A fun project...

[garthgantu]

By the way -- I edited the post after you responded.

 

Why you dirty rat! Okay, saw the edit... In the same breath that I trotted out some of CGC's oversights, I was pointing out that CGG is not perfect, but that in calling CGG on each and every misstep, some people on these boards seemed to be implying that CGC never made such mistakes...? In fact, the CGG hating really started in this thread once the Bats 11 trimming oversight was brought up in the first place, no?

 

I think the far more constructive discussion to be having would be "how, if at all, might CGC reduce some of the devious behavior that some submitters are resorting to in order to get the highest possible grade by any means possible" ... I think we can all agree that

- no grading service is perfect; CGC appears to be more capable of catching most of the *known* tricks at this time, but it's not infallible

- if this keeps up, there's every possibility that even generally upstanding members of the comic book collecting community may resort to a range of cleaning, pressing, and perhaps even trimming tactics, if only to "keep up with the Joneses" in terms of the high-grade fervor that's driving these tactics and the near-obsession with high grade that the grading/slabbing companies have engendered

- something has to be done to identify the latest methods used for such 'restoration' and hopefully curtail this activity, either through more stringent resto identification, and/or public humiliation of those perpetrating such methods.

[FFB]

No offense to you guys, as I am just as prone to arguing ad nauseum with people, but I am reminded of the post from the Ian Levine thread that said:

 

The wheels on the bus go round and round round and round.

The wheels on the bus go round and round round and round.

The wheels on the bus go round and round round and round.

 

I don't think either of you guys is going to convince the other that he is right or wrong. I think most people agree with both of you to an extent. CGC screws up, and CGG screws up. No one can seriously dispute either of those statements.

 

On the other hand, anyone who says that CGG has the same level of market legitimacy that CGC has *at this moment in time* is just plain wrong. That is not to say CGG won't get there some day, but the Avengers #1 won't help their case any. If CGG develops a track record for ACCURATE (in other words, neither overly loose NOR OVERLY STRICT) grading, they have the potential to become a valid competitor to CGC. It's not going to happen overnight, however, and until it does, CGG needs to be BETTER AT BEING ACCURATE than CGC does because CGC already owns the vast majority of the market. You cannot catch or overtake a market leader by being "just as good." You will fail every time.

 

Legitimacy and respect from an industry comes only after establishing a track record through good performance. If CGG develops a reputation as a responsible grading service that doesn't play favorites, if they can maintain their pricing and favorable turnaround times, and if they can improve their restoration detection services, they will develop a good reputation over time. Ultimately, all that most collectors or sellers want is a book that is accurately graded. If people think that CGG is giving soft grades to favorite submitters, CGG will fail. Likewise, if people think that CGG is grading too harshly, people will not submit books to CGG and it will fail.

 

I don't know whether CGG does give soft grades to certain submitters on a routine basis, but I would hope that CGG's management realizes that they are lucky enough to be an early entrant into a young but potentially huge industry, and that being short-sighted by trying to curry favor through soft grading will cost them a lot more money in the intermediate and long term. It is in their best, long-term interest to be as accurate as possible on every book submitted to them, and if they can develop legitimacy through good performance, they can help the hobby, and themselves, greatly.

 

Now what is this bet that you guys are referring to?

 

As for CGG's oversights, I don't think anyone would deny they've made their share, maybe more than their share. I would never argue that CGG is at the moment a better service overall than CGC. But given

- the Bats 11 with trimming that was missed

- the pedigree (Green River) Daredevil 11 that was pressed and resubbed and not caught

- the CGCed DD that OsbourneFrance got with two full pages missing

- the long list of Church/Mile High books that have been cleaned and pressed and then resubmitted to CGC, achieving grades that in some cases were 3 full notches higher than originally awarded

...and other seriously questionable examples, let's just acknowledge that nobody's perfect and picking on CGG for grading mistakes seems very biased at this point.

CGC has graded over 370,000 books. And they've already stated that they don't consider pressing or dry cleaning restoration unless the book is taken apart (and neither do I) so many of your examples are weak. With the relitavely small number of books that CGG has graded, we've certainly found several obvious errors...and I'd bet that the majority of the people in here don't track CGG books nearly as closely as they do CGC books.

[Rickdogg]

public humiliation of those perpetrating such methods.

 

 

[garthgantu]

[

Don't flatter yourself...the day's already 3/4 of the way over and you haven't been right once yet.

 

But I just agreed with you, according to you... how could I agree with you and not be right?

You didn't agree with me. I stated that I said something like that...not the same thing.

 

Imagine that...you being wrong again...what are the odds?

 

Okay, if agreeing with you is even more work than disagreeing with you, do you mind if I go back to disagreeing? Oh wait, I guess I never stopped disagreeing... though I did try...

[ScarFace-migration]

Until you learn how to use the quote feature, I don't think anybody's going to pay much attention to you anyway...not that they will if you do happen to figure it out.

[Zanarkand]

Actually no, it doesn't matter. If you have Amazing Spider-Man #12 in VG/F, you can tell by the data that in four past sales over the last 8 months, the book has always sold for more CGG'd than CGC'd.

Same as if you had ASM #14 in VG-. You can tell that one always sells for more CGC'd than CGG'd. To maximize your final sale prices, a smart bet would be to send #12 to CGG and #14 to CGC. CGG gets you more for #12, CGC gets you more for #14. Why do you care how much more? More is more.

 

But since you asked, books that sold for more CGC'd sold for an average $21.55 more. Books that sold for more CGG'd sold for an average $16.48 more. Both figures adjusted.

 

Actually yes, it does matter. We're looking for trends in general, not necessarily what takes place on a specific book at a specific time (you simply can't predict that specifically). The next CGC sale on a Spider-man #12 could exceed the CGG price...and vice versa on the #14. But if the CGG books are only getting an "adjusted" average of $16.48 more when they command a premium...and the CGC books are getting an "adjusted" average of $21.55 when they command a premium...then the best way to hedge your bet would be to get them CGC graded.

 

I'm beginning to see. You siezing upon the averages and losing the comparison being made here. I'm not playing a guessing games regarding what might happen. This is real live data. I'll try again.

 

$16.48 is the amount an average CGG book exceeded a CGC sale by, when at all. Exceeded. As in, if you had sent that book to CGC to be graded, you would have sold it for $16.48 less. It's called "opportunity cost". Economics 101, I didn't make it up. It means that you sold the CGC'd book for $50 when you could have sold it for $68.48, had it been CGG'd. Your decision to send the book to CGC rather than CGG cost you the opportunity to make an additional $16.48. Get it? It doesn't necessarily mean you lost money, it means you probably didn't make as much as you could have.

 

Similarly, $21.55 is the opportunity cost of sending some books to CGG instead of CGC.

 

Now you can't simply say "Oh good, the opportunity cost is, in the aggregate, less sending the books to CGC. I always submit to them." You don't make decisions in the aggregate. Nobody does. You make decisions one at a time. The aggregate is just how it works out afterwards. Consider the ASMs again.

 

If you send both to CGG, you'll make $16.48 more on one, but oops you'll have to settle for a lower price on the other, making $21.55 less than if you had sent it to CGC. You could still profit, depending on how much you paid for the books in the first place, but you will profit by $21.55 less than you might have.

 

The other way around, if you send both to CGC, you'll make $21.55 more on one, but $16.48 less on the other one than if you had sent it to CGG. Again, you could still profit, but this time by $16.48 less than you might have.

 

Looks like case one is the better way to go, right? But you're not done. Those aren't the only two possibilities. You don't have to send both to the same place.

 

If you send ASM #14 to CGG you end up selling it for $21.55 less than if you had sent it to CGC. Oops, wrong decision. If you send ASM #12 to CGC, you compound your error by selling it for $16.48 less than you could have gotten. Once more, you could have still profited here, this has nothing to do with profit, but you will have profited by $38.03 less than you might have.

 

Last case - ASM #14 goes to CGC. It sells for $21.55 more than if you had sent it to CGG! ASM #12 goes to CGG. It sells for $16.48 more than it might have if it was CGC'd. You profit handsomly, making $21.55, $16.48, and $38.03 more than the other three decisions, respectively.

 

That's all four possibilities, assuming you're going to sell them at all. There's no other possible combination. It is obvious that case four is the best decision.

[garthgantu]

Now what is this bet that you guys are referring to?

I dunno about no stinkin' bet... I DO know better than to place a wager of any kind with Mr. S. Face, however...

 

I'd really much rather talk about whether subs like the Bats 11 can ever be caught, and if so, how..? That's some scary [!@#%^&^], man... if trimmed books can glide right thru the process without raising a red flag, what's next? Pieces added that can't be detected? Where does it end? Between trimming, pressing and cleaning, you can bring a raw VG book up to VF or maybe even better...!!

 

What happens to all YOUR (I'm talking to everyone now) high grade books, when some shmuck down the street can take low-grade tripe and spin it into gold with a book press, exacto knife and a piece of wonder bread? (Okay, a slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.) This could seriously and detrimentally affect the high grade comic book market, especially in terms of scaring off new collectors, speculators, whatever...

[ScarFace-migration]

I'm beginning to see. You siezing upon the averages and losing the comparison being made here. I'm not playing a guessing games regarding what might happen. This is real live data. I'll try again.

 

$16.48 is the amount an average CGG book exceeded a CGC sale by, when at all. Exceeded. As in, if you had sent that book to CGC to be graded, you would have sold it for $16.48 less. It's called "opportunity cost". Economics 101, I didn't make it up. It means that you sold the CGC'd book for $50 when you could have sold it for $68.48, had it been CGG'd. Your decision to send the book to CGC rather than CGG cost you the opportunity to make an additional $16.48. Get it? It doesn't necessarily mean you lost money, it means you probably didn't make as much as you could have.

 

Similarly, $21.55 is the opportunity cost of sending some books to CGG instead of CGC.

 

Now you can't simply say "Oh good, the opportunity cost is, in the aggregate, less sending the books to CGC. I always submit to them." You don't make decisions in the aggregate. Nobody does. You make decisions one at a time. The aggregate is just how it works out afterwards. Consider the ASMs again.

 

If you send both to CGG, you'll make $16.48 more on one, but oops you'll have to settle for a lower price on the other, making $21.55 less than if you had sent it to CGC. You could still profit, depending on how much you paid for the books in the first place, but you will profit by $21.55 less than you might have.

 

The other way around, if you send both to CGC, you'll make $21.55 more on one, but $16.48 less on the other one than if you had sent it to CGG. Again, you could still profit, but this time by $16.48 less than you might have.

 

Looks like case one is the better way to go, right? But you're not done. Those aren't the only two possibilities. You don't have to send both to the same place.

 

If you send ASM #14 to CGG you end up selling it for $21.55 less than if you had sent it to CGC. Oops, wrong decision. If you send ASM #12 to CGC, you compound your error by selling it for $16.48 less than you could have gotten. Once more, you could have still profited here, this has nothing to do with profit, but you will have profited by $38.03 less than you might have.

 

Last case - ASM #14 goes to CGC. It sells for $21.55 more than if you had sent it to CGG! ASM #12 goes to CGG. It sells for $16.48 more than it might have if it was CGC'd. You profit handsomly, making $21.55, $16.48, and $38.03 more than the other three decisions, respectively.

 

That's all four possibilities, assuming you're going to sell them at all. There's no other possible combination. It is obvious that case four is the best decision.

I see exactly what you're saying....it's just that your logic is flawed and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Playing a guessing game regarding what might happen is EXACTLY what you're doing.

 

You are trying to use...in most cases....a single CGG sale to say that that book would always sell at a premium over CGC since it did one time. You CAN'T do that. It makes no sense. It is FLAWED logic.

 

There is no guarantee that that CGG graded Spider-man #12 will sell for more than the CGC graded version like it did the last time. Same thing applies to the #14. There is no guarantee that the CGC graded #14 will sell for more than the CGG version like it did last time. You simply CAN'T predict this with any accuracy based on a single CGG sale. YOU CAN'T DO IT!

 

The ONLY thing you can do is use trends to hedge your bets. Based on the limited data set we were given, we can only assume that about half the books will command a premium from CGG and the other half will command a premium from CGC. That is ALL that we can really tell from that data. You CAN'T predict with accuracy which 50 books will command the premiums the second time around. Is any of this sinking in yet?

 

Since the CGC adjusted premium is $5.07 MORE than the CGG adjusted premium...and since you CAN'T accurately predict the books...the only logical way to hedge you bets based on this data would be to send all the books to CGC. This would...on the average and according to this limited data set...garner you an extra $230 in profit using your 100 book scenario.

 

Can anyone else explain this any simpler for him?

 

[FFB]

Here's my question -- does anyone really think that the CGG books are getting higher bids because they are CGG books rather than CGC books? No way is that true. The reason they are getting higher bids when they do is because at the moment when the auction occurs, there happen to be at least two people who want that book in that condition who are willing to bid higher than the two high bidders on the comparable CGC book that occurs at a different point in time. To do a true comparison, you'd have to ask every CGC buyer what he'd have paid for the CGG book if it had been in a CGG holder, and vice versa for the buyer of the CGG book.

 

The fact that you have significant variances among *CGC* book auction sales when compared to similar books that are *also CGC graded* simply shows you that the market is not as efficient as it could be and that two different copies of the same comic with the same numerical grade are not necessarily fungible, in the way that a bushel of wheat or a barrel of sweet crude oil is. On some days you get two bidders who will bid up to $20K on an Amazing Spider-Man #14 CGC 9.6, and on other days you'll get two who are willing to bid up to $23K on a book with the same numerical grade. The prices realized for a particular grade also do not take into account what the page quality was on the CGC/CGG book or whether the book had miswrap or miscut, or some other production flaw, or whether the seller has crappy (or private!) feedback that scared off other bidders.

 

Ultimately, it's going to take a lot more than 800 CGG sales to have a statistical sample large enough to make a valid comparison, and even then, there's a lot more to buying a comic book than the numerical grade it receives.

 

Actually no, it doesn't matter. If you have Amazing Spider-Man #12 in VG/F, you can tell by the data that in four past sales over the last 8 months, the book has always sold for more CGG'd than CGC'd.

Same as if you had ASM #14 in VG-. You can tell that one always sells for more CGC'd than CGG'd. To maximize your final sale prices, a smart bet would be to send #12 to CGG and #14 to CGC. CGG gets you more for #12, CGC gets you more for #14. Why do you care how much more? More is more.

 

But since you asked, books that sold for more CGC'd sold for an average $21.55 more. Books that sold for more CGG'd sold for an average $16.48 more. Both figures adjusted.

 

Actually yes, it does matter. We're looking for trends in general, not necessarily what takes place on a specific book at a specific time (you simply can't predict that specifically). The next CGC sale on a Spider-man #12 could exceed the CGG price...and vice versa on the #14. But if the CGG books are only getting an "adjusted" average of $16.48 more when they command a premium...and the CGC books are getting an "adjusted" average of $21.55 when they command a premium...then the best way to hedge your bet would be to get them CGC graded.

 

I'm beginning to see. You siezing upon the averages and losing the comparison being made here. I'm not playing a guessing games regarding what might happen. This is real live data. I'll try again.

 

$16.48 is the amount an average CGG book exceeded a CGC sale by, when at all. Exceeded. As in, if you had sent that book to CGC to be graded, you would have sold it for $16.48 less. It's called "opportunity cost". Economics 101, I didn't make it up. It means that you sold the CGC'd book for $50 when you could have sold it for $68.48, had it been CGG'd. Your decision to send the book to CGC rather than CGG cost you the opportunity to make an additional $16.48. Get it? It doesn't necessarily mean you lost money, it means you probably didn't make as much as you could have.

 

Similarly, $21.55 is the opportunity cost of sending some books to CGG instead of CGC.

 

Now you can't simply say "Oh good, the opportunity cost is, in the aggregate, less sending the books to CGC. I always submit to them." You don't make decisions in the aggregate. Nobody does. You make decisions one at a time. The aggregate is just how it works out afterwards. Consider the ASMs again.

 

If you send both to CGG, you'll make $16.48 more on one, but oops you'll have to settle for a lower price on the other, making $21.55 less than if you had sent it to CGC. You could still profit, depending on how much you paid for the books in the first place, but you will profit by $21.55 less than you might have.

 

The other way around, if you send both to CGC, you'll make $21.55 more on one, but $16.48 less on the other one than if you had sent it to CGG. Again, you could still profit, but this time by $16.48 less than you might have.

 

Looks like case one is the better way to go, right? But you're not done. Those aren't the only two possibilities. You don't have to send both to the same place.

 

If you send ASM #14 to CGG you end up selling it for $21.55 less than if you had sent it to CGC. Oops, wrong decision. If you send ASM #12 to CGC, you compound your error by selling it for $16.48 less than you could have gotten. Once more, you could have still profited here, this has nothing to do with profit, but you will have profited by $38.03 less than you might have.

 

Last case - ASM #14 goes to CGC. It sells for $21.55 more than if you had sent it to CGG! ASM #12 goes to CGG. It sells for $16.48 more than it might have if it was CGC'd. You profit handsomly, making $21.55, $16.48, and $38.03 more than the other three decisions, respectively.

 

That's all four possibilities, assuming you're going to sell them at all. There's no other possible combination. It is obvious that case four is the best decision.

[ScarFace-migration]

Now what is this bet that you guys are referring to?

I dunno about no stinkin' bet... I DO know better than to place a wager of any kind with Mr. S. Face, however...

 

I'd really much rather talk about whether subs like the Bats 11 can ever be caught, and if so, how..? That's some scary [!@#%^&^], man... if trimmed books can glide right thru the process without raising a red flag, what's next? Pieces added that can't be detected? Where does it end? Between trimming, pressing and cleaning, you can bring a raw VG book up to VF or maybe even better...!!

 

What happens to all YOUR (I'm talking to everyone now) high grade books, when some shmuck down the street can take low-grade tripe and spin it into gold with a book press, exacto knife and a piece of wonder bread? (Okay, a slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.) This could seriously and detrimentally affect the high grade comic book market, especially in terms of scaring off new collectors, speculators, whatever...

Oh...I'm sorry...we forgot you were there.

[qualitycomix]

Here's a larger scan of the Av. 1.

Click on image to view larger scan

[FFB]

I don't think the high grade market will ever die. It may go through some peaks and valleys, but the peaks will continue to exceed the valleys in my opinion.

 

As for the restoration questions, trimming and pressing/cleaning (without cover removal) can be impossible to detect if done right. CGC does not consider dry cleaning or pressing (without cover removal) to be restoration. Right or wrong, that's the story. Pressing with cover removal is easily detected by looking closely at where the staples wind up, if you know what you're looking for.

 

For trimming, it can be tough to detect because a comic book is already "trimmed" on all three edges at the factory. As long as the amount trimmed by the restorer is kept to a minimum and is done correctly, how can anyone be sure that it happened? There may be no easy answer, except that if CGC starts using an invisible ink (UV detectable) serial number stamp in all graded books and retains scans of those books, it'll be easier to spot subsequent trimming on books with the stamp. Not a perfect solution, but it's a start.

 

But as for the "pieces added" issue -- spotting pieces added is easy for a restoration detection expert who is doing his job properly, and is usually detectable even by normal collectors who know what to look for.

 

I dunno about no stinkin' bet... I DO know better than to place a wager of any kind with Mr. S. Face, however...

 

I'd really much rather talk about whether subs like the Bats 11 can ever be caught, and if so, how..? That's some scary [!@#%^&^], man... if trimmed books can glide right thru the process without raising a red flag, what's next? Pieces added that can't be detected? Where does it end? Between trimming, pressing and cleaning, you can bring a raw VG book up to VF or maybe even better...!!

 

What happens to all YOUR (I'm talking to everyone now) high grade books, when some shmuck down the street can take low-grade tripe and spin it into gold with a book press, exacto knife and a piece of wonder bread? (Okay, a slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.) This could seriously and detrimentally affect the high grade comic book market, especially in terms of scaring off new collectors, speculators, whatever...

[Zanarkand]

To illustrate, imagine if you sent 100 books all to CGC (or all to CGG; doesn't matter). 49 of them will realize higher final sale prices than if you had sent them to CGG, an average $21.55 more. But, 50 of your books would have gotten you more had you sent them to CGG, an average $16.48 more. 1 book will bring the same either way.

 

49 books x $21.55 margin each = $1055.95, and 50 books x -$16.48 margin lost each = -$824. Congrats, you just made $231.95, or about $2.32 margin per book.

 

Exactly my point...$231 is a huge difference.

 

Good, we're on the same page here. But is it maximized...? No.

 

Wouldn't it have been smarter to send 50 to CGC and 50 to CGG, whichever company can bring the highest realized price? $1879.95 margin there!

 

That logic is flawed. Most of the CGG sales information provided was for one single sales sample of each particular book. There is no way you can use that to determine that a particular CGG graded book will always sell for more than it's CGC counterpart. The only thing you can do is look for general trends and hedge your bets as best you can. Sending all the books to CGC would likely get you a $200+ premium when compared to sending them all to CGG. You're trying to use single sales figures for many of the books to suggest that you could send these specific 50 to CGC and these specific 50 to CGG and that's simply ridiculous.

 

You liked the logic just fine when it looked to be to your advantage. But whoops, once it looks like CGG may offer more bang for your buck in some cases, I need to look for general trends, hedge my bets, have flawed logic, etc. Gotcha.

 

And I'm not buying your reason for so easily dismissing the 20% discount that you can get off of CGC submissions. The 20% discount is always available and could have a significant impact on the figures you gave...especially if the CGG books that sold at an "adjusted" premium only did so by a small amount. What are the "varying monthly specials" from CGG that you mentioned?

 

And why do you say the discount only helps CGC's case with the 1975-1977 books? When dealing with "adjusted" figures, the discount would help at all levels.

 

I didn't just make it up, y'know. I just sort of thought it would be apparent.

 

1975 - 1977: (CGG counts as Standard, CGC is still Modern): CGG charges $14, CGC charges $16 ($15 for 10 or more books). After 20% discount, $12.80 ($12).

 

Clearly, that's the only tier that costs less.

 

Ahhhh....but you were using ADJUSTED sales figures....so the discount would still affect all the ADJUSTED numbers at all grading tiers. It would actually DECREASE the CGG "adjusted" premium when they sold for more and would INCREASE the CGC "adjusted" premium when they sold for more. Since you're taking into account the difference in grading fees to get your ADJUSTED figures...then you need to ADJUST for the 20% discount to make the adjusted figures accurate.

 

This is just initial cost. It has nothing to do with the final sale price, which at the initial cost stage we don't know yet. It will affect your profit and probably the aggregate, but we don't know that yet when just comparing price tiers.

 

Of course discounts affect the aggregate. Nobody is disputing that. However, why am I being asked to factor in the CGC discount, but not discounts offered by CGG? Seems like people want the deck stacked a bit. I don't think so.

 

According to their website, CGG has monthly discount offers. I haven't seen anything so far other than 20% off, which is... hey! Isn't that the exact same discount you can get from CGC? Why, it is! I know what I'll do, since everybody's so hot for me to include discounts, and of course everyone wants me to be fair (right?), I'll just factor in both. There. See previous posts.

 

[Zanarkand]

I see exactly what you're saying....it's just that your logic is flawed and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Playing a guessing game regarding what might happen is EXACTLY what you're doing.

 

You are trying to use...in most cases....a single CGG sale to say that that book would always sell at a premium over CGC since it did one time. You CAN'T do that. It makes no sense. It is FLAWED logic.

 

There is no guarantee that that CGG graded Spider-man #12 will sell for more than the CGC graded version like it did the last time. Same thing applies to the #14. There is no guarantee that the CGC graded #14 will sell for more than the CGG version like it did last time. You simply CAN'T predict this with any accuracy based on a single CGG sale. YOU CAN'T DO IT!

 

The ONLY thing you can do is use trends to hedge your bets. Based on the limited data set we were given, we can only assume that about half the books will command a premium from CGG and the other half will command a premium from CGC. That is ALL that we can really tell from that data. You CAN'T predict with accuracy which 50 books will command the premiums the second time around. Is any of this sinking in yet?

 

Absolutely, 100% wrong. In no part of any post have I ever even suggested that the data set supplied by GPA somehow guarantees future results. Past performance never guarantees future results. Everybody knows that. You can't say that for CGG, CGC, Overstreet, the stock market, housing prices, or anything. Maybe ballistics.

 

I have actually gone out of my way, writing lengthy sentences of questionable grammer, to say just the opposite - "This is the case based on this data set". That's all.

 

Since the CGC adjusted premium is $5.07 MORE than the CGG adjusted premium...and since you CAN'T accurately predict the books...the only logical way to hedge you bets based on this data would be to send all the books to CGC. This would...on the average and according to this limited data set...garner you an extra $230 in profit using your 100 book scenario.

 

I'm not even going here. Unless you genuinely, with all comic book grading issues aside, would like an economics lesson.

[ScarFace-migration]

Exactly my point...$231 is a huge difference.

 

Good, we're on the same page here. But is it maximized...? No.

It is based on the limited data set we have to work with. As I've said to you numerous times...you can't predict with any accuracy that a CGG book is going to sell for more than a CGC book next time based on just one sale.

 

You liked the logic just fine when it looked to be to your advantage. But whoops, once it looks like CGG may offer more bang for your buck in some cases, I need to look for general trends, hedge my bets, have flawed logic, etc. Gotcha.

I've never used the flawed logic of saying that one sale would predict the future results for that book from now on. You're the only one that's been ignorant enough to suggest that.

 

And I'm not buying your reason for so easily dismissing the 20% discount that you can get off of CGC submissions. The 20% discount is always available and could have a significant impact on the figures you gave...especially if the CGG books that sold at an "adjusted" premium only did so by a small amount. What are the "varying monthly specials" from CGG that you mentioned?

 

And why do you say the discount only helps CGC's case with the 1975-1977 books? When dealing with "adjusted" figures, the discount would help at all levels.

 

I didn't just make it up, y'know. I just sort of thought it would be apparent.

 

1975 - 1977: (CGG counts as Standard, CGC is still Modern): CGG charges $14, CGC charges $16 ($15 for 10 or more books). After 20% discount, $12.80 ($12).

 

Clearly, that's the only tier that costs less.

 

Ahhhh....but you were using ADJUSTED sales figures....so the discount would still affect all the ADJUSTED numbers at all grading tiers. It would actually DECREASE the CGG "adjusted" premium when they sold for more and would INCREASE the CGC "adjusted" premium when they sold for more. Since you're taking into account the difference in grading fees to get your ADJUSTED figures...then you need to ADJUST for the 20% discount to make the adjusted figures accurate.

 

This is just initial cost. It has nothing to do with the final sale price, which at the initial cost stage we don't know yet. It will affect your profit and probably the aggregate, but we don't know that yet when just comparing price tiers.

Since you seem to be ignoring my posts proving you wrong, I'll just start rehashing them to prove your flawed logic incorrect.

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about when I say that the 20% discount would apply to all ADJUSTED figures.

 

Say you have a 2 identical copies of a 1978 book. One graded by CGG and one graded by CGC.

 

Now say you sold the CGG book for $110 and you sold the CGC book for $115.

 

According to your "ADJUSTED" figures that take out the grading fees...the CGG book made an ADJUSTED premium of $1 over the CGC book.

 

But that is not the case when you figure in the 20% disount off of the CGC grading fees. Applying this discount means that it only cost $12.80 to get the CGC book graded. That's still more than it costs to get the CGG book graded...but NOW the CGC book is making an ADJUSTED premium of $2.20 over it's CGG graded counterpart instead.

 

Of course discounts affect the aggregate. Nobody is disputing that. However, why am I being asked to factor in the CGC discount, but not discounts offered by CGG? Seems like people want the deck stacked a bit. I don't think so.

 

According to their website, CGG has monthly discount offers. I haven't seen anything so far other than 20% off, which is... hey! Isn't that the exact same discount you can get from CGC? Why, it is! I know what I'll do, since everybody's so hot for me to include discounts, and of course everyone wants me to be fair (right?), I'll just factor in both. There. See previous posts.

Sorry...but you're wrong....AGAIN.

 

Here is what CGG's site says:

 

For our new customers we offer a simple discount on your first order when you send in a certain number of books. If you send in 5 or more books from any service on your first order you can take a 10% discount off your total cost of the services. Discount available only on the 1st 30 books!

 

FOR OUR EXISTING CUSTOMERS

 

Send in 5 or more books for the Classic service and take a 20% discount off the total cost of the service.

 

The discount includes the cost of the services only, and not the shipping & handling, or insurance costs. PLEASE NOTE: The discount is good only for 1st 30 books, after 1st 30 books regular cost applies.

 

Their discount would only apply to the first 30 books in your "100 book" scenario...the remaining 70 books sent to CGG would be charged FULL price.

[garthgantu]

As for the restoration questions, trimming and pressing/cleaning (without cover removal) can be impossible to detect if done right. CGC does not consider dry cleaning or pressing (without cover removal) to be restoration. Right or wrong, that's the story. Pressing with cover removal is easily detected by looking closely at where the staples wind up, if you know what you're looking for.

Well, there seems to be some debate on this point as well, with board regulars including FF discussing whether in fact it really IS all that easy to detect pressing in books that are disassembled. The fact that the only cleaning that can be detected is cleaning involving a solvent, seems pretty well established - but I'm not really buying the argument put forth by CGC that "and it just happens, coincidentally, that only the types of cleaning that involve solvents will materially affect the makeup of the book, so that's the form of cleaning that is considered restoration." I've seen some examples of very nice books that have been cleaned - with before and after pics that readily establish the fact they've been cleaned. I would guess from those pics (see good examples in this link ) that the cleaner didn't use Wonderbread, they used something more substantial, and in the process, they removed some of the cover gloss and inks.

 

For trimming, it can be tough to detect because a comic book is already "trimmed" on all three edges at the factory. As long as the amount trimmed by the restorer is kept to a minimum and is done correctly, how can anyone be sure that it happened? There may be no easy answer, except that if CGC starts using an invisible ink (UV detectable) serial number stamp in all graded books and retains scans of those books, it'll be easier to spot subsequent trimming on books with the stamp. Not a perfect solution, but it's a start.

Here's the thing: it was just a few days ago that, if you'd taken a poll of board members asking whether trimming should be considered restoration, the % who'd have answered with an emphatic "Yes!" would have been very high. Now, I'm not so sure. The attitude of many board members seems to be "hey, whatever works, and doesn't rock the boat, is good enough for me." Just because you've got $20,000, or $200,000, or $2 million tied up in CGCed books, doesn't mean you should "settle" for a constantly shifting set of standards as to what is and isn't restoration. Trimming is evil, plain and simple. But if it's determined that CGC can't spot it when done really well, trimming will become rampant, especially among the more questionable elements of our hobby.

 

But as for the "pieces added" issue -- spotting pieces added is easy for a restoration detection expert who is doing his job properly, and is usually detectable even by normal collectors who know what to look for.

Agreed - to some extent. But per my point above, a week ago many people on these boards would have said "spotting trimming is pretty easy, if you know what to look for and have a keen eye and the time to spend scrutinizing the book." Will we still be saying "spotting pieces added is easy...when the first example shows up in the Blue slab (be it CGC, CGG, 3GP or whoever) ?

 

[FFB]

The link to this VG 4.0 copy of Avengers #1 appears to be broken because I can't see it.

Here's a larger scan of the Av. 1.

Click on image to view larger scan

[Rip]

Pieces added, if done very well is very tough to spot.

I know first hand there's a high grade Sups 76 with some amazing work on the spine.

[ScarFace-migration]

Absolutely, 100% wrong. In no part of any post have I ever even suggested that the data set supplied by GPA somehow guarantees future results. Past performance never guarantees future results. Everybody knows that. You can't say that for CGG, CGC, Overstreet, the stock market, housing prices, or anything. Maybe ballistics.

 

I have actually gone out of my way, writing lengthy sentences of questionable grammer, to say just the opposite - "This is the case based on this data set". That's all.

What the hell are you talking about???

 

So all of this drivel you've been spouting is only to be applied to those particular books and previous sales? What the hell good does that do anybody in helping them decide which company would maximize their profits with future submissions? So all that you're saying is that if the people who submitted these actual books had a crystal ball and could see into the future and look at this chart, then they would have been better off sending a specific 50 to CGG and a specific 50 to CGC?

 

Big freaking deal ! ! !

 

If you could read the future, I seriously doubt if you'd be wasting your time trying to see which CGG graded books would make you a profit. And the last time I checked, neither you or any other comic collectors have a crystal ball that allows them to do this anyway. I refuse to believe you're this big of a insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

[garthgantu]

I refuse to believe you're this big of a insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

This is quite a coincidence - 'cause I can't believe anyone is bothering to attempt rational debate with ScarFace at this point! He's never been wrong, He'll never be wrong, why even try to engage him in a conversation? Not only is the only reward "you're wrong, and you're an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to boot," but he provides no substantial information that would make the exercise worthwhile..!! He does occasionally demand such information from others, but when provided, it's ignored, mocked, or otherwise trivialized. I don't see the payoff... does anyone else?