Manufactured Gold

[DeeDee-migration]

Your inability to check your 'status' at the door is one of the biggest obstacles the NOD is currently facing IMO.

 

I thought the same thing a few pages back when someone, can't remember exactly who, said that "serious collectors" are people who spend 5 or 6 figures on a book without blinking... i disagree... serious collectors are people who take collecting seriously, regardless of the amount they spend on their books.

 

Dee, how does that apply to me? I didn't say that?

 

I agree with you. The level of seriousness a collector may exert has nothing to do with money.

 

Actually, I believe it was you who said that, I will check. If i'm wrong I'll apologize.

[garthgantu]

Your inability to check your 'status' at the door is one of the biggest obstacles the NOD is currently facing IMO.

 

I thought the same thing a few pages back when someone, can't remember exactly who, said that "serious collectors" are people who spend 5 or 6 figures on a book without blinking... i disagree... serious collectors are people who take collecting seriously, regardless of the amount they spend on their books.

 

Well, in fairness it could have just been a hastily-chosen metaphor, no? Who wants to repeatedly type "people who spend 5 or 6 figures on a book"? Gotta call 'em something ...?

[esquirecomics]

Your inability to check your 'status' at the door is one of the biggest obstacles the NOD is currently facing IMO.

 

I thought the same thing a few pages back when someone, can't remember exactly who, said that "serious collectors" are people who spend 5 or 6 figures on a book without blinking... i disagree... serious collectors are people who take collecting seriously, regardless of the amount they spend on their books.

 

Dee, how does that apply to me? I didn't say that?

 

I agree with you. The level of seriousness a collector may exert has nothing to do with money.

 

Actually, I believe it was you who said that, I will check. If i'm wrong I'll apologize.

 

I believe you are recalling the discussion I was having with someone about whether there were new collectors spending five or six figures on books, and I stated there is. I wasn't commenting upon or would ever imply that the amount of money someone spends on books signifies their seriousness in the hobby.

[garthgantu]

Mark has a strong voice within the organization, but it's not the only voice, believe me.

 

But it's sooo much easier to attack an individual than a group... you're dealing with some serious 'board bullies' in a number of cases here.

[garthgantu]

Take the Fighting Yank #26 Church copy, for instance -- there is no way to tell from those scans that the book has been cleaned, and the difference in color appears to me to be purely from scanner settings. Then there is the most basic, commonsense aspect to all of this -- no one would take apart and wash that book in the first place, because (a) an aqueous wash would undoubtedly be detected by CGC and would dramatically reduce the value of the book, and (b) there does not appear to be anything wrong with the book that is "washable" in the first place! And I don't see how you can be sure that it is pressed, since that upper right corner still appears to be bent in the second scan, although the unnatural brightness and contrast settings make it hard to see at a quick glance.

 

How long did you actually spend looking at the scans, Scott? Because you realize that between your above post (which I've abridged) and the one shortly after it, you made more assumptions in your assessment of five books in the Gallery of Disclosure than the NoD does in the entire 19-book overview... I'm tempted to drop the little laughing-out-loud graemlin in here but - I'm not you

[DeeDee-migration]

Your inability to check your 'status' at the door is one of the biggest obstacles the NOD is currently facing IMO.

 

I thought the same thing a few pages back when someone, can't remember exactly who, said that "serious collectors" are people who spend 5 or 6 figures on a book without blinking... i disagree... serious collectors are people who take collecting seriously, regardless of the amount they spend on their books.

 

Dee, how does that apply to me? I didn't say that?

 

I agree with you. The level of seriousness a collector may exert has nothing to do with money.

 

Actually, I believe it was you who said that, I will check. If i'm wrong I'll apologize.

 

I believe you are recalling the discussion I was having with someone about whether there were new collectors spending five or six figures on books, and I stated there is. I wasn't commenting upon or would ever imply that the amount of money someone spends on books signifies their seriousness in the hobby.

 

You are correct. I misread the post. My apologies.

[Ze-man]

Take the Fighting Yank #26 Church copy, for instance -- there is no way to tell from those scans that the book has been cleaned, and the difference in color appears to me to be purely from scanner settings. Then there is the most basic, commonsense aspect to all of this -- no one would take apart and wash that book in the first place, because (a) an aqueous wash would undoubtedly be detected by CGC and would dramatically reduce the value of the book, and (b) there does not appear to be anything wrong with the book that is "washable" in the first place! And I don't see how you can be sure that it is pressed, since that upper right corner still appears to be bent in the second scan, although the unnatural brightness and contrast settings make it hard to see at a quick glance.

 

How long did you actually spend looking at the scans, Scott? Because you realize that between your above post (which I've abridged) and the one shortly after it, you made more assumptions in your assessment of five books in the Gallery of Disclosure than the NoD does in the entire 19-book overview... I'm tempted to drop the little laughing-out-loud graemlin in here but - I'm not you

 

Honestly? I think he spent all of 5 minutes. Sure the points he brought up might only be his assumptions, but he offered a very accurate assement of what was probably done to the book, or rather not done to the book. And his point was it would behoove NOD to try harder to present what might have been done to any given book.

 

I will admit reading the past few pages has been difficult. Not because of the subject matter, but more how both sides presented their case.

 

To be specific, Mark and Scott are both lawyers, and they should remove emotion from the equation to reach their goal. Whatever that may be.

 

Ze-

[THE_BEYONDER]

Kenny!

[Ze-man]

Kenny!

 

 

Hello to you, and all of those folks "up there"

 

 

[CW]

I try to stay out of these things but frankly it seems as though almost every time "NOD" is discussed in a thread it ends in a big knock down drag out. The amount of negative exchanges between board members in proxy to discussion of the orgainization leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I am sure many others. I am not going to say whether I am for or against NOD simply that my initial reaction as of now is to figuratively walk the other way when I hear those 3 letters simply so I don't have to hear the incessant *spoon* slinging that follows.

 

THEY'RE JUST COMIC BOOKS!!!

 

(I apologize but I had to get that out)

[CW]

Jeez..... If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it...........

[Ze-man]

Post deleted by Ze-man

[CW]

Hey weren't you going to sleep!

[codfish]

I try to stay out of these things but frankly it seems as though almost every time "NOD" is discussed in a thread it ends in a big knock down drag out. The amount of negative exchanges between board members in proxy to discussion of the orgainization leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I am sure many others. I am not going to say whether I am for or against NOD simply that my initial reaction as of now is to figuratively walk the other way when I hear those 3 letters simply so I don't have to hear the incessant *spoon* slinging that follows.

 

THEY'RE JUST COMIC BOOKS!!!

 

(I apologize but I had to get that out)

 

It is leaving a bad taste in my mouth too and I am a member. I didn't join to make an example of CGC or anyone. Like I said before I joined because I hoped it would actually work to educate and empower collectors.

 

Prior to NOD even the word disclosure seemed to bring out the worst in people. I just don't understand why.

 

Anyway I don't understand why this claptrap hasn't been shut down by the mods and strikes meted out because this is clearly NOT constructive.

[tth2]

As Richard noted, if education and awareness were #1, you'd have far more people endorsing and joining it.

Brian, seems to me you're trying to fit square pegs into round holes and getting frustrated by the fact that they won't fit. The name of the organization is Network of Disclosure, not Network of Education and Awareness. If you and Rich want an organization which has education and awareness as its #1 priority, go start the NOEA, but don't go blaming the Network of Disclosure for having advocacy of disclosure as its top priority.

[tth2]

Dee dee: Just to clarify...which part of Mr.Bedrock's point do you agree with? The part where he says the problem with the NoD is that it has the makings of a witch-hunt by virtue of some made-up criteria he's conjured on behalf of the NoD, suggesting the NoD would willy-nilly post the nonexistent before-and-after scans of Mr.Bedrock's CGC resubs as new examples of undisclosed clean-and/or-press jobs?

 

'Cause that's what he's implying... that the majority of folks ready to leap on any example of grade improvement as an example of the satanic clean-and/or-press activity are NoD members.

 

Which is simply dead wrong... he's twisted the defense of the NoD in this thread, and one of the principles on which the NoD is based (disclosure of pressing and cleaning), by several members (and I think even more non-members) and turned it completely around in your and probably others' heads.

 

This guy is good ...he may have a low number next to his nick, but this ain't his first rodeo...

One of the first things I was told when I started practicing law was that if some lawyer affected a strong southern drawl and laid back country boy demeanor, and started saying he was "just a l'il ol' country lawyer", watch out because he was probably disemboweling you at the same time he was charming you.

 

I almost laughed out loud when Rich came on and started lacing his posts with his "ya'll's" and "more fun than poking an anthill" or whatever country-ism it was that he decided to charm (and disarm) us with. Meanwhile, as you said, he knew exactly what he was doing as he started twisted everything. For shame, Mr. Evans!

[tth2]

I simply gave him props for the fact that he deals honestly with people no matter what. So do I. There are lots of honest sellers that aren't members of the NOD. I don't need NOD or anyone else to police me, I don't hide anything about the books i sell. Thats all I'm saying.

Sorry Dee Dee, but this is so hopefully naive. This is like saying I don't kill people, and there are lots of people who don't kill people, so we don't need the police or laws prohibiting murder laws.

 

Of course there are a lot of honest sellers that aren't members of NOD. But there are also a lot of dishonest sellers that aren't members of NOD too. What is wrong with an organization that advocates the right things to do, and that isn't afraid to take a group position that what those dishonest sellers are doing is wrong?

[THE_BEYONDER]

I simply gave him props for the fact that he deals honestly with people no matter what. So do I. There are lots of honest sellers that aren't members of the NOD. I don't need NOD or anyone else to police me, I don't hide anything about the books i sell. Thats all I'm saying.

Sorry Dee Dee, but this is so hopefully naive. This is like saying I don't kill people, and there are lots of people who don't kill people, so we don't need the police or laws prohibiting murder laws.

 

Of course there are a lot of honest sellers that aren't members of NOD. But there are also a lot of dishonest sellers that aren't members of NOD too. What is wrong with an organization that advocates the right things to do, and that isn't afraid to take a group position that what those dishonest sellers are doing is wrong?

 

Shame you didn't see things this way when it was only a select few individuals who held this position & spoke out about it.

 

What was it that you referred to us as? The lunatic fringe?

[Mr. Zipper]

Of course there are a lot of honest sellers that aren't members of NOD. But there are also a lot of dishonest sellers that aren't members of NOD too. What is wrong with an organization that advocates the right things to do, and that isn't afraid to take a group position that what those dishonest sellers are doing is wrong?

 

Thanks, Tim.

 

In many ways, I see NOD as the Better Business Bureau of comic sellers. There are plenty of honest businesses that join the BBB because they want to assure potential customers that they will be treated fairly, ethically and the customer has some recourse if there is a problem.

 

NOD members have pledged to honor selling guidelines that protect buyers. In addition to disclosing enhancements, these guidelines provide assured return priviledges and a grievance process for disputes with a NOD seller.

 

NOD Selling Guidelines

 

NOD membership is a benefit to the seller and the buyer.

[nik]

Its a shame and funny at the same time on how emotional and vocal people can be regarding comics.

 

When did this turn from being a hobby into a big business