Pedigree Auction Sales and Relistings. Legit?

[MrBedrock]

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to defend this blantant market manipulation tactic.

I'm not trying to defend any market manipulation. And if you are going to insinuate that my stance is defenseless then I will insinuate that your stidency is small-minded.

 

To believe that there is anyway to keep the data "unskewed" is naive. Obviously we are talking about skewed data right now with the small pool of hand-picked contributors that George has chosen. He, you, and anyone else here who believes that less data is purer, less manipulated, and therefore better really needs to step back and think. By having less data you end up with something that doesn't represent the hobby at all. It becomes just as useless by omission.

 

The only way to have the data approach an unmanipulated state is have so much of it that the bad sales are drowned out and buried by the shear numbers of sales reported.

If all sales had the ability to be reported, then even if some low sales weren't reported, they wouldn't affect the average nearly as much as they do now.

[DrWatson]

I really think I would rather have no data from a source than some good and some bad. I'm not sure that is entirely logical, but it is how I feel.

 

We feel the same way...but no data at all is worse.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

GPA average on an Avengers #66 in 9.4 is $300, let's say.

 

Mr Schmell 'sells' a copy for $1,000 and another one for $100...but he only reports the $1,000 'sale'.

 

This is better than not reporting at all?

How about the fact that literally thousands of books a day are sold through C-Link.

But because Josh refuses to report a small number that sell through auction for ridiculously low amounts GPA is does not have access to ANY of C-Link's sales data.

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to make excuses for this blatant market manipulation tactic.

It has never been officially established that Josh didn't want to report the lower selling items. What has been said was that Josh wanted to selectively report data. It isn't known for exactly what reason he wanted to selectively report.

 

Perhaps some of the sales weren't really sales as this thread has sought to imply with Pedigree.

[500Club]

So, is it OK to put out the torch and put the pitchfork back into storage?

 

Absolutely. If you believe Doug's explanation.

[Flaming_Telepath]

So, is it OK to put out the torch and put the pitchfork back into storage?

 

Absolutely. If you believe Doug's explanation.

 

Quite.

[Domo Arigato]

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to defend this blantant market manipulation tactic.

I'm not trying to defend any market manipulation. And if you are going to insinuate that my stance is defenseless then I will insinuate that your stidency is small-minded.

 

To believe that there is anyway to keep the data "unskewed" is naive. Obviously we are talking about skewed data right now with the small pool of hand-picked contributors that George has chosen. He, you, and anyone else here who believes that less data is purer, less manipulated, and therefore better really needs to step back and think. By having less data you end up with something that doesn't represent the hobby at all. It becomes just as useless by omission.

 

The only way to have the data approach an unmanipulated state is have so much of it that the bad sales are drowned out and buried by the shear numbers of sales reported.

If all sales had the ability to be reported, then even if some low sales weren't reported, they wouldn't affect the average nearly as much as they do now.

I'm going to have to assume you meant "stridency"...as I don't know what "stidency" is. As for the rest of your passive-aggressive jabs...I'll just ignore them.

 

No one is talking about being able to collect data that is totally perfect and unskewed in any manner. But, yes...I do believe that less data can be purer, less manipulated, and more useful, as long as there's a large enough sampling (which I believe GPA has). To suggest that this couldn't be the case is naive as well. What good does it do if you allow more data in if it's ok to openly skew it all to the high side? All that does is open the door for even more manipulation on a massive scale.

[Domo Arigato]

I really think I would rather have no data from a source than some good and some bad. I'm not sure that is entirely logical, but it is how I feel.

 

We feel the same way...but no data at all is worse.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

GPA average on an Avengers #66 in 9.4 is $300, let's say.

 

Mr Schmell 'sells' a copy for $1,000 and another one for $100...but he only reports the $1,000 'sale'.

 

This is better than not reporting at all?

How about the fact that literally thousands of books a day are sold through C-Link.

But because Josh refuses to report a small number that sell through auction for ridiculously low amounts GPA is does not have access to ANY of C-Link's sales data.

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to make excuses for this blatant market manipulation tactic.

It has never been officially established that Josh didn't want to report the lower selling items. What has been said was that Josh wanted to selectively report data. It isn't known for exactly what reason he wanted to selectively report.

 

Perhaps some of the sales weren't really sales as this thread has sought to imply with Pedigree.

I was simply responding to the reason that MrBedrock gave for the lack of reporting by them.

[MrBedrock]

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to defend this blantant market manipulation tactic.

I'm not trying to defend any market manipulation. And if you are going to insinuate that my stance is defenseless then I will insinuate that your stidency is small-minded.

 

To believe that there is anyway to keep the data "unskewed" is naive. Obviously we are talking about skewed data right now with the small pool of hand-picked contributors that George has chosen. He, you, and anyone else here who believes that less data is purer, less manipulated, and therefore better really needs to step back and think. By having less data you end up with something that doesn't represent the hobby at all. It becomes just as useless by omission.

 

The only way to have the data approach an unmanipulated state is have so much of it that the bad sales are drowned out and buried by the shear numbers of sales reported.

If all sales had the ability to be reported, then even if some low sales weren't reported, they wouldn't affect the average nearly as much as they do now.

I'm going to have to assume you meant "stridency"...as I don't know what "stidency" is. As for the rest of your passive-aggressive jabs...I'll just ignore them.

 

No one is talking about being able to collect data that is totally perfect and unskewed in any manner. But, yes...I do believe that less data can be purer, less manipulated, and more useful. To suggest that this couldn't be the case is naive as well. What good does it do if you allow more data in if it's ok to openly skew it all to the high side? All that does is open the door for even more manipulation on a massive scale.

I did mean stridency - thanks for the spell-check (thumbs u

And there was nothing passive about my response. It was purely aggressive.

I am aggressively of the opinion that GPA, while useful in its current state, is just as full of manipulated data.

eBay - how much of those sales numbers are the result of shill bids, something we discuss on a daily basis around here.

Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place.

There have been other discussions here about individual dealers (GPA contributors) who selectively reported sales and purchases as it fit their needs.

 

So the present data set already is skewed.

You seem to worry that only high side sales will be reported. Well since a huge percentage of the present sales reported are a result of auction settings it seems to me that ONLY high side sales are now being reported. I would suggest that if individuals around here who sell had the ability to report we would more than likely see a reduction in sales averages as most folks who sell here price stuff at or below GPA to begin with.

So if we open the door for collectors to report verifiable sales we would have access to low-side as well as high-side sales.

 

Again, the large addition of data will balance itself out and we would all have a truer picture of the marketplace.

 

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

You could always make it up by posting a scan of that Daring Mystery 4 of yours.

Momentary thread derailment...

 

 

 

That is just a thing of beauty.

 

ok, now back to the regularly scheduled flogging or whatever the is going on in this thread.

[sborock]

"Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place."

 

These two sales did "take place". (thumbs u

 

[buttock]

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to defend this blantant market manipulation tactic.

I'm not trying to defend any market manipulation. And if you are going to insinuate that my stance is defenseless then I will insinuate that your stidency is small-minded.

 

To believe that there is anyway to keep the data "unskewed" is naive. Obviously we are talking about skewed data right now with the small pool of hand-picked contributors that George has chosen. He, you, and anyone else here who believes that less data is purer, less manipulated, and therefore better really needs to step back and think. By having less data you end up with something that doesn't represent the hobby at all. It becomes just as useless by omission.

 

The only way to have the data approach an unmanipulated state is have so much of it that the bad sales are drowned out and buried by the shear numbers of sales reported.

If all sales had the ability to be reported, then even if some low sales weren't reported, they wouldn't affect the average nearly as much as they do now.

I'm going to have to assume you meant "stridency"...as I don't know what "stidency" is. As for the rest of your passive-aggressive jabs...I'll just ignore them.

 

No one is talking about being able to collect data that is totally perfect and unskewed in any manner. But, yes...I do believe that less data can be purer, less manipulated, and more useful. To suggest that this couldn't be the case is naive as well. What good does it do if you allow more data in if it's ok to openly skew it all to the high side? All that does is open the door for even more manipulation on a massive scale.

I did mean stridency - thanks for the spell-check (thumbs u

And there was nothing passive about my response. It was purely aggressive.

I am aggressively of the opinion that GPA, while useful in its current state, is just as full of manipulated data.

eBay - how much of those sales numbers are the result of shill bids, something we discuss on a daily basis around here.

Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place.

There have been other discussions here about individual dealers (GPA contributors) who selectively reported sales and purchases as it fit their needs.

 

So the present data set already is skewed.

You seem to worry that only high side sales will be reported. Well since a huge percentage of the present sales reported are a result of auction settings it seems to me that ONLY high side sales are now being reported. I would suggest that if individuals around here who sell had the ability to report we would more than likely see a reduction in sales averages as most folks who sell here price stuff at or below GPA to begin with.

So if we open the door for collectors to report verifiable sales we would have access to low-side as well as high-side sales.

 

Again, the large addition of data will balance itself out and we would all have a truer picture of the marketplace.

 

 

If it's any consolation, I didn't think there was any passivity either. Domo needs to find a better pop-psychology book.

[buttock]

"Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place."

 

These two sales did "take place". (thumbs u

 

Wait, wasn't Heritage just saying that they were never paid for in full and so were going back on the market? I thought that was straight from the horses mouth.

[blazingbob]

How do I even know this is the real Steve Borock?

 

Could be some Heritage Shill speaking for him.

 

Tell me something I would only know.

[Mr.Diggler]

4. The problem is some of the purchasers who got them at less than current GPA value ask me not to report the sale for obvious reasons and I respect that. If you bought an ASM 14, for example, at $5,000, knowing you got it on the cheap, want that sale to be purposely made public when you are trying to sell it for $9,000?

 

You respect that?

 

me.

 

Why report any numbers if they are below GPA...

 

An excellent question.

[Domo Arigato]

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to defend this blantant market manipulation tactic.

I'm not trying to defend any market manipulation. And if you are going to insinuate that my stance is defenseless then I will insinuate that your stidency is small-minded.

 

To believe that there is anyway to keep the data "unskewed" is naive. Obviously we are talking about skewed data right now with the small pool of hand-picked contributors that George has chosen. He, you, and anyone else here who believes that less data is purer, less manipulated, and therefore better really needs to step back and think. By having less data you end up with something that doesn't represent the hobby at all. It becomes just as useless by omission.

 

The only way to have the data approach an unmanipulated state is have so much of it that the bad sales are drowned out and buried by the shear numbers of sales reported.

If all sales had the ability to be reported, then even if some low sales weren't reported, they wouldn't affect the average nearly as much as they do now.

I'm going to have to assume you meant "stridency"...as I don't know what "stidency" is. As for the rest of your passive-aggressive jabs...I'll just ignore them.

 

No one is talking about being able to collect data that is totally perfect and unskewed in any manner. But, yes...I do believe that less data can be purer, less manipulated, and more useful. To suggest that this couldn't be the case is naive as well. What good does it do if you allow more data in if it's ok to openly skew it all to the high side? All that does is open the door for even more manipulation on a massive scale.

I did mean stridency - thanks for the spell-check (thumbs u

And there was nothing passive about my response. It was purely aggressive.

I am aggressively of the opinion that GPA, while useful in its current state, is just as full of manipulated data.

eBay - how much of those sales numbers are the result of shill bids, something we discuss on a daily basis around here.

Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place.

There have been other discussions here about individual dealers (GPA contributors) who selectively reported sales and purchases as it fit their needs.

 

So the present data set already is skewed.

You seem to worry that only high side sales will be reported. Well since a huge percentage of the present sales reported are a result of auction settings it seems to me that ONLY high side sales are now being reported. I would suggest that if individuals around here who sell had the ability to report we would more than likely see a reduction in sales averages as most folks who sell here price stuff at or below GPA to begin with.

So if we open the door for collectors to report verifiable sales we would have access to low-side as well as high-side sales.

 

Again, the large addition of data will balance itself out and we would all have a truer picture of the marketplace.

You're welcome for the spell-check. (thumbs u

 

And we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree on the best way to collect accurate data.

 

However, just because a lot of the sales being reported are from auctions, I certainly don't think that ONLY high side sales are now being reported as you suggest. There are plenty of low auction results that take place as well. And while I don't think it's feasible, I do sort of like your idea of collectors in here being able to report verifiable sales...again...as long as they reported all of their sales.

[trmoore54]

Most people that see GPA as useful, including myself, are not blind to the fact that it is incomplete and will undoubtedly have errors.

 

(As for Doug or anyone else reporting manipulated data, in this case, in the dealer/seller's general favor, I'm against the practice for all the obvious reasons...)

 

Having said that, most people, as I do, use a combination of sources to determine pricing for both buying and selling...as comicwiz mentioned as well, there are also many "blind" factors to the GPA data that come into play as well...

 

But another useful aspect is the direct links to Census, which is helpful...for example when you want to check why an issue of ASM 62 in CGC 9.4 is only selling for the low $200s, you can quickly check and see that there are 100 9.4s in the Census...useful and helpful...

 

Until someone builds a better model...I want my GPA!

 

 

 

I nominate Domo Arigato and paperheart in a runoff for best joke/funniest post in this thread so far...

[Flaming_Telepath]

This is all well and good...GPA this, averages that, price points the other...but I think we're going somewhat off track here.

 

No matter what you think of GPA, no matter who you think should report to it, we have a top tier dealer openly admitting that he attempts to manipulate pricing data, clearly in order for him and his 'consignor' to financially benefit.

 

From what I'm hearing here, cooking the books is cool with people?

[Domo Arigato]

If the number of books selling for low amounts is so miniscule and meaningless...then why does Josh insist they not be included before he'll report his data? And if C-Link refuses to report their data unless they can only include the data that skews the numbers high...then to hell with their data.

 

I honestly can't believe I'm sitting here watching people try to defend this blantant market manipulation tactic.

I'm not trying to defend any market manipulation. And if you are going to insinuate that my stance is defenseless then I will insinuate that your stidency is small-minded.

 

To believe that there is anyway to keep the data "unskewed" is naive. Obviously we are talking about skewed data right now with the small pool of hand-picked contributors that George has chosen. He, you, and anyone else here who believes that less data is purer, less manipulated, and therefore better really needs to step back and think. By having less data you end up with something that doesn't represent the hobby at all. It becomes just as useless by omission.

 

The only way to have the data approach an unmanipulated state is have so much of it that the bad sales are drowned out and buried by the shear numbers of sales reported.

If all sales had the ability to be reported, then even if some low sales weren't reported, they wouldn't affect the average nearly as much as they do now.

I'm going to have to assume you meant "stridency"...as I don't know what "stidency" is. As for the rest of your passive-aggressive jabs...I'll just ignore them.

 

No one is talking about being able to collect data that is totally perfect and unskewed in any manner. But, yes...I do believe that less data can be purer, less manipulated, and more useful. To suggest that this couldn't be the case is naive as well. What good does it do if you allow more data in if it's ok to openly skew it all to the high side? All that does is open the door for even more manipulation on a massive scale.

I did mean stridency - thanks for the spell-check (thumbs u

And there was nothing passive about my response. It was purely aggressive.

I am aggressively of the opinion that GPA, while useful in its current state, is just as full of manipulated data.

eBay - how much of those sales numbers are the result of shill bids, something we discuss on a daily basis around here.

Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place.

There have been other discussions here about individual dealers (GPA contributors) who selectively reported sales and purchases as it fit their needs.

 

So the present data set already is skewed.

You seem to worry that only high side sales will be reported. Well since a huge percentage of the present sales reported are a result of auction settings it seems to me that ONLY high side sales are now being reported. I would suggest that if individuals around here who sell had the ability to report we would more than likely see a reduction in sales averages as most folks who sell here price stuff at or below GPA to begin with.

So if we open the door for collectors to report verifiable sales we would have access to low-side as well as high-side sales.

 

Again, the large addition of data will balance itself out and we would all have a truer picture of the marketplace.

 

 

If it's any consolation, I didn't think there was any passivity either. Domo needs to find a better pop-psychology book.

Thanks for the recommendation, butthead. I'll try to find a better one.

[MrBedrock]

I hope no one thinks I'm denigrating GPA. I subscribe and use it regularly. I think it is without a doubt the most useful tool in my dealer toolbox for helping me price new inventory.

 

But I also happen to think that a ton of useful sales data is overlooked in an effort to keep some kind of fictional purity to the existing numbers.

[Silver Surfer]

"Heritage - take a look at the Superman 4 and 6 sales which skewed those numbers way high. And we aren't even sure if those sales ever actually took place."

 

These two sales did "take place". (thumbs u

 

I don't doubt that for a minute but what has me scratching my head is who the heck would under bid that high? Not directed at all towards you Steve but that whole auction for those books just reeks.

[gpanalysis]

Hi folks,

 

well, I've been slow to post here because I actually wanted to speak with Doug first, which I was able to do about half an hour ago.

 

So, exactly what he has said earlier, a couple of consigners have pressured him into not reporting a few sales - not good, and I'm certainly not happy about that. He and I had a frank conversation about it and Doug has committed to sending the data and talking to the consigners about reporting their future consigned sales. I do see where he was coming from, but also drove the point home with respects to reporting ALL sales data, and, explaining to the consigners (whom he acknowledges may leave his site) that this is the way to go. He agrees.

 

Furthermore, he has also agreed to something we have been looking to introduce into our system for a while now, direct links back to individual sales on his site and marking his sales as such on GPA. Most other reporting partners have also shown interest in the past on this, so as long there are no technical difficulties (which there shouldn't be) this should be something we can introduce relatively quickly.

 

A few of the dealers I met with in San Diego when we first introduced our service showed interest in sending us sales (prior to us accepting non-auction data). I remember at the time (and Steve B was in agreement during that chat) that my reluctance was due mainly to do with verifying the data and the completeness of the results. And here we are.

 

I personally believe Doug is already taking steps to change the way he is reporting to us and bring the consigners who have pressured him on board. I might just add that Doug (as well as Brent) is one of the few smaller dealers who has gone to great lengths to accommodate the data feeds to us.

 

And as someone far more intelligent than myself stated earlier, Joseph (ComicWiz) has explained exactly what would need to happen to verify and guarantee compliance by every player - nothing short of one unified exchange. Yep, not gonna happen.

 

At the end of the day we can continue to provide further and further information (and as much as is possible without hindering the service) to give collector's more data than they would normally have been privy to, or have had the capability and time to collect on their own. I believe enough data points exist in most books/grades to see the trends, even if individual transactions can vary from time to time.

 

So, I'm here and ready to accept any questions you have specifically of me and my service.

 

George