Pedigree Auction Sales and Relistings. Legit?

[Guardian Comics]

 

This place is hilarious. There was a thread no more than 7 or 8 months ago, where Roy was talking about "Selective Reporting" to GPA. He got absolutely torched by me and others. I wonder where some of the players in this thread came down on this issue then?

 

Sean: I was with you then, as I'm with you now

 

Jim

[Sal]

My point is that he's specifically addressed the others while skirting around #1. Seems like the posts are being read thoroughly, but responded to selectively.

 

Saying "a customer" bought them and reconsigned them is one way to address the accusations without really addressing them. If he considers himself a customer, then he's been truthful without being honest.

 

Not accusing, just observing.

 

i can't believe you're insinuating that a lawyer - a lawyer of all professions - would selectively respond to specific points in a post that best fit his explanations without considering the ones that don't. my G-d man, it's almost as though you are suggesting he wasn't trained to be an effective communicator or that his profession did not require an ability to be excellent in reading comprehension

[drbanner]

Either a seller (Pedigree in this instance) reports ALL public sales or they report none.

Impossible for George to control, and exceedingly difficult for him to determine.

 

Yep, it is typically impossible for George to determine what's being reported and what's not, except in the case of Pedigree since Doug just admitted here that he deliberately withholds "low" sales data. And in this case, since there's no issue of needing to verify it, George should toss out all of Pedigree's sales data. (thumbs u

 

Great Ideal! Don't allow Doug sales on GPA.

 

+2

 

You can't + your own idea!

 

[DrWatson]

My point is that he's specifically addressed the others while skirting around #1. Seems like the posts are being read thoroughly, but responded to selectively.

 

Saying "a customer" bought them and reconsigned them is one way to address the accusations without really addressing them. If he considers himself a customer, then he's been truthful without being honest.

 

Not accusing, just observing.

 

i can't believe you're insinuating that a lawyer - a lawyer of all professions - would selectively respond to specific points in a post that best fit his explanations without considering the ones that don't. my G-d man, it's almost as though you are suggesting he wasn't trained to be an effective communicator or that his profession did not require an ability to be excellent in reading comprehension

I think he just always chose "C."

[qualitycomix]

 

This place is hilarious. There was a thread no more than 7 or 8 months ago, where Roy was talking about "Selective Reporting" to GPA. He got absolutely torched by me and others. I wonder where some of the players in this thread came down on this issue then?

 

Sean: I was with you then, as I'm with you now

 

Jim

 

Is this the thread?

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3163965&fpart=1

[Dale Roberts]

 

there's a pretty sizable difference between not reporting any sales at all, and cherry-picking which sales you report.

 

one just removes all data points from one seller, while the other skews the data towards higher prices.

 

 

just saying.

 

Sal,

I am not saying that GPA is inacurrate because "I " don't report data. I am also not saying that it doesn't skew the data higher if sales are cherry picked. I am saying regardless of what is reported, GPA is incomplete, and generally not used as it should be. It is a very useful tool.

 

However most people just look at the highest price if selling and the lowest price if buying, without taking into account how and why any of those figures were reached.

 

i wasn't saying GPA was inaccurate because you don't report data, either.

 

i agree GPA is an incomplete tool and that it's used in ways in which it was never intended.

 

that being said, if the only sales that get reported are high ones, it will artificially inflate the market for those books, until George can rejigger his output string to include things like PQ and scans

 

 

uh, have you looked at GPA recently? I don't really think there is a problem that only high sales get reported.

[seanfingh]

 

This place is hilarious. There was a thread no more than 7 or 8 months ago, where Roy was talking about "Selective Reporting" to GPA. He got absolutely torched by me and others. I wonder where some of the players in this thread came down on this issue then?

I didn't agree with selectively reporting data then, and I don't agree with it now. However, I'm not ready to throw GPA out the window over it. Overstreet is also susceptible to price manipulation, but no one seems to care about that.

 

F the Overstreet analogy. Overstreet is an anachronism. Sure, people only reported their "notable" sales, because they were wrting down sales on blue lined paper with a green eyeshade on. Accurate reporting now requires nothing more than keeping accurate digital records and transmitting them. Not difficult unless there is gaming going on. Either report or don't. Selective reporting is hideous.

[EastEnd]

This is nothing less than price fixing...market manipulation if you will...and the person I feel sorry for is George at GPA.

 

He has taken Mr Schmell's data on trust, when trust should not have been given. George's data pool is now poisoned by utter sh!te submitted by a prominent dealer. George doesn't deserve this, so let's not get on his case.

 

However, the lengths some people will go to to wring a few more dollars out of the consumer is ing sickening.

 

The frightening thing to me is how care-free he was in admitting he cleansed adverse historical pricing data for certain clients... totally clueless as to the ethical implication of it... just rendering exemplary customer service I suppose.

[DrWatson]

 

This place is hilarious. There was a thread no more than 7 or 8 months ago, where Roy was talking about "Selective Reporting" to GPA. He got absolutely torched by me and others. I wonder where some of the players in this thread came down on this issue then?

 

Sean: I was with you then, as I'm with you now

 

Jim

 

Is this the thread?

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3163965&fpart=1

That's the second one, I think. The conversation was either started in another thread or the first one was either locked or deleted.

[DrWatson]

Either report or don't. Selective reporting is hideous.

Okay, fix it.

[Domo Arigato]

George can only get data by cooperating with sellers. If you think they only way in which GPA is useful is if the data is complete, then you will never be satisfied. I made over 2000 sales of CGC graded books last year and none were reported. Many of the books sold for over GPA, many sold at GPA, some sold for less than GPA. It doesn't make the data presented any more or less accurate. If you need to know every sale to use GPA, then you are using it incorrectly. It gives you accurate data. It does not and will not ever give you complete data. The fact that is it incomplete, does not make what is reported any more or less accurate. It is not meant to tell you what price you should pay on any book.

If a seller does not report data at all to GPA...then it does not skew the data in any direction.

 

However...if a seller does report data...and they sell 30 copies of a book for $5 each and 1 copy of the same book for $1,000...but only report the $1,000 sale...then that does skew the data by a wide margin. The data becomes both incomplete and innacurate, because the seller is supposed to be reporting all sales data, and the single price point reported will skew the average price high for that particular copy.

 

Yes...technically that single data price point is accurate for that single sale...but I doubt if George created GPA to be used as a market manipulation tool for dealers who just can't help themselves.

[Sal]

 

there's a pretty sizable difference between not reporting any sales at all, and cherry-picking which sales you report.

 

one just removes all data points from one seller, while the other skews the data towards higher prices.

 

 

just saying.

 

Sal,

I am not saying that GPA is inacurrate because "I " don't report data. I am also not saying that it doesn't skew the data higher if sales are cherry picked. I am saying regardless of what is reported, GPA is incomplete, and generally not used as it should be. It is a very useful tool.

 

However most people just look at the highest price if selling and the lowest price if buying, without taking into account how and why any of those figures were reached.

 

i wasn't saying GPA was inaccurate because you don't report data, either.

 

i agree GPA is an incomplete tool and that it's used in ways in which it was never intended.

 

that being said, if the only sales that get reported are high ones, it will artificially inflate the market for those books, until George can rejigger his output string to include things like PQ and scans

 

 

uh, have you looked at GPA recently? I don't really think there is a problem that only high sales get reported.

 

just think how much worse the data would look if Pedigree and Josh Nathanson actually reported their bad sales, instead of only the good ones.

 

 

that's all i'm saying

[buttock]

My point is that he's specifically addressed the others while skirting around #1. Seems like the posts are being read thoroughly, but responded to selectively.

 

Saying "a customer" bought them and reconsigned them is one way to address the accusations without really addressing them. If he considers himself a customer, then he's been truthful without being honest.

 

Not accusing, just observing.

 

i can't believe you're insinuating that a lawyer - a lawyer of all professions - would selectively respond to specific points in a post that best fit his explanations without considering the ones that don't. my G-d man, it's almost as though you are suggesting he wasn't trained to be an effective communicator or that his profession did not require an ability to be excellent in reading comprehension

 

Was there training about granny robbing?

[seanfingh]

Either report or don't. Selective reporting is hideous.

Okay, fix it.

 

My fix would be just that. Anyone that reports agrees to report all transactions. Then there is no problem telling the client, "Hey buddy, sorry you don't want this info out there, but I am contractually obligated to provide it."

[Sal]

My point is that he's specifically addressed the others while skirting around #1. Seems like the posts are being read thoroughly, but responded to selectively.

 

Saying "a customer" bought them and reconsigned them is one way to address the accusations without really addressing them. If he considers himself a customer, then he's been truthful without being honest.

 

Not accusing, just observing.

 

i can't believe you're insinuating that a lawyer - a lawyer of all professions - would selectively respond to specific points in a post that best fit his explanations without considering the ones that don't. my G-d man, it's almost as though you are suggesting he wasn't trained to be an effective communicator or that his profession did not require an ability to be excellent in reading comprehension

 

Was there training about granny robbing?

 

I think that was just extra credit.

[fantastic_four]

F the Overstreet analogy. Overstreet is an anachronism. Sure, people only reported their "notable" sales, because they were wrting down sales on blue lined paper with a green eyeshade on. Accurate reporting now requires nothing more than keeping accurate digital records and transmitting them. Not difficult unless there is gaming going on. Either report or don't. Selective reporting is hideous.

 

You went from F'ing the Overstreet analogy, to coming right back to the entire point of the Overstreet analogy.

[drbanner]

 

This place is hilarious. There was a thread no more than 7 or 8 months ago, where Roy was talking about "Selective Reporting" to GPA. He got absolutely torched by me and others. I wonder where some of the players in this thread came down on this issue then?

 

Sean: I was with you then, as I'm with you now

 

Jim

 

Ah yes, the names have not changed (well, most anyway), so neither the innocent nor the guilty can hide!

[DrWatson]

Either report or don't. Selective reporting is hideous.

Okay, fix it.

 

My fix would be just that. Anyone that reports agrees to report all transactions. Then there is no problem telling the client, "Hey buddy, sorry you don't want this info out there, but I am contractually obligated to provide it."

Okay, fine. I just won't report any data to GPA. It's a hassle anyway. Thanks for your time.

 

I don't disagree with you, Sean, but I don't think the idea will ever reach nirvana.

[DrWatson]

 

there's a pretty sizable difference between not reporting any sales at all, and cherry-picking which sales you report.

 

one just removes all data points from one seller, while the other skews the data towards higher prices.

 

 

just saying.

 

Sal,

I am not saying that GPA is inacurrate because "I " don't report data. I am also not saying that it doesn't skew the data higher if sales are cherry picked. I am saying regardless of what is reported, GPA is incomplete, and generally not used as it should be. It is a very useful tool.

 

However most people just look at the highest price if selling and the lowest price if buying, without taking into account how and why any of those figures were reached.

 

i wasn't saying GPA was inaccurate because you don't report data, either.

 

i agree GPA is an incomplete tool and that it's used in ways in which it was never intended.

 

that being said, if the only sales that get reported are high ones, it will artificially inflate the market for those books, until George can rejigger his output string to include things like PQ and scans

 

 

uh, have you looked at GPA recently? I don't really think there is a problem that only high sales get reported.

 

just think how much worse the data would look if Pedigree and Josh Nathanson actually reported their bad sales, instead of only the good ones.

 

 

that's all i'm saying

Josh isn't reporting any sales.

[seanfingh]

F the Overstreet analogy. Overstreet is an anachronism. Sure, people only reported their "notable" sales, because they were wrting down sales on blue lined paper with a green eyeshade on. Accurate reporting now requires nothing more than keeping accurate digital records and transmitting them. Not difficult unless there is gaming going on. Either report or don't. Selective reporting is hideous.

 

You went from F'ing the Overstreet analogy, to coming right back to the entire point of the Overstreet analogy.

 

I must be missing something, then.