Nick Furious

You are correct, the pricing is not a function of variable costs. It's a function of how much value their service will add to the product, and what the market will bear because of that. That's why I say to ask the question in reverse to get the answer. They would love to charge $500 per book if they could. But for most books the service will not add enough value to justify it and obviously the market would not bear it. So instead of saying that they charge more for more valuable books, we might say that they charge less for less valuable books.

To find the answer, ask the question in reverse. Why does a grading company have lower priced tiers for less valuable books?

He's just trying the sound cool to impress the ladies.

lol, they're the guys that go to the reverse-pitch meetings.

This 15-year-old thread was shared earlier in this current thread. But for those who missed it previously, every villain has an origin story:

My guess is the jailhouse cellmate that he burned is now released and looking for him. Selling customers books is his lifeline.

I enjoy that thought. On the other hand, there's a side of me that has no concern whatsoever for anyone who actually bought that book for that price.

Curious if anyone knows what ever became of the Mark Jeweler book that started this whole thread?

Not disagreeing with you, but the reality is that the bidder/buyer is the only party that doesn't have a short-term financial conflict-of-interest in this battle. The seller wants to sell, the consignment house wants the consignments, CGC wants it all to go away...and the buyer can't make much happen individually. The buyers need the bigger players (particularly CGC) to support by setting aside concerns about short-term side-effects and taking the necessary medicine to restore confidence.

The irony there is hard to wrap my head around. It undermines the entire purpose of third-party grading and encapsulating.

Do you currently buy from Mycomicshop.com? Never had an issue with their grading.

Agreed, not only were they selling under the CGC brand, but also under the CGC guarantee. The fact that CGC is having to compensate buyers in order to maintain their reputation...seems to me that should be pretty good evidence of the misuse of the brand by the defendants, resulting in tangible damages.

Finally! A trailer that makes me want to watch another MCU movie!

Even in the case of the most expensive book, I can't see how the owner would be better of financially by going through the courts rather than taking the compensation from CGC. Lot's of expenses with no guarantees. Might just end up losing twice.

still a hard "pass".

In addition to scarcity, historical significance is an important component of value. A baseball is just a baseball until it is hit for a world series winning home run. Then it contains historical significance. A gun owned by General Patton is just a gun if owned by someone who's name you don't know. General Patton added historical significance to the gun by owning it. Tales to Astonish 13 was just another Tales to Astonish comic until Guardians of the Galaxy. And then it became the first appearance of Groot...a character of significance, giving the book historical significance. Historical significance often brings exponential increases in demand.

You make a good point. There are some parts of the collectibles and certification universe where our little pond isn't even known to exist. The idea that Blackstone is in a panic over hiccups at CGC probably stems from not recognizing that the pond we swim in is not the whole universe.

That definitely puts some hesitation on the theory that the two parties were working together.

How could that even compare to CGC taking their accumulated investigation research to the FBI? If it's agreed that this issue should go to the FBI, then it should go to them through CGC.

As long as CGC owns the monopoly on public trust, they will be a magnet for opportunists who hope to misuse that trust for nefarious purposes. Perhaps these two latest issues are just a matter of being duped. If they had happened in a vacuum it would be reasonable enough to just chalk it up to a lack of anticipation on the part of CGC. But there have been enough "bad look" situations in the past for the general public to start wondering just how committed CGC is to closing the door on those opportunists who wish to misuse their monopoly on public trust. Can anyone really look at past shenanigans and conclude that CGC is committed, first and foremost, to protecting the hen house and preventing bad actors from gaining access it, regardless of the financial opportunity for CGC?

That's my expectation as well. Little to no response. The legal system is a labyrinth and lawyers are expensive Sherpas. Those who don't have them dare not enter. Easier to run and hide.

Interesting read from back in the day. I kept having to remind myself not to reply to 20-year-old comments.

The middle ground between being in on the scam and being duped is "allowing yourself to be duped". I wouldn't be surprised it turns out that the store owner was not in on it overtly, but also ignored his serious suspicions and allowed himself to be duped. If he was getting significant financial benefit from the scam (consignment fees, etc.), it would be pretty easy to take a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding where all those valuable books came from.

I think that's a generic forum-generated link anytime Ebay is typed into the forum.

She's on the cover.