|
|
|
Elite Collector
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:51:40 PM
Posts: 762,
Visits: 2,243
|
|
Fair enough but are you sure a 60 year old 10 would not match a 2009 "10"? Have you seen some of the books from the Church collection? Gaines? Just how many of us here grading books now have any inkling what a book rolling off the stands in the 30's, 40's or 50's looked like? I can tell you that despite some paper stock changes over the years I have been around many of the books I saw on the stands back in the 70's and 80's were every bit as nice as the ones today.
So what would the standards we judge on be? If there is not a level playing field how can we even say there are standards? Anyone with experience grading books across the eras could give a whole host of rationals of what is or is not weighted higher, lower or not at all. What happens if a large portion of the community disagrees with the "standards" set by these people?
In my mind I have an ideal of what a "10" would be and that applies across the board for all eras if that means there are not "10", or very, very few then so be it. That does not mean you cannot get very high grade 60+ year old books as you can. In my scale though there would be far less 9.x books and more 8.x.
In the end I do think the scale should be more black and white and less grey that way there would be far less poor grading. If we had a system that everyone could understand and mostly agree upon then we would be a better community for it. grading has been a difficult thing for people to learn and, IMO, changes since CGC came around has made it much harder to learn than before. I don't blame CGC for this as much as I blame the community for basically being lazy and not demanding more of the professionals and those which hold the keys of power. The harder it is the more those that know the system and the politics can make at our expense.
True standards are black and white not grey and if we want actual standards we need to get rid of grey.
------------
|
|
|
|
