue #1, this book has the second highest amount of registry points in the Wolverine (1988) set type!
On that note, the #145 Dynamic Forces Holofoil book that I have scanned below had a similar print run compared to the Nabisco Variant Cover. However, guess how many registry points I received for this book at the same grade, which is a CGC SS 9.8 (highest graded)? Are you ready ... "39" points! Now, does that make any logical sense? Basically, the #145 DFE CGC SS 9.8 would receive as many points as the regular issue #144 signed as a CGC 9.8! This is ridiculous! I paid $400.00 to attain this beauty, and although I don't purchase my books solely to gain registry points, it just seems downright degrading! I feel like the book doesn't get the proper "respect" that it deserves.
This is a clear indication that the CGC needs to consider the variables they include in their current algorithm, so that books like these and others (many of which you probably own) can be appropriately recognized! I would at least ascribe 200 registry points for a Wolverine #145 DFE CGC 9.8 SS with White Pages.
However, the CGC has a rebuttal on this as well, "Comic scores do not equate to market dollars. A more valuable book will in most cases receive more Registry points, but its score is not directly correlated to its value. The algorithm is also designed to enhance and encourage competition in the Registry by reducing extremes in value differences between grades and categories. For this reason a very valuable book may receive fewer points than might be expected, or a relatively common book will receive more points than might otherwise be expected."
I think a recurring theme you hear from the CGC is that they want the collecting experience to be "fun" for the novice or inexperienced collectors. However, those newbie collectors will soon mature into more serious collectors, who will also still know how to have fun, but will now know the actual "value" of specific books and would like that worth to simply be reflected by its corresponding point system!
Nevertheless, the CGC appears to be open-minded with their closing statement on the issue, "Research is continuing into more advanced methods to provide a ranking system that recognizes the intelligence of the market, while offering a better reflection of relative rarity in higher grades and adjusting for market distortions. The goal of the system is to continually increase the breadth and depth of available sets, taking into consideration valuations and opinions in order to fairly and objectively apply Registry point values."
Now the question is, "when" will the new changes take effect? If it is comparable to your standard comic submission, we might be waiting for a very long time! :-)
Thank you for reading! I am looking forward to reading all of your feedback!
I will have to write about "Pedigree Books" in a separate journal, which will serve as Part 3 to the "Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets."
#5773799 - 06/15/1208:53 PMRe: Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets: Point Reassignments for Rare & Low-Print Books
[Re: Professor Pecora]
bagofleasbagofleas
Collector is an understatement.
Registered: 01/09/09
Posts: 146
Loc: Florida
As I have stated in another member's entry, I am ALL FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THE POINT GRADING SYSTEM.
I believe a thorough going through of the current registry point evaluation system is definitely in need of addressing by CGC. Doing so would ensure that future comics that are printed and graded would receive proper due on their point values.
But then, once those new standards are implemented, CGC would then be obligated to going back through the ENTIRE registry to re-determine point values on EVERYTHING!!!
On the surface, due to the length of time that CGC has been grading comics and the sheer volume of issues that would have to be gone through, this would seem impossible. So why not include us members and collectors in the endeavor?
Here's my suggestion to CGC:
1) UPDATE YOUR REGISTRY POINT EVALUATION SYSTEM.
2) CREATE A FORUM THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ON CERTAIN COMIC'S CURRENT POINT VALUES AND GIVE THEIR REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
3) TAKE THESE ONE BY ONE, VERIFY THE FACTS STATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION, AND THEN PUBLISH YOUR FINAL DECISION ON THAT ISSUE AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
By doing this, CGC would at least show a willingness to address this issue and pursue progress on the matter, though they would probably have to staff a team of people to focus on THIS one purpose. Hey, more jobs in this economy can't be all bad, huh?
#5773817 - 06/15/1209:00 PMRe: Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets: Point Reassignments for Rare & Low-Print Books
[Re: bagofleas]
comicdonnacomicdonna This is what my dog thinks of your post.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 01/07/05
Posts: 23074
Loc: Near Albany NY
Originally Posted By: bagofleas
As I have stated in another member's entry, I am ALL FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THE POINT GRADING SYSTEM.
I believe a thorough going through of the current registry point evaluation system is definitely in need of addressing by CGC. Doing so would ensure that future comics that are printed and graded would receive proper due on their point values.
But then, once those new standards are implemented, CGC would then be obligated to going back through the ENTIRE registry to re-determine point values on EVERYTHING!!!
On the surface, due to the length of time that CGC has been grading comics and the sheer volume of issues that would have to be gone through, this would seem impossible. So why not include us members and collectors in the endeavor?
Here's my suggestion to CGC:
1) UPDATE YOUR REGISTRY POINT EVALUATION SYSTEM.
2) CREATE A FORUM THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ON CERTAIN COMIC'S CURRENT POINT VALUES AND GIVE THEIR REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
3) TAKE THESE ONE BY ONE, VERIFY THE FACTS STATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION, AND THEN PUBLISH YOUR FINAL DECISION ON THAT ISSUE AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
By doing this, CGC would at least show a willingness to address this issue and pursue progress on the matter, though they would probably have to staff a team of people to focus on THIS one purpose. Hey, more jobs in this economy can't be all bad, huh?
#5774777 - 06/16/1210:23 AMRe: Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets: Point Reassignments for Rare & Low-Print Books
[Re: Professor Pecora]
mysteriomysterio
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 06/25/10
Posts: 4118
Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: Professor Pecora
If you continue to read the CGC's explanation as to how they calculate a book's final score, you will learn that they begin with a 'raw' score that equates to the market value of a Near Mint copy of that book (which we will never know of
However, the CGC has a rebuttal on this as well, "Comic scores do not equate to market dollars. A more valuable book will in most cases receive more Registry points, but its score is not directly correlated to its value.
These two sentences you credit to CGC make no sense when put side by side. If market value is a component of the registry point set, then how could scores not be expected to significantly reflect market value?
_________________________ Finally complete! Now I would like to upgrade to 7.0-8.0 copies of Amazing Adventures #3 & 6.
#5774923 - 06/16/1212:36 PMRe: Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets: Point Reassignments for Rare & Low-Print Books
[Re: mysterio]
umyeahwhateversumyeahwhatevers
Up 20 words per minute since I signed up
Registered: 11/02/10
Posts: 1399
Loc: don't worry about it...
I agree. I posed the same question re: Wolverine 102.5 The top two Wolverine registry owners don't even have this book yet the points are on par with a 'normal' Wolverine book.
BTW, I think 102.5 should be just as high as the 145 Nabisco.
_________________________
A wise man once said - I've met more boardies than I care to admit. Quite a few are downright awesome while others I'm glad I know what they look like so I can avoid. My Slabbed Comics
Thanks for bringing this up. To your credit, this "is" a contradiction on behalf of the CGC and I am glad that you noticed this.
However, I must clarify this for you, I was not "crediting" the CGC with both of these statements. The first one that I mentioned early in the journal, was to give them credit for taking the time to at least partly explain how they generate their scores. I know members are usually quick to bash the CGC, so I wanted to give them some credit for providing useful information to the public.
Unfortunately, with their statement, "Comic scores do not equate to market dollars. A more valuable book will in most cases receive more Registry points, but its score is not directly correlated to its value" - they contradict themselves.
So when I used the term "rebuttal," that means that the CGC is opposed or refutes the fact that certain comic scores should be reassigned higher point values, which I explained in the previous paragraph of the journal. Basically, In the context of the paragraphs, this is NOT a "credit."
In regards to the Wolverine (1988) Set Type, I would increase the point values for the following issues:
#35 (Still has yet to see a copy graded as a 9.8)
#36 (Very difficult to acquire a raw near mint copy + low on census)
#100 (Very difficult to acquire a raw near mint copy - plus they are very scarce on the market compared to its hologram cover counterpart)
#102.5 (Extremely rare and difficult to attain in high grade & without any signatures that wouldn't make it a "qualified" copy if graded)
#125 DFE (Like 102.5, another rare book due to being low on print count & without any signatures that wouldn't make it a "qualified" copy if graded)
#145 [Regular Version] - (Very difficult to acquire a near mint raw copy + low on the census - even the #2 ranked set only has a copy in 9.6 of this issue. You also don't see them often in the market place.)
#145 DFE - as I discussed in this journal entry - this book needs to be one the books assigned the highest amount of points!
#150 DFE - (Very difficult to acquire a near mint raw copy + low on the census. I for one have never even seen a CGC graded copy up for sale in at least a year. This issue also has a very low print count.)
#150 Variant Cover - (This book should receive a slight bump in overall points due to it's low print count in 9.8 and scarcity on the market. I have yet to see one graded by the CGC for sale on eBay and other online auction houses.)
# -1 (This book is extremely rare and difficult to acquire a raw near mint copy of, plus it is very low on the census report: there are only 7 copies graded as a 9.8 and I own one of them!)
So this is my professional take on point reassignments for the Wolverine (1988) set type - from a person who has been analyzing the market very closely and seeking to complete the set 100% in the near future.
#5775197 - 06/16/1203:03 PMRe: Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets: Point Reassignments for Rare & Low-Print Books
[Re: Professor Pecora]
mysteriomysterio
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 06/25/10
Posts: 4118
Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: Professor Pecora
Mysterio,
Thanks for bringing this up. To your credit, this "is" a contradiction on behalf of the CGC and I am glad that you noticed this.
However, I must clarify this for you, I was not "crediting" the CGC with both of these statements. The first one that I mentioned early in the journal, was to give them credit for taking the time to at least partly explain how they generate their scores. I know members are usually quick to bash the CGC, so I wanted to give them some credit for providing useful information to the public.
Unfortunately, with their statement, "Comic scores do not equate to market dollars. A more valuable book will in most cases receive more Registry points, but its score is not directly correlated to its value" - they contradict themselves.
So when I used the term "rebuttal," that means that the CGC is opposed or refutes the fact that certain comic scores should be reassigned higher point values, which I explained in the previous paragraph of the journal. Basically, In the context of the paragraphs, this is NOT a "credit."
I hope this clarifies things for you.
Thanks for your feedback.
-Professor Pecora
I might have misread your statements, but if you look at the quotes I lifted from your post you say that it is "CGC's explanation" and "CGC has a rebuttal" so I made the assumption that those statements could be attributed to CGC. If I misread that then that is my fault.
_________________________ Finally complete! Now I would like to upgrade to 7.0-8.0 copies of Amazing Adventures #3 & 6.
#5775222 - 06/16/1203:12 PMRe: Ideas for Enhancing CGC Competitive Sets: Point Reassignments for Rare & Low-Print Books
[Re: mysterio]
bomber-bobbomber-bob
I was posting here when you were in diapers.
Registered: 10/14/08
Posts: 3528
Loc: Western Suburbs of Chicago
I have many books that I feel are way undervalued, via points in the registry. Though I have posted in the 'these scores need fixin' thread I have yet to receive a response from CGC. Gemma is great but she is so busy with other tasks, like adding new titles to the registry, that I don't think they will address the problem. It's just too much bother and you will never please everyone so why bother. In summary, I give up with this problem but I wish you well.
As I have stated in another member's entry, I am ALL FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THE POINT GRADING SYSTEM.
I believe a thorough going through of the current registry point evaluation system is definitely in need of addressing by CGC. Doing so would ensure that future comics that are printed and graded would receive proper due on their point values.
But then, once those new standards are implemented, CGC would then be obligated to going back through the ENTIRE registry to re-determine point values on EVERYTHING!!!
On the surface, due to the length of time that CGC has been grading comics and the sheer volume of issues that would have to be gone through, this would seem impossible. So why not include us members and collectors in the endeavor?
Here's my suggestion to CGC:
1) UPDATE YOUR REGISTRY POINT EVALUATION SYSTEM.
2) CREATE A FORUM THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ON CERTAIN COMIC'S CURRENT POINT VALUES AND GIVE THEIR REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
3) TAKE THESE ONE BY ONE, VERIFY THE FACTS STATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION, AND THEN PUBLISH YOUR FINAL DECISION ON THAT ISSUE AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
By doing this, CGC would at least show a willingness to address this issue and pursue progress on the matter, though they would probably have to staff a team of people to focus on THIS one purpose. Hey, more jobs in this economy can't be all bad, huh?
