Mr.Mcknowitall

You are in Ohio? Not my business, but the Ohio 529 College Advantage is one of the best in the country, a savings plan that just keeps on giving, and allows a 2k deduction per year per beneficiary and can be carried forward to other taxable years, and family and friends can contribute and receive the same benefit. I would vist Ohio.gov and review the 529 program. Additionally, part of the inheritance received can be applied to a Roth IRA for additional savings (it isn't that difficult a financial maneuver), and under the Ohio plan, matching funds from other sources (grants/scholarships/etc.) does nor dilute the benefit. Additionally, when used for in State tuition, it is not treated in the same manner as other States when other grants/scholarships are received. This is a no brainer. The thing you may have to do (assuming the 10K is not in a 529 now and is just sitting in a savings/checking account) is run some actuary tables on the timing/amount of contributing....put it all in now... or a portion over the next 4-5 years, taking into account the IRA contribution. Don't forget to factor in the advantages of the first 2 years at a CC. It may also be of benefit to set up a loan program between the beneficiary (your child) and you.

You need to buy it.....

To me, the pictures have a feel of a picked over accumulation. Nobody collects or accumulates one Hummel. Either there are more in the basement. That particular one is part of as set, and as I recall, could only be bought as a set via a reserve sign up. I guess it is possible that it came as a yard sale deal in a box or something, Maybe there are a heck of a lot more in the basement. Looking at the Hot Wheels, some of them appear to be the racing series. This series eventually ended up at the Dollar stores @$1.00-$3 each per package, whether 1 or 4 per package. I don't know, the family may not be interested and just wants to dump it in one sale, but it would be very difficult to persuade me that the family has not performed even the basic due diligence, and knows generally some range of value, and has possibly already been advised of same. This has the old 409 in the farm barn in the country feel.

I'm simply rehashing what I remember from the discussion threads over the past year. If you're talking about legal timeline and filings, that's a different discussion. Yes, and I was also referring to the thread that the plaintiff participated in. If the plaintiff posts are scrutinized and compared with the Complaint statements, a very loud uhooooo can be heard. I apologize if my post came across as disagreement or criticism of your post. I was actually agreeing with what you were remembering, and that is the point....It actually works against the plaintiff .

I don't know much about professional restoration, but isn't the bolded part a textbook definition of good restoration work where someone can't discern original from resto? If this is CGCs issue I can totally get why they would be hesitant to grade them as they might be having trouble identifying the extent of the work done. Actually, this is the part of the issue that I could not understand even in the original thread from last year. If the restoration is done so well that you cannot discern what is original from what is restored, is this not the definition of "perfect" restoration? Or are the restorers always supposed to do an "imperfect" job so that you can tell what is original from what has been restored? I suppose a restoration job is supposed to make the book look as close to original as possible. That means if the restoration is not detected, they're probably doing their job. The problem comes when someone is asked to appraise how much of the book is restored and they can't tell. It's my understanding that IGB was painting / glossing covers to the point where you couldn't tell where it started or stopped. It's also my understanding that this led to the books not feeling or looking like original comics. As a buyer, how do you buy something when you can't quantify how much is original, since restored books are more or less valued on how much is original and how much isn't? I think you should not have your answers. And the Meyers did state that their techniques evolved over time with the earliest books being the 1st to be ndffscrutinized and later books not restored as heavily. That is not exactly what they stated, in regards to the defendant(s). The statement does not hold up at all and neither does the timetable or the status of the plaintiff at the time of the alleged improprieties by the defendant(s). It sounds good, but it is designed generalized confusion, as are most of the allegations, inclusive of who is who.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting. Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own? I think that is what comicwiz was referring to. You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time. You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course. That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for that. If this is the case, then this should be pretty easy to track. Would we not simply need to compile a chronological listing of all of their books and what they sold for and then compare the prices before and after the thread in question? I was always under the impression that their books had in most cases always been going for either single digit percentages or very low double digit percentages to condition guide all along, due to their EP restoration rating. Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out. Maybe read the Complaint again, and consider the timetable. And the Plaintiff status. So, are you implying that it is not one of the contentions of the plaintiffs that the discussion within that particular thread on the boards here cast a negative light on their books and hence resulted in lower prices being received on their restored books? It is a contention. My comment is specific to your last sentence: ".....Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out..." I would again refer to the plaintiff status and the timetable.

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion. I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field. A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water. I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did. But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities? At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction. If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace. Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course. Thanks, this also seems reasonable on the surface. However, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues from arising, I still feel that what you are describing here would more suitably fit a comic dealer, auctioneer, consignment house rep, or someone involved with a print or online price guide. Not someone whose profession is to grade comics. I believe the way Rick coordinates to have a second person offering a value opinion whenever Mark Hall-Patton authenticates items is the correct procedure, but that's just my opinion. Interested to hear what others think. Since you have given me another opportunity to share my opinion further, by stating you are interested in what others think (never never give me an opening), I will do so, on the subject of profession. I have always, on these boards and ats (until ats came to the conclusion that criticism is a very bad thing), stated that any person working for a TPG in any collectible venue should undergo a testing procedure that requires in depth knowledge of the subject that is being evaluated. The person should also be required to have at the minimum a complete ophthalmology exam (by a licensed Ophthalmologist), at a minimum of once a year and preferably 2 times a year. The person should then be licensed by whatever independent professional organization exists for the particular endeavor the person is involved in, and issued an ID number that remains with the person, even if they change employment or start their own business as a TPG. This ID should be identified in some manner on anything the person grades. Over time, the grading can be tracked and the information can be evaluated by the marketplace. If more than one grader is involved, both....or if three then three.....should also be identified in the same manner. The ID is private and is certified and held by the independent professional organization, and the ID is to be surrendered if the person leaves the profession. The person should be required to take yearly CEU, as determined by the independent professional organization. The person is not to be engaged in personal grading for others outside the employment position. This is interesting. I believe an independent and authorized committee entrusted with the duty of reviewing indiscretions and missteps might help avert these types of situations from arising altogether. What do you think of E&O coverage requirements for the graders? I have always believed this determination is a function of the independent organization, and if determined as a necessity for the grader, that the TPG pay the policy cost. I also believe any TPG should carry errors and omissions liability insurance as a general rule. It is foolish not to. Addenda covering employees is a savings method over independent policies purchased by the grader individually. It could also be addressed as an empolyee benefit, on par with licensed physicians. If the physician has an independent practice, the physician pays the malpractice insurance. If the physician works for the hospital entity or a super group, the employer/contract term pays for it.

My opinion is the documents don't do that.

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion. I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field. A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water. I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did. But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities? At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction. If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace. Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course. Thanks, this also seems reasonable on the surface. However, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues from arising, I still feel that what you are describing here would more suitably fit a comic dealer, auctioneer, consignment house rep, or someone involved with a print or online price guide. Not someone whose profession is to grade comics. I believe the way Rick coordinates to have a second person offering a value opinion whenever Mark Hall-Patton authenticates items is the correct procedure, but that's just my opinion. Interested to hear what others think. Since you have given me another opportunity to share my opinion further, by stating you are interested in what others think (never never give me an opening), I will do so, on the subject of profession. I have always, on these boards and ats (until ats came to the conclusion that criticism is a very bad thing), stated that any person working for a TPG in any collectible venue should undergo a testing procedure that requires in depth knowledge of the subject that is being evaluated. The person should also be required to have at the minimum a complete ophthalmology exam (by a licensed Ophthalmologist), at a minimum of once a year and preferably 2 times a year. The person should then be licensed by whatever independent professional organization exists for the particular endeavor the person is involved in, and issued an ID number that remains with the person, even if they change employment or start their own business as a TPG. This ID should be identified in some manner on anything the person grades. Over time, the grading can be tracked and the information can be evaluated by the marketplace. If more than one grader is involved, both....or if three then three.....should also be identified in the same manner. The ID is private and is certified and held by the independent professional organization, and the ID is to be surrendered if the person leaves the profession. The person should be required to take yearly CEU, as determined by the independent professional organization. The person is not to be engaged in personal grading for others outside the employment position.

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion. I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field. A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water. I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did. But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities? At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction. If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace. Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting. Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own? I think that is what comicwiz was referring to. You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time. You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course. That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for that. If this is the case, then this should be pretty easy to track. Would we not simply need to compile a chronological listing of all of their books and what they sold for and then compare the prices before and after the thread in question? I was always under the impression that their books had in most cases always been going for either single digit percentages or very low double digit percentages to condition guide all along, due to their EP restoration rating. Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out. Maybe read the Complaint again, and consider the timetable. And the Plaintiff status.

Why? Is the perception reality? If it is that bad, is there not an alternative? What supports the stated perception and what is the reality of the stated perception in the market?

No, no, and no. Just an interested opinion, though.

Thank you. It appears, to me, the claims of the Plaintiff can not actually be substantiated by date or fact. That's a valid opinion on the surface of a varied range of claims which I too believe will be difficult to substanitate as a whole, but I have no way of debating such an assumption without knowing how you arrived at this understanding yourself. Would you care to elaborate? By the posts of the Plaintiffs.

Thank you. It appears, to me, the claims of the Plaintiff can not actually be substantiated by date or fact.

Just curious, what was the negative impact on reputation and when did it occur ( I know what the Complaint states; that is not what I am asking), and when was the reputation firmly established with the collecting public prior to the negative impact?

Why "afterwards"?

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting. Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own? I think that is what comicwiz was referring to. You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time. You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course.

Thank you very much. I have a much better understanding now. I appreciate the explanation.

A question, because I know nothing about the hobby at all, why did the book get a NG? Is it a fake, or not recognized, or a what is this we don't know so we can't grade it thing, or a self art submittal or a cleaned/damaged book, or that is not recognized, or....? I take the grade as equal to a body bag grade in coins, or a genuine grade under the more modern coin grading. Thanks, if anyone cares to answer.

Hello, everyone. Just a quick drive by because I read the Post by Mr. Marco, and wanted to assure him that he is very easy to understand, and in my opinion has surpassed the communication abilities of 95% of the WC members. Nobody talks to me over there, anymore. I don't play well with others, I am told. I like Italy; lived on Via Monzoni, 96 Bis Naples, for 3 years. I learned a lot......a lot, and it wasn't all comics. Welcome Mr. Marco. Just wanted to say that. Leaving now. Thank you all.