Manufactured Gold

[batman_fan]

I have seen on more than one occasion people accuse Heritage of shill bidding their own auctions up to a persons maximum bid. If that were true, just from the bids I have placed personally my bill at Heritage would have been about $300,000 more for the last three years.

 

Just so interpret this correctly: are you saying that the "Heritage Bump" is a myth?

Here's a perfect example of speculation being repeated on the boards so many times that it becomes accepted as fact.

 

Your entire speculation is false. You assume a shill bid always goes to your max which is 100% wrong. Look at the cash flow business models that runs this type of scam (gas station use to be a good example). They shift the numbers by a much smaller percentages. So assuming this is what they do is wrong and using this a fact that it doesn't go on is wrong. No one here can say one way or the other. You are speculating it doesn't happen while others are saying it does.

 

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

[mica]

Wow.

 

If ever a thread need be transferred into printed matter...it's this one.

The Highlight was when I called for calm and rational posting and got promptly ignored faster than a low grade Marvel at Greggy's house.

[Viscosity-migration]

Wow.

 

If ever a thread need be transferred into printed matter...it's this one.

The Highlight was when I called for calm and rational posting and got promptly ignored faster than a low grade Marvel at Greggy's house.

 

Hey...I capitulated to your request, quite quickly mind you ...it was everyone ELSE without question, that is to blame

 

 

[tth2]

I'll give you that as to Bronze. Silver, I don't know.

 

You could be right concerning how much Silver has been manipulated. But I see the FF #3/10, JIM #83, Hulk Ann #1, BB #28 and other SA examples over the last year or so and it makes me wonder how widespread the practice is within the genre...

 

Jim

 

What I meant is that I believe that silver age books were being pressed in significant numbers before CGC existed. There is no question that they're being pressed in significant numbers now.

Well, if you listen to old-timers like Lou Fine, they're pretty adamant that doing pressing alone is a post-CGC phenomenon. They acknowledge, of course, that pressing was done before CGC came around, but their strong belief was that it was only done in conjunction with other forms of restoration because prior to CGC downgrading non-color breaking creases so severely, there was no real financial incentive to only press a book. If such other forms of resto were done conjunction with the pressing (except for dry cleaning which CGC seems to be okay with) prior to the advent of CGC, you'd think that CGC would have detected the resto.

 

I completely agree. Pressing as we currently know it only makes real sense in light of the CGC phenomenon. The grading system we utilized prior to the 10 point system and even before that when one really only considered 3 or 4 different grading designations truly didn't encourage pressing without other forms of unqualified restoration.

 

Disclaimer: I own slabbed SA books. In some circles, I have been deemed to have spent a "tankerful of money" on said SA books. You are hereby advised that due to such ownership, all statements that I have made above regarding SA books could reflect bias on my part arising from my motivation to preserve the value of my collection (large parts of which I am in the process of selling). Accordingly, you are urged to interpret all of my statements regarding SA books accordingly.

 

Does that mean we have to take you seriously as an unbiased commentator on GA books?

Yes, except with respect to GA Duck books, apparently.

[tth2]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

[mica]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

I believe he's taking your argument to its extreme.

Probably shooting for irony. Sort of like no one saw O.J.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

 

Why not? For all we know....he was just a pawn. I mean.....where's the proof?

[VintageComics]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

I believe he's taking your argument to its extreme.

Probably shooting for irony. Sort of like no one saw O.J.

 

Well since this thread has gone for a [embarrassing lack of self control] ...

 

Irony is one form of pressing. no?

 

[tth2]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

I believe he's taking your argument to its extreme.

Probably shooting for irony. Sort of like no one saw O.J.

Thanks Mica, I would never have figured it out otherwise.

 

But seriously, if he really wanted to defend Ewert, I would support his right to do so even though it was an unpopular position. I definitely wouldn't hurl the kind of abuse at him for doing so that has been hurled at me and Bullet.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Victim card played.

[batman_fan]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

I believe he's taking your argument to its extreme.

Probably shooting for irony. Sort of like no one saw O.J.

Thanks Mica, I would never have figured it out otherwise.

 

But seriously, if he really wanted to defend Ewert, I would support his right to do so even though it was an unpopular position. I definitely wouldn't hurl the kind of abuse at him for doing so that has been hurled at me and Bullet.

 

That is my point, there is NO PROOF he did it. Just like there is NO PROOF Heritage has done any wrong doing. People are connecting the logical dots and reaching the conclusion (which in my opinion is correct in the Ewert case), but in your arguement, no one can say Ewert did anything wrong since there is NO PROOF. I think the potential wrong doing of Heritage is still unclear, but the dots are being connected and it definitely indicates some odd patterns. Where it will finally end up who knows, but thanks to the board members watching it because this IS the only watchdog group around helping keep the comic community informed. Also, thanks for trying to play your game with my previous post. I say "well done".

[mica]

Thanks Mica, I would never have figured it out otherwise.

I didn't use a picture.

But do you think Ewart is guilty? And if so....on what basis do you feel that way?

I'm not using Lawyer-speak or parlor tricks on you.

 

Or I could leave you with Roy and his standup routine.

Irony

I'll be here all week

[esquirecomics]

I'll give you that as to Bronze. Silver, I don't know.

 

You could be right concerning how much Silver has been manipulated. But I see the FF #3/10, JIM #83, Hulk Ann #1, BB #28 and other SA examples over the last year or so and it makes me wonder how widespread the practice is within the genre...

 

Jim

 

What I meant is that I believe that silver age books were being pressed in significant numbers before CGC existed. There is no question that they're being pressed in significant numbers now.

Well, if you listen to old-timers like Lou Fine, they're pretty adamant that doing pressing alone is a post-CGC phenomenon. They acknowledge, of course, that pressing was done before CGC came around, but their strong belief was that it was only done in conjunction with other forms of restoration because prior to CGC downgrading non-color breaking creases so severely, there was no real financial incentive to only press a book. If such other forms of resto were done conjunction with the pressing (except for dry cleaning which CGC seems to be okay with) prior to the advent of CGC, you'd think that CGC would have detected the resto.

 

I completely agree. Pressing as we currently know it only makes real sense in light of the CGC phenomenon. The grading system we utilized prior to the 10 point system and even before that when one really only considered 3 or 4 different grading designations truly didn't encourage pressing without other forms of unqualified restoration.

 

Disclaimer: I own slabbed SA books. In some circles, I have been deemed to have spent a "tankerful of money" on said SA books. You are hereby advised that due to such ownership, all statements that I have made above regarding SA books could reflect bias on my part arising from my motivation to preserve the value of my collection (large parts of which I am in the process of selling). Accordingly, you are urged to interpret all of my statements regarding SA books accordingly.

 

Does that mean we have to take you seriously as an unbiased commentator on GA books?

Yes, except with respect to GA Duck books, apparently.

 

[tth2]

Victim card played.

High praise indeed coming from the King.

[FFB]

I'll give you that as to Bronze. Silver, I don't know.

 

You could be right concerning how much Silver has been manipulated. But I see the FF #3/10, JIM #83, Hulk Ann #1, BB #28 and other SA examples over the last year or so and it makes me wonder how widespread the practice is within the genre...

 

Jim

 

What I meant is that I believe that silver age books were being pressed in significant numbers before CGC existed. There is no question that they're being pressed in significant numbers now.

Well, if you listen to old-timers like Lou Fine, they're pretty adamant that doing pressing alone is a post-CGC phenomenon. They acknowledge, of course, that pressing was done before CGC came around, but their strong belief was that it was only done in conjunction with other forms of restoration because prior to CGC downgrading non-color breaking creases so severely, there was no real financial incentive to only press a book. If such other forms of resto were done conjunction with the pressing (except for dry cleaning which CGC seems to be okay with) prior to the advent of CGC, you'd think that CGC would have detected the resto.

 

Disclaimer: I own slabbed SA books. In some circles, I have been deemed to have spent a "tankerful of money" on said SA books. You are hereby advised that due to such ownership, all statements that I have made above regarding SA books could reflect bias on my part arising from my motivation to preserve the value of my collection (large parts of which I am in the process of selling). Accordingly, you are urged to interpret all of my statements regarding SA books accordingly.

 

Just because Lou_Fine says it doesn't make it true. Even before CGC, a three-inch non-color-breaking crease and/or 15 thumb/finger dents in a cover affected the grade significantly. So did warping from improper storage, bent overhang over a five-inch area, etc. Lou_fine can say what he wants, but I know for a fact that NDP was going on to a significant degree before CGC.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Victim card played.

High praise indeed coming from the King.

 

[FFB]

My take on the article, as I've said before, is that Halperin's explanations make logical sense to me and he even backs up one of his rebuttals on the main thrust of the argument with a letter from the former head of the FTC, who wrote that the FTC never should have targeted Heritage for what Certified Rare Coin Galleries did, because CRCG was merely a customer of Heritage's and thus Heritage had no control over CRCG. My take on the Forbes article is that the "journalist" who wrote it was trying hard to make the piece as sensationalistic and controversial as possible. It is not an unbiased, fair-minded piece and thus I don't view it as "journalism" so much as something intended to shock people and sell magazines. There may be some valid points here and there in the article, but they are hard to pick out amid all of the bias and anti-Halperin spin.

 

This is not to say that there aren't valid concerns about Heritage's auction setup, the crack-and-resub game, employee bidding, and other Heritage issues we've talked about before. I am simply stating that I do not view the article as anything other than a biased hatchet job, and certainly not as a fair-minded piece of journalism. The article is one step removed from something I'd expect to see in the National Enquirer.

 

Clear enough?

 

I can see your point on journalism that hinges on shock and awe spin.

 

I recently recieved a call from Forbes, and because of my suspicious disposition towards "journalists", not to mention the possibility that a competitor might be trying to disguise themselves as a journalist, I refused to conduct the interview without first having their contact info on hand to confirm their role with the magazine. This also allowed me to have a sneak peek at this journalists writing style, as I've learned over the years that some reporters find it quite fashionable to bash business.

 

However, when we are talking purely about the matter that the Forbes piece in question was touching upon, the FTC filings on the matter themselves speak volumes. I also agree with the notion that the person being targetted unfairly ought to have privileges to advance some form of rebuttal.

 

This said, I also won't make the mistake of confusing privilege with rights, as in my mind, the FTC settlement is in itself an admission of civil wrongdoing, and is the first place I would reference to form my own opinion on character.

 

Ok, but just like everyone else, you're completely ignoring or discounting Halperin's explanation for it, which was supported by a letter from the former head of the FTC who said that the FTC never should have tried to pursue Heritage for the wrongdoings of its customer, simply because the customer had a line of credit and obtained coins from Heritage via the wholesale market. And based on my somewhat limited understanding of Section 5 of the FTC Act, I agree with him.

[FFB]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

I believe he's taking your argument to its extreme.

Probably shooting for irony. Sort of like no one saw O.J.

Thanks Mica, I would never have figured it out otherwise.

 

But seriously, if he really wanted to defend Ewert, I would support his right to do so even though it was an unpopular position. I definitely wouldn't hurl the kind of abuse at him for doing so that has been hurled at me and Bullet.

 

That is my point, there is NO PROOF he did it. Just like there is NO PROOF Heritage has done any wrong doing. People are connecting the logical dots and reaching the conclusion (which in my opinion is correct in the Ewert case), but in your arguement, no one can say Ewert did anything wrong since there is NO PROOF. I think the potential wrong doing of Heritage is still unclear, but the dots are being connected and it definitely indicates some odd patterns. Where it will finally end up who knows, but thanks to the board members watching it because this IS the only watchdog group around helping keep the comic community informed. Also, thanks for trying to play your game with my previous post. I say "well done".

 

There's plenty of proof. Circumstantial evidence is "proof" and will support a verdict. Lawsuits are won and criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence every day.

 

To be clear, there's a huge difference between "circumstantial evidence" and "speculation." One will support a verdict and the other isn't admissible at all.

[batman_fan]

Also, why do you say Ewert is guilty? To my knowledge he has never admitted he trimmed the books or contracted having them trimmed. There is no "proof" he did it. Where is the video showing him trimming a book or contracting the trimming? The only fact is he submitted books that had been trimmed. Everyone here has drawn the conclusion he either trimmed the books himself or he contracted someone to do it, but the is NO PROOF. I guess in Ewert case, proof is not importnat to you.

 

BTW, please don't everyone flog me for Ewert. I believe the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince me, but there really is not the definitive proof some people require.

Okay, if you want to defend Jason Ewert, I won't try to shout you down.

I believe he's taking your argument to its extreme.

Probably shooting for irony. Sort of like no one saw O.J.

Thanks Mica, I would never have figured it out otherwise.

 

But seriously, if he really wanted to defend Ewert, I would support his right to do so even though it was an unpopular position. I definitely wouldn't hurl the kind of abuse at him for doing so that has been hurled at me and Bullet.

 

That is my point, there is NO PROOF he did it. Just like there is NO PROOF Heritage has done any wrong doing. People are connecting the logical dots and reaching the conclusion (which in my opinion is correct in the Ewert case), but in your arguement, no one can say Ewert did anything wrong since there is NO PROOF. I think the potential wrong doing of Heritage is still unclear, but the dots are being connected and it definitely indicates some odd patterns. Where it will finally end up who knows, but thanks to the board members watching it because this IS the only watchdog group around helping keep the comic community informed. Also, thanks for trying to play your game with my previous post. I say "well done".

 

There's plenty of proof. Circumstantial evidence is "proof" and will support a verdict. Lawsuits are won and criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence every day.

 

To be clear, there's a huge difference between "circumstantial evidence" and "speculation." One will support a verdict and the other isn't admissible at all.

 

I agree 100%, there is sufficient evidence in the Ewert case to convince most of the collecting community. I also think the info on Heritage is building, not there yet, but definitely things are starting to build and it doesn't look good. But if the requirement set out by tth and bullet is undeniable proof, then it isn't there for either case (or at least not that it has been shown by anyone). Also, Ewert has not been convicted (at least that I have heard) so it is really unclear whether sufficient evidence is present to convict him in a court. The court of public opinion is a very different beast.

[tth2]

To be clear, there's a huge difference between "circumstantial evidence" and "speculation." One will support a verdict and the other isn't admissible at all.