Manufactured Gold

[codfish]

 

If you read my last post, then you would see that you are exactly the type of person I am speaking of. You have admitted that you have never submitted a book for grading and have purchased a total of one book off of Ebay. Like it or not, the way profitable businesses work is to cater to the clientele that partake in your product and do all you can to please them. You are not it. Nothing personal, simply a fact of business. If you do not like the way the game is played, then convince all your anonymous friends to stop buying and selling CGC slabs, if they ever were in the first place, and then CGC might take notice and change their business model. Or better yet, convince me, or several just like me, who do buy a lot of CGC graded books to stop. Then you might accomplish your objective.

 

Uh you are not very bright are you? I said I recently bought a CGC book I have more than one but I do not go out of my way to buy CGC books only. I don't see the need.

 

If you understood business you would understand that you would want to earn as many customers as possible and from the announcement of the formation of CGC I have had questions. As much as I would like to use them and purchase some more CGC books there are far too many problems I have with the whole operation.

 

I would think that any for profit business would be as interested in why they are not getting more customers as they are about keeping the customers they have. I would also think that as a CGC supporter you would be concerned with the books brought up in this thread and others. I can tell you that this company professes to be a quality assurance business and many people state or act like they are the authority in this hobby they sure have a horrible QC model. What is worse instead of admitting mistakes they often just make them exception or excuses for them. Quality assurance is not done that way.

 

Now to your elitist claim that those who are not "big" supporters/backers of CGC have no say in how they do their business. What a crock of *spoon*! This is a company that makes all sorts of claims about individuals or companies in the business and they act like the police and ineed they seem to try and want to gain even more power in and over the industry. Many of the company's ardent followers have crucified people who have no association with them at all or who are just trying to sell off some books with no intention to cheat anyone for their grading, selling practises or whatever. This attitude has had a negative impact in a major way on the raw book market. It is to the point where some of us who might want to try selling off some of their books don't even bother because we have to undergrade them in order to not look like crooks. People like you have painted such a negative image of the market outside of CGC that it may never recover.

 

CGC has an effect on the industry/hobby I have vest most of my life in and that gives me the right to speak about them. Just like finding out why people do not vote is important to our politics. I offer a fairly balanced voice I do not tell CGC collectors not to collect CGC books, I will not say that Steve and his staff are bad people, and I will not say that CGC should not be in the business they are in. I am telling them why I don't like what they are doing and that even gives them an idea of how they could earn my business. I have many books that I have now read and wouldn't mind slabbing at some time but when I cannot trust the company to treat my books and other fairly why would I use their services? I would hate to spend the considerable dollar to have stuff slabbed only to suddenly have the bottom fall out (as in a loss of customer trust) in the CGC market. Since I would be slabbing books for insurance purposes a declining trust base would be disasterous.

 

What do you think example in threads like this would tell insurance companies? I suppose if I was slabbing to sell I might not give a *spoon* but I was under the impression that slabbing wasn't just about slabbing to sell it was to give the buyer some sense of security. If it is really about just making money on eBay and other place then CGC serves no purpose at all other than being another marketing scheme.

 

Sorry man I am here until CGC trows me off the board. You have the option of ignoring me or not ... just like CGC. But it is really too bad that one would choose not to listen to arguments intended to improve a business.

 

:shrugs:

[jkrk]

CGC IS in business to make money...not to hold the hands of needy collectors.

Collectors should educate themselves...period.

It is your own damn fault if you do not choose to LEARN to grade.

Do not leave the decision in other's hands

 

I pay CGC for their opinion. The employees should have an expertise in looking at comics in regard to restoration and grade. I can't afford to spend the time they do to become an experet at their business. If they are being compromised in their opinion to me then I woud have to consider whether to pay them any longer. In my line of work I pay firms for their research opinions/etc. If the results don't prove satisfactory I drop them as a resource. Over time I found that doing everything myself might be less aggravating but doesn't reward me as well finacially.

[Ze-man]

Like it or not, the way profitable businesses work is to cater to the clientele that partake in your product and do all you can to please them.

 

I do not see why CGC, or any other large company would not want listen to those who do not currently use or buy their product, and find out why part of their hard core client base refuses to use their service. They might gain number of new customers if they changed what they knew was keeping people away.

 

Catering to those who already are buying what you sell is fine and dandy. They obviously have a much more vocal voice because of past, and future money they spend. But why should it STOP there?

 

For example, I personally have NOT spent $1,000's with CGC over the past couple years. And it has everything to do with many of the the problems we have all discussed here at length. . Yes I am a small fish. But my confidence was shaken enough in their product that I made the choice to NOT use their service. They lost me as a client. Isn't that important on some level to every business?

 

So does that mean the opinions of myself and others who do not buy slabbed books should be shown the door? I think not. Lots to be learned here amongst all the grumbling of the unhappy CGC mob, and all of it is not negative either.

 

 

So I guess we do not agree on how to run a large business. But then again, I only have 1 employee.. me.

 

 

Ze-

 

Edit, I see I was typing my post while Codfish was typing his. I just think and type alot slower. But the sentiment is the same I think

 

 

[codfish]

Like it or not, the way profitable businesses work is to cater to the clientele that partake in your product and do all you can to please them.

 

I do not see why CGC, or any other large company would not want listen to those who do not currently use or buy their product, and find out why part of their hard core client base refuses to use their service. They might gain number of new customers if they changed what they knew was keeping people away.

 

Catering to those who already are buying what you sell is fine and dandy. They obviously have a much more vocal voice because of past, and future money they spend. But why should it STOP there?

 

For example, I personally have NOT spent $1,000's with CGC over the past couple years. And it has everything to do with many of the the problems we have all discussed here at length. . Yes I am a small fish. But my confidence was shaken enough in their product that I made the choice to NOT use their service. They lost me as a client. Isn't that important on some level to every business?

 

So does that mean the opinions of myself and others who do not buy slabbed books should be shown the door? I think not. Lots to be learned here amongst all the grumbling of the unhappy CGC mob, and all of it is not negative either.

 

 

So I guess we do not agree on how to run a large business. But then again, I only have 1 employee.. me.

 

 

Ze-

 

Edit, I see I was typing my post while Codfish was typing his. I just think and type alot slower. But the sentiment is the same I think

 

 

Yes it is the same. In quality assurance all you have is a trust base if the confidence in that is shaken you are in trouble. Big trouble.

[Foolkiller]

Here's another facet though: If things were changed by CGC to what the small customers wanted, the larger submitters would be negatively impacted. And as in any business, you are going to cater to those that are larger submitters. I'm not suggesting the morality of it, but the reality is, if someone's contributing tens of thousands of dollars in submission fees v. someone who contributes about $200 in fees -- think about the voice that means more.

[Filter81]

My question is whether anyone will/can check whether there is a common thread

involving the restorations MC has picked up? Meaning, a common restorer, or more importantly a common submitter?

 

Yes, all of the examples listed by MC are from the same submitter. I don't know who the submitter is, but I did some research regarding when the books were purchased, sold, submitted, what other books were submitted at the same time etc, and in these cases it is very likely one person submitting each of these books.

[Flaming_Telepath]

My question is whether anyone will/can check whether there is a common thread

involving the restorations MC has picked up? Meaning, a common restorer, or more importantly a common submitter?

 

Yes, all of the examples listed by MC are from the same submitter. I don't know who the submitter is, but I did some research regarding when the books were purchased, sold, submitted, what other books were submitted at the same time etc, and in these cases it is very likely one person submitting each of these books.

 

 

Ooookay....now we're getting somewhere.

[codfish]

Here's another facet though: If things were changed by CGC to what the small customers wanted, the larger submitters would be negatively impacted. And as in any business, you are going to cater to those that are larger submitters. I'm not suggesting the morality of it, but the reality is, if someone's contributing tens of thousands of dollars in submission fees v. someone who contributes about $200 in fees -- think about the voice that means more.

 

Well not necessarily. I don't think alot of what individuals want done would impact big submitters at all. The only way I could see some of the stuff I am thinking of would hurt the big guys is if they are submitting manipulated books. Possibly CGC may have to take less books in any given day but I don't even know if that would happen or not. All I would expect them to do is create a system that has check and balances in it that eliminates even more mistakes or removes more of the grey areas in the grading scale. This could discourage some big submitters from submitting as many books but who is to say that an increase in smaller submission would not counter this?

 

Your point is something that would absolutely have to be considered and hopefully any changes made would not affect CGC high volume clients. Simply, talking about ifs and maybes should not deter CGC from seriously considering changes in how they operate.

[awe4one]

Here's another facet though: If things were changed by CGC to what the small customers wanted, the larger submitters would be negatively impacted. And as in any business, you are going to cater to those that are larger submitters. I'm not suggesting the morality of it, but the reality is, if someone's contributing tens of thousands of dollars in submission fees v. someone who contributes about $200 in fees -- think about the voice that means more.

 

I disagree...the larger submitters would change their criteria to meet that set forth by CGC.

 

CGC, intentionally or inadvertantly, has created this monster and can redefine their criteria to fix. It's that simple. It not going to come from the dealers who are just doing what is allowable. CGC needs to intervene first before anything is changed...

 

So we can stop blaming all the dealers (and I know you weren't), though we can question their ethics, for playing this game...

 

Jim

[THE_BEYONDER]

Here's another facet though: If things were changed by CGC to what the small customers wanted, the larger submitters would be negatively impacted. And as in any business, you are going to cater to those that are larger submitters. I'm not suggesting the morality of it, but the reality is, if someone's contributing tens of thousands of dollars in submission fees v. someone who contributes about $200 in fees -- think about the voice that means more.

 

Well not necessarily. I don't think alot of what individuals want done would impact big submitters at all. The only way I could see some of the stuff I am thinking of would hurt the big guys is if they are submitting manipulated books. Possibly CGC may have to take less books in any given day but I don't even know if that would happen or not. All I would expect them to do is create a system that has check and balances in it that eliminates even more mistakes or removes more of the grey areas in the grading scale. This could discourage some big submitters from submitting as many books but who is to say that an increase in smaller submission would not counter this?

 

Your point is something that would absolutely have to be considered and hopefully any changes made would not affect CGC high volume clients. Simply, talking about ifs and maybes should not deter CGC from seriously considering changes in how they operate.

 

If buyers lose faith in the CGC product, the high volume submitters will inevitably stop submitting.

 

No point in submitting books to CGC for resale....if there's noone out there to buy them.

[Foolkiller]

Here's another facet though: If things were changed by CGC to what the small customers wanted, the larger submitters would be negatively impacted. And as in any business, you are going to cater to those that are larger submitters. I'm not suggesting the morality of it, but the reality is, if someone's contributing tens of thousands of dollars in submission fees v. someone who contributes about $200 in fees -- think about the voice that means more.

 

Well not necessarily. I don't think alot of what individuals want done would impact big submitters at all. The only way I could see some of the stuff I am thinking of would hurt the big guys is if they are submitting manipulated books. Possibly CGC may have to take less books in any given day but I don't even know if that would happen or not. All I would expect them to do is create a system that has check and balances in it that eliminates even more mistakes or removes more of the grey areas in the grading scale. This could discourage some big submitters from submitting as many books but who is to say that an increase in smaller submission would not counter this?

 

Your point is something that would absolutely have to be considered and hopefully any changes made would not affect CGC high volume clients. Simply, talking about ifs and maybes should not deter CGC from seriously considering changes in how they operate.

 

I'm only thinking of it this way: the game is set up with certain rules right now and the profits are churning away. If you tighten up, fewer people, like say Heritage, submit -- or are as big on the resubs. Now, why should we resub as many books if we think they're going to come back more frequently in purple and green labels. Smaller customers don't have the access to the number of books, and frankly, I'm not so sure enough of them will really change their stance on CGC -- I think there are a few fence sitters, but for the most part, those pro CGC use the service now in mass submissions -- and under the rules of the game they are winning. You start changing the rules, these big boys suddenly may not be making the same coin and thus looking to sub books. These guys probably submit and resubmit thousands and thousands of books a year.

[awe4one]

These guys probably submit and resubmit thousands and thousands of books a year.

 

Good lord do I hope you're exaggerating on the resubmits. If the numbers are even close to what you're implying, then those of us who don't like manipulated books should just stop collecting now...

 

Jim

[Forbush-Man]

My question is whether anyone will/can check whether there is a common thread

involving the restorations MC has picked up? Meaning, a common restorer, or more importantly a common submitter?

 

Yes, all of the examples listed by MC are from the same submitter. I don't know who the submitter is, but I did some research regarding when the books were purchased, sold, submitted, what other books were submitted at the same time etc, and in these cases it is very likely one person submitting each of these books.

 

 

It would sure be nice if we could focus on this for a moment. Get some Forum Detectives on the job................

[Flaming_Telepath]

These guys probably submit and resubmit thousands and thousands of books a year.

 

Good lord do I hope you're exaggerating on the resubmits. If the numbers are even close to what you're implying, then those of us who don't like manipulated books should just stop collecting now...

 

Jim

 

I think the resubs were a portion of the thousands and thousands...

 

Well, I hope so!

[tth2]

My question is whether anyone will/can check whether there is a common thread

involving the restorations MC has picked up? Meaning, a common restorer, or more importantly a common submitter?

 

Yes, all of the examples listed by MC are from the same submitter. I don't know who the submitter is, but I did some research regarding when the books were purchased, sold, submitted, what other books were submitted at the same time etc, and in these cases it is very likely one person submitting each of these books.

Could you provide us with more detail so we can understand how you reached this conclusion? It's definitely interesting (although not completely surprising) if it's true.

[namisgr]

Can't comment on the golden age books in question, but it seems to be common knowledge among dealers and big-pocketed collectors that there are many, many folks who work on books (pressing, dry cleaning, tape removal). Not all are dealers, since some restorers work for a fee without actually selling any of their finished products.

 

Seems kind of silly to be talking about the "one re-submitter" as if trying to track down the origins of the human immunodeficiency virus.

[tth2]

Can't comment on the golden age books in question, but it seems to be common knowledge among dealers and big-pocketed collectors that there are many, many folks who work on books (pressing, dry cleaning, tape removal). Not all are dealers, since some restorers work for a fee without actually selling any of their finished products.

 

Seems kind of silly to be talking about the "one re-submitter" as if trying to track down the origins of the human immunodeficiency virus.

True, but it would be interesting to know if most of the resubs being sold on Heritage are indeed the work of one person.

[namisgr]

Well, now, focusing on Heritage is a different story. Let's see, who do we know is a comic restorer/conserver living in Dallas? Perhaps someone who moved to Dallas shortly after the Heritage comic auctions took off.

 

Alternatively, it could be a lone consigner.

[TeddieMercede]

Considering the input that Matt Nelson has brought to these boards regarding restoration and dis-assembly he would have to be a hypocrite on a pretty big level to be " the one " doing these Heritage jobs.

[Aman619]

why? he openly discusses the work he performes for his clients.