Yep, nailed it. 

 

More likely to be rejected yes. I don’t think VGA is trying to scam anyone, it’s simply a by-product of offering a service you are not qualified to.

But, I am telling you there were many people that were swapping boards or cleaning them with Brasso to make them shine. I know this to be fact and while I know people won’t admit it, it was a known thing in the community and on this site. So to pretend Q holds any real significance is disingenuous at best (that’s not directed at you). 
 

Lets face the one fact here.

Using dishonest people to debunk the purpose of a "Q" grade is no different than any other argument people have created as a means to defame the whole AFA and VGA grading game. Nor is it different than this one person (from another site) who has a history of praising AFA, while defaming CAS because they have one person there that has made a serious (albeit costly) mistake long ago. I can easily point out articles and posts where the opposition will only agree with those that agree with them. And these same people will always say and do anything to have their "facts" be the lone reason why they are right. And in this case using dishonest people to dismiss the validity of any work tied to a "Q" grade is no different. Heck, we might as well just validate everything we can find that says what we like is either bad or pointless. Video games? They promote violence so they have to go. Role-playing games? They contribute to the history of suicide and Satanism. So all of that has to go. Graded video games? You cannot play them as intended, so there is no point of allowing it to be done.

With that said a "Q" grade benefits those who want their non-sealed items to be verified as being new. Want examples? Look at the score of VGA collectors you said are "disingenous" for having reasons to accept it. Does you "these people did bad things" story outweigh what they did to make sure their games be added to their VGA collections? You decide. But remember that there are people who could look at your avatar and create stories that dismiss your choice to like it. Because that is the internet. And the only people who have a valid claim are not those who dismiss their opposition's intelligence just to make a point.

I agree with this. NA must be the only forum I frequent that treats whispers and innuendo as cold hard truth. "VGA cases are easily replaceable, Q grades easily forged. No we wont provide proof or any assurance that it happened more than once or twice maybe, but its rampant I say!" Meanwhile I can show you examples of Wata CIBs that arent CIB, Wata A+ wrap with punched out holes in them, a 9.2 graded game with a big drillhole through the case, and thats all within the last month. These are facts. Even so, Im trying not to throw a whole company under the bus for one off situations. There are scenarios that can slip through or grading processes that can be refined later. TLDR: If you have evidence of something, post it for a genuine conversation. If you have gossip, probably keep it to yourself.

Nice comparison,good work ..

To be clear, I am not trying to defame anyone or any company. However, if I send a game to Wata or VGA and it comes back as "new unused", I expect it to be new and unused. That is a pretty fair expectation. It's no different than expecting authenticated sealed games to be authentic seals. That is the service I pay for and that is what I expect. The Q designation makes sense in a lot of scenarios. Frankensteining games together with nice minty parts and authenticating them as new is not the scenario I want.

It is not "whispers and innuendo", it is the truth. Many members here know it as well as some of the moderators. They can decide if they want to back up my "claims" or not, and honestly either is fine with me. This is not a one-off situation, if it were we wouldn't be talking about it as I completely understand mistakes happen.

Listen, I like VGA, a lot. I like Wata, a lot. They each provide a service that I need as a collector. VGA has beautiful cases and I love looking at them. Their customer service has always been top-notch for me. I do have issues with their Q designation as well as their ability to identify fakes and properly authenticate sticker seals. You can choose to take the blue pill if you want. But, when someone states something as fact when I know they have reason to doubt it, if not outright know it's inaccurate. I have and issue with that and will say something.

I like both companies as well, or the idea of them rather. I have always had issues grading CIB or Q for the exact reasons you mention. I think grading services in regard to games should be regulated to sealed items, personally, to avoid exactly the inconsistencies you describe, but that's not their business model. Though I'm sure there is a need to authenticate prototypes and the such, unless you can guarentee total accuracy, I'm not sure the service should be offered. The only CIB or Q I would personally accept would be games with damaged wrap that the buyer opted to have removed by the grader and graded as Q or CIB with a higher score, but again, my opinion.

I did not mean to sound as harsh as I did in regard to "rumor and innuendo." It's just the third or fourth time I've heard "I know a guy" in regard to grading mishaps and it starts to all sound the same. I can give you examples of VGA screwups, and Wata screwups, and sure as hell Beckett screwups (I also collect MtG) but if I wanted to have a genune conversation about them, I wouldn't do so without smething to present, otherwise the convo devolves into petty tribalism.

TLDR: It's all good dude. 

 

Oh all good here too. I actually really enjoy these discussions as I get to learn from fellow collectors and from people who are as passionate about this as I am. I pretty much agree with all of your points and sincerely appreciate them. You clearly have a deep knowledge of the hobby and I am sure you could teach me a ton. I think that's cool in itself.

For the record I own Q games, I have never submitted one to VGA though. I also collect action figures and there are issues in that hobby as well, but I am very appreciative for the resources we have. IMO there is no way to even remotely translate a VGA score to a Wata score accurately, and there doesn't need to be. We have two grading companies and I pick and choose which titles to send to each. As GPX said VGA grades heavily on the wrap. Wata has two separate grades, but no cumulative. I keep this in mind when I submit.

I realize I should have had some evidence brought to the table, but I also didn't expect the comments to spark quite this debate. I thought it was more of a known thing. That was pretty naive on my part. At the end of the day each individual can decide if they want to pay a premium for a Q game. I love how they look but don't pay more than I would for a Wata CIB counterpart. 



 

No need to apologize or anything like that bud. Everything I state is my own opinion, not any kind of rule or law. I'm not more valid than anyone, esp you, and we're all just about on the same page. You're good people Minus, always  
 

As are you, happy collecting bud!
 

This probably isn’t the right thread to go all bonkers on the topic of Q games. I just want to add that Q games have a place in the whole scheme of things. By me saying this, it doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to some drawbacks to the issues of Q grading, and that I believe the drawbacks are more the issue of grading services in general ie. you will get potential  errors in grades and errors in level of authenticity in anything that gets sent thru for grading.

We’re all technically in the same boat as consumers of grading services, so it’s good to learn from one another, and become better prepared in knowing what we’re dealing with with the fees we’re paying for a game to be graded or the extra costs of buying a graded game.
 

I'm going to be frank. The amount of time I personally spent invested in both AFA and VGA is over 7 years. During that time I researched the validity of their services, asked them questions that were tied to the 'Q' grading service, and even their handling of cross-grading. Every answer I have ever received was one that defines the word "anal-retentive." For example...

They will not grade factory resealed/double-taped items. I was told that if they see it is double-taped or resealed they will not grade it unless the person agrees to accept a 'Q' sub-grade. They simply do not care if the factory did it, nor do they care why it happened. Because just like Japanese sellers on the secondary market, they need to make sure that the items are both unused and complete. Otherwise they would be grading a re-sealed product that has either missing or wrong items. Something an anti-AFA/VGA poster would use as an excuse to dismiss the means of anybody grading sealed games. But for them this is about the fact that their job is to make sure the items are both authentic and unused. And I do believe that if they are that anal about re-sealed stuff, they would be the same about 'polished' video games these days.

Which gets to the point on what I was saying. The argument I was reading did not involve Frankensteining MIB/CIB anything. It has to do with people 'polishing' games so they look new. That is a totally different topic, and has nothing to do with those who hunt down new/unused content so their MIB/CIB items are guaranteed to be unused. Something I can see as being annoying to those who collect 'Q' games and like their stuff to be 100% original from that box. And if that was the point of the point of the argument, and the constant mentioning of people polishing the games was a mistake, then yeah... I can understand that.

Which is why I am not making a big deal about the whole 'Q' bit. Because in the end I am also apprehensive towards owning anything with a 'U' sub-grade after they telling me that their crossover grades will not include it. With the reason being that they "do not know how the other companies (specifically UKG) defines 'uncirculated'." CAS is fine with it, but again I am not because I prefer some type of uniformity. Plus here is an example where those who oppose AFA as a whole are more than willing to downgrade those who are not siding with them: https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/threads/any-experience-gettin...

The big difference here is that MinusWorld stopped once the mistake was pointed out. Which makes me glad because it verifies that I am talking to adult collectors. And not the usual types I encounter elsehwere.  

I take exception to that comment. I collect toys. I am by no means, an adult. Good day sir!
 

A witch! A witch! I accuse thee of being a witch!

And also ignore the fact I am rebuilding my AFA graded toy collection.  

@jonebone, can you share with us the current sample size in formulating the chart in the OP? It would be nice to also see an updated chart if and when the sample sizes increase to a significant level. Thanks for the effort!