If you could change one thing about CGC what would it be?

[MCMiles]

I believe there are much fewer of this type of "collector" (meaning high grade collectors, that care a great deal if a book was previously another grade)then you would like to think. I don't believe for a second that you are. Why else would you constantly re-sub books you think should have a bigger number on the label? Why submit them at all?

 

This detailed database of notes and scans would cost CGC time and money. Obviously, this would slow down turn around time, and raise prices.

 

Would you want to pay more and wait longer so you could view multiple notes and scans of your ASM #121?

 

First off, I don't constantly re-sub books, as you put it - maybe 10 or so since the inception of CGC, excluding the batch of 30 or so books that were my first encapsulated purchases that were routinely cracked out back at the advent of CGC. Second, I can assure you I'm a collector that considers the past grading and handling history of a book in my purchasing decisions. Anybody in the collecting community who knows me knows this well. Third, would a scan database and better notetaking cost time and money? Yes, but not a whole heck of alot. Books are scanned already for 3 bucks upon request (a profitable activity), and so scanning them all would likely add only a buck or two to the overall cost of encapsulation.

 

Finally, my original owner ASM121 is a perfect example of how a scan archive could be used beneficially. Since the book has been graded before as unrestored (and untrimmed), it would be readily apparent upon accessing the archived scan that the book has not been trimmed since the last time it was deemed unrestored.

 

"Second, I can assure you I'm a collector that considers the past grading and handling history of a book in my purchasing decisions."

 

Yet, you have said that you don't find it necessary to disclose past CGC grades for books cracked out when you are selling them raw. Seems a little self serving to me.

 

You can detect micro-trimming from a scan?

[Old Fashion PB and J]

This detailed database of notes and scans would cost CGC time and money. Obviously, this would slow down turn around time, and raise prices.

 

Would you want to pay more and wait longer so you could view multiple notes and scans of your ASM #121?

 

Personally, if I thought the service, and thus the industry, became more transparent, I'd be happy to pay more and wait longer...as they say, you get what you pay for. (thumbs u

I think they charge too much as it is. I would say these services would more than justify the rates (thumbs u

 

Edit: except wait longer.

 

You see, Pat, I've never, never understood the waiting thing. If you're going on a driving vacation and are waiting for your SUV to get back from the workshop, time is critical.

 

However, getting your books back from Sarasota, that you might have owned for 22 years without doing so much as taking them out of their mylars, quickly is neither here nor there as far as I can see.

 

Unless you are a dealer and can't have money tied up in unsaleable inventory, what do you need the book for?

I concur. It's all a byproduct of our "Just Add Water" society.

And I will readily admit I have attatchment issues. I worry about the books when not in my posession. I dont deny this sounds ridiculous, but I hate not knowing where my books are. You can rib me all you want. But I really dont like having to be without something I own for 2-3 months.

 

Seriously does this sound ridiculous?

 

Well, it wouldn't if we were talking about a lung, or maybe electricity.

 

But a funny book?

[Old Fashion PB and J]

I believe there are much fewer of this type of "collector" (meaning high grade collectors, that care a great deal if a book was previously another grade)then you would like to think. I don't believe for a second that you are. Why else would you constantly re-sub books you think should have a bigger number on the label? Why submit them at all?

 

This detailed database of notes and scans would cost CGC time and money. Obviously, this would slow down turn around time, and raise prices.

 

Would you want to pay more and wait longer so you could view multiple notes and scans of your ASM #121?

 

First off, I don't constantly re-sub books, as you put it - maybe 10 or so since the inception of CGC, excluding the batch of 30 or so books that were my first encapsulated purchases that were routinely cracked out back at the advent of CGC. Second, I can assure you I'm a collector that considers the past grading and handling history of a book in my purchasing decisions. Anybody in the collecting community who knows me knows this well. Third, would a scan database and better notetaking cost time and money? Yes, but not a whole heck of alot. Books are scanned already for 3 bucks upon request (a profitable activity), and so scanning them all would likely add only a buck or two to the overall cost of encapsulation.

 

Finally, my original owner ASM121 is a perfect example of how a scan archive could be used beneficially. Since the book has been graded before as unrestored (and untrimmed), it would be readily apparent upon accessing the archived scan that the book has not been trimmed since the last time it was deemed unrestored.

 

"Second, I can assure you I'm a collector that considers the past grading and handling history of a book in my purchasing decisions."

 

Yet, you have said that you don't find it necessary to disclose past CGC grades for books cracked out when you are selling them raw. Seems a little self serving to me.

 

You can detect micro-trimming from a scan?

I can..

 

No. I cant really

[Flaming_Telepath]

You can detect micro-trimming from a scan?

 

You certainly can. It's precisely how Ewert was caught. (thumbs u

[adamstrange]

You can detect micro-trimming from a scan?

 

You certainly can. It's precisely how Ewert was caught. (thumbs u

 

Technically speaking, it took 2 scans to catch Ewert.

[Flaming_Telepath]

You can detect micro-trimming from a scan?

 

You certainly can. It's precisely how Ewert was caught. (thumbs u

 

Technically speaking, it took 2 scans to catch Ewert.

 

Indeed it did. (thumbs u

 

Which is precisely what we'd have if CGC had kept a scanned database of all books they had previously graded.

[mica]

You can detect micro-trimming from a scan?

 

You certainly can. It's precisely how Ewert was caught. (thumbs u

 

Technically speaking, it took 2 scans to catch Ewert.

And who caught it?

[Dick Pontoon]

People are smart. Like you, they would understand that a fraction of resubmissions garner higher grades without being manipulated.

I thought you previously brought to our attention that you have had tremendous success receiving higher grades on straight resubmissions.

 

The notions that pressing is undetectable and microtrimming is barely detectable fail to take into account that a combination of detailed graders' notes and cover scans could be used to identify definitively books that have been pressed (in many cases) or microtrimmed (in all cases). Although not "foolproof", I think such a database would be used extensively by the collecting community focused on high grade slabs. Unfortunately, this ship has already sailed.

I am of the opinion that most people use the grader's notes to determine if a book could receive a higher grade on resubmission. I doubt the detective work would be employed by most people for any other reason. At any rate, the collecting community focused on high grade slabs probably could not care less one way or the other. The sellers focused on high grade slabs might see it differently.

 

In response to Namisgr, like McMiles already said, I think the segment of the overall market who would use such a database is very, very small, and probably 90% of the folks who would use it that way are here on the boards.

 

In regards to Watson's comment, I've never called for grader's notes with the intent to resub. I've only ever called for notes to make sure I wasn't missing a defect not visible in an auction scan. I'd guess maybe a third use notes that way, a 1/3 use them for potential resub and the other 1/3 to find out why their book graded so low.

 

 

[1Cool]

I wish CGC would invent a message board for comic collectors. That would be cool!

[comixcroz]

People are smart. Like you, they would understand that a fraction of resubmissions garner higher grades without being manipulated.

I thought you previously brought to our attention that you have had tremendous success receiving higher grades on straight resubmissions.

 

The notions that pressing is undetectable and microtrimming is barely detectable fail to take into account that a combination of detailed graders' notes and cover scans could be used to identify definitively books that have been pressed (in many cases) or microtrimmed (in all cases). Although not "foolproof", I think such a database would be used extensively by the collecting community focused on high grade slabs. Unfortunately, this ship has already sailed.

I am of the opinion that most people use the grader's notes to determine if a book could receive a higher grade on resubmission. I doubt the detective work would be employed by most people for any other reason. At any rate, the collecting community focused on high grade slabs probably could not care less one way or the other. The sellers focused on high grade slabs might see it differently.

 

In response to Namisgr, like McMiles already said, I think the segment of the overall market who would use such a database is very, very small, and probably 90% of the folks who would use it that way are here on the boards.

 

In regards to Watson's comment, I've never called for grader's notes with the intent to resub. I've only ever called for notes to make sure I wasn't missing a defect not visible in an auction scan. I'd guess maybe a third use notes that way, a 1/3 use them for potential resub and the other 1/3 to find out why their book graded so low.

 

me too - that's essentially what they're for. They are only supposed to list defects that are not easily spotted. I use them all of the time to see if a book has rusty staples, small stains, detached inner pages, etc..

[esquirecomics]

People are smart. Like you, they would understand that a fraction of resubmissions garner higher grades without being manipulated.

I thought you previously brought to our attention that you have had tremendous success receiving higher grades on straight resubmissions.

 

The notions that pressing is undetectable and microtrimming is barely detectable fail to take into account that a combination of detailed graders' notes and cover scans could be used to identify definitively books that have been pressed (in many cases) or microtrimmed (in all cases). Although not "foolproof", I think such a database would be used extensively by the collecting community focused on high grade slabs. Unfortunately, this ship has already sailed.

I am of the opinion that most people use the grader's notes to determine if a book could receive a higher grade on resubmission. I doubt the detective work would be employed by most people for any other reason.

 

Your comment ignores the essential role the Heritage scan archive has played in identifying resubmitted books that had been microtrimmed, or others that had been cleaned and pressed. Imagine for a moment that CGC had created a database of scans and detailed graders notes that would dwarf the Heritage archive both in size and quality (graders notes that mention surface impressions and bends that don't break paper, and so can potentially be pressed out; stains that can be dry-cleaned away; etc). I believe such a database would have been used much more extensively by the high grade collecting community (not the "flipping" community) than you think.

 

CGC could have played a major, proactive role to increase transparency for collectors.

But that isn't their business model. CGC isn't some grand malevolent force of nature. They are here to make a buck by slabbing your books whether it be once, twice or three times. Simple as that. Why should we as collectors saddle them with more responsibility than what they are due?

 

In fairness, they have set themselves up as a quasi-authority and quasi-regulatory body...or at least, that's what the marketing has 'suggested'. The use of the word 'guaranty' in the company name is a prime example of this.

 

The fact that what the guarantee covers is not what a number of people assume it means is the kicker.

 

They want to be viewed as the authority, but they don't want to have to behave as an authority. Neat little trick that.

 

To some extent, I have to say that the community needs to accept partial blame for the current perception of CGC (and I am speaking generically and not applying this statement to anyone in particular). Too many people, whether collector or dealer, have placed CGC on a pedestal with the thought, or perhaps hope, that CGC was doing what was right for the community, that it was trying to be a leader in the community for the betterment of the community.

 

CGC has done a lot of good things for this hobby, and it continues to do so, but I believe that is more of a by-product of its business model than an intention to protect or police the hobby. Which, of course, is not to say that the two notions can not be pursued simultaneously.

 

CGC was primarily created as a business by those not involved in comics. They came from the coin community and they saw the wonderful profits that were being developed there and believed the same model could be applied here. They recruited individuals from our community to help promote the notion, and it was successful in many ways.

 

There have been many changes at CGC in the last ten years. The fact that Borock is longer involved, and that the current leadership is rarely posting on the boards is not an accident. I am not insinuating any nefarious plots or secret problems. This, too, is reflective of pure business tactics. I understand why CGC will not do many things I would like to see them do, and I understand why it does things I would rather not see it do. Once that is realized it is all about learning how to play the game with CGC, both from the extent of knowing how to manipulate or abuse the CGC process to financially benefit, which I do not care to personally partake in, and to know how to work with CGC to try and strengthen the hobby by suggesting policies that would not hurt CGC's bottom line.

 

I wrote a very lengthy post about the concept of grading company vs. guaranty company, and the role CGC plays, four years ago. I was somewhat surprised to have taken some heat for it, at least by those who took the time to post about what I wrote.

 

Commentary - CGC Should Change Its Name To "Comics Grading, LLC"

 

Not much has changed in the last four years as far as I can tell. And I doubt that as the years go by CGC will push to become an industry leader in the way that at least I believe we desperately need one.

[namisgr]

"Second, I can assure you I'm a collector that considers the past grading and handling history of a book in my purchasing decisions."

 

Yet, you have said that you don't find it necessary to disclose past CGC grades for books cracked out when you are selling them raw. Seems a little self serving to me.

 

Not sure what my raw grading has to do with the topic of changing one thing at CGC. As for transparency, as a seller I have (i) never once sold a raw book as unrestored that was graded as restored by CGC; (ii) never once sold an encapsulated book that I had pressed, dry-cleaned, or otherwise manipulated; (iii) never once sold an encapsulated book that had been graded at a lower grade previously without disclosing this fact.

 

I've also sold encapsulated books on occasions that I believed had been overgraded by CGC (in one case) and damaged in the slab (in another case, in my most recent sales thread) with full disclosure of this information to prospective customers, and at lower prices than the books would have commanded had they been graded accurately in their CGC cases.

 

I just don't think the CGC grade is the be-all and end-all of assessing one's books. I know there are lots of long-time collectors who've been buying and selling books way before the advent of CGC that share this view.

 

 

 

 

 

[djpinkpanther67]

People are smart. Like you, they would understand that a fraction of resubmissions garner higher grades without being manipulated.

I thought you previously brought to our attention that you have had tremendous success receiving higher grades on straight resubmissions.

 

The notions that pressing is undetectable and microtrimming is barely detectable fail to take into account that a combination of detailed graders' notes and cover scans could be used to identify definitively books that have been pressed (in many cases) or microtrimmed (in all cases). Although not "foolproof", I think such a database would be used extensively by the collecting community focused on high grade slabs. Unfortunately, this ship has already sailed.

I am of the opinion that most people use the grader's notes to determine if a book could receive a higher grade on resubmission. I doubt the detective work would be employed by most people for any other reason.

 

Your comment ignores the essential role the Heritage scan archive has played in identifying resubmitted books that had been microtrimmed, or others that had been cleaned and pressed. Imagine for a moment that CGC had created a database of scans and detailed graders notes that would dwarf the Heritage archive both in size and quality (graders notes that mention surface impressions and bends that don't break paper, and so can potentially be pressed out; stains that can be dry-cleaned away; etc). I believe such a database would have been used much more extensively by the high grade collecting community (not the "flipping" community) than you think.

 

CGC could have played a major, proactive role to increase transparency for collectors.

But that isn't their business model. CGC isn't some grand malevolent force of nature. They are here to make a buck by slabbing your books whether it be once, twice or three times. Simple as that. Why should we as collectors saddle them with more responsibility than what they are due?

 

In fairness, they have set themselves up as a quasi-authority and quasi-regulatory body...or at least, that's what the marketing has 'suggested'. The use of the word 'guaranty' in the company name is a prime example of this.

 

The fact that what the guarantee covers is not what a number of people assume it means is the kicker.

 

They want to be viewed as the authority, but they don't want to have to behave as an authority. Neat little trick that.

 

To some extent, I have to say that the community needs to accept partial blame for the current perception of CGC (and I am speaking generically and not applying this statement to anyone in particular). Too many people, whether collector or dealer, have placed CGC on a pedestal with the thought, or perhaps hope, that CGC was doing what was right for the community, that it was trying to be a leader in the community for the betterment of the community.

 

CGC has done a lot of good things for this hobby, and it continues to do so, but I believe that is more of a by-product of its business model than an intention to protect or police the hobby. Which, of course, is not to say that the two notions can not be pursued simultaneously.

 

CGC was primarily created as a business by those not involved in comics. They came from the coin community and they saw the wonderful profits that were being developed there and believed the same model could be applied here. They recruited individuals from our community to help promote the notion, and it was successful in many ways.

 

There have been many changes at CGC in the last ten years. The fact that Borock is longer involved, and that the current leadership is rarely posting on the boards is not an accident. I am not insinuating any nefarious plots or secret problems. This, too, is reflective of pure business tactics. I understand why CGC will not do many things I would like to see them do, and I understand why it does things I would rather not see it do. Once that is realized it is all about learning how to play the game with CGC, both from the extent of knowing how to manipulate or abuse the CGC process to financially benefit, which I do not care to personally partake in, and to know how to work with CGC to try and strengthen the hobby by suggesting policies that would not hurt CGC's bottom line.

 

I wrote a very lengthy post about the concept of grading company vs. guaranty company, and the role CGC plays, four years ago. I was somewhat surprised to have taken some heat for it, at least by those who took the time to post about what I wrote.

 

Commentary - CGC Should Change Its Name To "Comics Grading, LLC"

 

Not much has changed in the last four years as far as I can tell. And I doubt that as the years go by CGC will push to become an industry leader in the way that at least I believe we desperately need one.

If CGC doesn't want to be viewed as an authority, why then are they THE authority when it comes to validation or confirmation of a Pedigree?

[namisgr]

If CGC doesn't want to be viewed as an authority, why then are they THE authority when it comes to validation or confirmation of a Pedigree?

 

It's a fair question, but I don't think they are. For instance, CGC doesn't recognize several sweet collections as pedigrees, such as the Slobodian and Sid's Luncheonette books. Nevertheless, the collecting community has done an excellent job of tracking the authenticity of books from these collections, and virtually all sales from these collections trace their origins.

[mica]

[DrWatson]

If CGC doesn't want to be viewed as an authority, why then are they THE authority when it comes to validation or confirmation of a Pedigree?

In actuality CGC isn't an authority on anything. They are a commonly accepted opinion whether it be on a grade or a pedigree designation.

 

As we know from our own marketplace, not everyone agrees with their opinion on some books that are graded. This is why they have resubmissions. The same can be said for some pedigree designations (Rocky Mountain) or lack there of (Toth.)

[kimik]

The one thing I would like CGC to add to their label right now is the date graded, similar to what the other grading company does on their labels.

[esquirecomics]

People are smart. Like you, they would understand that a fraction of resubmissions garner higher grades without being manipulated.

I thought you previously brought to our attention that you have had tremendous success receiving higher grades on straight resubmissions.

 

The notions that pressing is undetectable and microtrimming is barely detectable fail to take into account that a combination of detailed graders' notes and cover scans could be used to identify definitively books that have been pressed (in many cases) or microtrimmed (in all cases). Although not "foolproof", I think such a database would be used extensively by the collecting community focused on high grade slabs. Unfortunately, this ship has already sailed.

I am of the opinion that most people use the grader's notes to determine if a book could receive a higher grade on resubmission. I doubt the detective work would be employed by most people for any other reason.

 

Your comment ignores the essential role the Heritage scan archive has played in identifying resubmitted books that had been microtrimmed, or others that had been cleaned and pressed. Imagine for a moment that CGC had created a database of scans and detailed graders notes that would dwarf the Heritage archive both in size and quality (graders notes that mention surface impressions and bends that don't break paper, and so can potentially be pressed out; stains that can be dry-cleaned away; etc). I believe such a database would have been used much more extensively by the high grade collecting community (not the "flipping" community) than you think.

 

CGC could have played a major, proactive role to increase transparency for collectors.

But that isn't their business model. CGC isn't some grand malevolent force of nature. They are here to make a buck by slabbing your books whether it be once, twice or three times. Simple as that. Why should we as collectors saddle them with more responsibility than what they are due?

 

In fairness, they have set themselves up as a quasi-authority and quasi-regulatory body...or at least, that's what the marketing has 'suggested'. The use of the word 'guaranty' in the company name is a prime example of this.

 

The fact that what the guarantee covers is not what a number of people assume it means is the kicker.

 

They want to be viewed as the authority, but they don't want to have to behave as an authority. Neat little trick that.

 

To some extent, I have to say that the community needs to accept partial blame for the current perception of CGC (and I am speaking generically and not applying this statement to anyone in particular). Too many people, whether collector or dealer, have placed CGC on a pedestal with the thought, or perhaps hope, that CGC was doing what was right for the community, that it was trying to be a leader in the community for the betterment of the community.

 

CGC has done a lot of good things for this hobby, and it continues to do so, but I believe that is more of a by-product of its business model than an intention to protect or police the hobby. Which, of course, is not to say that the two notions can not be pursued simultaneously.

 

CGC was primarily created as a business by those not involved in comics. They came from the coin community and they saw the wonderful profits that were being developed there and believed the same model could be applied here. They recruited individuals from our community to help promote the notion, and it was successful in many ways.

 

There have been many changes at CGC in the last ten years. The fact that Borock is longer involved, and that the current leadership is rarely posting on the boards is not an accident. I am not insinuating any nefarious plots or secret problems. This, too, is reflective of pure business tactics. I understand why CGC will not do many things I would like to see them do, and I understand why it does things I would rather not see it do. Once that is realized it is all about learning how to play the game with CGC, both from the extent of knowing how to manipulate or abuse the CGC process to financially benefit, which I do not care to personally partake in, and to know how to work with CGC to try and strengthen the hobby by suggesting policies that would not hurt CGC's bottom line.

 

I wrote a very lengthy post about the concept of grading company vs. guaranty company, and the role CGC plays, four years ago. I was somewhat surprised to have taken some heat for it, at least by those who took the time to post about what I wrote.

 

Commentary - CGC Should Change Its Name To "Comics Grading, LLC"

 

Not much has changed in the last four years as far as I can tell. And I doubt that as the years go by CGC will push to become an industry leader in the way that at least I believe we desperately need one.

If CGC doesn't want to be viewed as an authority, why then are they THE authority when it comes to validation or confirmation of a Pedigree?

 

That's the problem. Who has said that they ARE the authority? People have treated them as such. I don't think if you asked CGC, whether it be Borock at the time or Haspel now, if they are that they would respond in the affirmative. Obviously CGC has certain criteria for what IT believes to constitute a pedigree or collection, and this criteria may be correct or too narrow (and I think we may only have some bits and pieces of the policy from discussions or even some old posts), but again this is their business decision.

 

This is what is so crazy. People criticize the OSPG all the time and insinuate, or even assert, all types of conspiracy theories as to why certain info is in the book and whether prices are deliberately lowered or increased to benefit certain people, but the response to those theories always comes down to the fact that it is a "guide". It is a starting point, not the ending point.

 

Yet for CGC certain people have accepted a business fiction as expert hobby fact. That may be too oversimplistic (sp) I'm sure, but it strikes at the heart of the debate.

 

This is why it is so shocking, at least to me, that there is no professional organization for the collectors and dealers that exists to protect the interests of the community rather than the business. The NOD is trying to do that, and it may well grow into such an entity over time, but stepping aside from the debate of the specific views of the NOD, there simply is no organization as there is in just about every other hobby organization. CGC is not that entity and never will be. Neither will Heritage. OSPG/Gemstone, to a large extent, was the closest but I sadly believe that luster has passed for the most part.

 

 

[carcrawfordfan]

People are smart. Like you, they would understand that a fraction of resubmissions garner higher grades without being manipulated.

I thought you previously brought to our attention that you have had tremendous success receiving higher grades on straight resubmissions.

 

The notions that pressing is undetectable and microtrimming is barely detectable fail to take into account that a combination of detailed graders' notes and cover scans could be used to identify definitively books that have been pressed (in many cases) or microtrimmed (in all cases). Although not "foolproof", I think such a database would be used extensively by the collecting community focused on high grade slabs. Unfortunately, this ship has already sailed.

I am of the opinion that most people use the grader's notes to determine if a book could receive a higher grade on resubmission. I doubt the detective work would be employed by most people for any other reason.

 

Your comment ignores the essential role the Heritage scan archive has played in identifying resubmitted books that had been microtrimmed, or others that had been cleaned and pressed. Imagine for a moment that CGC had created a database of scans and detailed graders notes that would dwarf the Heritage archive both in size and quality (graders notes that mention surface impressions and bends that don't break paper, and so can potentially be pressed out; stains that can be dry-cleaned away; etc). I believe such a database would have been used much more extensively by the high grade collecting community (not the "flipping" community) than you think.

 

CGC could have played a major, proactive role to increase transparency for collectors.

But that isn't their business model. CGC isn't some grand malevolent force of nature. They are here to make a buck by slabbing your books whether it be once, twice or three times. Simple as that. Why should we as collectors saddle them with more responsibility than what they are due?

 

In fairness, they have set themselves up as a quasi-authority and quasi-regulatory body...or at least, that's what the marketing has 'suggested'. The use of the word 'guaranty' in the company name is a prime example of this.

 

The fact that what the guarantee covers is not what a number of people assume it means is the kicker.

 

They want to be viewed as the authority, but they don't want to have to behave as an authority. Neat little trick that.

 

To some extent, I have to say that the community needs to accept partial blame for the current perception of CGC (and I am speaking generically and not applying this statement to anyone in particular). Too many people, whether collector or dealer, have placed CGC on a pedestal with the thought, or perhaps hope, that CGC was doing what was right for the community, that it was trying to be a leader in the community for the betterment of the community.

 

CGC has done a lot of good things for this hobby, and it continues to do so, but I believe that is more of a by-product of its business model than an intention to protect or police the hobby. Which, of course, is not to say that the two notions can not be pursued simultaneously.

 

CGC was primarily created as a business by those not involved in comics. They came from the coin community and they saw the wonderful profits that were being developed there and believed the same model could be applied here. They recruited individuals from our community to help promote the notion, and it was successful in many ways.

 

There have been many changes at CGC in the last ten years. The fact that Borock is longer involved, and that the current leadership is rarely posting on the boards is not an accident. I am not insinuating any nefarious plots or secret problems. This, too, is reflective of pure business tactics. I understand why CGC will not do many things I would like to see them do, and I understand why it does things I would rather not see it do. Once that is realized it is all about learning how to play the game with CGC, both from the extent of knowing how to manipulate or abuse the CGC process to financially benefit, which I do not care to personally partake in, and to know how to work with CGC to try and strengthen the hobby by suggesting policies that would not hurt CGC's bottom line.

 

I wrote a very lengthy post about the concept of grading company vs. guaranty company, and the role CGC plays, four years ago. I was somewhat surprised to have taken some heat for it, at least by those who took the time to post about what I wrote.

 

Commentary - CGC Should Change Its Name To "Comics Grading, LLC"

 

Not much has changed in the last four years as far as I can tell. And I doubt that as the years go by CGC will push to become an industry leader in the way that at least I believe we desperately need one.

If CGC doesn't want to be viewed as an authority, why then are they THE authority when it comes to validation or confirmation of a Pedigree?

 

That's the problem. Who has said that they ARE the authority? People have treated them as such. I don't think if you asked CGC, whether it be Borock at the time or Haspel now, if they are that they would respond in the affirmative. Obviously CGC has certain criteria for what IT believes to constitute a pedigree or collection, and this criteria may be correct or too narrow (and I think we may only have some bits and pieces of the policy from discussions or even some old posts), but again this is their business decision.

 

This is what is so crazy. People criticize the OSPG all the time and insinuate, or even assert, all types of conspiracy theories as to why certain info is in the book and whether prices are deliberately lowered or increased to benefit certain people, but the response to those theories always comes down to the fact that it is a "guide". It is a starting point, not the ending point.

 

Yet for CGC certain people have accepted a business fiction as expert hobby fact. That may be too oversimplistic (sp) I'm sure, but it strikes at the heart of the debate.

 

This is why it is so shocking, at least to me, that there is no professional organization for the collectors and dealers that exists to protect the interests of the community rather than the business. The NOD is trying to do that, and it may well grow into such an entity over time, but stepping aside from the debate of the specific views of the NOD, there simply is no organization as there is in just about every other hobby organization. CGC is not that entity and never will be. Neither will Heritage. OSPG/Gemstone, to a large extent, was the closest but I sadly believe that luster has passed for the most part.

 

 

Who does this in sportscards?? That hobby is (or at least has been) as big or bigger than comic books. They have never had anything of the sort. It doesn't seem feasible.

[esquirecomics]

Who does this in sportscards?? That hobby is (or at least has been) as big or bigger than comic books. They have never had anything of the sort. It doesn't seem feasible.

 

Is there nothing in sportscards? I honestly don't know even though I've been a collector.

 

There certainly is for stamps, coins, autographs, and postcards.