lou_fine

The only problem with trying to compare or analyze auction results based upon the hammer price is that the only time you really see this pricing information is during the actual auction before it actually closes. Once the auction is closed, the historical pricing numbers and any sales related tracking sites such as GPA or GoCollect is always based upon the final auction result which includes the 20% Buyer's Premium in there which you never receive as it is generally always retained by Heritage themselves (unless your consignment is significant enough that you can also negotiate this figure downwards).

Tru dat +2 Yes indeed, definite congrats on your outstanding sales results here with your AF 15. Hopefully for the rest of the AF 15 marketplace, this will signal the start of a turnaround in the recent downward trend in prices for this once uber red hot book.

That is incorrect. GPA extracts from the API which reports SOLD price. Granted, there can always be glitches in the matrix, but that's how it works. -J. Any bets that the GPA historical sales results are skewed or biased upwards as they are probably populated with quite a bit of these so-called "glitches"? Especially since an overwhelming proportion of auctions on eBay are now being done in the BIN "non-auction" format (i.e. list at an over the market price and wait forever hopefully for a sucker to eventually come along ). The only reason this one was flagged and caught was due to the high profile nature of this particular book and its apparent sales results. If it was a much lower dollar value common book in the say 3-figure range, my thinking is that is would have gone right through into the GPA historicals without anybody at all being the wiser.

Are you alluding to the fact that the $99,999.99 apparent price has been crossed out and replaced by "Best Offer Price was Accepted" tagline when you dig a bit deeper into the eBay Feedback portion of this particular listing? Not sure how GPA works in these situations in terms of them simply going with the original BIN price, even though a much lower final offer price might have been accepted? Hopefully,this can't be right because it would basically put any BIN sales data into question in terms of GPA tracking.

I'm sure jaydog has something to say about that Yes indeed, as I can certainly imagine that. Thank God for the CR - OW pages, because if it had been those nasty all White pages, the book would not have gone for anywhere close to $100K. It actually says the Best Offer Price was accepted. Nor exactly how GPA works in this particular sitauation, but it makes me wonder if the final accepted price is quite far south of the $99,999.99 listed fix price?

This is the exact reason I don't understand why anybody in their right mind would ever consider paying multiples more for a CGC 9.8 graded copy of an otherwise common book as they would for a CGC 9.6 graded copy of the same book. I can certainly understand paying a slight premium for the CGC 9.8 graded copy, but multiples more for a copy that more than likely (in both yours and a professional presser's opinion) could conceiveably come back encased in a lower graded slab if ever sent back in for the regrading crapshoot.

The Supes1 9.0 ? Any bets that the posting of the 2 copies of Supes 1 on the Heritage website last week for their upcoming February Signature Auction might also have had a bit of a dampening impact on the final results here? Especially since Supes 1 is supposedly a much rarer book relative to most of the other GA keys, and lately they seem to be coming into the marketplace with another 2 copies coming out in a few short months from now.

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. I sent in a Sensation 29 that appeared to be in 6.5 or better, it came back a 4.0 with a detached cover. Yikes, sad to hear that this happened to you. Like Zolly had mentioned to you in his post up above, it's always a good idea to take pictures of your book or slab before sending it out to anybody, whether it be to a grading company, auction house, buyer, etc.

This is one of my favorite covers, I have a 4.5 and I would have loved to upgrade, but I was not sure if that was resto removal, or just grading I couldn't accept in a 6.5. That's happening a bit lately, things are inconsistent. Well, it looks like I was a bit premature in terms of the auction results for these Wonderworld books as WW 4 finished up at about a 20% premium to condition guide, while the WW 4 finished up at multiples to condition guide. Guess we really do need to wait until the fat lady sings when it comes to some of these auction results. As for your comment on the apparent inconsistency in grading, I would tend to agree with you and from many of the scans which I have seen recently, this would appear to a case of the grading pendulum swinging back to the soft side of center. Especially relative to where it was a couple of years ago, where it seem to be firmly ensconced on the other side of the center line. Not sure I understand your statement here. Are you saying that you sent in a book with an attached cover, but it most probably got damaged while in CGC's possession and as a result, came back as a slabbed book with a detached cover? If this is indeed the case, then !!!

Are you saying that GPA doesn't provide you with any of the background details on their numbers? If this is the case, you can probably go into GoCollect since I believe they DO provide you with some of the background information depending upon the type of service which you had subsrcibed to.

Now, now, now..........are we really that bored that you are trying to get us to step into another pile of doggie doo doo here? In theory, the graders are supposed to simply grade the book in front of them and it shouldn't matter at all who had done the work on them. BTW: If they remove the tear seals, it actually un-restores the book and it should in theory receive a Universal blue label, albeit at a slightly lower grade if we assume consistency in grading. Not sure what happens in actual practice though. Not sure if I believe the conspiracy theorists here, but are you referring to the time when Matt first moved over from CCS to the CGC side of the business and his replacements didn't have the same proficiency when it came to pressing? Apparently a large portion of the books were coming back with minor telltale signature pressing defects which the CGC graders turned a blind eye to and gave a pass to knowing full well they came from their partner shop down the hall. Although that part might possibly be true due to the learning curve at CCS, I find the extension of this about the CGC graders then being much tougher on the obvious pressed books that did not exhibit the same signature pressing defect to be totally unbelieveable. Probably nothing more than a case of sour grapes as a result of some submittors being unhappy with the grades which came back at the time on their books. Especially since it's supposedly impossible to tell if a book has been pressed or not if the work had been done properly. Bottom-line: I don't think you should have much to worry about based upon the concerns which you posted above, although I am sure that others who submit a lot of books to CGC would know a lot more than me.

Thank God as I thought it was just me not being able to understand plain simple English. I've read their above Restoration Grading Scale many times before in the past and I would have to agree with their BIG bold heading that restoration is indeed very complicated and easily misunderstood as they themselves seem to be a bit confused as to exactly what constitutes Restoration and what consitutes Conservation.

Well, that's really CC's fault because we've got another 3 long months to go before their next Event Auction. What else are we going to talk about in the meantime to keep ourselves entertained. Did you happen to noticed that the original 45 page thread also started in December in the dead of winter and during the long lull between major auctions.

I think what actually happened is more closely aligned with Tim's line of thinking. I think he nailed it when he basically said that if CGC says a certain practice is okay, then everybody is quick to accept it and jump onto the bandwagon. If CGC says a certain practice is not okay, then the CGC acolyte base with their daily dose of CGC Kool-Aid is quick to shun or deride it as nothing more than a scourge to the marketplace. For example, I still remember how most of the board members here use to think of Borock as almost God's gift to grading and seemingly bow down at his feet to whatever words of wisdom he would be giving out to the masses. And yet now that he is working for the other guys, it almost seems like he's totally incompetent when it comes to grading and probably couldn't tell the difference between a 2.0 graded book from a 9.0 graded book even if his life depended upon it.

Your feeling doesn't seem right, as apparently they still are in the middle of that lawsuit. As per Zaid: Well aware of the fact that they are still in the middle of their lawsuit. As we all know, these kinds of lawsuits usually takes years to settle and nowhere in my post did I imply that the lawsuit was over or had been settled.

Takes a lot to get a Buzz .Reading last 2 pages made me re thing my thoughts Who cares about the last 2 pages. You should go back and read the whole entire 45 pages of the original thread.

Yes, I clearly remember a thread talking about CGC accepting IGB books for grading again. Not so sure about them finding the right balance or not. Since they was in the middle of a lawsuit with the Meyers at the time, I have the feeling it was probably more of a strategic legal move suggested to them by their lawyers to make it easier for them to present their side of the case somehow.

Well, apparently the CGC Restoration Grading Scale would also agree with your point of view here. Of course, if you take a look at some of their labels, you would get a completely different story though.

I definitely would tend to agree with you that for the purists and many of the true collectors, these books would not have caught on. My bet though is that money wins out in the end as it usually does and if CGC gives its blessing to this kind of procedure, you'll see a certain segment of the players in the marketplace jump onto the bandwagon. Similar to what happened with stand alone pressing about 15 years ago when CGC declared it as nothing more than "maximization of potential" and all of a sudden, everybody could see themselves diving in and out of their money bin like good old Uncle Scrooge.

Ah, that’s just a bit too cynical for me. Maybe, maybe if Matt were still on his own it might have played out like you suggest. But he was already at CGC at the time, and the Company has larger concerns for their grading reputation at stake. Yes he was helpful to them as CGC is with many people in efforts to get more slabbing. But what the Meyers were doing with the books was way far and beyond restoration methods. I would tend to agree with your point of view here as I believe the final product was more like extensive, extensive, extensive restoration in the end. I somehow believe if Matt and CCS had continue to work with the Meyers, the final product would not have been the same and more like extensive, extensive restoration in the end. It seems that the biggest bone of contention was the type and extent of glossing agent used as what the Meyers ended up with was simply too much gloss to the point that nobody could tell what part of the book was original and at what part the restoration or recreation began. To their credit though, they clearly disclosed what they were doing and seemed to take almost countless pictures of the books as they were going though the process. Apparently, they were more than willing to share these photos with any and all parties that were interested. Definitely didn't appear to be some comic book mechanic hiding in their darkened dungeon manipulating books and then trying to foist them onto an unsuspecting marketplace as unrestored books. My suspicion though is that if they had kept working with Matt on this process to come up with a better balance, they would most likely still be working on it today with no final product to show for it. After all, we all know how busy Matt is with all of his other ventures, as clearly evident by the current status of the Pedigree Book which was supposed to have been completed well over a decade ago.

It is also completely reversible with no loss of original material. I don't think CGC categorizes leaf casting as conservation but there is definitely an argument to be made that they should Yes, they do as they clearly state that "some leaf casting" falls under Conservation repairs in accordance to their own Restoration Grading Scale below: https://www.cgccomics.com/pdf/restoration-grading-scale-handout.pdf Based upon their listed definitions, I assume there must be some leaf casting that falls under Conservation while a different portion would fall under Restoration. The part that I don't understand is that they clearly seem to indicate that any "Married pages or cover" would fall under Restoration repairs, and yet their labels would clearly indicate otherwise. Of course, this whole thing runs contra to the updated definitions in the Overstreet guide anyways, as they clearly state that the addition of any missing paper or reinforcement would fall under their definition of Restoration.

As we all know, there is a world of difference between thinking something and actually knowing something. I am just rather surprised that although you think I am completely wrong, you actually know that I am completely right in terms of my post above.

Apparently, they've also included leaf casting as part of the Conserved category. Not entirely sure what this procedure is, but based upon what I remember reading, it definitely appears to be a relatively invasive procedure.

+1 In full agreement with you here. From my own personal point of view, once you get into adding things such as a married cover or pieces added, you've crossed well beyond the restoration threshold line.

You are most welcome!!! As for the rest of the other Planets that Tim did not already mentioned, they are as follows: #36 for $1,000 in CGC 6.0; #41 for $1,000 in the other guy's 8.5 grade; #45 for only $114 in CGC 3.5; and #70 for a whopping $5,200 in CGC 9.0.