Mr.Mcknowitall

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

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.

The lawsuit documents make ccs look really bad.

 

Will Cgc do anything about that? No.

My opinion is the documents don't do that.

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

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.

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

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.

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

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.

IMHO, the way these books performed at auction before/after the thread might be one way to guage. Also, I think the results from a persons work are what entrench their services in our hobby - no one mentions who presses/restores their books in the listings - all their customers care about are how the books grade, and that they squeeze every dollar out of them.

 

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.

IMHO, the way these books performed at auction before/after the thread might be one way to guage. Also, I think the results from a persons work are what entrench their services in our hobby - no one mentions who presses/restores their books in the listings - all their customers care about are how the books grade, and that they squeeze every dollar out of them.

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?

Nearly everybody had no idea who the Meyers were, or what their work actually looked like in hand until that thread in which many people posted images pointing out details that illustrated the work the Meyers were doing to the comics.

 

Imo, most people who read the thread and discussed the issue at conventions etc were in agreement that their work was excessive... And in such a way that while looking slick, pretty, and unblemished, was in reality a spray painted veneer of pristine condition, not the real thing.

 

 

So I suppose the argument "could" be made to blame that thread -- and by extension CGC itself -- for the direction the reputation of their work took afterwards...but To me that's a stretch. The argument could also be made that what really happened was that they had just burst onto the comics scene, and very few people knew anything about them just weeks before the thread began... And therefore a reputation was not tarnished by anyone by any act of volition, but rather as a result of consumers becaming educated to what the fuss was all about these pristine restored books, after which enthusiasm waned naturally.

 

Restoration is still an arcane art. But we are all becoming more astute year by year. Here, what LOOKED like one thing, the same old resto but done better -- was actually something most of us feel went too far , too over painted, and into something else entirely. Something few people wanted to pay for at prices the restorers hoped they sell for.

 

Why "afterwards"?

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

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.

Hi everybody! My name's Marco and I'm a collector from Italy.

Valiant invite me to join this great community.

 

My English is not-so-good but I hope we can understand each other.

 

I've been reading comics for 30 years (of course Italian comics) and I started my relationship with Original USA comic books in the 90s' with the Spider-Man of Todd McFarlane (Spider-Man #10 with Wolverine and Wendigo was my first American Book).

 

I'm a Marvel fan and my best caracther is Daredevil.

 

I'm tring to collect Daredevil serie and I'm very fascinated by 70s' marvel horror titles such as Chamber of Darness or Tower of Shadows or Chambers of Chill.

 

Hope we can have great time together!

 

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.