Dylan.

Just now, speedcake said:

Interesting that in many of your auctions, you don't even bother with a grade or any kind of physical description of the book. You just post a front and back cover scan, post a blurb about how great your customer service is, and let er rip!  And people bid! Genius

Nothing about the interior, no grading notes whatsoever, just "here's two lousy scans, but we are wonderful people, so don't worry it'll be fine!"

good lord

in regards of grade, I just get too busy sometimes so I prioritize and pick higher priced stuff to grade. Most large sellers DONT give graders notes unless something major which I do as well. except BLISSARD. good for him

Just now, kav said:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

here: 1st copy Poor condition 2nd copy Nice condition

1 minute ago, speedcake said:

    goal posts successfully transported.  you are a TRIP 

I think you're just surprised that I'm willing to say that I'm fallible and that I don't know everything. and you know what that's OK......

Just now, kav said:

This is true.  These 2 raws will sell for the exact same amt of money:  It's been proven time and again.

NO they wont. I'm referring to taking the same book and based on the GRADE ASSIGNED NOT the book. those are clearly 2 very different grade copies UGH. take 2 spawn 1s call 1 1.0, and 1 9.0 and see what happens

Just now, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

 

yeah you're right! I was talking about AUCTIONS but anyway that's true it looks like a 6.0, I'll go pull these down and adjust to new grading standards ASAP. SHOCKER. this listing is from May 2020 I believe. 

On 8/28/2020 at 11:34 AM, Buzzetta said:

I've worked for people where there was an error and it took almost two years for them to address it.  It took time for them to realize and verify that the problem actually existed. It took time to devise a strategy to properly address it.  It took time to implement that strategy.  It took time for anyone to actually see results. 

Many of the books in these types of holders have been incidental.  The only one who may have overtly exploited it is Dylan as seen by the timeline, if accurate, of submitting books in the other thread.  That appears to have been addressed as mentioned by Brittany and Harshen. 

Now I ask this of you.  Given something like this that damages the grading reputation and reliability of CGC as a third party grader in the face of other grading companies and the consumer, why would they dismiss it or overtly continue with this practice?    At first it may have been considered that it was a one off printing mistake.  We have all seen those before.  The second time it may have been seen as another mistake.  We have all seen mislabeling or swapped labels in batch orders.  I do not believe that they realized that there was an actual programming issue until the Dylan incident and given the response, I would say they were pretty quick to come to action. 

 

BTW... I love that this type of mislabeling seems to be known as a "Dylan Book."

after that whole mess up and the boards went crazy. a week later I got my hulk 1 back in a BLUE label. I'm gonna attach my pissed off email to Harshen

august 18th, harshen will verify. 

4 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

How did you get this far? Surprised it took this long for you to crash and burn... You’re literally talking about indisputable unethical practices in the open, as if they aren’t... Keep it up and your fallback plan of dealers buying from you to provide a smokescreen is going to evaporate.

people love to buy with us because we offer great service with great comics at great prices. go ahead, I challenge you right now pick out 1 comic that's overgraded from online right now. I challenge you. 

1 minute ago, Callaway29 said:

How did you get this far? Surprised it took this long for you to crash and burn... You’re literally talking about indisputable unethical practices in the open, as if they aren’t... Keep it up and your fallback plan of dealers buying from you to provide a smokescreen is going to evaporate.

it served a purpose that I made zero financial gain off of. it's like the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. It made the comic book community a better place with educational case study knowledge. I have proven raw grade has little to no correlation to price

1 minute ago, speedcake said:

Yes.  If your book is deceptively described, you are 100% the bad guy.  

This isn't a challenging concept for any normal person to grasp. 

remember when I did this months ago, you had the choice not to buy, and at 700 comics in an auction and 2 comics out of those. hey I'm not racist or any of the isms which is better than most, I did not discriminate! 

Just now, thehumantorch said:

Why are you fixated on Bob?  Why are you trying to steer the conversation away from your disclosures?  Why are you bringing up hypotheticals?  Why don't you deal with your admission of deliberately over-grading books for sale, hint lying to customers, as an experiment?  Would you be proud to show your customers the posts and admissions you've made in this thread?

why don't you answer the question I asked above and stay on topic first?

2 hours ago, Domo Arigato said:

So.....if the top one was likely a 7.0 and the bottom one was still a 6.5.......then that means the 7.0 still sold for less than the 6.5 and your example of proof goes right into the krapper.

Way to prove your point, Deinstein. 

 

no that's exactly my point. 7.0 $34. 6.5 $51. Last time I checked people pay more for HIGHER grade comics. otherwise Bob Storms would have made his website LOW GRADE COMICS.com 

stated graded whether 8.0 or 7.0 or 6.5 had nothing to do with the price. you are paying a fair price for the book offered with scans

2 hours ago, blazingbob said:

If you were standing in front of me I would ask you wtf are you talking about.

What does higher prices have to do with selling "2 vastly overgraded" (your own words) to buyer(s) that you are consciously admitting to doing on a public forum and in writing.

 

 

so hypothetically if I sell a book for $12, that's worth $10, as a 6.0, when it's a 1.0 as part of my case study and you sell the same book as a 1.0 for $24 on your site, I'm the bad guy?

2 hours ago, mattn792 said:

That's way too simplistic of an argument.  On the obvious face, they're different issues.  Second, the price difference was $17 between the two sales ($34 and $51).  Not exactly breaking the bank for Golden Age material.

Going beyond the obvious -- what was each buyer's motivation?  Is one book scarcer or harder to find than the other?  Did the guy who bought 37 think it was undergraded?  Etc.

If you want to make the argument that overgrading doesn't change anything in terms of price achieved, you need to run a much more strict trial.  Use three copies of an in demand book that are in approximately the same condition, list them all at the same time, with one each overgraded/undergraded/accurate.  Then see what happens.

even undergrading or not grading the price of Spider-Man #1 varies week to week. price and grade at auction for raw material has little to no correlation

2 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

Proof please.

I don't have access to sold listings from that old. BUT here is a decent example from what I can see. From the new things I have learned about comic grading the below is likely a 7.0 not 8.0

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-Family-38-FAWCETT-1949-Captain-Marvel-Instinct-Exterminator-Gun-8-0/224112217001?hash=item342e210ba9:g:ajYAAOSwokBfMJ0w

this is still a 6.5 IMO. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-Family-37-FAWCETT-1949-Captain-Marvel-Earth-Changer-6-5/224112217536?hash=item342e210dc0:g:8FoAAOSwE-tfMJ1x

yet the "8.0" sold for less than the 6.5, the market recorrects itself

1 minute ago, Jeffro. said:

We trust Bob. We don't trust you

I don't trust anybody

1 hour ago, blazingbob said:

So to line item #13 do you think it is fair that you stuck vastly overgraded books to 2 buyers?  

Honestly,  your way to do business choices are some of the worst I have ever seen.  

As a dealer it is your job to do the right thing,  accurately grade books,  be fair,  accept returns and not take advantage of others which ruins the business for all of us.   Nobody likes to tell a buyer that they were taken advantage of.  

 

I think it is fair, considering there was no difference in prices achieved. Bob you price things way higher than I do.

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Quoting, before he hides this post.

I was getting harassed earlier, I hope this time will be different. It's not exactly fun to have a bunch of mobsters calling you unethical with no evidence that's not a debate or a trial that's a witch-hunt. 

4 hours ago, kav said:

You cannot unilaterally declare your own comedy material is 'hilarious'.  that's not how it works.

why not? in my opinion I am funny. If I'm not entitled to my opinion, than neither are you and you should delete your boards account so you can stop sharing YOUR opinion with everyone since you don't think opinions are entitled.

A better claim would be Dylan, just because you think it's funny doesn't mean everyone else will agree. 

There's a lot of questions, and misinformation so I'm gonna correct it. I see this thread is still active, so what me worry...#13 is my favorite

1. CGC has really bad QC problems, yet we keep choosing to send books to them. fool me once shame on me, fool me 2x.....

2. If these books were raw, it is the responsibility of the seller to note any major problems (ie resto), that would change the desirability of the book and be of major problem to the buyer

3. The books were sent to CGC for their opinion of the books. This entire thing is on them, not me. I've had books that have come back both half a point higher and lower than they should have IMO. It's not my job to tell CGC hey this should actually be .5 lower according to Dylan's sense of grading. CGC doesn't care what I think. I've put notes on books specifying problems and grades with books and they have ignored them completely. Nobody wants a lower grade then they are given. Anybody who says they will is lying. Let's say I got a 9.8, that I thought was a 9.6, that's great for me. If I sent a 6.0, and got a 9.8, I would think something was up and probably roast the hell out of CGC, and make them buy it for full 9.8 value especially considering they way they poorly have treated me. Why do you think people want Onsite Grading? They are hoping to get half a point higher and get it quick, plain and simple. Everyone wants higher grades. That's not unethical. If people didn't want the absolute highest grade possible than why would they get books pressed? 

4. Thinking on it I absolutely no doubt should have posted something in the description clarifying what the labels said. I think it would have made little to no difference, considering must people don't read the description anyway. I almost never to never put notes in the description on a slabbed book at auction. I treated these books like every other CGC book. 

5. The books did have resto removal so I did not think the color touch was additive. There's a difference between marker that adds to the grade and marker that does not add to the grade. We see this on Golden Books more than any other type It's a very advanced argument, in terms of understanding the nature of resto removal, so if you are not well adversed in this topic, please just ignore this #5. 

6. the books were not trimmed. CGC got it wrong. You can't say CGC knows better than me but then be upset that I let their label dictate over my opinion. I send them stuff because their opinion is $ worth more than mine in the mind of collectors. It's my opinion, or it's their opinion. There's no middle ground. You can use a service like CVA or note appeal but not technical measurable flaws, grade/resto status etc. There are guys on eBay who will sell a CGC book and will say LOOKS 8.0. I think those guys are not trustworthy. It's an 8.0, or it's not an 8.0. If you want to say it looks 8.0, you need to back it up with lots of evidence.

Claims not backed by evidence are garbage-I don't care whether you drive a Mercedes or a shopping cart. 

7. If I truly thought the books were error labels, do you think I would be stupid enough to put them up under MY name?

8. Why wouldn't I sell them to a dealer? (Because they'd say Dylan, this has color touch etc.), which proves that any knowledgeable person would understand that CGC thought they had those things wrong with them, the same can be said about consignment. 

9. Someone who can't read should not be spending thousands of dollars on a comic book. I know it's not what the collector community wants to hear but it's the truth. The same can be said about grading comic books or understanding how much money gets you want. If you have tons of money that's great, you can spend as much as you want. But personally, I wouldn't spend my money on things I don't understand.

10. It's not fine print or at least the intent is not for me to hide what cgc said about the books on the labels. They created the labels, not me, I am just the middleman.

11. I did cancel all sales as soon as I was told about the "error." Of course I wasn't happy about it. It's bad cashflow for me. 

12. that asm 7 was UPI relisted. After the whole boards "dylan is evil" thing, do you honestly think I would have relisted it on MY account? Not only is there no motive, but there's a clear motive not to do it.

11. You can knit pick books that some have been overgraded and some really have not but most just can't tell the difference. If most people knew how to grade accurately, there wouldn't be a need for CGC. Most of the market are blind buyers. If I say it's a 6, it's your job to say what you think the book is. If you can't make your own opinions what are you doing on planet earth? you're enslaved to others.

12. overgrading/undergrading has little to no correlation with price achieved at auction. It's the trust, need filled, and overally experience that the buyer has with the seller. classic example is mycomicshop. They undergrade a lot but it's not priced like the grade that is being sold if the seller wants it to move quick. Gary Dolgoff uses a similar strategy. Wide selection. inaccurate grading. great customer service. 

13. To prove #12, I did a case study a few months ago, and would slip 4 comic books in every auction. 2 vastly overgraded, and 2 vastly undergraded into the auction to see the correlation of grade & price. The results were that on a rare occasion the buyer would return the overgraded book, and would be thrilled with the undergraded. But nobody said anything on 95% plus of those case study books. The market corrects itself at auction. When the book had a ridiculous grade in either direction, people were forced to come up with their own conclusion. If a book was close to the actual grade, and had standard eye appeal people were more likely to pay based on the grade written vs their own opinions. I would get a few messages every month saying both my grading was spot on and that it was horrible and everything was a "FR" which I thought was hilarious because the opinions were so different. 

14. I got tired of a few buyers returning stuff every week so I decided to start grading more like Comics4less and Blissard. They have built great selling accounts and I plan on continuing to do the same. Since my new very very tight grading system I have received ZERO negative or neutral feedbacks only positive. 

15. I could sell everything without grades and still get OK mediocre numbers. It's not so much the grading. It's the customer's expectation VS what they received plain and simple. People are happy with what they buy from me. The experience is top notch. Nobody on the entire CGC boards has bought anything from me and posted it on the threads, with a negative experience. So in other words, you are all afraid of something you have never tried. I didn't like trying new foods either...when I was 5. We grow as individuals by being experienced to new things. 

16. Just so there is no debate, I posted a few books from one week of auctions on the WDYT the grade is area of the threads. the verdict was that my grading was on par. Considering boardies are tighter than ebay and normal collector's I would say it's undergraded to the average customer. People teased me about the Giggle 3, but those books speak for themselves. Check sold listings, go ahead.

Side note about the Giggle 3. At first glance to me the book looked 8.0, no major problems. It has spine ticks but that's about it. It also had foxing not mold. foxing and mold are not the same thing. foxing is before it becomes mold and they are graded very differently. this looked similar to an ASM 129 that I sold a few years back CGC 8.0. Customer returned the book, and I looked at it again and decided that is was NOT an 8.0. Mistakes happen. Grading a book correctly takes a lot of time, with this much material I had to go fast. I decided it was lower, so I lowered the grade. CGC does this also, they just don't tell you. Good for me for fixing it and learning from it. nuff said

2 hours ago, Ryan. said:

Well hurry it up already. I'm impatiently waiting for my paradigms to be shifted. 

Ryan, do you think I wanna be waiting and tying up assets?

On 11/5/2020 at 6:28 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I'll believe that when I see them grading while on the toilet.

you don't see them grading period, so that's a horrible measure

On 11/2/2020 at 1:05 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I think to use the car analogy, if a car was in an accident, and you could hammer out the dents through some process and make it look like it had never been in an accident without repainting, just maybe some buffing and washing after the dents were fixed, and you then sold it as never having been in an accident, would that be an honest thing to do.

The answer, obviously, is no.  On a molecular level, the metal has fatigue and is weaker where it was once bent.  Comics aren’t any different. 

I would personally pay more for a raw book that had never been messed with and appeared to be a lower grade than one that’s been pressed and certified by CGC as a higher grade.

and that's exactly my point. you are altering the comic book, we just all accept it as a community to be ethical

On 11/4/2020 at 5:16 PM, Jeffro. said:

I guess it's a good thing you didn't succeed in destroying CGC because then you wouldn't have the privilege of posting on their boards. 

I'm as shocked as you are

Just now, Jeffro. said:

When are you going to destroy CGC? We're waiting 

lawyers are very very slow. I've seen turtles work faster. Danielle made that post (lacking evidence of course) about me to try to discredit me; If I win think about how that would change the boardie opinions?

On 10/30/2020 at 6:48 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

When are you gonna take a picture with Action Comics #1 while on the toilet?

when I buy an action 1 of course duhhhh