RockMyAmadeus

Cheetah and I did not coordinate our posts.

Competition "solves all problems" only in the sense that problems that come up must now be addressed, rather than ignored, or the consumer now has other options. There would definitely be new complaints about a new company, but the ones with the complaint would now have the ability to choose which service to use, and the company has to resolve those problems if they wish to keep those customers. Example: some of CGC's customer service representatives have absolutely no business being in customer service. When/if a customer is unhappy (regardless of why), the answer is never, ever, EVER to become argumentative, dismissive, and/or combative, but this is precisely what certain customer service representatives have done, to their great discredit. Help. Explain. Be supportive. Empathize, even if the customer is dead wrong. NEVER argue, and NEVER be combative. This is customer service 101, yet, some reps are atrocious. They take complaints extremely personally, utterly forgetting the fact that they REPRESENT something else, and it has nothing to do with them, personally. PS. That doesn't mean there aren't outstanding reps. There are.

But otherwise...this. (thumbs u Will wonders never cease!

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. There are many different types of market. I've been saying this for years. There are many types of raw markets and many types of CGC markets and those that are able to diversify across them and arbitrage between them will profit the most. But then the customer has a legitimate argument to make against "paying a better price for a better service." The service isn't any better between the 1976 book and the 1980 book (and again...this happens up and down the fee structure), but the price is *already* nearly double. And a point I didn't bring up: that 1976 book takes about 3.5 months start to finish, while that 1980 book takes a full month less. Slower service for almost double the price.

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.

Even this is only partly true, because it doesn't factor in genuine differences of opinion as to how certain flaws affect a grade. That first dealer "VF" may be because it has, oh, say, a 1/4" slightly color breaking crease in the corner, and he/she doesn't think CB creases belong in the NM range at all, and grades accordingly. And there are plenty of dealers who look for "accurate" grading, because they know they can raise the grade and not be questioned about it. It's not just making money off of other's "mistakes." FT's point still stands (look, RMA defending FT, for which no credit will be given ): you'll get more consistency from the same dealer over and over again because you establish a picture of how that dealer grades (even taking into account "good and bad days"), even if that dealer consistently over/undergrades. At CGC, you don't know, and cannot control, who sees your books, and so don't know what flaw(s) will bother one grader over another. There's no way to get consistency because the parameters change with every pair of eyes. As I've said for the ten thousandth time, and will say ten thousand more times: it all comes down to opinion, which is why the vast gulfs in price between grades is utter lunacy. A spine tic is worth $500,000? In some cases...yes. A book that is in BETTER condition worth substantially LESS than another? Yes. But the market won't listen.

Scroll down.

Here is an unfortunate reality that comes with slabbing: The item slabbed carries a premium solely because of that number in the upper left hand corner, especially at extremely high grades. If you remove a 9.6 Amazing Fantasy #15 from its slab, it is no longer a $1 point whatever million book. It doesn't matter if the book is sold 5 seconds after being removed from its slab. Once it is detached from that label, it loses a tremendous amount of its "value." It can BE a $1 point whatever million book, IF it gets put back in a slab that says "9.6." And if, by chance, it ends up in slab that says "9.4", .the "book" has just lost 60% of its "value." Even if it is exactly identical to when it resided in a 9.6 slab. This is the madness of the ultra high grade market, but as long as rich people keep chasing labels, it will not change. There could be, and very likely are, HIGHER quality books in lower number slabs that are worth much less, for the sole and only reason that the label has a lower number on it.

+ a very sad 1.

snopes.com is run by a couple and has many errors in i, think PGX of urban legend busting. While many articles there contain truth, they also have many errors of omission, and some serious political bias. There is also an ongoing war between them and other myth busters, as to who is more biased, and who is more legit, who is more political, etc, etc. It takes a fair bit of time to get to the real meat on who owns and runs it, as there is as much gibberish about them, as they produce themselves. At the end of the day, quoting snopes is akin to quoting wikipedia. Not saying it may not be very right in this case, just important to point out it has no guarantee of truth or authority, and some very biased/lacking articles.

Sure, why not. Apparently, sociopaths are everywhere. Why should the boards be an exception? via Imgflip Meme Maker

They made a decent movie about it. Disturbing because it was true! Thats the dude-havent seen the movie did he do the drink thing in it? Classic sociopath BTW. Ps sociopath does not necessarily mean criminal. You could be living with a sociopath and not know it. Here's a test-ask them: A woman goes to her father's funeral and meets the man of her dreams her soul mate. But he leaves before she can get his number. A week later she murders her sister. Why do you think she did that? Does that fact that I don't know the answer to this question mean I am relatively normal or that I am a sociopath? Conversely, does the fact that I do know the answer mean I am a sociopath? http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/sister.asp

PS....Overstreet is NOT the direction a legitimate competitor needs to go. It will require a lot of money, far, far more than it took to start up CGC, and the investors have to understand that they will see no return on investment...none...for at least 5 years. None. Who will do that? Answer: people who have the means, for whom the money isn't an issue, and who value the principle over the profit, at least in the short to mid-term. In other words...no one so far. Competition makes everyone better.

This happens already. NGC (CGC's sister company) graded coins sell for a little less than PCGS, especially at the ultra high grades. There are advantages to both services. Whether someone will pay more for a legitimate competitor, the competitor has to offer something that CGC does not...and there are a lot of things that CGC does not. The transparency CANNOT be "no greater", or it fails.

There is a drawing each month to see who has to take you off ignore. I have lost the last 27 months in a row. I am beginning think something may be amiss. The real losers are the ones that use the ignore function in the first place. I might disagree with that, in certain cases.

Saying CGC got played about this , has to be the dumbest thing I have read on these boards ever . This thread is probably winning as far as the amount of dumb contained in one thread. Now that you're here, I must unfortunately agree. Not because you're here, mind...that was just unfortunate phrasing on my part.... Pass the BBQ sauce. This one's tough and leathery.

Totally unrelated aside, isn't it weird when you discover, out of the blue, that someone has you on ignore that you never had any interaction with, ever...? Not Park. He could never ignore me.

Saying CGC got played about this , has to be the dumbest thing I have read on these boards ever . This thread is probably winning as far as the amount of dumb contained in one thread. Now that you're here, I must unfortunately agree. Not because you're here, mind...that was just unfortunate phrasing on my part....

Someone bought a slabbed Albedo #0 second print for $400...as a first print. That person got screwed. The book clearly states it is a second printing...in big block letters, too. It's just not on the inside front cover or first page.

I regret selling my Vampi #1 SS Frazetta every time I think about it. But the offer was too good to pass up, and I could then...buy more books! (Although I should have CPR it. That book was a solid 9.2 after a press.) There are a few things that I wouldn't sell regardless of the price...gifts, special signings, etc. I'd give them away, but I'll never sell them.

No...they really don't.

#1, there's no need to destroy the book. The book didn't do anything. #2, those of you who think the new submitter "gamed" the system, unless he/she bribed a grader, he/she didn't "game" anything. You pay for the service, you get the service. If I'd rather have my coppers graded by, say, Caffrey...and I would...am I "gaming" the system if I have him look at them? Am I "gaming" the system if I pre-screen? If there's a perceived lack of consistency because of outside events, and everyone can be aware of those events (as the information is quite public), that is CGC's problem to address...not any submitter.

Um. Oh boy.

And it's been happening for 100 years or more....slabbing only sped up the process.