Some people have hinted at this but I have not seen anyone compare the two scales visually yet.  Hopefully this chart should clear up some common misconceptions about how they align.  First a few clarifications / data sources:

The VGA scale I've cited is exactly as defined on their site:
http://cgagrading.com/VideoGameGrader/grading_scales.aspx

The Wata scale isn't quite as nicely defined:
https://www.watagames.com/what-we-do/wata-scale

The Wata scale does clearly define their seal qualities but the point scale is only defined with pictures.  In lack of text descriptors I have assumed it aligns almost identically to the published CGC scale, except Wata does not have a 9.9 or a 1.8 grade.

CGC Scale as baseline:
https://www.cgccomics.com/comic-grading/grading-scale/

How does this all look?  Here's a simple graphic:



As you can see, it's not necessarily intuitive.  A casual eye may think a Wata 8.5 is approximately a VGA 85, but that would be incorrect based on the definitions.  The VGA 85 would be much nicer as a "Near Mint Plus" game, compared to a "Very Fine +" Wata 8.5.  I personally don't think the "Very Fine" terminology applies to games (I'd prefer EX), but you get the point.

It also shows that the Wata scale is quite top heavy.  There's also not a clear mapping for "Mint" (95/95+)... they would map to 9.9 on the Comic scale but are probably high 9.8/A++ or 10.0/A++ (A+), maybe.  As you start finding wear though, mapping results will vary greatly.  You could have a VGA 85+ that had a pristine box with a rough seal or vice versa.  Those two games would grade drastically different on the Wata scale.  

I'm examining a much more data backed approach and any individual game can be an outlier, but this is a simple graphic that helps explain the difference between the two scales.  Hope someone finds it helpful at least. 

Nicely done, thanks

Nicely done JB!

I think there are 2 separate issues to consider:
- what is the grade relative comparison, when the seal is seen as perfect (WATA score A++)?
- how does the grade drop on VGA score whenever there is a drop in WATA seal score (A++ -> A+ -> A -> B+.....)?

Edited

So who's better?

Also, I don't understand the comparison of WATA Boxed vs VGA as I thought VGA only graded new and sealed items.

It's my understanding that this has changed for (at least for cardboard boxed titles) to keep up with the competition.

 

Wata grades a sealed game on two different scales, the box rating (1-10) and the Seal Rating (C-A++).  VGA grades it with one number.

This thread is only meant to compare the Sealed grading scale of each.

No, VGA only grades "new and unused" boxed items under the qualified scale.  They aren't competing with Wata in CIB grading.

Would you say VGA over the years tends to over grade or under grade more often? Thoughts? I know it happens in comics and coins etc.

VGA Q is a joke. It is 100% not "new and unused" as intended. It's nothing more than a CIB IMO.

I have known many, many people that just found nice examples of a box, cart and instructions and sent them to VGA. Instant Q grade. Anybody that thinks otherwise is lying to themselves. I don't mean to sound so harsh but I think people should know what they are actually getting. Are there times when a Q game is actually new and unused? Of course, but I'd bet those are in the minority of games that received a Q designation.

Overall I’d say they are fairly consistent on grading. There have been periods when they were pretty strict IMO. I’ve also seen some overgrading, but nothing rampant. And certainly individual grades where I just shook my head (one way or the other). The biggest issue I have with VGA is not with grading consistency, but their inability to accurately identify fakes and their inconsistency with sticker seals. 

 

An extremely handy graphic and analysis Jone. It's what I was afraid of in a few ways, VGA 90 to 95+ can all fall within a single grade range of Wata, ie Wata 9,8. That somewhat makes sense as the nuance of wrap factors into VGA's grade, where as that whole analysis is regulated to a sub grade with Wata.

Something for people to keep in mind as they rush to do crossovers. You'll be happy with your 90's Wata grade, and you should be, but know that you are in great company with many else who got 90's Wata grade on a somewhat more forgiving scale.

It also goes to show how utterly damaged sub 80ish Wata games must be.

All I can add is the VGA 10 and the WATA 1.0 both look equally fucked up  

Nice reference. Low 9s from Wata are even lower than I thought on the VGA scale. Wata definitely has a psychological boost on their numbers. VGA 80+ "looks" so dirty and low, Wata 9.4 "looks" near mint.

I sincerely hope you are not taking that chart as gospel. There is no direct crossover. Period. 
 

No one mentioned crossover except you. This is looking at the scales as posted by two companies and readers can infer as they wish.

Yet there is data and an average range. I doubt a VGA 80+ is going to get a 9.8 or a 6.0 from Wata.

I totally thought this was a preliminary chart based on the crossover data you're getting  

There are literally lines crossing from one grading company to the other. 

 

It doesn’t work that way. There are two different standards for grading.

 

I crossed over that NES Golf 85 NM+ Silver to Wata that I bought from you Jone. Wata grade was 9.6 A+. Pictures of VGA version in my IG "Velvet the Elf" I'll try and post the Wata version tonight.

Jeez that actually sounds pretty damn inflated.

I don't think you can equate Wata with CGC for text descriptions honestly. A low Wata grade is actual garbage. A low GCG grade that isn't the absolute bottom can be decently presentable. For all the Wata and comic people who say that "It's just like comics!" I just don't really get it. If you can only afford a CGC 2.0 Amazing Fantasy 15, find a nice one and go for it. Wata 2.0 Stadium Events, only the most desperate completionists would even take a look at it.

I'm not sure what the reason you can't compare two standards is. Can you not convert between metric and imperial because they're two standards? I'm sure Jone's data will eventually show a VGA 80, will usually land in a bell curve from 7.0 A+ to 9.2 C+ (or whatever it does) and as more games are crossed over the usual lines will become more clear. But if they're completely incomparable maybe a VGA 80 can be a Wata 1.0, what do numbers mean anyway. It's all just nutters looking at creases on cardboard and holes in plastic.

Yeah you’re right about that with the low grade stuff. 

IMO, as Braveheart eluded to, the high end grades (8.0+ IMO) will become more and more desirable as new collectors realize how scarce those really are. 

I’m already hearing negative feedback in regards to games scoring lower than expected from newer collectors. The truth is it takes a long time to acquire an “eye” for evaluating this stuff. 

I think there is a lot of confusion still regarding Q grades. I’m from Australia and the games here are mostly non-sealed for Snes/N64. I have personally sent in dozens of games and can say from first hand experience that:
- a few of the ones I’ve sent in thinking they’re new (advertised as new when purchased and box looking mint), had been refused by VGA; some due to slight wear on cart/manual.
- a few I know for sure are old retail stock come back as “Qualified”, suggesting they’ve been opened before (eg. by shop owners or staff)

Whilst I’d prefer all my games to be graded as per normal standard, the outcomes in the above does indeed indicate VGA aren’t trying to scam me of doing a service they’re not advertising.

The other thing I can think of, is if someone switches contents, then the contents are genuinely new/unused. You might get a small number that is hard to tell, but I STRONGLY doubt you can just put in any used manual/cart and it will get marked as “Qualified”, but more likely to be rejected. 



 

That’s one perspective. The other perspective is that the quality of the seal heavily determines the score on a VGA grade. 

This is basically the main selling point between the 2 companies - one focusing on the box mainly, the other focusing on both box and seal.