So if i take Bronty's example where two of the same games are graded vga80+ and get crossed over: one gets a 9.6 B rating and the other 7.5 A++ rating or 8 A++ (doesnt really matter). One is probably expected to sell much higher with the new grading scale even though they both came from the same vga box, which arguably were worth very similar prices before they crossed over.
That's a fair point and a limitation of the way sealed is graded on this scale. If you're a Wata cart or CIB collector, you're collecting the numerical grade only, say 9.0 and up, or whatever level is acceptable to you. But with sealed, if you apply that same strategy, you'd rather have the 9.0 game with a C seal than the 8.0 game with a A+ seal.
However, on the raw market that is counter intuitive. It's kind of like collecting CIB when it is missing a manual... not really CIB. Well if I see a sealed game with nice corners but missing a gigantic 4x4" section of the wrap, is it really sealed? It is unopened and new yes, but if it is missing 30% of it's surface area in sealed plastic I don't consider that sealed personally. Yet it could probably grade above 9.0 and just get a really low seal rating.
I guess the point is that both grades absolutely should matter, but I'm not sure if the market is smart enough to realize that yet. It's intuitive to someone who has collected awhile but not so much to someone just chasing numbers.
I don't think a set translation/crossover metric works.
VGA has always been tough on wrap. Wata is more interested in the box.
A vga 85 could be an 8.0 and it could be a 9.6, and I've seen that happen with games I've sold. Depending on what made it an 85 was box wear or wrap wear, and depending on how tight or loose the 85 was too I guess.
In other words, 80+ = 9.0 is, in my opinion, really inaccurate because that 80+ could be a 9.6 or it could be 7.5.
I have an 80+ in my collection right now that I have zero doubt is a 9.4 or 9.6 and I have 85+s that might be 8.0s.
It works as much as a rule of thumb can, like saying a NES CIB price is roughly = 2.5x loose cart.
well, I know where you're going with that, but from my POV those types of rules of thumb just introduce inaccuracies.
As we all know, what is a VGA 85 varies greatly. And I'm sure that what is a wata 9.0 will vary greatly over time if it doesn't already.
So we are going to take one loosely defined variable based on one set of criteria, and compare to another loosely defined variable based on a completely different set of criteria, and expect to extract meaningful results?
Much better IMO to ditch the rules of thumb and take a fresh look at the actual game in question before crossing over.
Isn’t the purpose of having both a box AND a seal rating to make it so the box grade does NOT vary greatly through time?
I totally agree with Dan and Jason here. There is no hard rule of conversion because of the box/shrinkwrap focus that is different for both companies. This just goes to show that you should buy the game and not the grade.
I have seen 85 get 9.4A++ (this example should be well known by now) and 9.2 A+. Quite frankly this doesnt make much sense and maybe depends upon when vga graded it? (Wasn't around but if i recall correct'y there was a time where they started to get tougher on the grades).
But the point i was trying to make is that « transforming » an 80-85% in a 9/10 or 9.4/10 optically looks really good and thats the arbitrage we are seeing right now i believe as new collectors are getting into these items.
So if i take Bronty's example where two of the same games are graded vga80+ and get crossed over: one gets a 9.6 B rating and the other 7.5 A++ rating or 8 A++ (doesnt really matter). One is probably expected to sell much higher with the new grading scale even though they both came from the same vga box, which arguably were worth very similar prices before they crossed over.
This example may be a bit extreme but it illustrates the arbitrage point (quite frankly i dont think such a big discrepancy in grades from the same vga box is probable, but i am not experienced enough to know.)
I have yet to see a gold rated game crossover and doubt we will see much of them as its entirely possible the huge difference between 85 and 85+ is way, way smaller under the wata scale (like do people care between an A or A++ deal to this day? My GUESS is not really, but that may change in the future as the market adjusts.)
I have Crossed over a bunch of games in the 85/85+ range. There really dosent seem to be much difference in 85/85+. I honesly stoped paying premiums for gold grades as iv done better crossing over silvers. I submitted two zeldas one an 85 and one 85+ the 85 game back 9.4 and the 85+ game back 9.2. I had a 85+ pokemon snap that came back 9.0. Then a mischife Makers 85+ that came back 9.2. I belive somone told me about a 85+ came back 8.0 but it was not mine. I have a few more being crossed over at wata now so we'll see what happens there.
I totally agree with Dan and Jason here. There is no hard rule of conversion because of the box/shrinkwrap focus that is different for both companies. This just goes to show that you should buy the game and not the grade.
I have seen 85 get 9.4A++ (this example should be well known by now) and 9.2 A+. Quite frankly this doesnt make much sense and maybe depends upon when vga graded it? (Wasn't around but if i recall correct'y there was a time where they started to get tougher on the grades).
But the point i was trying to make is that « transforming » an 80-85% in a 9/10 or 9.4/10 optically looks really good and thats the arbitrage we are seeing right now i believe as new collectors are getting into these items.
So if i take Bronty's example where two of the same games are graded vga80+ and get crossed over: one gets a 9.6 B rating and the other 7.5 A++ rating or 8 A++ (doesnt really matter). One is probably expected to sell much higher with the new grading scale even though they both came from the same vga box, which arguably were worth very similar prices before they crossed over.
This example may be a bit extreme but it illustrates the arbitrage point (quite frankly i dont think such a big discrepancy in grades from the same vga box is probable, but i am not experienced enough to know.)
I have yet to see a gold rated game crossover and doubt we will see much of them as its entirely possible the huge difference between 85 and 85+ is way, way smaller under the wata scale (like do people care between an A or A++ deal to this day? My GUESS is not really, but that may change in the future as the market adjusts.)
I have Crossed over a bunch of games in the 85/85+ range. There really dosent seem to be much difference in 85/85+. I honesly stoped paying premiums for gold grades as iv done better crossing over silvers. I submitted two zeldas one an 85 and one 85+ the 85 game back 9.4 and the 85+ game back 9.2. I had a 85+ pokemon snap that came back 9.0. Then a mischife Makers 85+ that came back 9.2. I belive somone told me about a 85+ came back 8.0 but it was not mine. I have a few more being crossed over at wata now so we'll see what happens there.
What was the seal grade on each? That's just as important since the VGA grade should be weighing the plastic seal with the box quality.
banlie, no , the purpose is just information. No one wants grading variances over time but as the experiences in other hobbies have taught us, it will happen. There’s human judgement involved and as , over time, people try to game the system in every way possible to get better grades, grading has to adapt, etc.
^ which is one of the nice things about sealed. You can't do much to game the system except remove price tags and clean the wrap.
With cibs you'd better believe that people will try to marry parts, perform dry cleaning and or chemical cleaning, pressing manuals and boxes and whatever else gets cooked up if the financial incentives make it worthwhile. History has taught us people will perform whatever procedures the grading CO’s financially incentivize theough better grades
I guess that makes sense. Although i firmly believe (maybe naively) that if you take ten 9.0 and compare them you will find a much smaller variance in box condition than if you took ten VGA85 and perform the same analysis.
Real person. Not a comic collector. Spent a couple mil in a couple months about 7-8 years ago what were then and mostly still are batshit crazy purchases that threw the whole market upside down. 10x FMV type prices on average maybe?
Couple mil doesn't sound like much today to disrupt the whole market in the way that it did, but a couple mil went further then plus that couple mil, people spent some of it buying back shit, etc... so with the knock on effects it was probably double that circulated.
You really can't have seen how stupid it was unless you lived it. People getting in bidding wars over things to flip to him, staying up til 3 in the morning to try and get some of his time and attention because 100 people were doing it at once, his ridiculous decision tree emails, the visits to the notary public to get the bills of sale he wanted, people bidding on the stupidest things (like cool spot) that he liked... people get pissy with each other over who was going to sell to him first etc etc etc.
It was a total and complete shitshow of greed and while it was a great party for those that sold to him it was so ridiculous and such a big display of greed all around that it left a lot of collectors with a bad hangover. Once he stopped buying everybody pulled back like they'd been on a massive bender. Things didn't settle afterwards for a surprisingly long time. Years really.
Wow. I had not heard of this either. Sounds very interesting/wild. I could see how that would throw the market into flux. What ever happened to him?
VGA seems, at least to me, have been much harsher on games when they first started. I've held early VGA 75+ games that are borderline mint. VGA also grades down for stuff like stickers and sticker residue, whereas you can just clean it or have WATA do it for a charge, with no negative impact.
WATA has also brought a good chunk of entirely new people into the hobby who never used VGA, so I'm not sure how much that scale really matters. The new comic auction sites aren't even posting VGA games, likely because WATA has utilized the standard 1-10 scale that other collectibles
VGA seems, at least to me, have been much harsher on games when they first started. I've held early VGA 75+ games that are borderline mint. VGA also grades down for stuff like stickers and sticker residue, whereas you can just clean it or have WATA do it for a charge, with no negative impact.
WATA has also brought a good chunk of entirely new people into the hobby who never used VGA, so I'm not sure how much that scale really matters. The new comic auction sites aren't even posting VGA games, likely because WATA has utilized the standard 1-10 scale that other collectibles
do.
To be fair, it is hard to accurately assess a game once slabbed. Flaws that are very noticeable in hand can be masked or made insigificant when viewing through the slab. Sure you can make a guess but you would be surprised how much shows up in hand that you forget about once graded.
And let's be clear here, comic sites and wata go hand in hand because wata is using the comic scale. Not the scale "that all other collectibles do". Coins use a 70 point scale (that I barely understand, I believe MS-64 is pretty damn nice there), cards use 10 point scale but only in 1.0 increments (sometimes .5). Comics do the whole .5 and then .2 increments from 9.0 to 10.0 which is not necessarily intuitive.
What you really care about in figuring out the scale is where is the middle of the Bell Curve, or the Normal Distribution. You'll have pristine Mint and piss poor at each end and the average grade will be the bell curve. On VGA that is 80 to 85 on Wata it's early to tell but it seems like that will be 9.0-9.2 for sealed at least. I'm not sure if that is how the Comic scale lines up or if the middle of their bell curve is really much lower. That bell curve will let you know how tight or how loose the grading scale may be. When the sample size is large enough it'll tell the story itself.
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we...) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do it with diamonds as well. The difference between a perfect diamond and a near perfect diamond can't be detected without a microscope. It's probably just human nature and learned behavior, we see a higher number, it must be better and we must have that. The only part I don't understand on your logic is the above 10 I have used strikethrough on. If a 10 is perfect than the scale should stop 9.4 or they should just have 9, 9.5, and 10. Personally, it sounds like a ploy to drive up values based on perception, much like diamonds. That isn't a knock on people who value higher graded games, I get it, you want to have the best in your collection. More power to you to seek perfection and have the means to do so.
edit: I suppose I can see value in the 9.8 as most people are hesistant to give a perfect score. But 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 can get right the hell out.
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do it with diamonds as well. The difference between a perfect diamond and a near perfect diamond can't be detected without a microscope. It's probably just human nature and learned behavior, we see a higher number, it must be better and we must have that. The only part I don't understand on your logic is the above 10 I have used strikethrough on. If a 10 is perfect than the scale should stop 9.4 or they should just have 9, 9.5, and 10. Personally, it sounds like a ploy to drive up values based on perception, much like diamonds. That isn't a knock on people who value higher graded games, I get it, you want to have the best in your collection. More power to you to seek perfection and have the means to do so.
edit: I suppose I can see value in the 9.8 as most people are hesistant to give a perfect score. But 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 can get right the hell out.
I think you’re missing the point I’m illustrating so let me redo it .
10 = 10
9.8 = 9.5
9.6 = 9.0
9.4 = 8.5
9.2 = 8.0
9.0 = 7.5
All grade scales are arbitrary to a point. They could have easily used symbols instead of numbers...like Stars. Or they could have used sub-mid grades like + or - like VGA uses...they could have used color codes like stone/wood/iron/bronze/silver/gold/platinum/diamond. The point is that their scale has 23 levels and this is the best way they could devise is
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
Joe, and I mean this with love..
WTF are you talking about?
Read my post above this one! I knew I should have waited to respond
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do it with diamonds as well. The difference between a perfect diamond and a near perfect diamond can't be detected without a microscope. It's probably just human nature and learned behavior, we see a higher number, it must be better and we must have that. The only part I don't understand on your logic is the above 10 I have used strikethrough on. If a 10 is perfect than the scale should stop 9.4 or they should just have 9, 9.5, and 10. Personally, it sounds like a ploy to drive up values based on perception, much like diamonds. That isn't a knock on people who value higher graded games, I get it, you want to have the best in your collection. More power to you to seek perfection and have the means to do so.
edit: I suppose I can see value in the 9.8 as most people are hesistant to give a perfect score. But 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 can get right the hell out.
I think you’re missing the point I’m illustrating so let me redo it .
10 = 10
9.8 = 9.5
9.6 = 9.0
9.4 = 8.5
9.2 = 8.0
9.0 = 7.5
All grade scales are arbitrary to a point. They could have easily used symbols instead of numbers...like Stars. Or they could have used sub-mid grades like + or - like VGA uses...they could have used color codes like stone/wood/iron/bronze/silver/gold/platinum/diamond. The point is that their scale has 23 levels and this is the best way they could devise is
This is now quite more interesting since you flipped it the other way, now it looks like they are playing on the same idea I mentioned before about higher numbers. But if this was really common knowledge than a WATA graded 9.0 game would be way less valuable than people think since on the scale its really quite average instead of the pristine score you think are getting. This type of scale puts sellers in a better light and allows them to upcharge for games. If I do ever decide to buy a sealed game and it is WATA graded I'll be very suspicious of the grade.
Very good business strategy though, I don't hate on companies for trying to make money, that is the point lol
Thank you for the thought provoking post by the way.
A 9.6 and 9.8 are almost identical. There is very little condition difference between them, but a lot of value difference on the market.
A 2.0 and 2.5, while they both are worn, the difference between them condition wise is great. The value difference is relatively small.
The point being, from a comic collector POV, if it looks like dogshit, it looks like dogshit. Comic collectors tend to, in most cases, place the lion's share of value in the small incremental condition steps at the top of the scale because, well, they evidence that my copy is better than yours or vice versa. So, the grade increments at the end, to a layman, are pretty well indistinguishable, but to a collector very important.
Now let's talk about the wata scale.
From what I understand, they are NOT taking a comic book style approach despite using a scale designed for comics. Kenneth's background is coins and he's been pretty clear in stating that he views the condition spectrum as a coin collector would, wear a "1" is barely recognize, 'mid grades' are still what I or what comic collectors would think of as beat up. I.e. as I understand it, he wants to use the whole spectrum of numbers to designate grades for the whole spectrum of condition, from 'truck ran over it' to case fresh.
Think of the WATA 4.0 CIB mario that was on heritage. That thing was ugly AF and clearly using the coin style system, IMO. Which is neither bad nor good, just my interpreation of the facts.
From what I can see of the grades in the marketplace, its a bit of a hyrid coin/comic model, born of Kenneth's background being married to the audience they are going after, but that's speculation on my part.
A 9.6 and 9.8 are almost identical. There is very little condition difference between them, but a lot of value difference on the market.
A 2.0 and 2.5, while they both are worn, the difference between them condition wise is great. The value difference is relatively small.
The point being, from a comic collector POV, if it looks like dogshit, it looks like dogshit. Comic collectors tend to, in most cases, place the lion's share of value in the small incremental condition steps at the top of the scale because, well, they evidence that my copy is better than yours or vice versa. So, the grade increments at the end, to a layman, are pretty well indistinguishable, but to a collector very important.
Now let's talk about the wata scale.
From what I understand, they are NOT taking a comic book style approach despite using a scale designed for comics. Kenneth's background is coins and he's been pretty clear in stating that he views the condition spectrum as a coin collector would, wear a "1" is barely recognize, 'mid grades' are still what I or what comic collectors would think of as beat up. I.e. as I understand it, he wants to use the whole spectrum of numbers to designate grades for the whole spectrum of condition, from 'truck ran over it' to case fresh.
Think of the WATA 4.0 CIB mario that was on heritage. That thing was ugly AF and clearly using the coin style system, IMO. Which is neither bad nor good, just my interpreation of the facts.
From what I can see of the grades in the marketplace, its a bit of a hyrid coin/comic model, born of Kenneth's background being married to the audience they are going after, but that's speculation on my part.
Not to mention CGC 9.9 and 10. Which is basically a 9.8 that hit the lottery. I've seen a lot of 9.9s in hand and they are, for the most part, interchangable with 9.8s, but the value is ridiculously high in comparison. Take a popular comic book like New Mutants #98 for example. Sells for around $700 to $800 in CGC 9.8 (there are 2839 on the CGC census btw). There are currently 12 9.9s and 1 10. The last 9.9 sold for $23k. So if game collecting moves in that direction the WATA census is going to be enormously important in my opinion. It looks like WATA skipped the 9.9 grade but there is a 10 possibility.
It not only can be its own thing, it has to be its own thing because there are inherent differences in a stapled pamphlet vs a cartridge that came in a cardboard box. As you said, context.
Probably just need something to establish a baseline that evolves into its own thing. Which is odd because it isn't like game collecting is something new.
why are people trying to force the comics parallel? i get that we're just trying to contextualize things, but can't video games be their own thing?
Because people want to try and make smart economical decisions based on something with very little history? Thus, lets use the closest thing we have, which has already gone through these growing pains. It makes sense to try and draw parallels to determine how the market is going to behave as it matures.
Comments
So if i take Bronty's example where two of the same games are graded vga80+ and get crossed over: one gets a 9.6 B rating and the other 7.5 A++ rating or 8 A++ (doesnt really matter). One is probably expected to sell much higher with the new grading scale even though they both came from the same vga box, which arguably were worth very similar prices before they crossed over.
That's a fair point and a limitation of the way sealed is graded on this scale. If you're a Wata cart or CIB collector, you're collecting the numerical grade only, say 9.0 and up, or whatever level is acceptable to you. But with sealed, if you apply that same strategy, you'd rather have the 9.0 game with a C seal than the 8.0 game with a A+ seal.
However, on the raw market that is counter intuitive. It's kind of like collecting CIB when it is missing a manual... not really CIB. Well if I see a sealed game with nice corners but missing a gigantic 4x4" section of the wrap, is it really sealed? It is unopened and new yes, but if it is missing 30% of it's surface area in sealed plastic I don't consider that sealed personally. Yet it could probably grade above 9.0 and just get a really low seal rating.
I guess the point is that both grades absolutely should matter, but I'm not sure if the market is smart enough to realize that yet. It's intuitive to someone who has collected awhile but not so much to someone just chasing numbers.
I don't think a set translation/crossover metric works.
VGA has always been tough on wrap. Wata is more interested in the box.
A vga 85 could be an 8.0 and it could be a 9.6, and I've seen that happen with games I've sold. Depending on what made it an 85 was box wear or wrap wear, and depending on how tight or loose the 85 was too I guess.
In other words, 80+ = 9.0 is, in my opinion, really inaccurate because that 80+ could be a 9.6 or it could be 7.5.
I have an 80+ in my collection right now that I have zero doubt is a 9.4 or 9.6 and I have 85+s that might be 8.0s.
It works as much as a rule of thumb can, like saying a NES CIB price is roughly = 2.5x loose cart.
well, I know where you're going with that, but from my POV those types of rules of thumb just introduce inaccuracies.
As we all know, what is a VGA 85 varies greatly. And I'm sure that what is a wata 9.0 will vary greatly over time if it doesn't already.
So we are going to take one loosely defined variable based on one set of criteria, and compare to another loosely defined variable based on a completely different set of criteria, and expect to extract meaningful results?
Much better IMO to ditch the rules of thumb and take a fresh look at the actual game in question before crossing over.
Isn’t the purpose of having both a box AND a seal rating to make it so the box grade does NOT vary greatly through time?
I totally agree with Dan and Jason here. There is no hard rule of conversion because of the box/shrinkwrap focus that is different for both companies. This just goes to show that you should buy the game and not the grade.
I have seen 85 get 9.4A++ (this example should be well known by now) and 9.2 A+. Quite frankly this doesnt make much sense and maybe depends upon when vga graded it? (Wasn't around but if i recall correct'y there was a time where they started to get tougher on the grades).
But the point i was trying to make is that « transforming » an 80-85% in a 9/10 or 9.4/10 optically looks really good and thats the arbitrage we are seeing right now i believe as new collectors are getting into these items.
So if i take Bronty's example where two of the same games are graded vga80+ and get crossed over: one gets a 9.6 B rating and the other 7.5 A++ rating or 8 A++ (doesnt really matter). One is probably expected to sell much higher with the new grading scale even though they both came from the same vga box, which arguably were worth very similar prices before they crossed over.
This example may be a bit extreme but it illustrates the arbitrage point (quite frankly i dont think such a big discrepancy in grades from the same vga box is probable, but i am not experienced enough to know.)
I have yet to see a gold rated game crossover and doubt we will see much of them as its entirely possible the huge difference between 85 and 85+ is way, way smaller under the wata scale (like do people care between an A or A++ deal to this day? My GUESS is not really, but that may change in the future as the market adjusts.)
I have Crossed over a bunch of games in the 85/85+ range. There really dosent seem to be much difference in 85/85+. I honesly stoped paying premiums for gold grades as iv done better crossing over silvers. I submitted two zeldas one an 85 and one 85+ the 85 game back 9.4 and the 85+ game back 9.2. I had a 85+ pokemon snap that came back 9.0. Then a mischife Makers 85+ that came back 9.2. I belive somone told me about a 85+ came back 8.0 but it was not mine. I have a few more being crossed over at wata now so we'll see what happens there.
I totally agree with Dan and Jason here. There is no hard rule of conversion because of the box/shrinkwrap focus that is different for both companies. This just goes to show that you should buy the game and not the grade.
I have seen 85 get 9.4A++ (this example should be well known by now) and 9.2 A+. Quite frankly this doesnt make much sense and maybe depends upon when vga graded it? (Wasn't around but if i recall correct'y there was a time where they started to get tougher on the grades).
But the point i was trying to make is that « transforming » an 80-85% in a 9/10 or 9.4/10 optically looks really good and thats the arbitrage we are seeing right now i believe as new collectors are getting into these items.
So if i take Bronty's example where two of the same games are graded vga80+ and get crossed over: one gets a 9.6 B rating and the other 7.5 A++ rating or 8 A++ (doesnt really matter). One is probably expected to sell much higher with the new grading scale even though they both came from the same vga box, which arguably were worth very similar prices before they crossed over.
This example may be a bit extreme but it illustrates the arbitrage point (quite frankly i dont think such a big discrepancy in grades from the same vga box is probable, but i am not experienced enough to know.)
I have yet to see a gold rated game crossover and doubt we will see much of them as its entirely possible the huge difference between 85 and 85+ is way, way smaller under the wata scale (like do people care between an A or A++ deal to this day? My GUESS is not really, but that may change in the future as the market adjusts.)
I have Crossed over a bunch of games in the 85/85+ range. There really dosent seem to be much difference in 85/85+. I honesly stoped paying premiums for gold grades as iv done better crossing over silvers. I submitted two zeldas one an 85 and one 85+ the 85 game back 9.4 and the 85+ game back 9.2. I had a 85+ pokemon snap that came back 9.0. Then a mischife Makers 85+ that came back 9.2. I belive somone told me about a 85+ came back 8.0 but it was not mine. I have a few more being crossed over at wata now so we'll see what happens there.
What was the seal grade on each? That's just as important since the VGA grade should be weighing the plastic seal with the box quality.
With cibs you'd better believe that people will try to marry parts, perform dry cleaning and or chemical cleaning, pressing manuals and boxes and whatever else gets cooked up if the financial incentives make it worthwhile. History has taught us people will perform whatever procedures the grading CO’s financially incentivize theough better grades
Real person. Not a comic collector. Spent a couple mil in a couple months about 7-8 years ago what were then and mostly still are batshit crazy purchases that threw the whole market upside down. 10x FMV type prices on average maybe?
Couple mil doesn't sound like much today to disrupt the whole market in the way that it did, but a couple mil went further then plus that couple mil, people spent some of it buying back shit, etc... so with the knock on effects it was probably double that circulated.
You really can't have seen how stupid it was unless you lived it. People getting in bidding wars over things to flip to him, staying up til 3 in the morning to try and get some of his time and attention because 100 people were doing it at once, his ridiculous decision tree emails, the visits to the notary public to get the bills of sale he wanted, people bidding on the stupidest things (like cool spot) that he liked... people get pissy with each other over who was going to sell to him first etc etc etc.
It was a total and complete shitshow of greed and while it was a great party for those that sold to him it was so ridiculous and such a big display of greed all around that it left a lot of collectors with a bad hangover. Once he stopped buying everybody pulled back like they'd been on a massive bender. Things didn't settle afterwards for a surprisingly long time. Years really.
Wow. I had not heard of this either. Sounds very interesting/wild. I could see how that would throw the market into flux. What ever happened to him?
WATA has also brought a good chunk of entirely new people into the hobby who never used VGA, so I'm not sure how much that scale really matters. The new comic auction sites aren't even posting VGA games, likely because WATA has utilized the standard 1-10 scale that other collectibles
do.
VGA seems, at least to me, have been much harsher on games when they first started. I've held early VGA 75+ games that are borderline mint. VGA also grades down for stuff like stickers and sticker residue, whereas you can just clean it or have WATA do it for a charge, with no negative impact.
WATA has also brought a good chunk of entirely new people into the hobby who never used VGA, so I'm not sure how much that scale really matters. The new comic auction sites aren't even posting VGA games, likely because WATA has utilized the standard 1-10 scale that other collectibles
do.
To be fair, it is hard to accurately assess a game once slabbed. Flaws that are very noticeable in hand can be masked or made insigificant when viewing through the slab. Sure you can make a guess but you would be surprised how much shows up in hand that you forget about once graded.
And let's be clear here, comic sites and wata go hand in hand because wata is using the comic scale. Not the scale "that all other collectibles do". Coins use a 70 point scale (that I barely understand, I believe MS-64 is pretty damn nice there), cards use 10 point scale but only in 1.0 increments (sometimes .5). Comics do the whole .5 and then .2 increments from 9.0 to 10.0 which is not necessarily intuitive.
What you really care about in figuring out the scale is where is the middle of the Bell Curve, or the Normal Distribution. You'll have pristine Mint and piss poor at each end and the average grade will be the bell curve. On VGA that is 80 to 85 on Wata it's early to tell but it seems like that will be 9.0-9.2 for sealed at least. I'm not sure if that is how the Comic scale lines up or if the middle of their bell curve is really much lower. That bell curve will let you know how tight or how loose the grading scale may be. When the sample size is large enough it'll tell the story itself.
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we...) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do it with diamonds as well. The difference between a perfect diamond and a near perfect diamond can't be detected without a microscope. It's probably just human nature and learned behavior, we see a higher number, it must be better and we must have that. The only part I don't understand on your logic is the above 10 I have used strikethrough on. If a 10 is perfect than the scale should stop 9.4 or they should just have 9, 9.5, and 10. Personally, it sounds like a ploy to drive up values based on perception, much like diamonds. That isn't a knock on people who value higher graded games, I get it, you want to have the best in your collection. More power to you to seek perfection and have the means to do so.
edit: I suppose I can see value in the 9.8 as most people are hesistant to give a perfect score. But 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 can get right the hell out.
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do it with diamonds as well. The difference between a perfect diamond and a near perfect diamond can't be detected without a microscope. It's probably just human nature and learned behavior, we see a higher number, it must be better and we must have that. The only part I don't understand on your logic is the above 10 I have used strikethrough on. If a 10 is perfect than the scale should stop 9.4 or they should just have 9, 9.5, and 10. Personally, it sounds like a ploy to drive up values based on perception, much like diamonds. That isn't a knock on people who value higher graded games, I get it, you want to have the best in your collection. More power to you to seek perfection and have the means to do so.
edit: I suppose I can see value in the 9.8 as most people are hesistant to give a perfect score. But 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 can get right the hell out.
I think you’re missing the point I’m illustrating so let me redo it .
10 = 10
9.8 = 9.5
9.6 = 9.0
9.4 = 8.5
9.2 = 8.0
9.0 = 7.5
All grade scales are arbitrary to a point. They could have easily used symbols instead of numbers...like Stars. Or they could have used sub-mid grades like + or - like VGA uses...they could have used color codes like stone/wood/iron/bronze/silver/gold/platinum/diamond. The point is that their scale has 23 levels and this is the best way they could devise is
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
Joe, and I mean this with love..
WTF are you talking about?
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
Joe, and I mean this with love..
WTF are you talking about?
Read my post above this one! I knew I should have waited to respond
Grading is something I would never be able to do, I was just over looking at WATA scale (https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale) and they have 6 entries in between 9-10 which is kind of ridiculous. Like how much of a price difference could there be between a 9.2-9.8? I'm also glad I'm not interested in graded games because omg I'd be so broke lol
At the upper end of the spectrum, a single miniscule flaw under magnification can have a significant impact on the collectors value. Having minor divisions in the scale allows for more nitpicking in perfection.
Since WATA uses half points throughout the entire scale look at it like this, instead of the way it's presented as-is.
9.0 = 9.0
9.2 = 9.5
9.4 = 10.0
9.6 = 10.5
9.8 = 11.0
10 = 11.5
I would imagine a 10 would be flawless even under magnification, a 9.8 would be nearly flawless with only one flaw under magnification, a 9.6 would be nearly flawless with a few minor flaws under magnification, a 9.4 would be nearly flawless with a single flaw without magnification, a 9.2 would be nearly flawless with some minor flaws visible without magnification, and a 9.0 would be nearly mint with multiple minor flaws visible without magnification yet still hard to notice/care about without a trained eye.
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do it with diamonds as well. The difference between a perfect diamond and a near perfect diamond can't be detected without a microscope. It's probably just human nature and learned behavior, we see a higher number, it must be better and we must have that. The only part I don't understand on your logic is the above 10 I have used strikethrough on. If a 10 is perfect than the scale should stop 9.4 or they should just have 9, 9.5, and 10. Personally, it sounds like a ploy to drive up values based on perception, much like diamonds. That isn't a knock on people who value higher graded games, I get it, you want to have the best in your collection. More power to you to seek perfection and have the means to do so.
edit: I suppose I can see value in the 9.8 as most people are hesistant to give a perfect score. But 9.2, 9.4, and 9.6 can get right the hell out.
I think you’re missing the point I’m illustrating so let me redo it .
10 = 10
9.8 = 9.5
9.6 = 9.0
9.4 = 8.5
9.2 = 8.0
9.0 = 7.5
All grade scales are arbitrary to a point. They could have easily used symbols instead of numbers...like Stars. Or they could have used sub-mid grades like + or - like VGA uses...they could have used color codes like stone/wood/iron/bronze/silver/gold/platinum/diamond. The point is that their scale has 23 levels and this is the best way they could devise is
This is now quite more interesting since you flipped it the other way, now it looks like they are playing on the same idea I mentioned before about higher numbers. But if this was really common knowledge than a WATA graded 9.0 game would be way less valuable than people think since on the scale its really quite average instead of the pristine score you think are getting. This type of scale puts sellers in a better light and allows them to upcharge for games. If I do ever decide to buy a sealed game and it is WATA graded I'll be very suspicious of the grade.
Very good business strategy though, I don't hate on companies for trying to make money, that is the point lol
Thank you for the thought provoking post by the way.
Let's talk about the scale in comics.
A 9.6 and 9.8 are almost identical. There is very little condition difference between them, but a lot of value difference on the market.
A 2.0 and 2.5, while they both are worn, the difference between them condition wise is great. The value difference is relatively small.
The point being, from a comic collector POV, if it looks like dogshit, it looks like dogshit. Comic collectors tend to, in most cases, place the lion's share of value in the small incremental condition steps at the top of the scale because, well, they evidence that my copy is better than yours or vice versa. So, the grade increments at the end, to a layman, are pretty well indistinguishable, but to a collector very important.
Now let's talk about the wata scale.
From what I understand, they are NOT taking a comic book style approach despite using a scale designed for comics. Kenneth's background is coins and he's been pretty clear in stating that he views the condition spectrum as a coin collector would, wear a "1" is barely recognize, 'mid grades' are still what I or what comic collectors would think of as beat up. I.e. as I understand it, he wants to use the whole spectrum of numbers to designate grades for the whole spectrum of condition, from 'truck ran over it' to case fresh.
Think of the WATA 4.0 CIB mario that was on heritage. That thing was ugly AF and clearly using the coin style system, IMO. Which is neither bad nor good, just my interpreation of the facts.
From what I can see of the grades in the marketplace, its a bit of a hyrid coin/comic model, born of Kenneth's background being married to the audience they are going after, but that's speculation on my part.
The discussion is a fucking mess
Let's talk about the scale in comics.
A 9.6 and 9.8 are almost identical. There is very little condition difference between them, but a lot of value difference on the market.
A 2.0 and 2.5, while they both are worn, the difference between them condition wise is great. The value difference is relatively small.
The point being, from a comic collector POV, if it looks like dogshit, it looks like dogshit. Comic collectors tend to, in most cases, place the lion's share of value in the small incremental condition steps at the top of the scale because, well, they evidence that my copy is better than yours or vice versa. So, the grade increments at the end, to a layman, are pretty well indistinguishable, but to a collector very important.
Now let's talk about the wata scale.
From what I understand, they are NOT taking a comic book style approach despite using a scale designed for comics. Kenneth's background is coins and he's been pretty clear in stating that he views the condition spectrum as a coin collector would, wear a "1" is barely recognize, 'mid grades' are still what I or what comic collectors would think of as beat up. I.e. as I understand it, he wants to use the whole spectrum of numbers to designate grades for the whole spectrum of condition, from 'truck ran over it' to case fresh.
Think of the WATA 4.0 CIB mario that was on heritage. That thing was ugly AF and clearly using the coin style system, IMO. Which is neither bad nor good, just my interpreation of the facts.
From what I can see of the grades in the marketplace, its a bit of a hyrid coin/comic model, born of Kenneth's background being married to the audience they are going after, but that's speculation on my part.
Not to mention CGC 9.9 and 10. Which is basically a 9.8 that hit the lottery. I've seen a lot of 9.9s in hand and they are, for the most part, interchangable with 9.8s, but the value is ridiculously high in comparison. Take a popular comic book like New Mutants #98 for example. Sells for around $700 to $800 in CGC 9.8 (there are 2839 on the CGC census btw). There are currently 12 9.9s and 1 10. The last 9.9 sold for $23k. So if game collecting moves in that direction the WATA census is going to be enormously important in my opinion. It looks like WATA skipped the 9.9 grade but there is a 10 possibility.
why are people trying to force the comics parallel? i get that we're just trying to contextualize things, but can't video games be their own thing?
Because people want to try and make smart economical decisions based on something with very little history? Thus, lets use the closest thing we have, which has already gone through these growing pains. It makes sense to try and draw parallels to determine how the market is going to behave as it matures.