Unrestored Blue Label

[Illiterati-migration]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

BOC am I a Acolyte

 

No, you are AN acolyte.

[greggy]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

BOC am I a Acolyte

 

No, you are AN acolyte.

[blowout]

I wonder if their graders are "blind" to who the submitters are.

 

They are SUPPOSED to be.

[blowout]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

BOC am I a Acolyte

 

No, you are AN acolyte.

 

[RS]

Paging Mr.Lighthouse Paging Mr.Lighthouse He has not answered CGG's call to get a FREE Grade

[RS]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

BOC am I an Acolyte

 

No, you are AN acolyte.

 

Thanks MajorKhaos

[DiceX]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

It's only a good thing....if CGG isn't grading my books.

 

If CGG is presently stricter than CGC, than collectors can buy CGG 9.4s for discounted prices...and re-submit them to CGC for 9.6s.($$$$$)

 

If they are doing this to try to pick up business, they will give an honest grade.

Too strict will kill them just like being to forgiving.

 

One thing's for sure...If they grade too strictly, I can't say that I'd use them again.

It would be in their favor to grade fairly.

We'll see how it turns out.

[Illiterati-migration]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

BOC am I an Acolyte

 

No, you are AN acolyte.

 

Thanks MajorKhaos

 

That's ENGLISH Major Khaos.

[RS]

Not sure is stricter is necessarily better. Since we're submitting books previously graded by CGC....I would think that CGG would prefer to give the books the same grade.

I dunno, all I keep hearing from the CGG Acolytes is that they grade stricter than CGC like it's a good thing.

 

BOC am I an Acolyte

 

No, you are AN acolyte.

 

Thanks MajorKhaos

 

That's ENGLISH Major Khaos.

[lighthouse]

Paging Mr.Lighthouse Paging Mr.Lighthouse He has not answered CGG's call to get a FREE Grade

 

There is a reason for that. I have too much pride in the reputation I have on this forum to give a flippant response to Mr Patterson's email/post. But I have not yet decided if it is worth the time and effort provide a real reply. Contrary to popular belief, my nine-page posts do require some effort on my part. If that effort just results in a flame war I don't see a point in it. There are some real issues with CGG's business model and I am far from the only poster here that is aware of them. But I question whether there is a real incentive for me (or any other forumite) to start giving CGG advice on how to be more profitable.

 

There are many people in this group whose business acumen would be valuable to CGG (or any other new business). But that acumen came at a price, and giving it away lightly is not a good strategy. You won't see Wal-Mart teaching mom-and-pop grocers how to be more efficient. You won't see Herb Kelleher teaching start-up airlines how to design their routes. You won't see BlazingBob teaching dealers where to buy high grade collections. You won't see FlyingDonut teaching eBay sellers how to move comics that aren't "hot".

 

I give a lot of advice to prospective comic shop owners. Most of it I do without charge. There are several reasons why I do so. Teaching someone else reinforces my own knowledge. Goodwill is always valuable. Networking is more important than many people realize. And, for the good of the industry, I don't want to see "bad" shops... But the knowledge I give away for free is all pretty basic knowledge (at least to me). If someone wants to know exactly how I place my orders, how I determine my traffic flows inside the store, which demographics I monitor most closely, how I choose my advertising, what algorithm I use to price my books, etc... that knowledge isn't free.

 

I can't pick stocks as well as BlazingBob, I can't manage a bank merger like dam60, I can't write nine-figure government contracts like FlyingDonut, I can't write porn like Joanna, I can't diagnose psychological problems like silverandbronze, I can't sell medical supplies as well as Bugaboo... We all have skills and knowledge that we paid dearly for, and those of us whose knowledge dovetails with the flaws in CGG's business model have to question whether it makes sense to give that knowledge away. There are twenty people logged on to this forum right now who could each list twenty things CGG is doing wrong... But why should they?

 

Should I tell my local jeweler the fifteen things I know of that he is doing wrong? Or should I just not recommend him to my friends and wait for him to go out of business and be replaced by a better firm? My degree is in Economics, and that training tells me that society is better off if his firm is replaced. I have an obligation to my friends to warn them if I feel there may be a downside for them of doing business with him, but I don't have an obligation to show the jeweler how to run his business better...

[FFB]

Fair points you make and you certainly have a right not to teach your local competitors how to beat you at your own game, but I think that there is some genuine good that we can do for the hobby as a whole by helping a fledgling grading service to become a more legitimate and better grading service. CGC will certainly provide better service to us if it is faced with real competition from a contender, and thus, we benefit from having a stronger CGG to compete with CGC, even if, like me, we don't actually send books to CGG or buy CGG books for our own collections. Think about it that way.

[BachelorOfComix]

They basically just leech off CGC for their business model.

[Smokinghawk]

Yeah but man, they're not pumping you for business advice about profitability. They're offering you a free sample of service on the condition that you report whether or not you find their service and product to be satisfactory.

 

Dress that up how you want, but I don't see some noble reason for rejecting the offer. At least take them up on it and then bash them, if that's the honest conclusion, or acknowledge that it was actually a decent service. But I don't think it's fair to write all sorts of commentary first, and then actively avoid actually experiencing the service you're commenting about, or retreat into a sudden moral silence when they try to go directly to you about the issues you raise. I have been critical of CGG in the past too, but I did so as an actual customer who gave it a try so I'd be speaking with credible experience, and not just prejudice--same with 3PG and CGC as well. And heck, we've ALL been harsh on CGC a few times, and yet I think they're excellent!

 

And not to take a side here, but you've had plenty of flippant posts about CGG and other topics in the past, so why the sudden withdrawal when they make an offer to give you a free try?

[Smokinghawk]

They basically just leech off CGC for their business model.

 

...Agreed, which is a perfectly fair and commonplace business practice in free market economies like ours. Or does everyone here only use Apple computers (but not Windows!), read DC comics (but not Marvel!*), or drive Fords (but not Chevys or imports!)?

 

Don't let brand loyalty prevent you from accessing capable alternative products and services.

 

 

*Ian's not allowed to respond to this.

[lighthouse]

.....Warning. This is a long post. Even for me. And there isn't a single graemlin. You have been warned..... And smokinghawk, I trust that you will recognize that after the first couple questions this isn't directed at you personally....

 

(Rearranging the order of your questions because it makes more sense for my reply)

 

And not to take a side here, but you've had plenty of flippant posts about CGG and other topics in the past, so why the sudden withdrawal when they make an offer to give you a free try?

 

I think anyone who has been on this forum for a while knows what kind of a poster I am. I try very hard to match the tone of an ongoing thread. I give serious responses to serious questions, and when a thread goes fruity I am happy to join in the fruitiness. But I try not to mix the two. Read through my post history and you'll find plenty of talk about strippers and porn and sports and flowerbeds and pinball machines and road trips from hell. But I also won the Most Informative Poster award last year, and I didn't get those votes for my porn insight. When I have an opportunity to help the industry, the collecting community, and my fellow forumites by providing some information in a well-thought-out post I am happy to take the time to do it. I have learned a tremendous amount from the fine people here, and I feel I owe it to them to give back when I can.

 

Mr Patterson's post/email was hardly flippant, and it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to start slinging "yo mama" jokes.

 

Yeah but man, they're not pumping you for business advice about profitability. They're offering you a free sample of service on the condition that you report whether or not you find their service and product to be satisfactory.

 

I own a CGG book. So it's not as though I am unfamiliar with the grading or the holder.

 

Dress that up how you want, but I don't see some noble reason for rejecting the offer. At least take them up on it and then bash them, if that's the honest conclusion, or acknowledge that it was actually a decent service. But I don't think it's fair to write all sorts of commentary first, and then actively avoid actually experiencing the service you're commenting about, or retreat into a sudden moral silence when they try to go directly to you about the issues you raise. I have been critical of CGG in the past too, but I did so as an actual customer who gave it a try so I'd be speaking with credible experience, and not just prejudice--same with 3PG and CGC as well. And heck, we've ALL been harsh on CGC a few times, and yet I think they're excellent!

 

The difference is that there is nothing I could learn by submitting one book to CGG. Steve Borock will tell you flat out that he doesn't grade any better than you do. That's not what you are buying when you submit a book for third-party grading. You could send your books to greggy or drbanner or rickdogg or bronzebruce13 or darthdiesel or blazingbob or metropolis and ask them to grade the books for you. The results you would get wouldn't be any worse than you get by Steve and the boys grading your book. You are not paying for the privilege of having someone grade your book because they are better than you are at grading.

 

You could make a small case that when you submit a book for third-party grading you are buying a better holder for the book. I suppose in some instances that's a valid argument. But for most of us the books are fine in a Mylar of some sort with an acid-free board of some sort.

 

There are two things you actually DO buy when you submit a book for third-party grading:

 

First, you buy authentication, which includes restoration detection. You pay for the an "expert" to validate that the item is what it purports to be, that it is not a forgery, and that no deception has been used to affect its apparent condition. You buy an impartial opinion as to the authenticity of the item.

 

Second, you buy liquidity, or at least the perception of liquidity. The encapsulation of a book inside a holder doesn't change the condition of the book. You can always take the book out later if you so desire and it will still be the same book it was when it was inside the holder. A high grade Spidey 129 will still be a high grade Spidey 129 whether it is in a bag or a mylar or a Fortress or a slab. Given time and effort, you could get just as much money for the book in a mylar as you could in a slab. You would have to show the book to a lot of prospective buyers, and you would spend a lot of time negotiating the value. You might have to build personal relationships with some of the major dealers and collectors to have a chance to meet with them so they could see the book in person. Having a book graded by a third-party speeds up that process. More of those customers will be willing to buy the book sight unseen, and others will agree to see it in the first place because they perceive that it should be close enough to the standards they expect a book to meet.

 

The liquidity you buy is based on two factors, the perceived consistency of the grades, and the perceived reliability of the authentication. It is completely irrelevant whether they grade stricter than CGC or looser than CGC, that doesn't matter one iota. Look at the graded card market and the various companies don't even use the same scale. The buying public eventually develops their own "conversion" scale that says a 9.2 from XYZ is the same as a B+ from ABC which is the same as a T-4 from PQR. So strict and loose is irrelevant. The important thing for liquidity is the consistency. Buyers need to know that a B+ from 2002 is the same as a B+ from 2005. There will always be slight variances, but if those variances get too large, the liquidity evaporates.

 

The perceived reliability of the authentication is even more important to the liquidity. It's the single most important factor in a third-party grading company. More important than the pricing, the turnaround times, the holder, the grading strictness, even the grading consistency. If a comic is sealed in a holder you can still compare the grade with the condition you see. If a grading company got a rep for inconsistent grading, the books would still sell, buyers would just be more demanding about seeing clear scans so they could tell if a book was a "good" 9.4 or a "bad" 9.4. But a reputation for unreliable authentication is a deathknell for a grading company. Most restoration is not detectable through a slab, and if the only way a customer feels good about the authentication is to break it out of a slab, there is no point in it being in a slab in the first place.

 

Because of the nature of slabbing, if a company's reputation for authentication suddenly declines, it doesn't just affect the new submissions. It affects every single person who owns a book in that company's slab. Thousands of customers can suddenly suffer months or years after their initial purchase. When word spreads that the authentication is unreliable, the liquidity that was paid for is gone. Whether it was bought from the grading company directly or purchased from a dealer on an eBay auction, it's still gone.

 

Chris Friesen is the single most important person working at CGC. And he would be the hardest person for CGC to replace. And frankly, I doubt Steve Borock would argue that point. Can Chris miss restoration? Of course he can. And he has. But it happens so rarely that the liquidity of CGC books remains extremely high. When I bid on a CGC copy of Batman 232, I know there is a very small chance that restoration was missed on the book and so do the other bidders. But we also know that if we win, and choose to resell the book, there will still be bidders who believe the chance is just as small as I did when I bought the book.

 

That just isn't the case with CGG. Their reputation for authentication is already suspect, and they have done little to improve it. They don't openly disclose who is checking the books for restoration. There isn't even an indication whether it's the same person as it was in the beginning, whether that person plans to be there for a while. The don't disclose the qualifications of the person checking the books. Daniel Patterson stated at the Portland show that they were contracting with a local guy to do their restoration checks for them. That was as much information as was given, and he indicated they were only doing it on books where it was needed.

 

I don't have a personal beef with Daniel Patterson. The guys from CGG seem nice enough. They all shop at Darrell Grimes' store in Eugene, and Darrell has been around a very long time and knows a lot about the comic business. Mr Patterson started the CGG company on September 23rd 2002, and I have no doubt that during the six months before they were "outed" on the forum they were doing their best to put together a good company. I grew up in Eugene, and the folks there are good people. But even good people can make terrible mistakes.

 

My real concern isn't about them running off with people's books. That sort of thing has happened before, but I have talked to Mr Patterson no less than six times without him having any idea who I was, and I don't get that vibe off of him at all. There are some crooks in Eugene, including at least one of CGG's customers, but I haven't gotten that sense from Mr Patterson. What IS my concern, is that by not protecting the integrity of their process well enough, they have the potential to do a tremendous amount of damage to the comic book industry.

 

There are two ways CGG can be responsible for havoc in the industry:

 

First, by leaving room for doubt about their authentication process they increase the chances that at some point in the future the market for the products will see a catastrophic decline, becoming illiquid overnight. Problems of this nature snowball, and if they aren't dealt with immediately and decisively they will bury the company. Once the perception reaches a certain threshold there is no room in the marketplace for that company any longer. Arthur Andersen was a fine accounting firm. And they had thousands of clients who received the highest quality of service. But when the Enron scandal broke, the company's reputation evaporated overnight. Even if 99.99% of the clients were receiving service that was above board, the perception changed and the company died.

 

But if CGG suffers that fate it won't be CGG who will be hurt. CGG will have already received its revenues, they provided a product, they can't even be sued. The ones hurt will be the people who own the products. And some of those people will likely leave collecting altogether as a result. Every time a retail shop closes its doors there are collectors who disappear from the marketplace and never come back. It wouldn't be any different with CGG. And the more products they sell the more people will be affected. Those collectors will be hurt, and the dealers who could have continued selling them products will be hurt as well. Customers get angry now when no one is interested in books they paid cover price for. Imagine how angry they will be when no one is interested in books they paid $15 to slab... When your real product is liquidity, it better be something you can offer...

 

Second, CGG has done nothing to protect their market share. I'm sure the three of you who actually read this far are wondering why in the world CGG not protecting their market share could cause havoc in the industry. CGG hasn't done enough to establish barriers to entry to prevent competitors from taking their customers. And worse, they have set the bar for competition low enough that we may see some truly horrible firms trying to join in the fray. If CGG is profitable without establishing barriers to entry, it encourages inferior companies to try to compete for those dollars.

 

It's very difficult to start your own airline, and that's a good thing. It's pretty difficult to start your own restaurant, and that's also a good thing. We don't want inferior airlines crashing planes and we don't want inferior restaurants poisoning people. I have joked off and on that greggy and I could replicate everything CGG has done for less than $1500 and forty man-hours. While that is an exaggeration, it's not as much of one as it should be. Not only should CGG be worried that someone else can come in and take away their customers, the rest of us should be worried too. Because if the marketplace accepts CGG not releasing the names of its graders, not detailing the qualifications of its restoration detection team, not having impeccable bonding and insurance, not having state of the art security, not having a great rating from Dun and Bradstreet... if the marketplace accepts CGG with all those flaws, then it will likely also accept a firm with all those flaws that is run by someone who isn't as good a person as Daniel Patterson. By pushing for marketplace acceptance of their company with those flaws, CGG is also pushing for marketplace acceptance of any other company that has those same flaws. The more they preach that they are a good company, the stronger of a case they make that any other company that comes along is too...

 

It's no different from a cab driver asking you to accept that his license isn't posted on the seat and his car doesn't have seatbelts and the door doesn't latch quite right and his tires are bald and it's still okay to ride with him. The fact is, if he's a good driver it probably will be okay. Even if he is a mediocre driver it will probably be okay for a while. But by asking the customer base to accept that as the new standard, he also asks you to accept the guy parked behind him whose car looks just like his. And that guy behind him might be blind in one eye or planning to rob you and you would never know. It doesn't matter if twenty other people have ridden in that cab and gotten there safely. You still want a cab that demands a higher standard, and you should expect a third-party grading company that demands a higher standard as well.

 

Lighthouse

[Aces]

If I read all that will you send me a free TBP?

[blowout]

Because if the marketplace accepts CGG not releasing the names of its graders, not detailing the qualifications of its restoration detection team, not having impeccable bonding and insurance, not having state of the art security, not having a great rating from Dun and Bradstreet... if the marketplace accepts CGG with all those flaws, then it will likely also accept a firm with all those flaws that is run by someone who isn't as good a person as Daniel Patterson.

 

I think (hopefully) the Marketplace is a long way from accepting CGG, but you do raise some good points about the possible harm they may do to the hobby. I wouldn't like to see collectors disappearing from the hobby after getting burned by an unreliable product. On the other hand I would like to think that new and returning collectors, when dipping their feet into the graded comics market, would get themselves as informed as possible first.

 

This website and these forums are a great place to start.

[JLA_ALL_THE_WAY]

Well put, 'house. You're very articulate in your explanations and justifications and the way you express your side of this discuss...

 

Oh who am I kidding--- I didn't read it. But I'll take your word for it. I promise.

 

And I copied it just in case anyone missed it. You all can thank me later.

 

I'm going to bed.

 

.....Warning. This is a long post. Even for me. And there isn't a single graemlin. You have been warned..... And smokinghawk, I trust that you will recognize that after the first couple questions this isn't directed at you personally....

 

(Rearranging the order of your questions because it makes more sense for my reply)

 

And not to take a side here, but you've had plenty of flippant posts about CGG and other topics in the past, so why the sudden withdrawal when they make an offer to give you a free try?

 

I think anyone who has been on this forum for a while knows what kind of a poster I am. I try very hard to match the tone of an ongoing thread. I give serious responses to serious questions, and when a thread goes fruity I am happy to join in the fruitiness. But I try not to mix the two. Read through my post history and you'll find plenty of talk about strippers and porn and sports and flowerbeds and pinball machines and road trips from hell. But I also won the Most Informative Poster award last year, and I didn't get those votes for my porn insight. When I have an opportunity to help the industry, the collecting community, and my fellow forumites by providing some information in a well-thought-out post I am happy to take the time to do it. I have learned a tremendous amount from the fine people here, and I feel I owe it to them to give back when I can.

 

Mr Patterson's post/email was hardly flippant, and it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to start slinging "yo mama" jokes.

 

Yeah but man, they're not pumping you for business advice about profitability. They're offering you a free sample of service on the condition that you report whether or not you find their service and product to be satisfactory.

 

I own a CGG book. So it's not as though I am unfamiliar with the grading or the holder.

 

Dress that up how you want, but I don't see some noble reason for rejecting the offer. At least take them up on it and then bash them, if that's the honest conclusion, or acknowledge that it was actually a decent service. But I don't think it's fair to write all sorts of commentary first, and then actively avoid actually experiencing the service you're commenting about, or retreat into a sudden moral silence when they try to go directly to you about the issues you raise. I have been critical of CGG in the past too, but I did so as an actual customer who gave it a try so I'd be speaking with credible experience, and not just prejudice--same with 3PG and CGC as well. And heck, we've ALL been harsh on CGC a few times, and yet I think they're excellent!

 

The difference is that there is nothing I could learn by submitting one book to CGG. Steve Borock will tell you flat out that he doesn't grade any better than you do. That's not what you are buying when you submit a book for third-party grading. You could send your books to greggy or drbanner or rickdogg or bronzebruce13 or darthdiesel or blazingbob or metropolis and ask them to grade the books for you. The results you would get wouldn't be any worse than you get by Steve and the boys grading your book. You are not paying for the privilege of having someone grade your book because they are better than you are at grading.

 

You could make a small case that when you submit a book for third-party grading you are buying a better holder for the book. I suppose in some instances that's a valid argument. But for most of us the books are fine in a Mylar of some sort with an acid-free board of some sort.

 

There are two things you actually DO buy when you submit a book for third-party grading:

 

First, you buy authentication, which includes restoration detection. You pay for the an "expert" to validate that the item is what it purports to be, that it is not a forgery, and that no deception has been used to affect its apparent condition. You buy an impartial opinion as to the authenticity of the item.

 

Second, you buy liquidity, or at least the perception of liquidity. The encapsulation of a book inside a holder doesn't change the condition of the book. You can always take the book out later if you so desire and it will still be the same book it was when it was inside the holder. A high grade Spidey 129 will still be a high grade Spidey 129 whether it is in a bag or a mylar or a Fortress or a slab. Given time and effort, you could get just as much money for the book in a mylar as you could in a slab. You would have to show the book to a lot of prospective buyers, and you would spend a lot of time negotiating the value. You might have to build personal relationships with some of the major dealers and collectors to have a chance to meet with them so they could see the book in person. Having a book graded by a third-party speeds up that process. More of those customers will be willing to buy the book sight unseen, and others will agree to see it in the first place because they perceive that it should be close enough to the standards they expect a book to meet.

 

The liquidity you buy is based on two factors, the perceived consistency of the grades, and the perceived reliability of the authentication. It is completely irrelevant whether they grade stricter than CGC or looser than CGC, that doesn't matter one iota. Look at the graded card market and the various companies don't even use the same scale. The buying public eventually develops their own "conversion" scale that says a 9.2 from XYZ is the same as a B+ from ABC which is the same as a T-4 from PQR. So strict and loose is irrelevant. The important thing for liquidity is the consistency. Buyers need to know that a B+ from 2002 is the same as a B+ from 2005. There will always be slight variances, but if those variances get too large, the liquidity evaporates.

 

The perceived reliability of the authentication is even more important to the liquidity. It's the single most important factor in a third-party grading company. More important than the pricing, the turnaround times, the holder, the grading strictness, even the grading consistency. If a comic is sealed in a holder you can still compare the grade with the condition you see. If a grading company got a rep for inconsistent grading, the books would still sell, buyers would just be more demanding about seeing clear scans so they could tell if a book was a "good" 9.4 or a "bad" 9.4. But a reputation for unreliable authentication is a deathknell for a grading company. Most restoration is not detectable through a slab, and if the only way a customer feels good about the authentication is to break it out of a slab, there is no point in it being in a slab in the first place.

 

Because of the nature of slabbing, if a company's reputation for authentication suddenly declines, it doesn't just affect the new submissions. It affects every single person who owns a book in that company's slab. Thousands of customers can suddenly suffer months or years after their initial purchase. When word spreads that the authentication is unreliable, the liquidity that was paid for is gone. Whether it was bought from the grading company directly or purchased from a dealer on an eBay auction, it's still gone.

 

Chris Friesen is the single most important person working at CGC. And he would be the hardest person for CGC to replace. And frankly, I doubt Steve Borock would argue that point. Can Chris miss restoration? Of course he can. And he has. But it happens so rarely that the liquidity of CGC books remains extremely high. When I bid on a CGC copy of Batman 232, I know there is a very small chance that restoration was missed on the book and so do the other bidders. But we also know that if we win, and choose to resell the book, there will still be bidders who believe the chance is just as small as I did when I bought the book.

 

That just isn't the case with CGG. Their reputation for authentication is already suspect, and they have done little to improve it. They don't openly disclose who is checking the books for restoration. There isn't even an indication whether it's the same person as it was in the beginning, whether that person plans to be there for a while. The don't disclose the qualifications of the person checking the books. Daniel Patterson stated at the Portland show that they were contracting with a local guy to do their restoration checks for them. That was as much information as was given, and he indicated they were only doing it on books where it was needed.

 

I don't have a personal beef with Daniel Patterson. The guys from CGG seem nice enough. They all shop at Darrell Grimes' store in Eugene, and Darrell has been around a very long time and knows a lot about the comic business. Mr Patterson started the CGG company on September 23rd 2002, and I have no doubt that during the six months before they were "outed" on the forum they were doing their best to put together a good company. I grew up in Eugene, and the folks there are good people. But even good people can make terrible mistakes.

 

My real concern isn't about them running off with people's books. That sort of thing has happened before, but I have talked to Mr Patterson no less than six times without him having any idea who I was, and I don't get that vibe off of him at all. There are some crooks in Eugene, including at least one of CGG's customers, but I haven't gotten that sense from Mr Patterson. What IS my concern, is that by not protecting the integrity of their process well enough, they have the potential to do a tremendous amount of damage to the comic book industry.

 

There are two ways CGG can be responsible for havoc in the industry:

 

First, by leaving room for doubt about their authentication process they increase the chances that at some point in the future the market for the products will see a catastrophic decline, becoming illiquid overnight. Problems of this nature snowball, and if they aren't dealt with immediately and decisively they will bury the company. Once the perception reaches a certain threshold there is no room in the marketplace for that company any longer. Arthur Andersen was a fine accounting firm. And they had thousands of clients who received the highest quality of service. But when the Enron scandal broke, the company's reputation evaporated overnight. Even if 99.99% of the clients were receiving service that was above board, the perception changed and the company died.

 

But if CGG suffers that fate it won't be CGG who will be hurt. CGG will have already received its revenues, they provided a product, they can't even be sued. The ones hurt will be the people who own the products. And some of those people will likely leave collecting altogether as a result. Every time a retail shop closes its doors there are collectors who disappear from the marketplace and never come back. It wouldn't be any different with CGG. And the more products they sell the more people will be affected. Those collectors will be hurt, and the dealers who could have continued selling them products will be hurt as well. Customers get angry now when no one is interested in books they paid cover price for. Imagine how angry they will be when no one is interested in books they paid $15 to slab... When your real product is liquidity, it better be something you can offer...

 

Second, CGG has done nothing to protect their market share. I'm sure the three of you who actually read this far are wondering why in the world CGG not protecting their market share could cause havoc in the industry. CGG hasn't done enough to establish barriers to entry to prevent competitors from taking their customers. And worse, they have set the bar for competition low enough that we may see some truly horrible firms trying to join in the fray. If CGG is profitable without establishing barriers to entry, it encourages inferior companies to try to compete for those dollars.

 

It's very difficult to start your own airline, and that's a good thing. It's pretty difficult to start your own restaurant, and that's also a good thing. We don't want inferior airlines crashing planes and we don't want inferior restaurants poisoning people. I have joked off and on that greggy and I could replicate everything CGG has done for less than $1500 and forty man-hours. While that is an exaggeration, it's not as much of one as it should be. Not only should CGG be worried that someone else can come in and take away their customers, the rest of us should be worried too. Because if the marketplace accepts CGG not releasing the names of its graders, not detailing the qualifications of its restoration detection team, not having impeccable bonding and insurance, not having state of the art security, not having a great rating from Dun and Bradstreet... if the marketplace accepts CGG with all those flaws, then it will likely also accept a firm with all those flaws that is run by someone who isn't as good a person as Daniel Patterson. By pushing for marketplace acceptance of their company with those flaws, CGG is also pushing for marketplace acceptance of any other company that has those same flaws. The more they preach that they are a good company, the stronger of a case they make that any other company that comes along is too...

 

It's no different from a cab driver asking you to accept that his license isn't posted on the seat and his car doesn't have seatbelts and the door doesn't latch quite right and his tires are bald and it's still okay to ride with him. The fact is, if he's a good driver it probably will be okay. Even if he is a mediocre driver it will probably be okay for a while. But by asking the customer base to accept that as the new standard, he also asks you to accept the guy parked behind him whose car looks just like his. And that guy behind him might be blind in one eye or planning to rob you and you would never know. It doesn't matter if twenty other people have ridden in that cab and gotten there safely. You still want a cab that demands a higher standard, and you should expect a third-party grading company that demands a higher standard as well.

 

Lighthouse

[blowout]

And I copied it just in case anyone missed it. You all can thank me later.

 

Yeah thanks, now my headache is TWICE as bad.

[Smokinghawk]

Lighthouse, that was a great post--and don't worry, I know it wasn't "aimed" at me. You and I, we're cool with each other so no problems. I agree that your posts are informative, it's just that it appeared until now that you had plenty to say about CGG, and then when they went to you directly it seemed you got really quiet all of the sudden. Thanks for breaking that silence with such a reply.

 

A couple of observations and questions in general...

 

1) we do know who does the restoration checks for them; he's been named here. Heck, one person here even called him directly and talked about the ASM 122, and the man agreed to FUND a resubmission to CGC. But that still leaves some questions: is he still the same guy as when they started and missed that Avengers cleaning? Is he an expert? Is he a CGG man, or do they truly contract work out in the Eugene area as you say you'd heard Daniel comment? (he states nothing like that was said by him).

 

2) Has CGG refused to disclose who their graders are? Or is this a case where it's just that nobody's bothered to ask? I recall several times here when people discussed certain conspiracies, and after 2 or 3 pages I was the first to just email CGG, and got an answer within a day. What about in this case?

 

3) Have some problems been actually verified here (and I missed it), or just discussed among us forumites like the tdcomix case? As best I can recall, there has been much speculation but ZERO actual conclusion about the conspiratorial curiosities many of us have had. Did we reach some point at which we can say "at least one [of CGG's customers] is a crook," rather than saying "we've wondered about it but can't prove it?" Likewise, we've tossed around speculation about missed restoration--but so far, there have been ZERO provable cases, as far as I am aware (I'll forgive the cleaned Avengers because I'm not troubled by cleaning, and that happened the same week someone cracked a CGC slab and found slashed out pages inside a Daredevil that got missed, so we're left with human errors at WORST, and not poor work).

 

4) I agree that CGG ought to do more to improve their reknown among collectors--advertising in Wizard, for example (take that advice for what it's worth). I've seen, what--ONE book they've done in the Heritage auctions? But I gotta hand it to them, too, that offering a free, shipping-paid submission to a bunch of us here was a classy step in that direction.