• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Red84

Member
  • Posts

    6,508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Red84

  1. I too have not read this entire thread but I get the jist of it.

     

    Would it be more conducive to discretely "tattoo" the interior of the book with the CGC number to prevent this kind of fiasco? I think it would certainly prevent the books from going through the resubmittal and screwing up the census.

     

     

    If i remember correctly, PSA/DNA has invisible ink. CGC could use that to barcode a book.

     

    THEY BETTER NOT.

    I don't want them adding chemicals to a book I won.

    If I take it out and keep it raw why should they keep their mark on it

    If they were to use invisible UV ink to "tattoo" the book in an inconspicuous area inside the book what difference would it make to you? Just means that if someone were to resubmit the book for grading it would come up in the CGC system as a book that had already been graded.

     

    At least the customer could be notified that the book had previously been graded. I'm sure there are other logical advantages that could come of this!

    That the book was previously means squat.

    The person breaks it out for SS or mishandles it. IT results in new grade. The tattoo will accomplish nothing except add chemicals to a book that is sensitive to chemicals

    So tell me why someone would break it out of a holder, mis-handle it and then submit it to expect a higher grade??????????????????????

    They might resub after SS

    They might break it open to read for their own collection and decide to reesub knowing it will get a lower grade. Is CGC supposed to re-Tattoo a book each time it comes in?

     

    +1 Tattooing a book is pointless. Especially if you are a SS freak and keep breaking it out to have more names put on.

    I once had a book I crack Multiple times and Had 9 sigs on it

     

    The book would only be tagged with invisible ink once. Then cgc could document its history linked to that serial number. Would actually be able to track the provenance.

    A Little water and the key could be reased

    And I suppose the water would help to increase the grade and value of the book?

     

    Like I've said before, water only increases the grade on Aquaman books :)

  2. I have a serious question for everyone.

     

    Suppose a legitimate competitor pops up tomorrow. Someone the hobby believes in with real backing.

     

    Will those here pay more for books in those holders?

     

    Will you frequent the sites that carry them primarily?

     

    Will you immediately send your books in for grading at the new service?

     

    What if your books will sell for less in a new company's holder?

     

    What if the transparency were no greater at the new company?

     

    Would people be willing to sell their books for less short term to help support the credibility of the new company?

     

    Curious to hear people's responses

     

    Didn't PSA have a monopoly on card grading at one time hm

     

    They did, and then an obvious competitor in BGS started up. Obvious because they were behind the price guide Beckett. Overstreet would be the logical company to start a competitor. PSA is still number 1, but BGS is 1a. Then you have a few other companies that no one takes seriously.

     

    Overstreet would be the perfect candidate, as most people use them for thier grading standards anyway

    You mean like these standards where Overstreet adapted CGC standards?

     

    I don't think anyone is questioning CGC's standards. People are questioning their ability to consistently apply them.

  3. I have a serious question for everyone.

     

    Suppose a legitimate competitor pops up tomorrow. Someone the hobby believes in with real backing.

     

    Will those here pay more for books in those holders?

     

    Will you frequent the sites that carry them primarily?

     

    Will you immediately send your books in for grading at the new service?

     

    What if your books will sell for less in a new company's holder?

     

    What if the transparency were no greater at the new company?

     

    Would people be willing to sell their books for less short term to help support the credibility of the new company?

     

    Curious to hear people's responses

     

    Didn't PSA have a monopoly on card grading at one time hm

     

    They did, and then an obvious competitor in BGS started up. Obvious because they were behind the price guide Beckett. Overstreet would be the logical company to start a competitor. PSA is still number 1, but BGS is 1a. Then you have a few other companies that no one takes seriously.

     

    I collected cards as a kid. Only recently got into comics. I watched as PSA started up, the Gem Mints 10s went nuts, and then the bubble burst. Vince Carter PSA 10 SP Authentic rookie cards were selling for over $3k; more than an 8.0 Jordan Fleer RC.

  4. I too have not read this entire thread but I get the jist of it.

     

    Would it be more conducive to discretely "tattoo" the interior of the book with the CGC number to prevent this kind of fiasco? I think it would certainly prevent the books from going through the resubmittal and screwing up the census.

     

     

    If i remember correctly, PSA/DNA has invisible ink. CGC could use that to barcode a book.

     

    THEY BETTER NOT.

    I don't want them adding chemicals to a book I won.

    If I take it out and keep it raw why should they keep their mark on it

    If they were to use invisible UV ink to "tattoo" the book in an inconspicuous area inside the book what difference would it make to you? Just means that if someone were to resubmit the book for grading it would come up in the CGC system as a book that had already been graded.

     

    At least the customer could be notified that the book had previously been graded. I'm sure there are other logical advantages that could come of this!

    That the book was previously means squat.

    The person breaks it out for SS or mishandles it. IT results in new grade. The tattoo will accomplish nothing except add chemicals to a book that is sensitive to chemicals

    So tell me why someone would break it out of a holder, mis-handle it and then submit it to expect a higher grade??????????????????????

    They might resub after SS

    They might break it open to read for their own collection and decide to reesub knowing it will get a lower grade. Is CGC supposed to re-Tattoo a book each time it comes in?

     

    +1 Tattooing a book is pointless. Especially if you are a SS freak and keep breaking it out to have more names put on.

    I once had a book I crack Multiple times and Had 9 sigs on it

     

    The book would only be tagged with invisible ink once. Then cgc could document its history linked to that serial number. Would actually be able to track the provenance.

  5. I too have not read this entire thread but I get the jist of it.

     

    Would it be more conducive to discretely "tattoo" the interior of the book with the CGC number to prevent this kind of fiasco? I think it would certainly prevent the books from going through the resubmittal and screwing up the census.

     

     

    If i remember correctly, PSA/DNA has invisible ink. CGC could use that to barcode a book.

  6. I really want to know about this last submitter. It would take a pair to submit the book thinking it had a shot at a blue label.

     

    Not so much, assuming they knew the book's history. If they bought it heavily discounted due to the PLOD, they probably figured the worst that might happen is it comes back a 6.0 PLOD, and maybe they loose a bit in potential value, but the upside is that knowing it was once given a blue label, it could happen again, and even better if it stays a 7.0. The potential profit in FMV well outstrips the potential loss.

     

    I'm curious to know if the buyer plans to disclose the history to his future buyer if he decides to sell it.

  7. Either:

    The book is trimmed and:

    They missed it in the walkthrough-PROBLEM

    Preferential treatrment was given-PROBLEM

    The book is not trimmed and:

    They misdiagnosed trim-PROBLEM

    Everyone in the building took a look and saw trim-PROBLEM

    Which scenario is best for CGC? Worst?

     

    There is no good scenario here. They messed up badly! They damaged their reputation and their brand.

  8. CRAIGSLIST FIND!

     

    Guy had 25 long boxes that his wife wanted him to sell.

    I went through them and pulled out 4 and a half long boxes of just spider-man and x-men (1200 comics) from the copper and modern age.

    Also got the below favorites.

    All for $425 :)

    The Vengeance of Bane looks like a 9.8.

    21D4A8EE-41BF-43C7-A950-65E08E44AC3E_zpsccpizpwl.jpg

    84D88783-5E59-43C4-BF64-AF7211200D7B_zpspfkrbonk.jpg

     

    The X-Factor isn't in great condition.

    The Wolverine 1 is really nice. 9.0+

    FBBFE372-B777-4CB7-81CB-6D055562B73E_zpssmzdhpky.jpg

  9. Does CraigsList count in this topic?

     

    If so, just got home with a carload of comics for . I went in expecting 4 stacks -- about 200 comics as per the pictures -- but the owner kept throwing in more comics until he didn't have any left.

     

    I haven't had time to go through 1/4 of it, but from the small picture on the CL ad, my hunch on a stack of Batman Adventures paid off. Essentially the whole run, including #12. $$

     

    While packing it up, I also saw a Batman Knightfall and Knightquest run, Shadow of the Bat, Hush, some Legend of the Dark Knight, basically anything 90s to present. He was packing up the Marvels, so that should be a treat.

     

    Not too shabby, but I'm supposed to be down-sizing, not loading up. Expect a giant sale soon, though I'm not looking forward to bagging everything.

     

    Nice!!

    Have to love craigslist.