Manufactured Gold

[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.

 

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

 

Jim, you've clearly interpreted the part where I said anyone was "wrongfully accused" that's for someone else to decide. But the implication that people here on the boards that aren't also members of the NOD aren't participating in the active pursuit of dealers is simply misleading.

 

The two statements are not connected and weren't posted together.

 

I think the jury is out on Heritage. As for Lauterbach, I think there's a lot of conjecture, and not a ton of meat on the bones to the "evidence".

[Aman619]

what is this about Lauterbach this wek. I missed it? Has he posted lately about something?

thanx

[THE_BEYONDER]

'Evidence' of what?

[Sal]

That wasn't a targeting.

 

That was an intervention.

 

[Foolkiller]

'Evidence' of what?

 

That he's manipulating books and either playing the press and resub game or gets favorable CGC treatment.

[THE_BEYONDER]

'Evidence' of what?

 

That he's manipulating books and either playing the press and resub game or gets favorable CGC treatment.

 

Where were these allegations mentioned?

[Foolkiller]

'Evidence' of what?

 

That he's manipulating books and either playing the press and resub game or gets favorable CGC treatment.

 

Where were these allegations mentioned?

 

the B&B28 thread -- that's my recollection. Plus his name gets brought up a lot in past pressing threads as one of the insider club.

[THE_BEYONDER]

'Evidence' of what?

 

That he's manipulating books and either playing the press and resub game or gets favorable CGC treatment.

 

Where were these allegations mentioned?

 

the B&B28 thread -- that's my recollection. Plus his name gets brought up a lot in past pressing threads as one of the insider club.

 

Strictly my opinion, but personally I have no doubt he's part of the pressing cabal.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Sal]

'Evidence' of what?

 

That he's manipulating books and either playing the press and resub game or gets favorable CGC treatment.

 

Where were these allegations mentioned?

 

the B&B28 thread -- that's my recollection. Plus his name gets brought up a lot in past pressing threads as one of the insider club.

 

Strictly my opinion, but personally I have no doubt he's part of the pressing cabal.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

not officially, at any rate

[esquirecomics]

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

 

Jim, you've clearly interpreted the part where I said anyone was "wrongfully accused" that's for someone else to decide. But the implication that people here on the boards that aren't also members of the NOD aren't participating in the active pursuit of dealers is simply misleading.

 

The two statements are not connected and weren't posted together.

 

There are a lot of double negatives up there but I think you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that members of the NOD are participating in the active pursuit of dealers.

 

If that is an accurate interpretation of what you are expressing I don't know who you are necessarily referring to but it has nothing to do with the NOD. The NOD is not targeting or pursuing anyone. And I know of not one NOD member who is acting in his official capacity as such doing anything inappropriate.

 

If you, or anyone for that matter, know of someone who is purporting to act on behalf of the NOD, then please notify the NOD Committee of this fact. But the NOD does not police or prohibit its members from holding or espousing their own personal views, nor should it. Let's not have guilt by association here.

[Red Hook]

....it's about the disclosure.....not the pressing.....

[LearnedHand]

Clearly, my post isn’t a vote for status quo. Yes there are issues, and I may personally disagree with some of what's going on. But, as you know, market forces dictate that certain dynamics exist and will continue to exist. My point was - let's all be aware of hobby dynamics and continue to educate, and let’s also try to make the best of the given situation while we look for acceptable constructive answers (unless it’s ultimately determined that limitations preclude the fruition of all our desires – in which case we all have choices to make). And, let’s not castigate a few individuals when the issues are so much bigger and so much more widespread. As such, I’ll ask that you reconsider what I wrote, but this time focus not on my post’s (pre-edited) closing statement that led you to misconstrue my entire post’s meaning, but on some of the substantive comments that are interwoven throughout. Here are some excerpts that should have made one of my post’s intentions obvious (you’ll note the desire for constructive change in all the CGC-related excerpts):

 

- MasterChief’s due diligence has reinforced what many of us know all too well – once real money is involved, the profiteering becomes more obvious and maybe more rampant. I’ll be the first to admit that I do not like tampering of any kind, and it’s unsettling to think that a book can be taken apart and put back together yet receive an unrestored designation by CGC.

 

- Like many, I may not like this bottom-line motivation.

 

- As I told Mark/Steve today, if there is clear evidence that there has been tampering, I would vote for having this noted in the grader’s notes.

 

- When an original label accompanies a resubmission, CGC could put this data into its grading notes.

 

- … as the paying consumer, continue to lobby CGC for continuous improvement in its restoration detection practices and hope there is room for improvement

 

- …pray for real competition, which will confirm what the limitations are for restoration detection

 

- While MasterChief's hard work to bring these issues to the forefront should be applauded….

[Foolkiller]

before I hit the sack, right Mark, too many double negs there.

 

Bottom line. Dual associations. I'm not saying that NOD members are acting officially -- however, since they are also members of the boards, these members are somehow generally the same people leading the charge against dealers for pressing or disclosure of pressing. It's not something you can control, but it certainly appears that the two groups share members (i.e. the most vocal board members joined the NOD in many examples).

 

Now on that front, sometimes the focus on certain dealers/auction houses on the boards may not be a bad thing and the attention completely worthy -- as perhaps MasterChief is illustrating.

[Aces]

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.

 

No.

It's very bad if a lawyer gets a crazy mass murderer "off" using all the tools at his disosal and the crazy killer goes out and kills some more people.

[esquirecomics]

Clearly, my post isn’t a vote for status quo. Yes there are issues, and I may personally disagree with some of what's going on. But, as you know, market forces dictate that certain dynamics exist and will continue to exist. My point was - let's all be aware of hobby dynamics and continue to educate, and let’s also try to make the best of the given situation while we look for acceptable constructive answers (unless it’s ultimately determined that limitations preclude the fruition of all our desires – in which case we all have choices to make). And, let’s not castigate a few individuals when the issues are so much bigger and so much more widespread. As such, I’ll ask that you reconsider what I wrote, but this time focus not on my post’s (pre-edited) closing statement that led you to misconstrue my entire post’s meaning, but on some of the substantive comments that are interwoven throughout. Here are some excerpts that should have made one of my post’s intentions obvious (you’ll note the desire for constructive change in all the CGC-related excerpts):

 

- MasterChief’s due diligence has reinforced what many of us know all too well – once real money is involved, the profiteering becomes more obvious and maybe more rampant. I’ll be the first to admit that I do not like tampering of any kind, and it’s unsettling to think that a book can be taken apart and put back together yet receive an unrestored designation by CGC.

 

- Like many, I may not like this bottom-line motivation.

 

- As I told Mark/Steve today, if there is clear evidence that there has been tampering, I would vote for having this noted in the grader’s notes.

 

- When an original label accompanies a resubmission, CGC could put this data into its grading notes.

 

- … as the paying consumer, continue to lobby CGC for continuous improvement in its restoration detection practices and hope there is room for improvement

 

- …pray for real competition, which will confirm what the limitations are for restoration detection

 

- While MasterChief's hard work to bring these issues to the forefront should be applauded….

 

Well why didn't you say so in the first place.

 

As expressed above I really have no disagreement with the sentiments.

[esquirecomics]

before I hit the sack, right Mark, too many double negs there.

 

Bottom line. Dual associations. I'm not saying that NOD members are acting officially -- however, since they are also members of the boards, these members are somehow generally the same people leading the charge against dealers for pressing or disclosure of pressing. It's not something you can control, but it certainly appears that the two groups share members (i.e. the most vocal board members joined the NOD in many examples).

 

Now on that front, sometimes the focus on certain dealers/auction houses on the boards may not be a bad thing and the attention completely worthy -- as perhaps MasterChief is illustrating.

 

NOD has something like 25-30 members right now. More and more the members are coming from outside the CGC boards. Perhaps 10% - 15% (at most 20% I would imagine) of the members can be, to just repeat your words, construed as "leading the charge" on these boards.

 

I really don't find this particularly of consequence given that it makes perfect sense that those who were most motivated by and interested in the issues joined the NOD. Then again there are many people, and I would probably think more, on the CGC boards that I would say clearly emulate the policies and views of the NOD but haven't joined for whatever reason. And, of course, there are those who take their views to the extreme, way beyond what the NOD has adopted, who also haven't joined.

[Ze-man]

 

Well why didn't you say so in the first place.

 

I think it has something to do with you guys being lawyers, or something.

 

 

 

Ze-

[Scheradon]

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.

 

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. 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?

 

One could say the same thing in regards to Jason Ewart. He definately used every tool he had at his disposal to make sure his work wasn't detected and if it wasn't for a few of the malcontent on this little message board, he'd more than likely still be slipping his trimmed gems right past CGC. Was the fact that his work could not be detected good? You seem to imply that it would be with your premise.

 

My biggest gripe with Matt and others is when they do the work or know of the work done and do not disclose it. You speak of ethical obligations to his clients, well, what about ethical obligations to his customers?

[Red Hook]

[Foolkiller]

difference is, Ewert did something the market clearly does not accept. Right now, that's not true of pressing. So before disclosure is mandated, shouldn't the public ask for it overwhelming so it gains acceptance? Requiring disclosure to me is like putting the cart before the horse when the practice seems to have debatable issues to it.