500Club

Explain to me how, in a perfect world, one could hope to prove such a thing as grade inflation to bump a FVF. It's such a miniscule risk to begin with. If anything, I think people underestimate their value to stay in a certain tier and it goes uncorrected. They'd make more fixing that leak. Are you understanding the FVF issue correctly? It's not about submitters underestimating values. It's about CGC charging 3% of market value for books graded over a certain market value. Take an AF 15, 8.5 vs 9.0. CGC charges that 3% based on after-market value. Therefore that 3% is larger if the grade is larger. Therefore an inherent COI, as bigger grade given equals bigger payday for CGC. How would it be proven? With difficulty, but with the number of eyes and ears on the ground here, patterns would be spotted. That was the point of the Ewert reference - it was a pretty miniscule finding that led to the discovery. Yes. I understand it. I was saying CGC's cut on inflating a grade to make a higher FVF is far less than you make it out to be. Oh, ok. Then I'll follow with the thought that CGCs cut on improperly using the CI relationship would be even less. Say you start giving gift grades to books coming through CI. What's the plan? To increase submissions to CI so you can make more money? For that to happen, submitters would have to know that CI books were getting favorable treatment. What would be the end result of that? Bye-bye CGC reputation and bye-bye CGC.

Explain to me how, in a perfect world, one could hope to prove such a thing as grade inflation to bump a FVF. It's such a miniscule risk to begin with. If anything, I think people underestimate their value to stay in a certain tier and it goes uncorrected. They'd make more fixing that leak. Are you understanding the FVF issue correctly? It's not about submitters underestimating values. It's about CGC charging 3% of market value for books graded over a certain market value. Take an AF 15, 8.5 vs 9.0. CGC charges that 3% based on after-market value. Therefore that 3% is larger if the grade is larger. Therefore an inherent COI, as bigger grade given equals bigger payday for CGC. How would it be proven? With difficulty, but with the number of eyes and ears on the ground here, patterns would be spotted. That was the point of the Ewert reference - it was a pretty miniscule finding that led to the discovery.

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*. I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices. I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace. It's an apples to oranges comparison. CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc. You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books. So what's changed from the time that they decided PCS was a bad idea? My money is NOT on "people just accept pressing more now." What is your money on?

That's a mighty big if. Before, CGC had no direct financial interest in knowing whose book is being graded. Now they do. That's the problem to me. It's a small 'if'. Hasn't happened. Won't happen. And, CGC, with the HA ownership issue, did/does have a previous direct financial interest in knowing the submitter. Not only that, as I said before, this is a minimal COI compared to the Final Value Fee calculation COI. Frankly, this issue is more of a tinfoil hat wearer's wet dream than a valid COI concern. Two years from now, all the angst of this thread will be long forgotten. In the immortal words of what's becoming the battle cry of this thread, prove it. How do you know it hasn't happened? You can't prove it hasn't any more than I can prove it has. But CGC now has a more immediate financial reason to commingle. This announcement is a Rorschach test. But not every one who sees a problem with it was a conspiracy nut when they heard it. Any proof, in 12 years, that CGC has abused the tying of the FVF to the grade given to a book? Any at all? Any rumors? Whispers? None. Not one. Would there be? Will there be, if the CI relationship is abused? Look at the board's history of uncovering things like Ewert's shenanigans and the Schmell JIM resub...

Scenario not of concern. The books go into the grading process blind, devoid of information regarding source, submitter, pressing history etc.

That's a mighty big if. Before, CGC had no direct financial interest in knowing whose book is being graded. Now they do. That's the problem to me. It's a small 'if'. Hasn't happened. Won't happen. And, CGC, with the HA ownership issue, did/does have a previous direct financial interest in knowing the submitter. Not only that, as I said before, this is a minimal COI compared to the Final Value Fee calculation COI. Frankly, this issue is more of a tinfoil hat wearer's wet dream than a valid COI concern. Two years from now, all the angst of this thread will be long forgotten.

CGC will slab more books this year than they ever have. Business is in no way down. No Hail Mary needed. +1 And looking at turnaround times, it looks more like they are trying to kill the clock.

All irrelevant. The books will continue to go into the grading process blind, devoid of any information regarding submitter or prep work.

Please, not the suddenly revealed son of Ben Reilly. I've seen ASM #149 nearly double in price in the last week. You might be on to something. In the Alpha thread, someone commented that an inside source had told him the sidekick would be the son of Ben Reilly. Nothing came of that, but I wonder if the source actually had info pertaining to the Superior development. Or this may be a complete straw grasp.

Larry confirmed it's not Miguel O'Hara, but did offer a cryptic comment about upcoming plans for the 2099 properties.

But this is exactly YOUR M.O. - to come on here and attempt to translate your antiquing experience into lessons for comic collectors with 3-4 decades of experience.

I am one of the critics of Mr. Nelson, somehow not understanding how a guy who has been caught systematically shilling books on eBay twice is still afforded the respect he gets from some quarters of the hobby. However, I'm with you on this issue 100%. There is no way that books dealt with by CI will be treated any differently by the grading process, than when books arrived from CI in TX.

One year older, one year wiser.

This. That ship sailed long ago, with the tying of FVFs to market value of the end grade. That is a much more egregious COI. And yet, CGC has not shown a breach of integrity in that regard. As long as the books coming through CI go into the grading process at CGC blindly, the overall net effect of this is Matt Nelson changing addresses.

Please, not the suddenly revealed son of Ben Reilly.

It's most likely to dilute the appeal of the Phantom variants.

I have 1-3 but haven't read them yet, but I have been hearing that issue 3 was awesome. So perhaps that's causing people to want to check out the rest of the series? Yep, I suspect expectations for this were low and when it turned out to be a quality read people were left playing catch up. I had to be talked into reading this series, but it's now one of my favorite books. Also, we are seeing A LOT of girls in the store asking for this. I guess he was the pull for them in the movie? My 13 year old daughter liked Hawkeye the best, and wanted to read the comic.

More then a few have already bought 10+ copies or more. One guy was trying to buy 100 copies this week. I will sit back and watch this one because I know 2 places I can pick up a ton if it takes off. How long can the Spidey 2099 era really last until fans demand Peter Parker back? issue #750 has the return of Peter Parker When is the next movie? My gut says Marvel has to have PP back before then.

It depends what else they do with the character.

Sure I'm aware of the movie Larry. Like I said - I hope I'm wrong but i think unless this book becomes ongoing I can't see it being a speculator hit, even though its one of my current favourites. I'll hold a couple just in case (thumbs u Not only that, there is no movie. The plan for now is to develop the project, and then hook it up with a studio or financier. If that happens, then maybe a movie gets made.

I'm 85% after the fact. Ted Williams was the last man to bet .400. Apparently his vision was better than 20/20, and he could pick up the seams of the baseball after it had left the pitcher's hand.

manetteska manipulated you into posting that.

It's an easy era to pick on. Obviously there was some decent stuff during that time... Uh... right off the top of my head.... The Authority was top notch. Ultimate Spider-man wasn't something 'I' enjoyed, but it was immensely popular...100 Bullets... the DD reboot...Transmetropolitan... uh... help me out here.... uh... Vampi? Preacher Morrison's JLA

+1 topnotch Tom is an A+ seller.

Excuse my ignornance, Dan, but how many years do we have to hold these for? Rule of 25; what's that? Rule of 25 is that things become "popular" approx every 25 years. I think it's more that people become nostalgic for things they had in their childhood. It obviously doesn't work for everything though and there's a "rule of 25" and a "rule of 30" mintcollector should be here any minute now It certainly has worked for this hobby for a long time.