Who has an Overstreet Grading Guide (2nd Edition) and...?

[Gallinator]

...what would you do to improve it for the 3rd Edition, which is supposedly currently a work in progress?

[camper49]

Sorry GALL.
I only have a 1st Edition which I use when I have trouble deciding how to grade a specific issue.

Never having used a 2nd Edition, I would say the 3rd Edition should include more examples of high grade books with one glaring defect and how to downgrade them.

Or more photographic examples of 8.0's, 8.5's, 9.0's and 9.2's.

While I still consider myself on the "learning curve" when it comes to grading, my recent eBay buyers (last four months) seem to be satisfied with my grading as not a single one of them have ever come back to complain.

One of these days, I'll pick up a 2nd Edition OGG.

[fulltimer56]

I have the 2nd edition and I would like to see more photographic examples for all the grades & I'm with camper when he said should include more examples of high grade books with one glaring defect and how to downgrade them because that seems to be a problem.

Is Arnold having anything to do with this one too?

Linda

[Gallinator]

I believe he's indicated that he is still involved with the OGG, even though he's no longer involved with the OPG. It's nice to have your name on the cover of something like that, I'll bet!

Camper, get thee to Amazon and order a 2nd Ed. OGG! It's is a VAST improvement on the old one (which I also have) and you can see how grading has really tightened up over the 12 (?) years between editions.

I agree that the number one thing to improve is answering the question of what to do with a single glaring error. This was covered in the First Edition's "Defect Sections" although more examples should have been included there, too. With the elimination of the Defect Section in the 2nd Ed., the OGG took a step backwards where the rest of the book stepped forward.

[camper49]

How to downgrade for just one defect?
Here's a prime example.

http://cgi.ebay.com/DETECTIVE-359-CGC-8-5-1ST-BATGIRL-SILVER-AGE-BATMAN_W0QQitemZ6631851031QQcategoryZ32727QQrdZ1QQ cmdZViewItem

CGC gave this a VF+ (8.5) even thought there's a name written in ink on the last interior page.

[Gallinator]

Hmmm, I wonder if you can see that name through the BC? The seller says no bleed, but I would think that would make a difference if you could see it.

For defects like that, I used the "Defect Section" of the 1st Ed. to determine a downgrade. I'd weight a defect around 50% if on the BC and 20-25% if in the interior, unless it was something like a coupon out. So, if a large ink signature would drop a NM book down to, say, Fine if on the FC (two full grade levels), that same defect would only drop it to VF or maybe VF- if on the BC and only, say, VF+ if in the interior.

[mordo]

I liked the defect sections too. Arnold wrote in one of the discussion boards (I forget which) that it may be returning in the next edition.

I hope the next book does something about the visual examples. With a lot of them you really can't see some of the defects too well. I don't know if it's because of the slick paper or the photos.

The next book should also take a stand on qualified grades, either endorse their usage or condemn them altogether. If they give it a thumbs up, they should offer guidelines on the do's and don'ts of qualified grading.