Survey Regarding the Potential of a New Video Game Grader in the Market

[fcgamer | 4,754]

Imo the grading system needs to address not just the damage (scuff, dent, etc) but also the location of said item. Again, serious critique, for free.

Example, a scuff directly on Mario's face compared to one on a yellow section of a left bros feels that it is more damaging, as it is a much more important bit on that piece of artwork.

This of course then opens up the problem of subjectivity, but I feel it's very important. Scuffs and other damage are certainly not created equal, imo, and it's something I look for when purchasing games. 

Location is king.

[VideoGameGradersLLC | 82]

Just now, fcgamer said:

Location is king.

Absolutely agree. 

[fcgamer | 4,754]

4 minutes ago, VideoGameGradersLLC said:

I hear ya. Certainly offering many options can be another USP for us. 

Ooh , you could even have them interlocking, like puzzle pieces. I'd be all in if you went that route.

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

5 hours ago, jonebone said:

The biggest problem which I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned, is the lack of experience.  You don't even know what a Mint game is until you've seen some really nice ones in hand.

Sadly, the bigger problem is that the more successful grading companies are putting quotas before accuracy. It is why you will sometimes find a product that looks like an 80 or 80+ be graded a 85. Or find that your 85 was regraded as a 90. If they put detail and accuracy first, they cannot meet their quotas. And if that happens the means of making money is compromised.

Stuff that I learned via talking points, which includes a former CGC grader, and finding the best video game grader for my own collective goals.

[GPX | 1,374]

49 minutes ago, FenrirZero said:

Sadly, the bigger problem is that the more successful grading companies are putting quotas before accuracy. It is why you will sometimes find a product that looks like an 80 or 80+ be graded a 85. Or find that your 85 was regraded as a 90. If they put detail and accuracy first, they cannot meet their quotas. And if that happens the means of making money is compromised.

Stuff that I learned via talking points, which includes a former CGC grader, and finding the best video game grader for my own collective goals.

Sorry but I don’t necessarily believe this to be true regarding “quotas of grade conditions”. This actually wouldn’t make much business sense in the long run. I’ve owned enough VGA games and I feel the grading is relatively consistent, give or take 5 points in grade differences on a few occasions. 

Picture this: would a grading service prefer to:

- grade consistently, and a buyer like me may continue with their services for 100 graded items?

Or 

- ”meet quotas” and grade inconsistently, and a buyer like me might try 10 items and give up on them due to lack of trust?

Edited March 15, 2021 by GPX

[GPX | 1,374]

8 hours ago, VideoGameGradersLLC said:

Absolutely agree. 

Continuing on with the theme of location of the flaws, you may have to re-align the weight of the deductions depending on:

- whether the same type flaw is at the regions of title or pictures, as opposed to a plain background. 

- whether the same type flaw is at the front or back of box as opposed to a bottom surface, where it is unlikely to impact on the display view of a game. 

Jonebone was hinting that you need to have graders with the experience/understanding that is in tandem with the expectations of the current collectors. Having a numerical system to work on is just part of the equation, and not the full formula.

 

[Ferris Bueller | 495]

Just to chime in, this is how WATA started, if that hasn't already been pointed out.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

12 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Imo the grading system needs to address not just the damage (scuff, dent, etc) but also the location of said item. Again, serious critique, for free.

Example, a scuff directly on Mario's face compared to one on a yellow section of a left bros feels that it is more damaging, as it is a much more important bit on that piece of artwork.

This of course then opens up the problem of subjectivity, but I feel it's very important. Scuffs and other damage are certainly not created equal, imo, and it's something I look for when purchasing games. 

Location is king.

That's an interesting point -- determine how the damage obscures anything that isn't "flat background".

[Woobie | 46]

Hmmm so just going to point out something

The issue I have with using "scientific measure" for grading is like I said previously I feel its "a bit of art, a bit of science", so for example you have everything split up (front - writing, rips, crease, tear, etc). And each is given a specific "maximum" that can be dinged off it. For example, rips- front, the maximum I can "lose" on that is -4 pts, what if half the front of the box was ripped off but the rest was gem mint / no damages anywhere? I dont think anyone in their right mind is going to say "Well yep, thats a 95!"

What if the whole top of the box is ripped off ? is that just -4 ?

It seems more like each section should have unlimited deductions and perhaps just weighted? But I guess in that case how do you determine what should "weigh" more than other, just food for thought

[VideoGameGradersLLC | 82]

8 minutes ago, Woobie said:

Hmmm so just going to point out something

The issue I have with using "scientific measure" for grading is like I said previously I feel its "a bit of art, a bit of science", so for example you have everything split up (front - writing, rips, crease, tear, etc). And each is given a specific "maximum" that can be dinged off it. For example, rips- front, the maximum I can "lose" on that is -4 pts, what if half the front of the box was ripped off but the rest was gem mint / no damages anywhere? I dont think anyone in their right mind is going to say "Well yep, thats a 95!"

What if the whole top of the box is ripped off ? is that just -4 ?

It seems more like each section should have unlimited deductions and perhaps just weighted? But I guess in that case how do you determine what should "weigh" more than other, just food for thought

Excellent point and we have discussed that internally quite a bit.  The smaller version of that is that you can lose more points than any given category is worth because of the fact that significant damage in any one area detracts from overall.  But for extreme cases we will spell out what we've been referring to as exceptions and that covers your example where there is excessive damage.  It's not yet reflected on the scorecard because it is likely an exception not something that will happen frequently but we will detail this possibility on the full website once we launch that points out grades are subject to larger deductions based on extreme damage.  

[RH | 4,983]

2 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

That's an interesting point -- determine how the damage obscures anything that isn't "flat background".

I had a graded copy of Final Fantasy Adventure I sold.  It looked to be in near flawless condition, except on the back on the side, there was a small puncture in the box which didn't puncture the shrinkwrap. I have no clue what it would have graded without it.  Maybe a 95.  Regardless, this felt fair to me.  It was major damage, but it wasn't on the front so it got an 85 (not 85+).  

I point this out because as everyone is saying, there needs to be an art to grading and, IMHO, in extremely odd cases, you might want a "team" to consult different types of damage.  If that FFA had a puncture on the front cover, I would have expected far less of a score.  Sine it wasn't noticeable from the front, and being on the edge on a white background, it was almost easy to not even notice it.

I think there should be a general nuance to grading common flaws based off of how bad it detracts from the overall aesthetic.

[VideoGameGradersLLC | 82]

1 minute ago, RH said:

I had a graded copy of Final Fantasy Adventure I sold.  It looked to be in near flawless condition, except on the back on the side, there was a small puncture in the box which didn't puncture the shrinkwrap. I have no clue what it would have graded without it.  Maybe a 95.  Regardless, this felt fair to me.  It was major damage, but it wasn't on the front so it got an 85 (not 85+).  

I point this out because as everyone is saying, there needs to be an art to grading and, IMHO, in extremely odd cases, you might want a "team" to consult different types of damage.  If that FFA had a puncture on the front cover, I would have expected far less of a score.  Sine it wasn't noticeable from the front, and being on the edge on a white background, it was almost easy to not even notice it.

I think there should be a general nuance to grading common flaws based off of how bad it detracts from the overall aesthetic.

Agree 100%

It's why we weight our box score higher than the 2 pieces you'll never see in a graded CIB game.  Why the front of the box starts with more points on our scorecard than that back.  

There will always be an element of subjectivity to grading, no question.  

An equivalent in the world of sports cards is a pinhole.  Otherwise near perfect card, great color sharp corners with a single pinhole (common for 50s cards) is a grade killer - as it should be, holes are bad. 

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

13 hours ago, GPX said:

Sorry but I don’t necessarily believe this to be true regarding “quotas of grade conditions”. This actually wouldn’t make much business sense in the long run. I’ve owned enough VGA games and I feel the grading is relatively consistent, give or take 5 points in grade differences on a few occasions. 

Please stop with the assumptions just because you chose to disagree with something I did not even imply. Plus you also do not know why grading accuracy is as important to me as it is with @jonebone. Despite that, I literally made my point when I said the following statement:

"It is why you will sometimes find a product that looks like an 80 or 80+ be graded a 85. Or find that your 85 was regraded as a 90."

Which is the same thing you parroted when it came to your collection. If you don't believe me, or want to dispute that, go back and realize I said that first. Because I also did a talking point with a former CGC grader, who did confirm that is why a CBCS 9.6 is often a CGC 9.8.

He stated that it was one of the reasons he wanted to work for CBCS. As for grading inconsistencies... I'll point out that VGA does a history of grading both bootlegs and re-seals as authentic. Which does not surprise me, nor does it deter me from recommending them.

13 hours ago, GPX said:

It is why you will sometimes find a product that looks like an 80 or 80+ be graded a 85. Or find that your 85 was regraded as a 90.

13 hours ago, GPX said:

Picture this: would a grading service prefer to:

- grade consistently, and a buyer like me may continue with their services for 100 graded items?

Or 

- ”meet quotas” and grade inconsistently, and a buyer like me might try 10 items and give up on them due to lack of trust?

Picture this: Instead of saying all of that, remember that VGA's grading is not 100% accurate. And that those moments are possibly based on the fact they had quotas to meet. Something that is not a problem if you are willing to accept the grade. But is a problem because of other reasons.

Which is based on my findings long before I joined this forum. And is also one of those reasons why I am trying my hardest to support @VideoGameGradersLLC, while I make an effort to test out a grading company none of you have bothered to acknowledge here. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by FenrirZero

[fcgamer | 4,754]

Well you throw a blow towards wata, they grade too lenient, too many "high grades"

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

16 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Well you throw a blow towards wata, they grade too lenient, too many "high grades"

Personally thinking, I like the fact that Deniz did map out the concept and design of the business before making it a reality. But beyond that I 100% agree with you on the fact their grading style is too soft. I mean if they were to hire @VideoGameGradersLLC as an extension, we might see more accurate grading and re-grading be done. Which would also help VGG get the experience needed the moment they branch out to become a fourth viable grading option.

But until that time comes I am sticking with CAS just because they are the grading company I hope VGG becomes.

[OptOut | 8,892]

8 hours ago, VideoGameGradersLLC said:

grades are subject to larger deductions based on extreme damage.  

[final fight cd | 187]

1 hour ago, FenrirZero said:

they branch out to become a fourth viable grading option.

Who is the third besides VGA and WATA?

[fcgamer | 4,754]

2 minutes ago, final fight cd said:

Who is the third besides VGA and WATA?

Wang's Grading Service. It was mentioned earlier in this thread, a they use a very special, patented way of grading items.

[GPX | 1,374]

3 hours ago, FenrirZero said:

Please stop with the assumptions just because you chose to disagree with something I did not even imply. Plus you also do not know why grading accuracy is as important to me as it is with @jonebone. Despite that, I literally made my point when I said the following statement:

"It is why you will sometimes find a product that looks like an 80 or 80+ be graded a 85. Or find that your 85 was regraded as a 90."

Which is the same thing you parroted when it came to your collection. If you don't believe me, or want to dispute that, go back and realize I said that first. Because I also did a talking point with a former CGC grader, who did confirm that is why a CBCS 9.6 is often a CGC 9.8.

He stated that it was one of the reasons he wanted to work for CBCS. As for grading inconsistencies... I'll point out that VGA does a history of grading both bootlegs and re-seals as authentic. Which does not surprise me, nor does it deter me from recommending them.

Picture this: Instead of saying all of that, remember that VGA's grading is not 100% accurate. And that those moments are possibly based on the fact they had quotas to meet. Something that is not a problem if you are willing to accept the grade. But is a problem because of other reasons.

Which is based on my findings long before I joined this forum. And is also one of those reasons why I am trying my hardest to support @VideoGameGradersLLC, while I make an effort to test out a grading company none of you have bothered to acknowledge here. 

I’m not sure what assumptions I’ve made? I’m just talking about generic principles that if a grading company is to last a long journey, then they better be as consistent as possible otherwise consumers will lose trust and stop spending the money. With occasional VGA 5 point grading variations, or WATA .2 to .4 variation, I think this is an inherent issue of grading games in general. It seems unanimous on the responses thus far that grading will always have a component of subjectivity so with that, will come natural subtle fluctuations of grades from time to time. 

I think you made a big assumption yourself when you mentioned grading accuracy is important to you and jonebone, as if it implies it has less of an importance to me? I find it bemusing why you think so. If grading accuracy isn’t important to me, why would I bother with grading games in the first place?

 

 

 

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

11 minutes ago, final fight cd said:

Who is the third besides VGA and WATA?

Collector Archive Services.

They are better known in the toy grading company. And are the only one I found that does not hype up anything they started to do. In my case the company's CFO, Ross Barr, informed me during a conversation we had via email. And as we speak I am planning on doing a review of their services, as of 2021, which may not happen until around May. So expect an update from me around that time.

And as per what @fcgamer said... Out of the Wangs that grade stuff for WGS, always hope that you don't get Harry. Harry N. Thicke-Wang is not a good grader, and is only family by marriage.

[OptOut | 8,892]

This thread, my god!!! Rotating beefs, friends become enemies, enemies become friends!

Antagonists, protagonists, explosions, comedy and passionate lovemaking, with an evolving storyline and solid emotional resonance throughout! Plus memes!!!

Someone needs to turn this into a movie script, lol! Sorry @Jeevan but Chilli is out, I'm calling it, thread of the year!!! 

[fcgamer | 4,754]

@VideoGameGradersLLC Scrap the whole grading idea, fulfill what the public wants and direct a movie. We'd all back that, guaranteed.

[OptOut | 8,892]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

@VideoGameGradersLLC Scrap the whole grading idea, fulfill what the public wants and direct a movie. We'd all back that, guaranteed.

I would DEFINITELY front another 7 bucks for someone turning this thread into a feature film!

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

1 minute ago, GPX said:

I’m not sure what assumptions I’ve made?

Lets start with the following statement you made: "Sorry but I don’t necessarily believe this to be true regarding “quotas of grade conditions”. This actually wouldn’t make much business sense in the long run."

This is what I actually said: "Sadly, the bigger problem is that the more successful grading companies are putting quotas before accuracy. It is why you will sometimes find a product that looks like an 80 or 80+ be graded a 85. Or find that your 85 was regraded as a 90."

As for your concerns... Lets just say you gave me no chance to care. And leave it at that. Because in the end you acted in a way that I am literally question why I am here. Not just this topic, but also the forum as a whole. 

But when it comes to others... There are those who would buy @OptOut's shit if it was both preserved and the right vlogger hyped it up. The rest would abandon it if he gave them a shitty response to anything they said.

Because 'Business Rule #1' is this: "Always remember that the product, not the buyer, can be replaced."

In other words: Inconsistencies can be fixed, those who allow it can be replaced, and life goes on. But if somebody says you did something wrong, and you talked them the way you did with me? That is a business killer at any level.

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

3 hours ago, OptOut said:

This thread, my god!!! Rotating beefs, friends become enemies, enemies become friends!

Antagonists, protagonists, explosions, comedy and passionate lovemaking, with an evolving storyline and solid emotional resonance throughout! Plus memes!!!

Someone needs to turn this into a movie script, lol! Sorry @Jeevan but Chilli is out, I'm calling it, thread of the year!!! 

Scene 1, Act 100.

@fcgamer (Ryan Reynold's stunt double) is wandering through a convention all looking for both OptOut (Dwayne Johnson) and @Jeevan (John Cena). Instead he is encountered by two people that have cult-like looks on their faces. They ask if he heard the good word, and started babbling about how they started a grading company that grades graded games. He never got a chance to reply, and instead gives them the following response (as reenacted by Ryan Reynold's stunt double):

End scene.