Dale Roberts

Obviously, you don't care at all.....

 

You have only posted 46 times in this thread since yesterday...

 

I care about the "why" in every discussion, not the "what". That's why it's a discussion.

 

 

Sir, put down the bong and take 2 steps back

I'm truly lost, Roy...are you saying the answer you wrote is a good one?

 

I have to agree with Nick, most people I deal with on eBay, or when I talk to people at shows, identify slabs by numerical grades, raw books by letter (word) grades.

 

It seemed to me that the changing to numerical grades was an effort to make the new system special.

 

 

Nope, I was trying to show that it's because of tradition that we do it and it may have it's place for now.

 

And to me the numerical grades make things easier, and certainly more easy for the average person to understand since people understand 1-10 much easier than G/GVG/VG/VGF etc.

 

Again, I'm not being pushy about it. Just discussing it. Like MCMiles said, I personally don't care either way as I can see the appeal for both sides (equivocating spoiler) but I tend to favour the numerical one for obvious reasons (non-equivocating spoiler).

 

Obviously, you don't care at all.....

You have only posted 46 times in this thread since yesterday...

Is this a debate about who should be the MVP?

 

It certainly is taking on alot of the characteristics of a "sabermetrics" vs old school baseball stats argument.

 

Personally I vote Trout.

 

Finally a topic i know a little about. Enough of this comic stuff. Dude!! Cabrera won the Triple Crown. THE TRIPLE CROWN!! And he got his team to the World Series.

 

Jeff

Cabrera was the best offensive player. Trout was the most valuable player. Value in baseball is about wins. Wins is a factor of runs scored vs runs allowed.

There is a high correlation between run differential (or Runs scored vs runs allowed) and wins. As evidence of this, no team with a below .500 record had a positive run differential this year. That is a fancy way of saying they scored less runs than they allowed. Every team with a .500 or better record scored more runs than they allowed. This fact tells me that there are at least 2 components to determining value, that is runs created and runs saved. Defense does make a difference.

Offensive value should come from primarily 1 area...runs created. Runs created encompasses so many different factors of offense, from hitting, to effective slugging, to baserunning. It also includes factors which are not included in sabermetric stats, such as the ability to hit a sacrifice fly, or drive in a run from 3rd base on a ground ball to the 2nd baseman. These 2 things have value, even though they are not factored in to the advanced metrics. There are new stats such as extra base taken%, but these are all included in runs scored. An extra base taken or a stolen base which does not score, generally has zero value. In actual value(runs created), the only stats that really have an impact on the club's win total are runs scored and runs driven in.

So my formula to determine the most valuable player would be the player who creates the most runs on offense and the player who saves the most runs on defense. Runs created + runs saved = MVP. Runs saved is extremely hard to judge, so going with metrics of plus or minus runs saved above average from Fan Graphs and the Fielding Bible.

Cabrera - 139 RBI + 109 runs - 44 HRs +(-8 PMRS) = 196

Trout - 83 RBI + 129 runs - 30 HRs + (21 PMRS) = 203

When you include defense, it is clear that Trout is in fact more valuable to his team than Cabrera. I was somewhat surprised by this outcome, but I feel it is a very fair way to evaluate who is the Most Valuable.

Is this a debate about who should be the MVP?

It certainly is taking on alot of the characteristics of a "sabermetrics" vs old school baseball stats argument.

Personally I vote Trout.

Peter meter.

 

Is that the giveaway comics from the '50s that Walt Kelly worked on?

No, I think it is a Robert Crumb book

I don't think most people are resubbing based on gambling. It is truly a skill to be able to spot and determine whether a book is a good resub candidate.

 

I'm just taking people posting here at their word .

 

That was your first mistake

Except for those 9.8s that have 2-3 color breaking spine ticks.

 

If CGC would release its grading standards to the public, this could be resolved.

 

Actually, if there were published standards, I think I'd be much more at ease with the 25-point system. And they could still include a caveat that in rare cases eye-appeal might be so great as to trump a specific rule now and again.

 

But say Joe submits a book he thinks will get a 9.6, and it comes back a 9.4. He may agree or disagree with the CGC grade, but admits book has flaw "x" that is disallowed in 9.6 by CGC. Joe decides it would not be worth resubmitting the book (let alone resubmitting it 7 times).

 

On the other hand, Joe gets a book that seems to go against a CGC standard. It's likely they simply missed something, or were too strict, and so that book makes a good resub candidate for Joe.

 

As it is, and as we've seen, people resubmit books multiple times (exposing them to more damage with every resub) based on "gambling" as to the outcome. No set of rules could be perfect... but it would help a lot.

I don't think most people are resubbing based on gambling. It is truly a skill to be able to spot and determine whether a book is a good resub candidate.

I don't CGC ever releasing their grading standard, because a company like PGX could immediately adapt those same standards and offer the same "product".

All this talk of hard and soft just makes it clear that my Professional Opinion Service is definitely a need in this hobby.

 

POS's opinion of a hard 9.2 - http://www.highgradecomics.com/images/catalog/as48gmwfc

 

That's a catchy little mascot you've adopted for your service!

 

I don't get what a mushroom has to do with high grade comics.

Thats what happens to Bob when he sees a high grade book.

Now that you mention it, it does depend upon how long they are. Three tiny ticks that are 1/32" in length may be consistent with their standard.

 

That falls under the combination of defects. Of course, we don't know exactly what that combination might include.

 

Some of us might...I may have a few years ago but have forgotten by now. Of course I don't mean I have magic access to their standards, I just mean people have figured out their standards. The top end of CGC's scale is the easiest to reverse-engineer.

Right, which is why I said that about the spine ticks.

I would guess several people who submit a ton of books can get a pretty good idea by examining a 100 or so slabs in each grade. In fact, we could probably get a small group together and basically write out CGC's standards with a little effort.

i.e. A 9.8 must have 3 sharp corners, and may have 1/8" of cumulative defects, et al infinitum.

I agree it is easier to work from the top down, than from the bottom up.

Except for those 9.8s that have 2-3 color breaking spine ticks.

 

If CGC would release its grading standards to the public, this could be resolved.

 

The simple answer is this....

 

A 9.8 is NOT a perfect book. Obviously, some combination of defects is allowable in 9.8 that is not allowable in 10.0. Maybe the 9.8 with 2 tiny stress lines is perfect in every other way. I don't think CGC discerns where the defect is to be important, simply that they are present somewhere on the book.

 

There is no reason to believe that a 9.8 can't have spine ticks. Most don't, because you are talking about 2 small defects which occur somewhere on an otherwise perfect book. Clearly you notice them more on the spine.

 

Now that you mention it, it does depend upon how long they are. Three tiny ticks that are 1/32" in length may be consistent with their standard.

That falls under the combination of defects. Of course, we don't know exactly what that combination might include.

Except for those 9.8s that have 2-3 color breaking spine ticks.

If CGC would release its grading standards to the public, this could be resolved.

The simple answer is this....

A 9.8 is NOT a perfect book. Obviously, some combination of defects is allowable in 9.8 that is not allowable in 10.0. Maybe the 9.8 with 2 tiny stress lines is perfect in every other way. I don't think CGC discerns where the defect is to be important, simply that they are present somewhere on the book.

There is no reason to believe that a 9.8 can't have spine ticks. Most don't, because you are talking about 2 small defects which occur somewhere on an otherwise perfect book. Clearly you notice them more on the spine.

Debating pressing is just a red herring. The real issue is whether having an in-house restoration/conservation/pressing service is a conflict of interest.

It is not a conflict of interest.

It is a source for the perception of a conflict of interest.

 

it is the potential for a conflict of interest

thus leading to the perception of a conflict of interest

 

if they can protect against this potential

then the perception decreases (and an 80+ page thread becomes a 5-10 page thread that shows up a few times a year when someone says "hey isnt it a conflict?" and everyone else says "no, because..."

So I can't wait for someone to tell me how no conflict of interest will occur. Will there be monitors, a la the UN? Should we just take the word of the company?

Converserly, as undergraded books are identified and flip hands and work their way through the ringer(s) (and make no mistake, there are books out there that have been pressed, re-pressed, and post-re-pressed as the new "owners/investors" have no history that a book has already been pressed and re-pressed), the % of overgraded CGC books will increase as each book is maxed out. That, and the loosening of CGC's standards over the last few years, has resulted in an overall population of CGC graded books that lean towards the low end of the grade spectrum.

The fact that a book as expensive as the Pacific Coast Hulk 1 has been resubbed many times tells me that the more expensive/rare/highly sought after a book is, the more likely it is that it'll have a "checkered" resub history. Combine that with your point about overgraded/overworked books and the astronomical rise in the prices of many key books, and you can only conclude that buyers will continue to get far less for their collecting dollar.

 

If I had money that I couldn't afford to lose tied up in books, I'd be dumping like it's hot.

A little data to support a rational argument. Here's a snapshot of the PC TOS run.

 

These books were run through the ringer multiple times. High grade to start with, but that wasn't quite enough.

 

Every squeeze was undertaken to maximize their monetary potential...

 

 

Thanks for posting that. (thumbs u

 

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll say it again in light of this clear illustration: pressing completely defeats the purpose of high grade collecting, or at least, it defeats the purpose of paying a premium for high grade books.

 

Maybe CGC's new acquisition will accelerate the speed at which collectors grasp that fact, but I'm not holding my breath.

But what are we really looking at here? 21 books cracked and resubmitted over a ten year period. 7 of which had no grade bump. 1 book had a two increment grade bump. The other 13 had a grade bump of only one increment. There is no proof that any of them were pressed (though we all assume that they were). This is really only a testament to two men with an obsession. The submitter, who wants the highest grades. And the compiler, who wants the smokingest gun.

whats up dork?

Those who are angry about books being pressed are only angry because pressing as a potential damage vector is profit oriented.

 

Those same angry few aren't angry about the damage vector know as book reading, presumably.

 

Some of us are angry because this thread is being hijacked into a pressing thread. Pressing is not the problem. It's a conflict of interest.

 

Is it? I'm conflicted.

 

I would much rather talk about the 7 month grading back up.

 

I currently have a submission from June 6th which is not even scheduled for grading yet.

No wonder they couldn't afford another encapulation machine! They were saving up for a pressing/restoration business.

I guess next they will buy Heritage and cut everyone else out fo the loop completely.

Get your books pressed, restored, graded, and sold all at the same time.

Those who are angry about books being pressed are only angry because pressing as a potential damage vector is profit oriented.

 

Those same angry few aren't angry about the damage vector know as book reading, presumably.

 

Some of us are angry because this thread is being hijacked into a pressing thread. Pressing is not the problem. It's a conflict of interest.

Is it? I'm conflicted.

I would much rather talk about the 7 month grading back up.

I currently have a submission from June 6th which is not even scheduled for grading yet.

Those who are angry about books being pressed are only angry because pressing as a potential damage vector is profit oriented.

 

Those same angry few aren't angry about the damage vector know as book reading, presumably.

 

you crack me up

No. But I told a judge that he was deciding a legal issue incorrectly. Big mistake.

 

But I'm not afraid to tell CGC on their boards that this move is a huge perception problem.

you may be cited for comtempt

I'm quite familiar with a chinese wall, as an attorney. But there is zero transparency at CGC. So all you're gonna get is, "We've taken steps to make sure nothing bad happens. If you think otherwise, prove it."

 

Back when I was an attorney, not only did I have a lot of cases where this issue arose, but I also had a lot of nice suits.. (thumbs u

Transplant doesn't have nice suits. Just a leather fringed jacket, a nice pair of boots, and a cowboy hat.

Until I see a problem which results from the acquisition, I have no problem with it.

 

I honestly don't see anything happening which has not been done before. Books have been getting pressed by CI, they submit them to CGC, books get graded. Should be the exact same process now.

 

Is there the appearance of a possibility of conflict of interest? Sure. However, if Paul and the other graders really don't know whose books they are grading, then I don't see how it is a problem.

 

That's a mighty big if. Before, CGC had no direct financial interest in knowing whose book is being graded. Now they do. That's the problem to me.

Well, that has always been a problem. Especially for walk through books.

It is short sighted to think they would risk the integrity of their business over the relatively few books that Matt presses, in relation to the overall number of books subbed to CGC.

The fact is, Matt is very good at what he does. He doesn't need CGC to provide him a bump on grades. Most of the books that he presses will get that bump anyway.

 

JIM #91 is another book notorious for top staple problems.

 

Try to follow along, Roy, with the information that's being presented. This is the White Mountain copy. I used to own it when it was in an old label, and still have a front cover scan. The substantial staple indentation is new for the new label resubmitted version.

 

Now you can concoct a story about how the full moon exerted gravitational pull on the staple and caused the indentation. Still doesn't change the FF36 that I showed you. Or the increasing prevalence of high grade books being sold through certain venues that carry defects from pressing (and not just at the staples).

 

Bob, it still doesn't change the fact that impacted staples happen on both pressed and unpressed books, fortifying the theory that the pressing is not the problem.

 

Like I have said many times, pressing does damage some books but this is not a defect I would associate with pressing. It's a defect I would associate with production.

The problem is in the book before the book gets pressed....and yes I will admit that pressing the book may make the problem worse but that's no different than packing a book with that potential problem in a tight stack and having the same defect occur without a press job (which it does).

 

So essentially, what you're saying is that since indented staples exist independent of pressing, it's not a defect you would associate with pressing, and on that basis you're concluding that the staple on Bob's book, and that indented staples in general, cannot be attributed to pressing.

 

This is convenient for people who make money on pressing, since it essentially amounts to "PROVE IT". And the kind of proof required to circumvent the above reasoning would have to be nothing short of videotaping the person who pressed the book as he indents the staple.

 

or you can just provide a before and after pic.....

 

That wouldn't be sufficient by Roy's logic though, since the damage could happen in transit from owner to presser, in transit from presser to CGC, during the grading process due to crotch-ramming, or in transit from CGC back to the submitter.

 

Roy is right that the encapsulation process can shift the cover slighty so that the staple will appear impacted. I have seen it. I don't know if Smashed corner syndrome might also affect staple impact if the book hit on the edge of the spine.

 

Clearly, anything where a book is handled can result in damage. Pressing, grading, or handing the books to someone for submission to be packed in a box.

 

I think most of the problems occur when someone is not taking the appropriate amount of time to handle the book correctly, regardless of the reason.

 

If you want to keep your books in pristine condition, keep them in a mylar in your closet. If you want to sub them (in any way), you are taking a risk.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, and you and Roy are exponentially more experienced with handling books and the whole press-submit process than I ever will be.

 

The problem I'm having is that IF pressing is causing these problems, what little evidence exists will be denied and minimized by the majority. Even if this denial is done on a logical basis, if pressing is indeed causing damage of this nature, it won't be acknowledged.

 

It's convenient, that's all I'm saying.

 

Look at it this way....

 

Pressing probably damages about 1 in 100 books. The other 99 books, pressing makes better.

 

Submitting books to CGC probably damages 2 in 100 books(due to more people handling the books and encapsulation process). The other 98 books remain exactly as they were.

 

Both are clearly a money grab. Which is worse?

 

I see your logic, but even if those numbers are correct, and they may not be, you're not taking into account what happens to the probability that a book will be damaged when you combine both practices.

Oh, there is no doubt that CGC has damaged more of MY books than pressing has......and its not even close.

 

JIM #91 is another book notorious for top staple problems.

 

Try to follow along, Roy, with the information that's being presented. This is the White Mountain copy. I used to own it when it was in an old label, and still have a front cover scan. The substantial staple indentation is new for the new label resubmitted version.

 

Now you can concoct a story about how the full moon exerted gravitational pull on the staple and caused the indentation. Still doesn't change the FF36 that I showed you. Or the increasing prevalence of high grade books being sold through certain venues that carry defects from pressing (and not just at the staples).

 

Bob, it still doesn't change the fact that impacted staples happen on both pressed and unpressed books, fortifying the theory that the pressing is not the problem.

 

Like I have said many times, pressing does damage some books but this is not a defect I would associate with pressing. It's a defect I would associate with production.

The problem is in the book before the book gets pressed....and yes I will admit that pressing the book may make the problem worse but that's no different than packing a book with that potential problem in a tight stack and having the same defect occur without a press job (which it does).

 

So essentially, what you're saying is that since indented staples exist independent of pressing, it's not a defect you would associate with pressing, and on that basis you're concluding that the staple on Bob's book, and that indented staples in general, cannot be attributed to pressing.

 

This is convenient for people who make money on pressing, since it essentially amounts to "PROVE IT". And the kind of proof required to circumvent the above reasoning would have to be nothing short of videotaping the person who pressed the book as he indents the staple.

 

or you can just provide a before and after pic.....

 

That wouldn't be sufficient by Roy's logic though, since the damage could happen in transit from owner to presser, in transit from presser to CGC, during the grading process due to crotch-ramming, or in transit from CGC back to the submitter.

 

Roy is right that the encapsulation process can shift the cover slighty so that the staple will appear impacted. I have seen it. I don't know if Smashed corner syndrome might also affect staple impact if the book hit on the edge of the spine.

 

Clearly, anything where a book is handled can result in damage. Pressing, grading, or handing the books to someone for submission to be packed in a box.

 

I think most of the problems occur when someone is not taking the appropriate amount of time to handle the book correctly, regardless of the reason.

 

If you want to keep your books in pristine condition, keep them in a mylar in your closet. If you want to sub them (in any way), you are taking a risk.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, and you and Roy are exponentially more experienced with handling books and the whole press-submit process than I ever will be.

 

The problem I'm having is that IF pressing is causing these problems, what little evidence exists will be denied and minimized by the majority. Even if this denial is done on a logical basis, if pressing is indeed causing damage of this nature, it won't be acknowledged.

 

It's convenient, that's all I'm saying.

Look at it this way....

Pressing probably damages about 1 in 100 books. The other 99 books, pressing makes better.

Submitting books to CGC probably damages 2 in 100 books(due to more people handling the books and encapsulation process). The other 98 books remain exactly as they were.

Both are clearly a money grab. Which is worse?

Roy is right that the encapsulation process can shift the cover slighty so that the staple will appear impacted. I have seen it. I don't know if Smashed corner syndrome might also affect staple impact if the book hit on the edge of the spine.

 

Clearly, anything where a book is handled can result in damage. Pressing, grading, or handing the books to someone for submission to be packed in a box.

 

I think most of the problems occur when someone is not taking the appropriate amount of time to handle the book correctly, regardless of the reason.

 

If you want to keep your books in pristine condition, keep them in a mylar in your closet. If you want to sub them (in any way), you are taking a risk.

Agreed. Damage while at CGC is an underdiscussed topic here. For most people who've noticed it, I hear the response has also been "prove it".

 

Dale:

 

What is your opinion on the CI acquisition?

Until I see a problem which results from the acquisition, I have no problem with it.

I honestly don't see anything happening which has not been done before. Books have been getting pressed by CI, they submit them to CGC, books get graded. Should be the exact same process now.

Is there the appearance of a possibility of conflict of interest? Sure. However, if Paul and the other graders really don't know whose books they are grading, then I don't see how it is a problem.

The only difference I see is that Matt's pockets are more full than they were before, CCG is getting a portion of the pressing money, and now you know for sure that CGC's stance on pressing will never change.

To me, this thread should have been about 3 pages long.

I would much rather see 100 pages about getting the submissions back on schedule.

 

JIM #91 is another book notorious for top staple problems.

 

Try to follow along, Roy, with the information that's being presented. This is the White Mountain copy. I used to own it when it was in an old label, and still have a front cover scan. The substantial staple indentation is new for the new label resubmitted version.

 

Now you can concoct a story about how the full moon exerted gravitational pull on the staple and caused the indentation. Still doesn't change the FF36 that I showed you. Or the increasing prevalence of high grade books being sold through certain venues that carry defects from pressing (and not just at the staples).

 

Bob, it still doesn't change the fact that impacted staples happen on both pressed and unpressed books, fortifying the theory that the pressing is not the problem.

 

Like I have said many times, pressing does damage some books but this is not a defect I would associate with pressing. It's a defect I would associate with production.

The problem is in the book before the book gets pressed....and yes I will admit that pressing the book may make the problem worse but that's no different than packing a book with that potential problem in a tight stack and having the same defect occur without a press job (which it does).

 

So essentially, what you're saying is that since indented staples exist independent of pressing, it's not a defect you would associate with pressing, and on that basis you're concluding that the staple on Bob's book, and that indented staples in general, cannot be attributed to pressing.

 

This is convenient for people who make money on pressing, since it essentially amounts to "PROVE IT". And the kind of proof required to circumvent the above reasoning would have to be nothing short of videotaping the person who pressed the book as he indents the staple.

 

or you can just provide a before and after pic.....

 

That wouldn't be sufficient by Roy's logic though, since the damage could happen in transit from owner to presser, in transit from presser to CGC, during the grading process due to crotch-ramming, or in transit from CGC back to the submitter.

Roy is right that the encapsulation process can shift the cover slighty so that the staple will appear impacted. I have seen it. I don't know if Smashed corner syndrome might also affect staple impact if the book hit on the edge of the spine.

Clearly, anything where a book is handled can result in damage. Pressing, grading, or handing the books to someone for submission to be packed in a box.

I think most of the problems occur when someone is not taking the appropriate amount of time to handle the book correctly, regardless of the reason.

If you want to keep your books in pristine condition, keep them in a mylar in your closet. If you want to sub them (in any way), you are taking a risk.

 

JIM #91 is another book notorious for top staple problems.

 

Try to follow along, Roy, with the information that's being presented. This is the White Mountain copy. I used to own it when it was in an old label, and still have a front cover scan. The substantial staple indentation is new for the new label resubmitted version.

 

Now you can concoct a story about how the full moon exerted gravitational pull on the staple and caused the indentation. Still doesn't change the FF36 that I showed you. Or the increasing prevalence of high grade books being sold through certain venues that carry defects from pressing (and not just at the staples).

 

Bob, it still doesn't change the fact that impacted staples happen on both pressed and unpressed books, fortifying the theory that the pressing is not the problem.

 

Like I have said many times, pressing does damage some books but this is not a defect I would associate with pressing. It's a defect I would associate with production.

The problem is in the book before the book gets pressed....and yes I will admit that pressing the book may make the problem worse but that's no different than packing a book with that potential problem in a tight stack and having the same defect occur without a press job (which it does).

 

So essentially, what you're saying is that since indented staples exist independent of pressing, it's not a defect you would associate with pressing, and on that basis you're concluding that the staple on Bob's book, and that indented staples in general, cannot be attributed to pressing.

 

This is convenient for people who make money on pressing, since it essentially amounts to "PROVE IT". And the kind of proof required to circumvent the above reasoning would have to be nothing short of videotaping the person who pressed the book as he indents the staple.

or you can just provide a before and after pic.....

Worldwide I'd bet that 75% or better of comic collectors aren't interested in graded books at all.

I continue to be surprised at the low percentage of graded books at most smallish to mid-sized shows. The thousands of slabs that are for sale on ebay any given week always give me the impression that the market for slabs is far larger. But I still routinely hear dealers explaining to prospective buyers terms like CGC, slabbing, resto checks, etc.

 

So yeah, there is a big percentage of the hobby that has never got on the carousel.

 

Look at the cost of getting a Bronze Age or earlier graded - $25 give or take after discount, including sh/ins, etc. I suspect the vast majority of books at most shows are worth $50 or less, so slabbing these books doesn't make financial sense. As such, I imagine the vast majority of books in this hobby are not affected by CGC, slabbing, or pressing. Likewise, I suspect the vast majority of money made by dealers and collectors in this hobby is affected by CGC, slabbing, pressing, and this wonderful (d)evolution in our hobby. Follow the $$!

 

Actually, I will get into this type of discussion several times of years with collectors who want to know why I don't have more of my inventory graded. If you have seen what I carry, most of my raw SA stuff (probably 90%) is in the 8.0 to 9.4 range. People ask why I don't get more of that stuff graded.

 

It is simple math. If you take a $100.00 book, for which you (hopefully) paid $50. By the time you press it, grade it, then you are into the book for $80. Right there tells you it leaves little profit. Then, if you figure a 6 month grading time, and the buyer asking for a discount, it is pretty evident it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

For the majority of your raw SA stock, you pay 50% of what you think you can get for a comic? I would have thought that would be a lot lower.

 

As I said, almost all my raw stock is high grade as well. And I try to keep high grade copies of most SA Marvel & DCs in stock. That means paying solid prices on stuff. Obviously, I will buy cheaper if I get the opportunity, but if someone has something I don't have in inventory, I will pay at least 50% of what I sell it for, and often times considerably more depending upon the book and the grade.

 

With people selling their own stuff on ebay and other places (auctions, the boards, etc), I am paying more and more for inventory all the time.

 

As

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Why do you think people still sell a few HG SA comics to you rather than getting FMV on ebay or some such? Convenience?

If you could get FMV on ebay, that would be a good question. However, since most of the time, you get about 70% of FMV on ebay (or less), and then have to pay shipping, deal with returns, pay feebay and paypal, you are looking at getting basically the same money that I would pay you with none of the headaches.

I also buy alot of stuff that would not bring anywhere near FMV on ebay, but books that I have customers for. Plus, I don't just buy one book at a time. I will buy the whole collection, or at least all of the high grade stuff.

And of course, the better the stuff is, the more I pay for it. Sometimes I pay double guide or more for certain books in certain grades.