Manufactured Gold

[infinite_comics-migration]

 

Matt Nelson:

 

Matt Nelson, to my knowledge, was never a Heritage employee. He would, therefore, be free to bid as would any other non-employee.

 

Does this matter? Can't Heritage employees bid on any Heritage auction they want anyway?

 

If Matt uses tools at his disposal so that his work cannot be detected, this is good. This is very good.

 

And then he himself takes those books and sells them on Ebay with no disclosure? No, not good, not very good at all...

[Guest]

Given these practical realities, I don’t see how persecuting those who simply illustrate simple market dynamics (and that happen to be in the limelight) is helpful or constructive.

 

Learnedhand. Firstly I would like to say I love you post, intelligent, and well thought out, simply superb.

My only reflection to debate here would be that you negate to reflct that comics have an intrinsic value outside pure categorisation as commodities. All the elements/person's discussed within your post DO treat comics as a commodity, but for myself and other's within the boards, that is the last thing we view comics as.

There in lies the cornerstone of our problem. The commercialisation, and marginalisation of a hobby that has firmly become a product.

Other than that, I have no real conclusions to add as to how to resolved this very convaluted situation the majority of collectors are finding themselves in.

[esquirecomics]

Given these practical realities, I don’t see how persecuting those who simply illustrate simple market dynamics (and that happen to be in the limelight) is helpful or constructive.

 

Even taking your premise of "persecution" as accurate, which is a sweeping generalization that I do not respectfully agree with, it would seem from your post, which legitimately identifies many practical concerns, that not only nothing can be done but - more distressingly - you advocate that nothing should be done "given these practical realities."

 

With all due respect, I must say that I, for one, have a serious problem with such an position. What a terrible world we would live in today were any community to have adopted such an attitude in the past.

 

Sure, we are only talking about comic books but principle is principle. At least speaking for myself, my beliefs and ethics don't generally change regardless of whether I am handling very serious litigation or simply negotiating the price of a simple comic book. I cannot accept that change should not be attempted even if the efforts may fail initially or even in the long term. At least choices will be available and the community will have been educated to render their own individual decisions rather than have those decisions made for them by a limited few, which is the reality we currently face, who do so primarily for self-interested personal gain.

[kc120us]

I think it is all well and good that Matt and company can perform work that looks as good as natural but for the seller to sell it as nautral rubs me wrong. Imagine if an art collector paid a million dollars to buy an original and untouched Picasso then later finds out that it had been heavily damaged years prior and expertly restored by a modern unkown artist who coud mimic Picasso's style flawlessly. Is that right? Is it ok for the art gallery that sold it to him not disclose this?

[jkrk]

Even taking your premise of "persecution" as accurate, which is a sweeping generalization that I do not respectfully agree with, it would seem from your post, which legitimately identifies many practical concerns, that not only nothing can be done but - more distressingly - you advocate that nothing should be done "given these practical realities."

 

 

Unfortunately, I must agree with much of what LH has written. I supect that the battle is not a battle for the love of comics but a battle for money. In the end the lure of a return will always find a way to defeat the purists. I've always believed that Taking on the challenge is too monumental a task. I have resigned myself to the thought that posters should be educated as to the realities of the hobby (what books have been improved, what is considered restoration, what to look for when buying from certain sellers, etc and with the complete information let the prices dictate the book's worth).

the more information the better.

 

The question we should ask is whether we are paying too much for comics? Are we accepting more risk, as exemplified by the number of upgrades due to various improvements, then we first imagined? If we accept the premise that there is nothing that can be done by CGC etc to alter the grading inflation then we bought books yesterday that we thought to be at the higher end of the grading curve which more than likely prove to be nothing more than average copies tomorrow. LH basically seems to be saying love the books because you probably are overpaying and nothing will change.

[Foolkiller]

Given these practical realities, I don’t see how persecuting those who simply illustrate simple market dynamics (and that happen to be in the limelight) is helpful or constructive.

 

Even taking your premise of "persecution" as accurate, which is a sweeping generalization that I do not respectfully agree with, it would seem from your post, which legitimately identifies many practical concerns, that not only nothing can be done but - more distressingly - you advocate that nothing should be done "given these practical realities."

 

With all due respect, I must say that I, for one, have a serious problem with such an position. What a terrible world we would live in today were any community to have adopted such an attitude in the past.

 

Sure, we are only talking about comic books but principle is principle. At least speaking for myself, my beliefs and ethics don't generally change regardless of whether I am handling very serious litigation or simply negotiating the price of a simple comic book. I cannot accept that change should not be attempted even if the efforts may fail initially or even in the long term. At least choices will be available and the community will have been educated to render their own individual decisions rather than have those decisions made for them by a limited few, which is the reality we currently face, who do so primarily for self-interested personal gain.

 

-- always a flair for the melodramatic.

 

I know you have maintained that you are trying to change the system and that there is nobility in the effort, and while in principle that sounds fine, I think there should be some caution with how we go about that.

 

What are we changing incidentally? Disclosure of pressing? Because that seems to be the only real issue surrounding controversial disclosure.

 

I think it becomes persecution when we "target" dealers and set up "arbitration" systems instead of mass education on a public website. That'd be a heckuva lot easier without needing membership dues or a logo.

[kc120us]

-- always a flair for the melodramatic.

 

I know you have maintained that you are trying to change the system and that there is nobility in the effort, and while in principle that sounds fine, I think there should be some caution with how we go about that.

 

What are we changing incidentally? Disclosure of pressing? Because that seems to be the only real issue surrounding controversial disclosure.

 

I think it becomes persecution when we "target" dealers and set up "arbitration" systems instead of mass education on a public website. That'd be a heckuva lot easier without needing membership dues or a logo.

 

I agree with your sentiment, FK, that we need caution in how we go about it. We don't want any unnecessary "witch hunts". But I don't think we need a new web site to accomplish the mass education you speak of. If we can just make more people aware of these boards that would go a long way. I remember about a year ago when we were in the midst of the Ewert scandal and I was emailing some of the people who bought comics from him, many of them were not even aware of these boards mush less the scandal.

Casey

[Ze-man]

 

Additionally, if a lawyer uses every legal tool at his disposal to help his client, then he’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing. The same goes for a doctor and a mechanic. If Matt uses tools at his disposal so that his work cannot be detected, this is good. This is very good. Isn’t this the fundamental point of paying for professional restoration – excellent work that appears natural? If Matt keeps professional confidences, then he does what many other professionals do. #1, Should he breach his ethical obligations to his clients in order to comport with some sentiment shared by a few on a message board? Would any of my brethren feel inclined to breach their ethical duties due to some chat board malcontent toward the sanctioned practices of lawyers?

 

 

While MasterChief's hard work to bring these issues to the forefront should be applauded, given practical realities, #2, I don’t see how the persecution (by some of the subsequent posters) of those who simply illustrate simple market dynamics (and that happen to be in the limelight) is helpful or constructive.

 

#1, What if the work being done to a book is not a clients?, but one that the dealer, owner, restorer owns, or bought and worked on themselves with the sole purpose of flpping it? Sure they may not be breaking any laws by not disclosing it to the buyer, but I would also say they are playing by rules that only they are aware of. Not exactly on the up and up. I guess it depends on wether or not you dont mind disassembly pressing, or being played..

 

 

#2, I think it runs a little deeper then just saying the persecuting subsequent posters were out of bounds simply because large auction houses are just playing by well established market dynamics.

 

People can make up their own minds about what they see presented in Filters, and MasterChiefs posts. But discussing those matters raised by them is how things evolve. And that is how we hopefully we determine wether or not what we have been discussing is based upon truths or fallicies.

 

 

To me it doesn't matter wether or not all the great mysteries are revealed in a moment of blinding revelation. I have seen enough in this, and recent threads to realize there is a game being played that I was not aware of before. So I think this thread and every post in it, all have their place.

 

And with all due respect the tone of your post suggests otherwise.

 

IMHO.

 

 

Kenny

[esquirecomics]

I know you have maintained that you are trying to change the system and that there is nobility in the effort, and while in principle that sounds fine, I think there should be some caution with how we go about that.

 

What are we changing incidentally? Disclosure of pressing? Because that seems to be the only real issue surrounding controversial disclosure.

 

I think it becomes persecution when we "target" dealers and set up "arbitration" systems instead of mass education on a public website. That'd be a heckuva lot easier without needing membership dues or a logo.

 

Personally, I would like to change a great deal of the attitude that exists among certain elements of this hobby. Remove the element of greed as much as possible and enhance the of notion, or at least the perception, of integrity and honesty. Idealistic? No doubt. Possible? Who knows. Worth the effort? You bet.

 

As far as the NOD is concerned, the obligations that it imposes upon its members are explicitly set forth on the website. They go far beyond pressing. And I am continually amazed that it is pressing alone that seems to be singled out repeatedly as the sole factor when it clearly is not. This thread demonstrates that to be true.

 

I am not involved in the targeting of any specific dealers, and I am not clear what you mean by or what your concern is with respect to an "abritration" system. Following the simpler or "easier" route is not what this is necessarily about. In fact, the efforts underway have parallels in other hobby communities, especially coins.

 

Of course, I encourage anyone who wants to set up a website for educational purposes. By all means do so. No one is saying there is only one path to take. But the question seemingly raised by Peter is that we should forgo taking any path at all under the circumstances.

 

I presume from your words above you do not agree with that perception.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Due to the authoritive nature of LH's post, I pretty much disregarded it completely.

 

It's opinion presented as fact, and a feeble attempt to dictate beliefs.

 

IMO....it's rubbish.

[Foolkiller]

I know you have maintained that you are trying to change the system and that there is nobility in the effort, and while in principle that sounds fine, I think there should be some caution with how we go about that.

 

What are we changing incidentally? Disclosure of pressing? Because that seems to be the only real issue surrounding controversial disclosure.

 

I think it becomes persecution when we "target" dealers and set up "arbitration" systems instead of mass education on a public website. That'd be a heckuva lot easier without needing membership dues or a logo.

 

Personally, I would like to change a great deal of the attitude that exists among certain elements of this hobby. Remove the element of greed as much as possible and enhance the of notion, or at least the perception, of integrity and honesty. Idealistic? No doubt. Possible? Who knows. Worth the effort? You bet.

 

As far as the NOD is concerned, the obligations that it imposes upon its members are explicitly set forth on the website. They go far beyond pressing. And I am continually amazed that it is pressing alone that seems to be singled out repeatedly as the sole factor when it clearly is not. This thread demonstrates that to be true.

 

I am not involved in the targeting of any specific dealers, and I am not clear what you mean by or what your concern is with respect to an "abritration" system. Following the simpler or "easier" route is not what this is necessarily about. In fact, the efforts underway have parallels in other hobby communities, especially coins.

 

Of course, I encourage anyone who wants to set up a website for educational purposes. By all means do so. No one is saying there is only one path to take. But the question seemingly raised by Peter is that we should forgo taking any path at all under the circumstances.

 

I presume from your words above you do not agree with that perception.

 

Taking no path would be a mistake as well, and I think there is a middle ground between nothing and the NOD (as currently formed). Now, without being critical of NOD specifically, I'll just say that for me it's simply a matter, of I'd like to see emphasis on a highly publicized format, some form of education. I think you need someone with high traffic (or large readership) to publicize the information to a large blitz.

 

But where I think we are being silly is "removing the element of greed". Isn't a certain amount of greed what fundamentally drives a lot of the innovation and greatness in America -- and has for years historically?

 

I think the easier route is in fact more effective in the long run -- to say targetting of dealers isnt done -- well that kind of ignores what goes on in the thread -- Heritage and Comgeek got targetted here on the boards this week. Incidentally, Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure -- he did it on his own. Possible that simply asking dealers might work as well -- if not coming from an organization with a lot of rules and structure, but little in the way of incentive and teeth.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure

 

Nope. Just a thread on CGC's public forum.

[Foolkiller]

Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure

 

Nope. Just a thread on CGC's public forum.

 

Okay -- let's assume that's true for a second -- doesn't that still support what I'm saying... you can go to the dealers and still ask them to voluntarily disclose. I think it's a good thing: if Lauterbach auctions remain successful (like Brent's) with the disclosure of pressing -- wonderful -- more disclosure likely to be forthcoming.

[Sal]

CGC is a grading company, not the comic book police.

 

vive la difference.

 

 

 

i wonder how true this statement is in point of fact, versus public perception. i feel that CGC would love to be regarded as "comic book police," except in those cases where it may be proven it is, in fact, not.

 

caveat emptor

[awe4one]

Heritage and Comgeek got targetted here on the boards this week. Incidentally, Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure -- he did it on his own.

 

Heritage gets targeted due to their role, regardless of their actual involvement, in the resub game. Enough has come to light over the years to question their operations...

 

Lauterbach also has a history here as well. Or have we forgotten the B&B #28 so quickly?

 

Please don't imply dealers are being indiscriminately targeted when in fact they are not...

 

Jim

[Foolkiller]

Heritage and Comgeek got targetted here on the boards this week. Incidentally, Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure -- he did it on his own.

 

Heritage gets targeted due to their role, regardless of their actual involvement, in the resub game. Enough has come to light over the years to question their operations...

 

Lauterbach also has a history here as well. Or have we forgotten the B&B #28 so quickly?

 

Please don't imply dealers are being indiscriminately targeted when in fact they are not...

 

Jim

 

I didn't say they were.

[esquirecomics]

I know you have maintained that you are trying to change the system and that there is nobility in the effort, and while in principle that sounds fine, I think there should be some caution with how we go about that.

 

What are we changing incidentally? Disclosure of pressing? Because that seems to be the only real issue surrounding controversial disclosure.

 

I think it becomes persecution when we "target" dealers and set up "arbitration" systems instead of mass education on a public website. That'd be a heckuva lot easier without needing membership dues or a logo.

 

Personally, I would like to change a great deal of the attitude that exists among certain elements of this hobby. Remove the element of greed as much as possible and enhance the of notion, or at least the perception, of integrity and honesty. Idealistic? No doubt. Possible? Who knows. Worth the effort? You bet.

 

As far as the NOD is concerned, the obligations that it imposes upon its members are explicitly set forth on the website. They go far beyond pressing. And I am continually amazed that it is pressing alone that seems to be singled out repeatedly as the sole factor when it clearly is not. This thread demonstrates that to be true.

 

I am not involved in the targeting of any specific dealers, and I am not clear what you mean by or what your concern is with respect to an "abritration" system. Following the simpler or "easier" route is not what this is necessarily about. In fact, the efforts underway have parallels in other hobby communities, especially coins.

 

Of course, I encourage anyone who wants to set up a website for educational purposes. By all means do so. No one is saying there is only one path to take. But the question seemingly raised by Peter is that we should forgo taking any path at all under the circumstances.

 

I presume from your words above you do not agree with that perception.

 

Taking no path would be a mistake as well, and I think there is a middle ground between nothing and the NOD (as currently formed). Now, without being critical of NOD specifically, I'll just say that for me it's simply a matter, of I'd like to see emphasis on a highly publicized format, some form of education. I think you need someone with high traffic (or large readership) to publicize the information to a large blitz.

 

But where I think we are being silly is "removing the element of greed". Isn't a certain amount of greed what fundamentally drives a lot of the innovation and greatness in America -- and has for years historically?

 

I think the easier route is in fact more effective in the long run -- to say targetting of dealers isnt done -- well that kind of ignores what goes on in the thread -- Heritage and Comgeek got targetted here on the boards this week. Incidentally, Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure -- he did it on his own. Possible that simply asking dealers might work as well -- if not coming from an organization with a lot of rules and structure, but little in the way of incentive and teeth.

 

Brian, I didn't advocate "removing the element of greed" without an obvious caveat that was deleted in reiteration. There is no possible way to accomplish the elimination of greed and it would be futile to try. And as you note there are actually positive implications that arise from the pursuit of greed. There are negative aspects of it, however, that can be eliminated, if not minimized.

 

Nor was I saying that targeting of dealers isn't done. I said I wasn't doing it. Nor is the NOD for that matter. I've said repeatedly, and you and I have been in agreement on this fact, that I do not condone the percolating of unjustified, unsupported or defamatory allegations.

 

With respect to Lauterbach and his recent disclosure, it is not about the specific existence of the NOD as an entity that led him to do what he did. The NOD imposes no requirement on any non-member to do anything. But the same concerns that led to the formation of the NOD have created an environment where disclosure is the desired course of action. There are many people, including yourself at times, who believe in proper disclosure. Whether the NOD brings that about per se through its growing membership or simply fosters/educates the community to adopt similar policies as a matter is discretion, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day does it.

 

There has been a significant change in our community in the last two years, and I think it is on the path for the better. And these boards, and perhaps the NOD to some extent, contributed to these changes. From my own personal experiences with Steve I truly doubt the same scenario would have played out the way it did were this 2004. And I say that with a

[awe4one]

Heritage and Comgeek got targetted here on the boards this week. Incidentally, Lauterbach didn't need the NOD to do disclosure -- he did it on his own.

 

Heritage gets targeted due to their role, regardless of their actual involvement, in the resub game. Enough has come to light over the years to question their operations...

 

Lauterbach also has a history here as well. Or have we forgotten the B&B #28 so quickly?

 

Please don't imply dealers are being indiscriminately targeted when in fact they are not...

 

Jim

 

I didn't say they were.

 

Well...this is poorly phrased then...

 

"I think it becomes persecution when we "target" dealers and set up "arbitration" systems instead of mass education on a public website."

 

Followed by your response to Mark saying he or NOD isn't targeting dealers...

 

"to say targetting of dealers isnt done -- well that kind of ignores what goes on in the thread -- Heritage and Comgeek got targetted here on the boards this week."

 

What are you trying to say exactly?

 

Jim

[Red Hook]

That wasn't a targeting.

 

That was an intervention.

[Red Hook]

PS....and I'm thrilled he made a sale on the book.