Dishonest Seller

[chrisco37]

Didnt this all come about when a dealer in Washington started messing with the mile high books?A drop of glue a tiny touch of ct and a 9.4 is a 9.6.From what ive been told there were hundreds of these cases.So instead of having(many) MH books reside in a purple lable that made this exception.

 

 

That couldn't be true. It just couldn't be true.

[buttock]

I disagree - Restored books have always been harder to sell.

 

Blue label restored books are the same useless creation as the green label qualified holder. Bookends that should be used to protect the real blue label books.

 

 

Been doing this for over 2 decades and restored has always been a stigma. I'm not sure where this recent concept has come from that restored books are worse off since CGC. That's just not true.

 

And, IMHO, the stigma is appropriate.

 

You can make the argument that the PLOD has added hesitancy to some things like tear seals, split seals, and minor glue/touch up; but I think that's still arbitrary.

[blazingbob]

Sole discretion = It's all about the benjamin's.

 

 

[comicwiz]

With all the sideline discussions, I'm having a hard time keeping track - who's the dishonest one again?

[RockMyAmadeus]

And for the record.

 

Stand across the table with a CGC book in your hand with label notes stating minor color touch and glue and try to convince a customer that it's a blue label "Universal". And we wonder why Dealers have lousy reputations?

 

How about this? At my sole discretion can I determine a book on my wall to be Universal with a tiny amount of color touch or glue. Of course not, I would be selling a restored book as Unrestored which it's not even if I noted it on the label.

 

 

'Amount' should never come into the equation. A book either is...or it isn't restored.

 

And by 'restored', we shouldn't be taking into account the result of the procedures, rather what was done.

 

As Bob has quite rightly said, this was a 'work-around' which avoided the problem of labelling a good number of books from the best collection ever unearthed as 'restored'. Imagine how that would have got a number of 'founder dealers' squealing.

 

There's the answer.

 

 

Anddddd...if I may chime in...this is precisely why CGC needs legitimate competition.

 

 

Of course, if CGC had taken the proper stand on this from the beginning, those squealing founder dealers might not have supported CGC, and thus CGC may not have survived.

 

But now that it has, it's time to recognize this Missouri Compromise for what it is, and do away with it already.

[cheetah]

I think there is a bit of a split perception on restored books. If the work is substantial and done by a professional, there is acceptance of the copy as a book that has been preserved and made better. The price is still considerably less than an unrestored copy but legitimate collectors will look at the book for what it is.

 

Restoration that is perceived to be intended to deceive the buyer into paying more for a book are the ones truely hammered in the court of public opinion. Nobody wants tham at almost any price.

[G.A.tor]

With all the sideline discussions, I'm having a hard time keeping track - who's dishonest again?

benjamin

 

 

[bluechip]

I disagree - Restored books have always been harder to sell.

 

Blue label restored books are the same useless creation as the green label qualified holder. Bookends that should be used to protect the real blue label books.

 

 

Been doing this for over 2 decades and restored has always been a stigma. I'm not sure where this recent concept has come from that restored books are worse off since CGC. That's just not true.

 

And, IMHO, the stigma is appropriate.

 

You can make the argument that the PLOD has added hesitancy to some things like tear seals, split seals, and minor glue/touch up; but I think that's still arbitrary.

 

From what I've seen here and elsewhere, it makes a world of difference that something is or isn't in a label. Especially because authorities have said, for attribution, that the dividing line is the label color and that the label color denotes books that are "not for investment."

 

I am sure you are putting it accurately that, in your experience, there's always been a stigma, especially if you consider it a stigma yourself and you, naturally, therefore, deal often with people who share your views. But the sales figures for restored books prior to purple labelling do not show anything close to the levels they show after. And the sales for books labelled "color touch" in blue labels do not show the same results as books with the same color touch and same notations in purple labels.

 

So, with all respect to your viewpoint, I think your perception that people think of books the same way regardless of the label is colored by your perception that "the stigma is appropriate."

 

If you thought people would stigmatize them to the same level with or without colored labels, then I would expect that you wouldn't mind whether they are, in fact, put in different labels.

 

I believe the same would be true if pressed books were put in special colored labels, or if warehouse finds were put in colored labels, or if books were put in special colored labels for any reason -- especially if the labels were defined as denoting something is "not for investment.:

 

 

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

I personally would love to see a new scale for use in grading books.....Grading can still be a 10-point affair, but the three new categories would be 5-point tiers. In total, a "perfect" comic would rate a total of 25 points.

 

1). Grade (to address the actual, structural grade with no qualifers).

2). Level of Preservation (page and cover whiteness, glossiness, presence of dust or sun shadows, tanning, etc.)

3). Quality of Production (to address items like bindery tears, centering, staple placement, etc).

4). Degree of Originality (to address attempts at conservation, restoration, & alteration of any sort. 1 = extensive restoration, to 5 = completely original).

 

It would be a number-crunchers wet dream...

[RockMyAmadeus]

And for the record.

 

Stand across the table with a CGC book in your hand with label notes stating minor color touch and glue and try to convince a customer that it's a blue label "Universal". And we wonder why Dealers have lousy reputations?

 

How about this? At my sole discretion can I determine a book on my wall to be Universal with a tiny amount of color touch or glue. Of course not, I would be selling a restored book as Unrestored which it's not even if I noted it on the label.

 

 

'Amount' should never come into the equation. A book either is...or it isn't restored.

 

And by 'restored', we shouldn't be taking into account the result of the procedures, rather what was done.

 

As Bob has quite rightly said, this was a 'work-around' which avoided the problem of labelling a good number of books from the best collection ever unearthed as 'restored'. Imagine how that would have got a number of 'founder dealers' squealing.

by technical definition, I completely agree...either something has been added to the book, or it hasn't...

however, it is not brain surgery...it is pretty easy to explain, if someone is interested in knowing, why a 6.5 can get into a blue holder, versus a purple holder...doesn't change the fact that the glue is there, and absolutely value comes into place... I find it hard to believe that any reasonable individual would think that by adding a drop of glue, a book that without it is "worth" $40k, but a book with it is worth $10K?...that is just naive and silly (IMO), so the blue label does indeed help to preseve the value (whether from a mile high collection or any other book)

 

But you realize how ridiculous this argument is, right? That we have conditioned the buyers and sellers of these books to think "BLUE GOOD, PURPLE BAD!!" to such a Pavlovian degree that we have this situation as it is now, instead of constantly and firmly trying to educate the market that not all "PLODs" are created equal.

 

Is the community THAT STUPID that they can't get beyond the way oversimplified color labels and understand the difference in quality, and thus value, of the restoration done? That they don't understand that "small amount of color touch on spine" and an SA/SP designation is farrrr superior to EA/EP with pieces replaced, spine reinforced, cover washed and pages bleached...?

 

No, it's just BLUE GOOD, PURPLE BAD.

 

This is one of the reasons why CGC should never have had colored labels to begin with, by the way....

[bluechip]

so, getting this thread back on track, that filter81 is a real piece, isn't he

 

I like filter, even when thought he's got this nasty habit of buying books from me and getting somebody else to pay five times as much.

 

 

[divad]

Sole discretion = It's all about the benjamin's.

 

 

true dat

[the blob]

On a Captain America 1 I think it is expensive enough and the buyers likely sophisticated enough to go through the analysis of "how much resto/what's the impact, not all PLODs are the same, etc.)...but that's most like not the case for a $500 book where, yes, it's absurd that a book that would be worth $500 without the drop of glue/minor CT is now worth $150 when and equal emount of "shmutz" (compared to glue) and a stray pen mark, that are determined to be accidents, not attempts to alter, might only knock the book down $50 or whatever.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

And for the record.

 

Stand across the table with a CGC book in your hand with label notes stating minor color touch and glue and try to convince a customer that it's a blue label "Universal". And we wonder why Dealers have lousy reputations?

 

How about this? At my sole discretion can I determine a book on my wall to be Universal with a tiny amount of color touch or glue. Of course not, I would be selling a restored book as Unrestored which it's not even if I noted it on the label.

 

 

'Amount' should never come into the equation. A book either is...or it isn't restored.

 

And by 'restored', we shouldn't be taking into account the result of the procedures, rather what was done.

 

As Bob has quite rightly said, this was a 'work-around' which avoided the problem of labelling a good number of books from the best collection ever unearthed as 'restored'. Imagine how that would have got a number of 'founder dealers' squealing.

by technical definition, I completely agree...either something has been added to the book, or it hasn't...

however, it is not brain surgery...it is pretty easy to explain, if someone is interested in knowing, why a 6.5 can get into a blue holder, versus a purple holder...doesn't change the fact that the glue is there, and absolutely value comes into place... I find it hard to believe that any reasonable individual would think that by adding a drop of glue, a book that without it is "worth" $40k, but a book with it is worth $10K?...that is just naive and silly (IMO), so the blue label does indeed help to preseve the value (whether from a mile high collection or any other book)

 

But you realize how ridiculous this argument is, right? That we have conditioned the buyers and sellers of these books to think "BLUE GOOD, PURPLE BAD!!" to such a Pavlovian degree that we have this situation as it is now, instead of constantly and firmly trying to educate the market that not all "PLODs" are created equal.

 

Is the community THAT STUPID that they can't get beyond the way oversimplified color labels and understand the difference in quality, and thus value, of the restoration done? That they don't understand that "small amount of color touch on spine" and an SA/SP designation is farrrr superior to EA/EP with pieces replaced, spine reinforced, cover washed and pages bleached...?

 

No, it's just BLUE GOOD, PURPLE BAD.

 

This is one of the reasons why CGC should never have had colored labels to begin with, by the way....

 

I firmly believe I paid what I did for my TOS # 39 8.5 (GLOD) in part due to the fact that a certain percentage of the buying public won't even consider a Green Label book....so yes, the colored labels make a difference. Yet, I can resubmit the book and get a 7.0 Blue label, and it instantly doubles in value. Go figure.

[RockMyAmadeus]

By the way....to all you guys saying restored books are "harder to sell"...

 

No they're not.

 

I'll happily and gladly buy every single restored GA book anyone has, so long as the price is right.

 

Every single one. You have a restored Bats #6, for $20? I'll buy it and be ecstatic.

 

No, restored books are "harder to sell at the prices people want them to be worth." THAT'S the real issue.

 

There is a substantial market for restored books, so long as the price is right and restoration is disclosed.

 

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

By the way....to all you guys saying restored books are "harder to sell"...

 

No they're not.

 

I'll happily and gladly buy every single restored GA book anyone has, so long as the price is right.

 

Every single one. You have a restored Bats #6, for $20? I'll buy it and be ecstatic.

 

No, restored books are "harder to sell at the prices people want them to be worth." THAT'S the real issue.

 

There is a substantial market for restored books, so long as the price is right and restoration is disclosed.

 

 

BTW, I keep quoting RMA for one reason only....his sound reasoning shouldn't be missed just because half of the Board has him on Ignore.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And for the record.

 

Stand across the table with a CGC book in your hand with label notes stating minor color touch and glue and try to convince a customer that it's a blue label "Universal". And we wonder why Dealers have lousy reputations?

 

How about this? At my sole discretion can I determine a book on my wall to be Universal with a tiny amount of color touch or glue. Of course not, I would be selling a restored book as Unrestored which it's not even if I noted it on the label.

 

 

'Amount' should never come into the equation. A book either is...or it isn't restored.

 

And by 'restored', we shouldn't be taking into account the result of the procedures, rather what was done.

 

As Bob has quite rightly said, this was a 'work-around' which avoided the problem of labelling a good number of books from the best collection ever unearthed as 'restored'. Imagine how that would have got a number of 'founder dealers' squealing.

by technical definition, I completely agree...either something has been added to the book, or it hasn't...

however, it is not brain surgery...it is pretty easy to explain, if someone is interested in knowing, why a 6.5 can get into a blue holder, versus a purple holder...doesn't change the fact that the glue is there, and absolutely value comes into place... I find it hard to believe that any reasonable individual would think that by adding a drop of glue, a book that without it is "worth" $40k, but a book with it is worth $10K?...that is just naive and silly (IMO), so the blue label does indeed help to preseve the value (whether from a mile high collection or any other book)

 

But you realize how ridiculous this argument is, right? That we have conditioned the buyers and sellers of these books to think "BLUE GOOD, PURPLE BAD!!" to such a Pavlovian degree that we have this situation as it is now, instead of constantly and firmly trying to educate the market that not all "PLODs" are created equal.

 

Is the community THAT STUPID that they can't get beyond the way oversimplified color labels and understand the difference in quality, and thus value, of the restoration done? That they don't understand that "small amount of color touch on spine" and an SA/SP designation is farrrr superior to EA/EP with pieces replaced, spine reinforced, cover washed and pages bleached...?

 

No, it's just BLUE GOOD, PURPLE BAD.

 

This is one of the reasons why CGC should never have had colored labels to begin with, by the way....

 

I firmly believe I paid what I did for my TOS # 39 8.5 (GLOD) in part due to the fact that a certain percentage of the buying public won't even consider a Green Label book....so yes, the colored labels make a difference. Yet, I can resubmit the book and get a 7.0 Blue label, and it instantly doubles in value. Go figure.

 

If I had lots of money in the bank, and I could buy restored and qualified books for fractions of their "universal" compatriots, I'd do it all day long (and have.) If the market as a whole is so short-sighted about label colors (and we know they are), then I will gladly take advantage of that short-sightedness (as you have) to my benefit.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

By the way....to all you guys saying restored books are "harder to sell"...

 

No they're not.

 

I'll happily and gladly buy every single restored GA book anyone has, so long as the price is right.

 

Every single one. You have a restored Bats #6, for $20? I'll buy it and be ecstatic.

 

No, restored books are "harder to sell at the prices people want them to be worth." THAT'S the real issue.

 

There is a substantial market for restored books, so long as the price is right and restoration is disclosed.

 

 

BTW, I'm keep quoting RMA for one reason only....his sound reasoning shouldn't be missed just because half of the Board has him on Ignore.

 

 

Hey!

 

It's not half....!

 

It's more like 2/3. (But the ones who matter don't have me on ignore anyways.)

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

What did he say that time?

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's simple commerce. Price meets point.

 

And yet, when other forumites take this approach, they are ridiculed for being a tool. There was a board member that ended up leaving here as a regular participant because he priced a Danger Girl 1 Platinum CGC 9.8 very high due to he wasn't in a rush to part with it. He was called out on it. Then, someone bought it, so now he was shilling his Ebay account (on a Buy Now no less - because that's what you shill. ).

 

Go figure!

 

He was ridiculed because the very first line in his ebay description was "This book is not for sale".

 

And then he had his neighbor hit the BIN to prove to us that his insane price was, in fact, reasonable.

 

And it was, in fact, a Danger Girl #2 Ruby Red 9.8. Defending Bcruze, a known shiller who is mentally unstable, doesn't do you credit, Bossy.

 

I know, details aren't Bosco's strength.

 

(thumbs u