RockMyAmadeus

Is there a reason you're needlessly stoking conflict? Have I done something to offend you personally...? I didn't have "one person" see it my way...? First, only one person has made a legitimate reply, and that person...that would be Turtle...posted this: Given that, do you think your characterization here is a fair, even-handed one...? If I have done something to you personally that has offended you, I would be more than willing to work it out, if that's possible. Otherwise...why go out of your way to create enemies...? You're new, so you're not familiar with kav and his antics, but I might suggest doing a little research before getting into bed with folks like him.

This is a provocative comment, meant solely to inflame conflict, regardless of any other merit it may or may not have. Your comments are not good faith efforts to come to an understanding, but rather to provoke conflict. I would appreciate if you would find other people to interact with. Thank you.

This is a provocative comment, meant solely to inflame conflict, regardless of any other merit it may or may not have. Your comments are not good faith efforts to come to an understanding, but rather to provoke conflict. I would appreciate if you would find other people to interact with. Thank you.

This is a provocative comment, meant solely to inflame conflict, regardless of any other merit it may or may not have.

We're getting into the weeds. CVA is not a "4th level" service, even in the sense you're trying to use it. If that were the case, a book would go from CGC to CVA, as part of a built-in process, like an assembly line. But that's not what happens (nor could it, realistically.) And even if that did happen, the use of the word "party" is what renders the usage inaccurate. CVA would still just be another third party, as it relates to the transaction between a buyer and a seller. "Parties", as we're using it, are used to refer to entities involved in interactions, whether realized or potential. When I submit, I am the first party and CGC is the second (and vice versa.) If I then send that book to CVA, I am still the first party, and CVA is the second. When and if I sell that slab, both CGC and CVA become the third parties, while I am still the first, and the buyer is the second (and vice versa.) CGCdata, GPA...these are all third parties when they are viewed from the perspective of a transaction between a buyer and a seller. Who is what party changes, depending on the perspective of the person or entity involved, but there are never more than THREE possible parties, at any time, in any transaction.

CVA is not a "4PG." They are simply another third party. There is no such thing as a "fourth party", though there are people who try to make that be.This is more than a matter of semantics; trying to assign "fourth", "fifth", "10,829,465th" party degrades the meaning of "third party" from "everyone else" to just "the next party in line", which may not be, and usually is not, the case. Consider this real life example: I send a book to CGC. In that transaction, I'm the first party, and CGC is the second. From CGC's perspective, THEY are the first party, and I am the second. I then sell that slab to someone. But wait, there's already a "second party" involved in this: CGC. If "parties" are merely a matter of chain of interaction, then the customer is the "third" party, because they're the third entity to be involved with this slab. Right? But wait! What if I get it verified by CVA first? So, I'm the first party, CGC is the second party, CVA is the third party, and now the buyer is the FOURTH party.... Right? And if that buyer sells that slab to someone else, does that person become the FIFTH party? You can see how the logic fails. There is only the first party ("me"), the second party ("the other entity involved in the interaction") and the third party ("everyone else.") Since "third party" encompasses everyone else, further "parties" are not only redundant, but invalidate the meaning of "third party." Yes. Frequently. Unless your definition of the word "profit" encompasses personal enjoyment, rather than being a merely financial term. Nothing I have ever posted that you have read would lead you to believe that I would ever think that the TPGs do it "out of the goodness of their hearts", so I'm not sure why you're even bringing that up.

You have not explained what you mean by "4PG". I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by asking you what you meant by "4PG", because there is no such thing as "fourth party", despite the fact that some people think it exists. That is in contradiction to the understanding of what "first", "second", and "third" party means, as a concept and legal philosophy. The "first party" is always you. The "second party" is always the other person directly involved in an interaction with you. The "third party" is everybody else in the entire world. There is no such thing as a "fourth" party, "fifth" party, "sixth" party, because that completely negates the meaning of "first, second, and third" parties. You can see this clearly in grammar, where there are only THREE types of pronouns: 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person. There is no such thing as a "fourth person", since three pronoun forms covers everyone in existence already. That aside, you say "I pray that you are not of the opinion that a TPG/4PG does not exist to make a market"...you'll have to explain specifically what you mean by that. I have my idea about what you mean, but I don't want to presume, and would rather hear your explanation. As far as the mechanic and real estate appraisal goes, you say they fail "on multiple levels", but do not offer any explanations as to why. They are all third party opinions as to the condition of something. In the event of an appraisal, if you mean (since you do not explain) that there is a VALUE attached along with an appraisal of condition, ok, that's a fair point, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is an appraisal of CONDITION. The auto mechanic does not give opinion about value, only condition. I'm not sure what our age difference has to do with anything, though. Are you sure we have an age difference...?

One more quick comment about this: I get items that aren't as described on eBay on a regular basis. So have you. Such behavior is precisely why CGC, and thus this board, exists. I've known you for a very long time, and you've known me. We've met and talked in person. We've exchanged dialogue, here. I have enough respect for you to not lecture you, however respectfully, about taking lessons from eBay transactions, considering that, between the two of us, we probably have 100,000 or more transactions on eBay under our belts, and are both well aware of how eBay works. Your contention, that my post as-written removes my responsibility from the equation, is inaccurate. I freely confessed...and didn't have to, by the way...that I forgot to mention that pressing would be a cost AFTER the seller agreed to the proposal. That's on me. And, yes, the seller balked. I appealed to him as a gentleman to consider the circumstances, and he backed down. It is common sense to me that if you get a service, you should pay for that service. But if he hadn't, I would have had to eat that. That's me accepting my responsibility in the situation. I freely confessed that I was outside his 30 day window for the X-Men transaction. That's me accepting my responsibility in the situation. If we're going to be fair, let's be completely fair. PS. I wonder how many "likes" my rebuttal will get.

I understand your point. I don't agree with it, but I certainly understand your perspective. My response is this: if you have a 30 day return policy, it doesn't matter when the buyer notifies you that there's a problem. It can be on day 1, or it can be on day 30 (which would be more than FOUR weeks at that point.) So, in that sense, your "he waited THREE WEEKS?" is rendered moot, because...again...a 30 day return policy is a longer period than three weeks. A seller with such a policy has no right...legal OR philosophical...to complain if a buyer expressed dissatisfaction at any point during that timeframe. They CAN say, on Day 31, "sorry, that's outside of my return policy", and they would be within their rights...but again, I go back to the "if you're really concerned about customer service, denying a claim on Day 31 disproves that." There are sellers here who have taken back books that were discovered to have problems YEARS after the transaction...were they obligated to? No, of course not, not at all! But they did, because they were genuinely concerned with customer service. If a 30 day return policy bothers a seller, there is nothing forcing the seller to have a 30 day return policy. Right...? (One fact check: you claim that I "won more auctions in the meantime", implying that I bid on and won more auctions AFTER discovering the first batch wasn't to my liking. That wasn't the case. I won two more auctions on Mar 11, but that was only 8 days after the first batch. I didn't have the chance to go over the first box until a couple of weeks later. And you can't simply make up arguments on behalf of the seller, like "I don't even offer partial refunds", and present them as potentially the seller's frame of mind...how do you know? You're projecting your opinion onto this seller, and that's not being very fair to me. In fact, a partial refund is exactly what ended up happening with the BP lot.) As for your contention that "he wants them pressed and graded on my dime", well, of course! The seller would have gotten books back that were A. graded, and B. better than they were when they left his hands. Look at the BP #1 in the bottom right of the picture. That book had a severe stacking roll at the spine. That book wasn't getting better than a 6.0 as it stood. But the grade it got was 8.0. Those things...as you well know...have value. The seller was perfectly free to reject the terms of the proposal...and he agreed to them, and, what's more, paying for grading and pressing is hardly an unreasonable expense for a seller who would get back books that were A. graded, and B. pressed. There was no force involved, there was no coercion, the seller was free to reject the proposal and simply ask for the books back. Again: the seller agreed to the proposal. At that point, your "red flag" argument is also rendered moot. There wasn't anything convoluted about it: press, sub, return books that don't meet a certain grade threshold for a refund. What's "convoluted" about that? Remember: that second box was missing JLA #12 and #13 before Day 1. That JLA #15 was sitting in that box with a page torn out before Day 1. Those Black Panthers all had undisclosed rusty staples before Day 1. Those were real problems that really existed, not mere disagreements about grading. A "30 day return policy" does not cover situations in which the items aren't even sent. By the way...it takes a bit more time than 5 minutes to accurately inspect 20 comics, especially if they're marginal, and you have to determine whether they're acceptable or outside of that. When it's on the edge of acceptable or not, it takes a bit more time...and often research (like looking up GPA and completely eBay sales, for example)...to determine if the books are worth to you, the buyer, what you paid for them. But I do thank you for providing your perspective, because I value your opinion.

What do you mean by "4PG"? Do you mean fourth party grader? Since everything material (and much that is immaterial) that is possessed by another has value by virtue of its possession, then that everything has a cost if someone else wishes to obtain it. You say "no TPG exists without a profit motive"...but motive for what kind of profit? The value of the TPG is that they have no direct interest in the exchange of the items in question. They are unattached, and therefore, unbiased. They are not in favor of the buyer, and they are not in favor of the seller. Because they have no direct interest, they can offer a fair, educated opinion on the condition of the item in question. That does not preclude indirect influence by those who submit. Obviously, that exists, because you're dealing with people. But, the system is set up to avoid that, at least in theory, and usually in practice. I do not get to call up a TPG and say "hey...you graded this book a 6.5, and I think it should be graded a 9.4! I want a 9.4, or I won't send you any more books!" Are there people who call up and say "hey...you graded this book a 9.2 and I think it should be graded a 9.4! I want a 9.4, or I won't send you any more books!"...? Well, probably not that curtly or threateningly, but yes, that certainly has happened, and will continue to happen. And there's nothing wrong with that, either, because...grading is subjective. That doesn't mean (and it's sad that I have to say this) that grading is SO subjective that ANY opinion is valid. It means that there is a reasonable range into which any book can fall, and still be "graded correctly." So, I disagree with your contention that all TPGs (and whatever a 4PG is) exist to fulfill a perceived need for relevance. The need fulfilled...if you can call it a need...is to provide an educated, uninterested opinion about the condition of an item. It's no different than taking a car you wish to purchase to a mechanic to get an analysis of its condition, or hiring an appraiser to appraise the condition of your house. In fact, it's a little better than that, because that appraisal and analysis can (and frequently does) follow the item after it is sold by whomever submitted it.

I've already explained to you that that was simply an example. I'll say it again: do not mistake my willingness to get into the weeds with you about that specific example...or even responding to others about it, as well...as a focus on that example. It is merely an example to preface the point. It can be substituted with any of thousands of other examples. At this point, you are belaboring that example, for motives of your own. I'll discuss anything with anybody, but complaining about how a discussion unfolds, rather than discussing the actual topic, serves no valid purpose. Your opinion is duly noted. If you have an issue with this thread, you're more than welcome to participate in any of the thousands of other threads, or start one of your own.

You....do know that this is the CGC board, right...?

Please don't start. There are literally thousands of other threads you can post in; there's zero need for you to try and provoke conflict here. Thank you.

I don't think there's a problem, any time the buyer and the seller disagree about the condition, a problem occurs (without a grading service). The grading service in fact does not solve that problem, even though it exists, as you say in the bold, to provide objective measurement used to determine valuie. But, what it does do is provide consensus, as you said (I would say though that informed buyers as opposed to educated graders are the consensus that applies). I didn't say they provided "objective measurement", because, as I understand that term, it means the grading is objective. If that's what you mean, then that is incorrect. I said they ensure a measure of objectivity, which means they aren't related to the potential transaction in any way, which ensures a measure, a level, a scope of objectivity, of distance, without personal attachment to the outcome. I dispute the contention that "informed buyers" are where the consensus applies, though I understand how you mean it. It is the "agreement of the marketplace" which accepts CGC grading as legitimate, and without that, there is no CGC, and in that sense, I agree. However, at this point, market acceptance has long been an established fact, and third party grading doesn't need new customer acceptance. The consensus of the educated graders to arrive at a grade is what I'm referring to...not the consensus of the marketplace examining the book and agreeing that, yes, in fact this book is X.X. For the most part, what an individual, or even group of individuals, thinks about a grade has no bearing, because the marketplace as a whole accepts it. And, in fact, most people buying slabs today can't grade for themselves, and are perfectly content to let third party graders do the heavy lifting for them. The grading service doesn't need to solve that problem, and they don't exist to solve that problem. They exist to provide a third-party...an uninterested, detached party...opinion as to the level of physical preservation a particular book has. Both the buyer AND the seller are perfectly free to disagree with that third party opinion...but they both now have a substantial "leg up" in negotiations for that item, instead of just two interested parties disagreeing. They have a uninterested, unbiased, unrelated third party opinion. Now the seller can't say "well, I think this is a Near Mint copy!" and the buyer can't say "well, I think this is a VG/F copy!" when the book they're both looking at is sitting in an 8.0 slab...without, of course, losing a lot of credibility. I agree with your overarching point here. But you cannot get to where we are now without establishing yourself, which both CGC and Voldemort have done. Without them, there would be no million dollar books. They wouldn't exist. The books would exist...and perhaps the Mile High Action #1 or the Allentown Tec #27 could coax a million...but that would be the extent of it. However...the marketplace is made up, as I mentioned, mostly of UN-informed buyers, who, because of the foundational work that CGC has done for nearly 20 years, accept the number on the label, without being able to explain why. It was the informed buyers of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 who determined that CGC was legitimate, and now you have many people who couldn't grade their way out of a wet paper bag, perfectly content with accepting CGC slabs...and to a slightly lesser extent, Voldy slabs..without question. That's good AND bad, but the good, so far, has far outweighed the bad. (Note to phantalien: this is what this thread is about.)

Thanks

No. In fact, the two scenarios have nothing to do with each other. The comparison would be if you, the buyer, lied about the conditions of the comics to get a better price. With all due respect, it's not very difficult to understand. The seller offered an item in a specific condition. Bids were based on that material fact, and would not have been nearly as high had the seller not misrepresented the condition of his book for sale. I know this, because other copies of this book, that are NOT described as "NM", have sold for substantially less money...like this one, for example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Atom-17-Fine-Cond/142757063391?hash=item213cfbeadf:g:rr4AAOSwafta0XM- ($7.63) In fact, knowing how Peter (comics4less) grades, I suspect that the copy I bought for $48 plus S&H is not too much better, as it stands now, than the one that he sold for $7.63 plus S&H. Or this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Atom-17-Fine-Cond-slight-water-damage-/142662224503?hash=item213754ca77%3Ag%3AzPwAAOSwLwBaYsME&nma=true&si=h27Eu9oQBRIusaPpA0bWMZnhXas%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 ($7.00) It's all about representation. Peter represents his copies as "Fine" condition, and "Fine+" condition...and I guarantee you, that Fine+ copy, without that water stain on the back, is nicer than the "pop*culture*artifacts" copy. There's really no debate, here. Buying "below value" is simply business. ALL businesses that resell items MUST purchase them for "below value", or they aren't in business. So long as the buyer does not MISrepresent the items he's trying to purchase, the price paid has nothing to do with anything. But, in the case of "pop*culture*artifacts", he MISrepresented his item, and got far, far more for it than he was entitled to. That's the key, here. If that was your takeaway, then you have completely and totally missed the point of the thread. Using AN EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE A BROADER SUBJECT does not therefore make this an "eBay complaint thread." Read THE REST of what I wrote...after the example that I used to preface it...and you'll find a lot more that you've missed. One more time, with all the respect that may be due to you: this was MERELY AN EXAMPLE to ILLUSTRATE A BROADER POINT. The specific example IS NOT THE POINT. Get OFF the example, and focus on the BROADER POINT. Do NOT mistake my willingness to get into the weeds with you about the details of the transaction as focusing on that transaction. The specific transaction is meaningless. Substitute any of a million other transactions; it's not about that. It's clear to me that you glossed over the initial post and didn't really read it, because I already discussed what I intend to do with the example book. For the life of me, I will never, ever understand why people get involved in discussions, when they won't even read everything that someone else is saying.

If that is the takeaway you got from this thread, you are missing the point entirely. There has been no gnashing of any teeth, " " or otherwise.

And, purposely fraudulent at worst. The response of the seller tells you which side they are on. When a seller becomes dismissive and defensive, that tells you all you need to know.

This is a complete cop out. RMA bought a NM book. It was not that he was hoping to get a certain grade so he should have bought it already graded. Again, he bought what was advertised as a NM book. What he should have gotten is a NM book. If it wasn't a NM book, he should return it. It is absolutely on the seller to deliver what he promised. If he doesn't know the difference between a NM and VF/NM book, he should state that and just not provide a grade. Insinuating that it's somehow the buyers responsibility to "do more research, get more pics" and whatever is just letting the seller off the hook in providing what he advertises. You are expecting the buyer to grade from pics (which is impossible to do accurately) but you don't expect the seller to grade accurately with book in hand? Ridiculous. Yes, the seller is stealing. If you don't get that, perhaps you are one of those sellers that intentionally overgrades on ebay, which is exactly what was going on here. Spot on.

If this is the takeaway you have, guy with 12 posts, then you've missed the point of the thread. I don't need to produce my bona fides. You either accept the argument on its merits, or you don't. It is attitudes like this that encourage and enable people to commit "soft fraud", like overgrading. Instead of holding the seller to account, you "blame the victim", and say "it's your fault for taking the seller at his word! Why, he practically TOLD you the book was overgraded! Shame on you!" Obviously, that's patent nonsense. But I do thank you for linking the listing in question. Remember: this thread has nothing to do with this particular transaction. It is merely an example of a far-reaching and ancient problem, and why that problem has, to a great extent, been mitigated by the existence of third party grading.

The problem it's supposed to solve is objective measurement of condition, represented by numerical scale. It provdes stability to the market despite not doing that by providing solutions to other problems, some of which @blazingbob posted. The existence of 3rd party grading also sets price floors. So, it's understandable why you would think that there's a problem, but that's not what third party grading is supposed to do at all. Grading is subjective. It always has been, and always will be. The purpose of third party grading...or grading by committee, as BB puts it...is that it removes the motive for the first and second party (the seller and the buyer) to overestimate or underestimate the item's condition...and thus, it's value. That ensures a measure of objectivity in the process, but the act of grading itself is not objective, because grading is subjective. What bothers one person may not be an issue for another. That's true of graders as well. The point is to come to a consensus among educated graders, whose opinions are informed. That's why if a book is graded 8.5 one day, and 8.0 another, and 9.0 another...none of those grades is wrong. Neither are any of them right. That's because grading is subjective. There is no such thing as an "objective measurement of condition", and there never will be, even with the theoretical "computer programs" suggested by some. Those programs have to be PROGRAMMED, and such programs will be fundamentally biased about the flaws and what effect those flaws have on the grade, according to the biases of the people who programmed them. It is inescapable, because...grading is subjective.

It's in reverse. Batman #515 is the black cover and the first part of the storyline, while each successive cover of the storyline got lighter and lighter, until the big "reveal" of Batman being back at the end. It was NOT executed very well. You cannot tell, for instance, which part is next...Shadow of the Bat #35? Detective #682? Robin #14? Who knows?

Cap City sales numbers for Darker Image #1 *might* be in JJM's Krause catalog. Otherwise, that info wasn't public. The numbers bandied around for DI B&W (or "Platinum", as it was called back then) and gold were 5,000 each. I have no way of knowing if those numbers are accurate. Neither are particularly rare. I bought an entire case of golds (150) and have about 140 left. B&Ws are harder to find, in my experience, but not much harder. I don't recall any sort of allocation numbers for these books. I believe they were for sale at Image booths throughout 1993. I suspect they may have been a "1 per store" deal. I know that the distributor I worked for had multiple copies of Maxx #1 Glow, because that was also a 1 per store issue, and he simply kept them. He was distributing to card shops that could not have cared less about them, and wouldn't know what to do with them if they had them. However...the great volume of these books in the hands of individual entities, whether it be Steve Schanes, or the Image offices, leads me to believe that these were made for and sold at conventions, rather than store allocations, because in 1993, a "1 per store" store allocation would have resulted in a complete distribution (much like Spiderman #1 Platinum, which was a thank you gift to retailers in 1990 who ordered Spiderman #1)...there were, after all, nearly 10,000 Diamond accounts alone in 1993, and that was just Diamond. That doesn't preclude an allocation based on orders, though. It very well could have been 1 for every hundred regular copies ordered (recognizing that this was long before the variant incentive program, and these variants weren't available for order, or even generally known, prior to publication.)

All great stuff, Bob. Absolutely true. The best defense is education.

I don't think so, either, but that's not the contention I made. The contention I made is that the hobby might not have survived in the condition it was in when third party grading made its appearance. Remember...the internet DID exist in 1999-2001, and those were the worst years ever recorded in the new comics industry. And, while there's no way to quantify how the back issue market did during those years, those of us who were around...you, me, many others...remember how things had gotten. I bought a first print TMNT #1 for $66 shipped in the spring of 1999. New England Comics sold a VG FF #1 for $800 and change in 2001 on eBay, and a CGC 4.5 AF #15 for $2300 and change. Overstreet had to completely slash prices on everything below "NM" between his 1997 and 1998 guides. Granted....absolutely granted...there are all sorts of factors that affect all of that, but there is no doubt about it: the comic book collecting hobby was in the doldrums in those years, and prices reflected it. And certainly, other hobbies have died completely...when was the last time you heard anyone talking about their stamp collections? And granted, as I mentioned, there were conventions that people could go to to see books for themselves...but that still didn't protect people from the unscrupulous. Third party grading doesn't eliminate that risk...but it greatly mitigates it. There were just as many dealers who overgraded...AND overpriced...at conventions, too. Don't get me wrong...there is much to be said about paying for what you get...that is, paying MORE for something, but being assured it's in the condition you want. But many, many, many of those convention dealers were still operating with an early 90's mindset, and you saw many, many books priced at those early 90's madness (mainly because they'd overpaid themselves to get it), so your choices were to wildly overpay in person....but be assured you'd get what you wanted!....or take a gamble with the unknown on the internet, but pay a lot less. And even the good dealers didn't have everything you wanted. Hardly stellar options, either of them. The dealers who were both fairly priced AND accurately graded were few and far between. Third party grading mitigated a lot of that.