RockMyAmadeus

Just FF #252 and Spidey #238. Any others would be later additions. Unless it has the Lakeside blurb on the cover, it didn't have them.

Photobucket (and most image sharing sites) are blocked at my camp. What is it? Maxx #1 Blue Ashcan, #687.

Most restoration can be detected reliably by people who have studied restoration. Reliably does not mean 100% as there is a human factor involved. I can sometimes tell if a book is restored from 4 feet away. Sometimes I need a loop to confirm what I think might have been done to a book. Once in awhile I miss something. If you are looking for perfection, then, yes, move along. The only place it exists is Fantasy Land. Many collectors learn from reading the boards, so there is always something to see here...... my tongue was firmly in cheek for the number of people who apparently can't accept missed restoration and human error in this thread and thus get off the cgc criticism and move on from this thread ...not the boards You're missing the point. As has been noted before, many people, especially those who put down large sums of money for comics, have educated themselves in restoration and grading. The problem comes when a potential buyer cannot examine a book for themselves, using their own education (whatever level it may be) to decide if the book is restored or not. In that regard, CGC (and any other grading company worth anything; currently none) HAS to be near-perfect in detecting it, because by encasing it, they've (mostly) removed the ability for the buyer to investigate on his own. It's not about making mistakes. No one that I have seen has ever said "CGC must be perfect, always, period." It's about how you go about fixing those mistakes. And if CGC makes such a mistake, they must be prepared to rigorously confront it and resolve it to the satisfaction of all parties involved, precisely because every buyer must (nearly always) accept CGC's word that a book isn't or is restored. There are literally millions (if not billions) of dollars resting on that reputation. It is, after all, why they've been paid to do what they do for the last 15 years. For all the thousands upon thousands of books that people have paid them to grade, part of that is "mistake insurance." It is the way that CGC addresses these situations that is being criticized, not that the situations exist. They don't have to address it. They cover themselves on the certification notice. And I quote.... "A good faith effort is made to detect restoration, but CGC does not warrant the process or the results." Warrant = Guarantee. You should probably read the whole thread.

I wouldn't be surprised if Evanier wrote that...

If you do not get a little teary eyed after reading Groo #40, you have no soul.

Mendicants.

Groo.

Most restoration can be detected reliably by people who have studied restoration. Reliably does not mean 100% as there is a human factor involved. I can sometimes tell if a book is restored from 4 feet away. Sometimes I need a loop to confirm what I think might have been done to a book. Once in awhile I miss something. If you are looking for perfection, then, yes, move along. The only place it exists is Fantasy Land. Many collectors learn from reading the boards, so there is always something to see here...... my tongue was firmly in cheek for the number of people who apparently can't accept missed restoration and human error in this thread and thus get off the cgc criticism and move on from this thread ...not the boards You're missing the point. As has been noted before, many people, especially those who put down large sums of money for comics, have educated themselves in restoration and grading. The problem comes when a potential buyer cannot examine a book for themselves, using their own education (whatever level it may be) to decide if the book is restored or not. In that regard, CGC (and any other grading company worth anything; currently none) HAS to be near-perfect in detecting it, because by encasing it, they've (mostly) removed the ability for the buyer to investigate on his own. It's not about making mistakes. No one that I have seen has ever said "CGC must be perfect, always, period." It's about how you go about fixing those mistakes. And if CGC makes such a mistake, they must be prepared to rigorously confront it and resolve it to the satisfaction of all parties involved, precisely because every buyer must (nearly always) accept CGC's word that a book isn't or is restored. There are literally millions (if not billions) of dollars resting on that reputation. It is, after all, why they've been paid to do what they do for the last 15 years. For all the thousands upon thousands of books that people have paid them to grade, part of that is "mistake insurance." It is the way that CGC addresses these situations that is being criticized, not that the situations exist.

That's not entirely true. I have something to do with the money that CGC brings in, having a good chunk of my income from slabbed books, and I have posted very committed and very specific posts. I don't want CGC to fail. I want them to get better. Right now, they lack the incentive to do that.

CGC will not lower its prices, unless they are forced to by market realities. They will not be forced to for many years, if ever. And controlling a big submitter early on is a very easy problem to deal with. You talk to the big submitter upfront and negotiate. Preparation is the single greatest reason for success that exists. You don't go into anything "before you're ready", and that includes sitting down and discussing potential scenarios and planning for them. Corporations do it every day. The keys are two: capital, and absolute commitment by a competent person at the top.

I have gone to the top of a high mountain, meditated on the problem, and discovered the reason why this has happened: The top edge was only trimmed halfway. The first graders only saw the untrimmed half, the second graders only saw the trimmed half, and the third graders the same as the first. Clearly, that's the answer. Which half....? The top one. Obviously.

I see you have brought this up a few times....unfortuanetly no ones seems to want to discuss this. I find this hard to swallow as well....especially on such a high priced comic. If someone can screw up 6.0 to 7.0 to 6.0,then what makes people think that a 9.6 to 9.8 can`t be screwed up as well? Because it's not a "screw up." It's an opinion, of *this* book, at *this* time, on *this* day. And yes, you're perfectly right: a 9.6 and 9.8 can often be interchangeable. ...No, never mind. Good call. It's unwise.

Fair comment. I didn't even weigh the variables when CGC raised prices because as a consumer of their product, whether I pay $125 or $150 for a $3000 walk through makes relatively little difference to me but I can see your point of view though and raising prices on cheaper tiers can make using their other services challenging for some markets. It's probably why many dealers are starting to move cheaper books raw with tight grading. They don't need to invest the money. Thanks for explaining. How is this for a look at the cost of a CGC grade vs. the value. For a book published in December, 1979, you can get it graded for $25 per book but only if you send in at least 15 of them for the value tier with a $150 max value per book. If you don't want to spend that minimum of $375 then you have to pay $35 per book. These are all without discounts, and all without fast tracking. Currently non-FT value or Economy takes roughly 3-4 months. For a book published one month later, in January, 1980, one book can get graded for $7 less than the value tier ($17 less than economy, or roughly 50% of the cost of economy tier), you don't have to reach a minimum book threshold, and a modern can have a max value $50 higher than the value book and still qualify for this less expensive service. Oh, and modern books get turned around in roughly half the time of a value/economy book even without fast tracking. So does that one month difference in publishing time really require that much of a difference in grading fees? If it did, I wouldn't do so much hand-wringing about whether or not to submit pre-1979 books for grading. You and me both! It's a very difficult decision! I have literally hundreds of 1975-1979 books sitting here, gathering dust (on their bags, of course!) that I would like to get slabbed, but cannot get past the economies of it.

This is a KEY point.

There are books that are definitive 9.6 and 9.8. The problem is that there is no 9.7 grade. I have seen thousands of books that "in my mind" I call a 9.7 and decide if I should give it a 9.6 or 9.8 depending on certain factors, one factor being "Will this book look like a 9.6 or a 9.8 in a holder". You also can't have a 9.1, 9.3, 9.5 or 9.7 grade in the scale, as it would make it even more difficult to be a consistent grader. PQ can change depending on the lighting. I had more trouble with PQ at onsite grading than I did sitting at my grading desk in an office. This is where I disagree with you, and have said so for years (and I suspect the NGC guys might have mentioned it to you once or twice. ) You have said "in your mind" it's a 9.7. So have I. So have others who are really familiar with dealing in that range. But there is no "9.7" grade. Yet. Far from making it more difficult, it would definitely make it more consistent, and we don't even need to go it alone: NGC and PCGS adopted the same standard (MS60-MS70) when they opened their doors. (Actually, I think NGC might have resisted the MS61, 62, 64, and 66 for a year, but I don't quite remember.) Not only would it benefit the consistency of the grading, it would DEFINITELY help to smooth out the vast price gulfs in the market. As it is, especially in the Copper and Modern eras, anything less than a 9.8 (with exceptions) may as well be tossed in the trash. But if there's a 9.7 grade, it would smooth out the rough patches, and make 9.6 and below much less of pariah grades. And no longer is it $500,000 for a 9.6 in the high end Silver Market, and $100,000 for a 9.4...that $250,000 9.5 would fit right in, and be a grade that more people would feel comfortable with. WITH those grades, graders are no longer having to make (what could have serious financial ramifications for the owner) "will this look a 9.6 or 9.8 in the case" decisions. It looks like a 9.7! In any event, I agree with you, there are dead on 9.6s, and dead on 9.8s. But there are also books that are dead on 9.8s sitting in 9.4 slabs, and dead on 9.4s sitting in 9.6 slabs.

Speaking of quality over price...I have begun to buy organic food, which is, as those of you who buy it know, much more expensive, generally, than "regular" food. But...when you consider the poison that we all ingest on a daily basis, especially in the face of genetic modification, and the fact that the "real" price of unfiddled with food is much higher than what we pay, it begins to look like a bargain.

And I would disagree with you. The average North American consumer is thrifty (cheap sounds demeaning and I don't want to offend anybody). Just look at all the coupons, rewards programs, surveys, freebies, lotto purchases, etc. These things drive a huge portion of the economy. Look at black Monday and Boxing day shopping. and This capitalistic, industrial society is in a constant death spiral towards cheaper at the expense of quality. Perceived quality is all that matters. But that's a discussion for another forum. You are KILLING me. You said: " 'Would the consumer be willing to pay more for a better service' ", and said the answer is "No", and gave the reason as being "because they are cheap." My response: "That's not necessarily true, especially if the service might be overpriced for the value." It wasn't a general comment about consumerism. It was a response to your reasoning. I didn't say you were wrong: you are mostly right (and I don't disagree with ANY of this post of yours I'm quoting here.) But you didn't cover the flip side of that, which is MAYBE CGC is overpriced (in some areas), and that was the reason for the outcry when they raised fees. It was not *NECESSARILY* because the consumers are "thrifty" or "cheap" (and they ARE and CAN be!), but also perhaps because CGC doesn't provide *enough* value for the price. If I sell dairy cow milk, and price it at $49 a gallon, are my customers "cheap" because they won't pay that? Or am I overpricing my product? In this case, I'm overpricing my product, which is what I suggest CGC is doing. Come on, Roy, you gotta read what I'm saying!

I see you have brought this up a few times....unfortuanetly no ones seems to want to discuss this. I find this hard to swallow as well....especially on such a high priced comic. If someone can screw up 6.0 to 7.0 to 6.0,then what makes people think that a 9.6 to 9.8 can`t be screwed up as well? Because it's not a "screw up." It's an opinion, of *this* book, at *this* time, on *this* day. And yes, you're perfectly right: a 9.6 and 9.8 can often be interchangeable.

I agree The difference is in how large the variable is, and is it worth their time and effort to a) prevent graders from attending shows (I'm sure that CGC didn't pay for their head graders to fly off to Seattle without good reason) b) hire and train more graders c) pay them more d) have them spend more time grading each separate book 3) charge more per book The flip side of the coin is that you can ask the consumer the question: "Would you be willing to pay more for a better product?" The answer is usually a consistent "No." It's the way of the modern world. We want it all and we want it cheap and we want it now. This can be shown by the outrage when CGC did change there prices a few years ago for the first time in nearly a decade. I personally would pay more for a better service if it meant better service but then I'm usually in the minority. Maybe it's because the prices being charged are *more than* the value that price provides to the average CGC consumer. Example: a single 1976 Marvel comic book worth $100 in the slab costs $35 (before discount) while a single 1980 comic book worth $100 costs $18 (before discount.) There is functionally no difference between that 1976 Marvel and that 1980 Marvel. It takes exactly the same amount of effort and cost to grade...but it's (almost) twice the price. CGC has clearly demonstrated that they *can* grade that book for $18...so why do they charge almost double? This isn't the only example, there are many such inconsistencies in the fee structure. Uh, you do realize they are a monopoly, right? Here's the pertinent part: To which my answer is "the reason it is "No" isn't necessarily because the customers are cheap, but that the value for the price paid may not be there", to which I added a clearcut example, complete with rhetorical question at the end to illustrate it.

While you and I might know this, CGC doesn't have to explain or justify why they charge $X any more for grading a book than you or I need to for selling a book. Granted. But the discussion wasn't about what CGC can or cannot, or should or should not, do. Your original contention was that CGC could consider raising prices to provide a better service. But that suggestion fails if the price customers are paying *already* exceeds the value they are getting, real OR perceived. And, the uproar about raising prices after a set period of time may, in fact, be completely justified in that regard. And clearly, the value they are getting for the service price for that 1976 book can't be considered reasonable, in the face of the facts about the 1980 book. The 'value they are getting' is a grey area and subjective to experience and personal interest. And it wasn't my point to suggest CGC needs to raise prices, rather I was trying to show that most businesses try to find a balance between the charges the offer to their customer and a relationship. There is no 'perfect', absolute, black and white formula in this economy. charge. Some things work better than others and I would say the pricing of the grading tiers fall under that statement. There is only what the customer will pay...and as long as people keep paying CGC will continue to You just want to argue. There ARE lots of "value grey areas", but I don't see how you can argue that the value is a "grey area" in my example. But, ok.

By the way....what Steve Borock says is absolutely true: For any of you who did not buy and sell comics prior to CGC, especially in the 90's when prices had risen to the 4 and 5 digits for most high grade, key books, it really, really, REALLY was the bad old days. I shudder to think how many people paid $10,000+ for high grade, key Gold and Silver books in the 90's, and STILL haven't recovered what they paid (and much, much worse) after finding out, sometimes decades later, that the book had been restored. It was just heartbreaking. For all its faults, CGC has provided a much SAFER trading environment, and for that, the market should always be very, very grateful.

While you and I might know this, CGC doesn't have to explain or justify why they charge $X any more for grading a book than you or I need to for selling a book. Granted. But the discussion wasn't about what CGC can or cannot, or should or should not, do. Your original contention was that CGC could consider raising prices to provide a better service. But that suggestion fails if the price customers are paying *already* exceeds the value they are getting, real OR perceived. And, the uproar about raising prices after a set period of time may, in fact, be completely justified in that regard. And clearly, the value they are getting for the service price for that 1976 book can't be considered reasonable, in the face of the facts about the 1980 book.

All of which is moot if none of those people look at the books. There's a reason the wording was changed. It used to be "grader"...now it is "comic professional." I'm not suggesting, in any way, that the actual graders are not the ones doing the grading. It is my belief that that's exactly what happens. But their warranty expressly states that this isn't necessarily the case. So, in that sense, FT is quite right. If "comic professional A" and "comic professional B", neither of whom appear on that page, made the decision as to the grade of a book...that page has no meaning. And the warranty is expressly written to say that could very well be the case.

Cloak & Dagger have SUCH tremendous potential....

I respectfully disagree. If we were paying for their expertise, knowledge and training...we'd want a few more details regarding that expertise, knowledge and training. And right now...we don't have any. We have no clue who looked at our books, what experience they have, what knowledge they might possess, or what training they may have undertaken. The only thing that matters to customers is that Big Number...which is simply an opinion rendered by faceless employees with no transparent credentials. Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGCs Grading Team! The warranty says these people MAY have looked at your books. It doesn't say they did. The warranty expressly states that your books are examined by two "comic professionals", not graders. I know, probably just a nitpick.