Looking for opinions

[nik]

:popcorn:

[nik]

Boy, it sure got silent around here all of a sudden

[seanfingh]

Boy, it sure got silent around here all of a sudden

 

I've been trying to get my hands on the damn disclaimer language.

[DrWatson]

Like it was a big mystery that it was you, Matt. Now, let's see how many opinions change.

 

This whole thing should be very simple. He had an 8.0 to begin with in this scenario. Liked I said ealier, if he is to be reimbursed, it should be for an 8.0.

[arexcrooke]

Curse you and your logic.

Oh, yep, that was the exact thing I said earlier iirc

[Count]

[MR.COMICBOOK]

Uhh. Lawyer talk

The lawyer fees alone would be about a grand, that`s why a lot of these cases don`t end up going to small claims court.

[seanfingh]

 

Before you can submit to Matt/CI, you must agree to the terms of his disclaimer of warranties and limitation of damages. It occurs as a pop-up screen before you can get to the submission forms. Presumably the OP agreed to it upon his submission. I can't print it because it is a pop-up screen and that exceeds my abilities to highlight, cut and paste . . .

[Straw-Man]

Surprise, the presser is me. Joe emailed a couple of days ago informing me of his plans to post this to the boards. I told him he was free to use my name, and I'd be interested to hear what everybody thought.

 

When the Spidey #17 damage came to light several weeks ago, it was not until the book had been graded by CGC and returned to Joe. I didn't remember seeing the damage when I sent his books off. Yes, it's possible the book was damaged here. It's also possible it was damaged at CGC. Either way, Joe, myself and a rep at CGC had a discussion then, and I decided to reimburse Joe the difference between 7.5 and 8.0 value plus refund his pressing fee. He thought he should have gotten the value between 7.5 and 9.0.

 

After several more weeks (and the results of his last CGC invoice of pressed books) He emailed me Thursday with his plans to go to the boards. He tried again to argue his point about getting reimbursed up to 9.0, maybe to give me one more chance to "right" the situation so he would not come here. I stood my ground.

 

I'd like to add a couple of points to what is being said here. Yes, books get damaged here every once it a while. It's rare, though. Same is true at CGC, Heritage, Metro, and probably every other place that handles comic books. For me it's more precarious because I'm actually working on the books as opposed to just normal handling. But I take extreme care with the books I handle, and have designed my process over the years to minimize damage to as close to zero as possible.

 

I do have my disclaimer on the website that Joe, and everyone else who submits to me, acknowledged when he submitted the books.

 

One other point that I'd like to make--I realize that this point has nothing to do with the Spidey #17 situation in one regard, but in the big picture I think it is quite relevant. In Joe's order I pressed 29 books for him, with my estimates and the results below. I removed the titles and issues for his privacy:

 

book #1est. 9.0 grade 9.0 match

book #2 est. 9.0 grade 7.5 low

book #3 est. 7.5 grade 8.0 high

book #4 est. 9.0+ grade 9.0 match

book #5 est. 8.5+ grade 9.0 high

book #6 est. 7.0 grade 7.0 match

book #7 est. 9.0+ grade 9.0 match

book #8 est. 9.0+ grade 9.0 match

book #9 est. 9.4 grade 9.2 low

book #10 est. 8.5 grade 9.0 high

book #11 est. 8.0 grade 8.5 high

book #12 est. 9.2 grade 9.0 low

book #13 est. 9.0 grade 9.0 match

book #14 est. 9.4 grade 9.4 match

book #15 est. 9.0 grade 9.0 match

book #16 est. 9.4- grade 9.4 match

book #17 est. 9.4 grade 9.4 match

book #18 est. 9.6 grade 9.6 match

book #19 est 9.2 grade 9.2 match

book #20 est. 8.0 grade 8.5 high

book #21 est. 9.2 grade 9.0 low

book #22 est. 9.2 grade 9.2 match

book #23 est. 9.4 grade 9.6 high

book #24 est. 9.0 grade 9.4 high

book #25 est. 9.2 grade 9.4 high

book #26 est. 9.2 grade 9.4 high

book #27 est. 9.4- grade 9.2 low

book #28 est. 7.5 grade 8.0 high

book #29 est 8.0 grade 8.5 high

 

13 CGC grades matched my estimate, 10 graded one point higher than estimate, 1 graded 2 points higher, 4 graded one point lower than estimate, and finally the Spidey #17. This was a particularly good batch, a bit higher than usual.

 

Besides the fact that the pressings made Joe thousands of dollars, if I had adjusted the fees based on his results, he would have paid more for pressing. Of course I do not do this, but this was money he saved based on my conservative estimates.

 

The main reason I bring this up is to illustrate the mindset that one should have when pressing. You are taking a risk. Not all books work out. In fact, the more you do, the greater chance you're going to get a downgrade, whether it's CGC's grading that particular day, my proscreen being off, or even damage.

 

All of my long time clients know the risks involved, and every single one of them has lost money on a downgrade. But overall they are way ahead, and they don't hesitate for a second to use me. As shown above, Joe is way ahead right out the gate, but despite that he is still not willing to accept the risks involved with pressing. You can't win on every book every time. Net positive is the end goal.

 

Matt

 

 

 

the thread originator answered every query, page after page, EXCEPT the two times he was asked about the results of the other pressed books. i had a suspicion then, and now it is confirmed. assuming those anonymous books above are good books, looks like he made out real fine.

[Domo Arigato]

Everyone, the pressing agent IS working with me to resolve. The dispute is over value. My simple point is that had the book been pressed to a 9.0 and I had submitted to CGC, CGC and I would be talking about a damaged 9.0. Neither company makes scans so the fault can not be pin pointed.

And pro-graders would be wise to document, since multiple hands will be touching each submission. Not saying they *must*, like a pro conservator, but *should* as a common sense methodology. You know, for tap-dancing prevention, if nothing else

 

Not even one comment after I posted this. I guess I'll try again.

 

Wouldn't this indicate that cgc has some sort of hi-res digital evidence of the condition of the book as it arrived at CGC? Showing the book either with or without the damage just for scenarios like this? Anyone???

 

[DrWatson]

the thread originator answered every query, page after page, EXCEPT the two times he was asked about the results of the other pressed books. i had a suspicion then, and now it is confirmed. assuming those anonymous books above are good books, looks like he made out real fine.

Are you suggesting the end justifies the means? That isn't the point.

[Bosco685]

Wouldn't this indicate that cgc has some sort of hi-res digital evidence of the condition of the book as it arrived at CGC? Showing the book either with or without the damage just for scenarios like this? Anyone???

Actually, I was waiting for someone to respond back, as if this is in their marketing collateral to clarify the CGC process, then I would think an image exists somewhere.

[namisgr]

I appreciate Matt's owning up to having worked on the book in question. I also appreciate the point he made that having books pressed is not a guaranteed process, but rather comes with risk. This to now has been a little-discussed aspect of crack-manipulate-resubmit.

 

And Joe: with 29 press jobs in your possession, I hope you'll give strong consideration to disclosing this work to prospective buyers when it comes time to sell any of these comics.

[G.A.tor]

Like it was a big mystery that it was you, Matt. Now, let's see how many opinions change.

 

This whole thing should be very simple. He had an 8.0 to begin with in this scenario. Liked I said ealier, if he is to be reimbursed, it should be for an 8.0.

I believe that was my final analysis as well, do I win a prize (thumbs u

[G.A.tor]

Wouldn't this indicate that cgc has some sort of hi-res digital evidence of the condition of the book as it arrived at CGC? Showing the book either with or without the damage just for scenarios like this? Anyone???

Actually, I was waiting for someone to respond back, as if this is in their marketing collateral to clarify the CGC process, then I would think an image exists somewhere.

I searched hi and low current advertisements, and I don't see where that is still part of their service, though it would make sense they still employ some sort of verification, etc

[seanfingh]

the thread originator answered every query, page after page, EXCEPT the two times he was asked about the results of the other pressed books. i had a suspicion then, and now it is confirmed. assuming those anonymous books above are good books, looks like he made out real fine.

Are you suggesting the end justifies the means? That isn't the point.

 

What is the point, then? From where I am sitting, the OP engaged a contractor for 29 services. 28 of the 29 were at or above the specifications for acceptable-excellent service. One was not. Despite the fact the OP agreed that the limitation of his damages was a credit for the fees or a refund, the contractor has agreed to provide additional recompense.

 

Apparently, the OP has decided that he wants more than the offered additional recompense. The OP wants to be recompensed for the value of the book in the condition that it was supposedly in after the services had been provided. Without making any value judgement as to whether the OP is acting in a dirtbaggy fashion by requesting such additional recompense, there does not appear to be any theory in reality or reasonable fiction that would support such additional recompense.

[Bosco685]

Wouldn't this indicate that cgc has some sort of hi-res digital evidence of the condition of the book as it arrived at CGC? Showing the book either with or without the damage just for scenarios like this? Anyone???

Actually, I was waiting for someone to respond back, as if this is in their marketing collateral to clarify the CGC process, then I would think an image exists somewhere.

I searched hi and low current advertisements, and I don't see where that is still part of their service, though it would make sense they still employ some sort of verification, etc

That's my fear. Companies have the right to change their processes, and with the volume of books CGC receives regularly, I can see that part of the process being dropped.

 

Shame if it was, as it would be interesting to see what arrived.

[COI]

after re-reading the 11 pages, I believe the answer is pretty straight forward, based on all's opinions...

 

when a submitter chooses to take the "risk" of pressing (in order, presumably to gain reward of a higher grade, whether that translates to the individual in form of aesthic improvement or monetary reward), the submitter is acknowledging that there is a risk of damage (all professional pressers, I am sure, have some warning of potential damage when doing that type of work)...

 

since we are only going with the facts here, and no reasonable speculation based on the evidence, the book never was certified as a 9.0 or higher, therefore it never "was" (technically) better than the 8.0 it was previously certified (and in this case,we actually know it is now a 7.5)...

 

so, a professional presser would likely be on the hook for reimbursing fees (if it was their work that caused the damage), and at worse case, the value between what it was, and what it is (8.0 sales FMV vs 7.5 sales FMV), so long as they didn't have some sort of "clause" stating they are not responsible for grade disparity, irregardless of proper or improper pressing...

 

how's that for a sunday morning armchair analysis

 

Nice analysis, but don't make up words.

[Domo Arigato]

Wouldn't this indicate that cgc has some sort of hi-res digital evidence of the condition of the book as it arrived at CGC? Showing the book either with or without the damage just for scenarios like this? Anyone???

Actually, I was waiting for someone to respond back, as if this is in their marketing collateral to clarify the CGC process, then I would think an image exists somewhere.

I searched hi and low current advertisements, and I don't see where that is still part of their service, though it would make sense they still employ some sort of verification, etc

That was from a Fall of 2000 CGC marketing piece. My reason for posting it was to suggest asking CGC if they still do it and to have them review the digital evidence of his submission. This would likely put an end to all of the speculation. And, if they don't still do it...why did they stop?

[seanfingh]

after re-reading the 11 pages, I believe the answer is pretty straight forward, based on all's opinions...

 

when a submitter chooses to take the "risk" of pressing (in order, presumably to gain reward of a higher grade, whether that translates to the individual in form of aesthic improvement or monetary reward), the submitter is acknowledging that there is a risk of damage (all professional pressers, I am sure, have some warning of potential damage when doing that type of work)...

 

since we are only going with the facts here, and no reasonable speculation based on the evidence, the book never was certified as a 9.0 or higher, therefore it never "was" (technically) better than the 8.0 it was previously certified (and in this case,we actually know it is now a 7.5)...

 

so, a professional presser would likely be on the hook for reimbursing fees (if it was their work that caused the damage), and at worse case, the value between what it was, and what it is (8.0 sales FMV vs 7.5 sales FMV), so long as they didn't have some sort of "clause" stating they are not responsible for grade disparity, irregardless of proper or improper pressing...

 

how's that for a sunday morning armchair analysis

 

Nice analysis, but don't make up words.

 

Merriam-Webster begs to differ, sprat.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless