Action 5, CGC 9.4 blue on CLINK

[Scrooge]

As with what Jeff said above about disclosure of alleged restoration, the implications of casually dismembering someone's reputation whether as collector or professional can be very damaging. It's equally a strawman argument to suggest that the fact certain people with experience defend a respected colleague implies a conspiracy. It can just as logically be argued that they do so because they know the implications are false and that they share a true opinion.

 

This will never be resolved as the defenders have access to private signal about the person while others only have the public signal about said person. I suggest Tim and Matt spend a week-long holiday together on the beach in the Carribbean (sp?) and then they should some back here. We'll see if anything's changed then!!

[MrBedrock]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

Upon a re-read, every accusatory statement made towards Matt in this thread by you or others has been false.

[DrWatson]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

Upon a re-read, every accusatory statement made towards Matt in this thread by you or others has been false.

Yeah, but that doesn't make them any less true.

[G.A.tor]

That matt is so dreamy

[Flex Mentallo]

That matt is so dreamy

 

Stop being contentious!

[bluechip]

The logic has gotten a little confusing in some posts here. It seems to be implied that a guy would have a "dishonest" purpose, and presumably some financial gain, by neglecting to send in a label for a book that he's managed to get a higher grade -- and which he continues to own. At worst you can say it's foolish to hang onto it, or that you don't like someone resubbing a book in the first place. But if you're not saying that and he's the one currently holding both the new label book and the old label, then you might as well say a guy who sells you a book cheap is being dishonest. But it doesn't make dishonest just because you wouldn't do it that way, or because you're concerned that, if a lot of people neglected to turn in old labels, it would have, some unintended collateral effect on your business. If he sold the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of lessening the value of his old book, or other books in general, that would be dishonest.

[DrWatson]

The logic has gotten a little confusing in some posts here. It seems to be implied that a guy would have a "dishonest" purpose, and presumably some financial gain, by neglecting to send in a label for a book that he's managed to get a higher grade -- and which he continues to own. At worst you can say it's foolish to hang onto it, or that you don't like someone resubbing a book in the first place. But if you're not saying that and he's the one currently holding both the new label book and the old label, then you might as well say a guy who sells you a book cheap is being dishonest. But it doesn't make dishonest just because you wouldn't do it that way, or because you're concerned that, if a lot of people neglected to turn in old labels, it would have, some unintended collateral effect on your business. If he sold the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of lessening the value of his old book, or other books in general, that would be dishonest.

I'm glad you cleared that up.

[Ze-man]

As with what Jeff said above about disclosure of alleged restoration, the implications of casually dismembering someone's reputation whether as collector or professional can be very damaging. It's equally a strawman argument to suggest that the fact certain people with experience defend a respected colleague implies a conspiracy. It can just as logically be argued that they do so because they know the implications are false and that they share a true opinion.

 

This will never be resolved as the defenders have access to private signal about the person while others only have the public signal about said person. I suggest Tim and Matt spend a week-long holiday together on the beach in the Carribbean (sp?) and then they should some back here. We'll see if anything's changed then!!

 

Thanks, all I can picture now is that animation Flee made of Ted and Vinnie out to sea.

 

 

 

 

 

[DrWatson]

[Ze-man]

 

I picture Matt and Tims vacation animation more akin to a Harryhausen stop motion piece.

 

Lots of fighting with swords, skeletons and black magic.

[lou_fine]

The logic has gotten a little confusing in some posts here. It seems to be implied that a guy would have a "dishonest" purpose, and presumably some financial gain, by neglecting to send in a label for a book that he's managed to get a higher grade -- and which he continues to own.

 

Bluechip;

 

Now either your logic escapes me completely or you are reading another thread entirely.

 

Are you trying to imply that the person who brought the 8.5 copy of Action 5 and had it pressed up to a 9.4 is going to hold onto this book? I thought this thread was all about the newly improved 9.4 copy being available in the upcoming February Heritage auction.

 

 

If he sold the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of lessening the value of his old book, or other books in general, that would be dishonest.

 

If he sold the 9.4 copy of the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of hoping that nobody would noticed that it used to be only a 8.5 copy, that would be what?

[bluechip]

The logic has gotten a little confusing in some posts here. It seems to be implied that a guy would have a "dishonest" purpose, and presumably some financial gain, by neglecting to send in a label for a book that he's managed to get a higher grade -- and which he continues to own.

 

Bluechip;

 

Now either your logic escapes me completely or you are reading another thread entirely.

 

Are you trying to imply that the person who brought the 8.5 copy of Action 5 and had it pressed up to a 9.4 is going to hold onto this book? I thought this thread was all about the newly improved 9.4 copy being available in the upcoming February Heritage auction.

 

 

If he sold the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of lessening the value of his old book, or other books in general, that would be dishonest.

 

If he sold the 9.4 copy of the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of hoping that nobody would noticed that it used to be only a 8.5 copy, that would be what?

 

I hadn't seen anybody express that theory about the express purpose. I would agree that, if that were the purpose, it would not be honest or at least not in the best interests of the buyer.

 

I get your point. And, you're right on one level. That I had read this thread without seeing, or reading between the lines, the possibility of that motivation.

 

Until you brought it up, I hadn't even considered that to be the likely motivation because it's difficult to imagine what subset of potential buyers would which have to be, on the one hand--

 

1) so knowledgable about CGC (or even obsessed with it) that they followed the book's census history and remembered seeing an 8.5 there previously and thus, presumed, it was the new 9.4.

 

Yet, on the other hand, these buyers would have to be--

 

2) not knowledgable enough to have compared scans of the top graded copies or to have known people in the hobby (or on this board) who would inevitably be talking about it.

 

And, on top of it all, they would have to be 1) so concerned about a book's CGC label that they judge every book's value on the label -- overwhelming if not entirely. Yet, at the same time, they would have to feel some lack of confidence in the label as the means by which a book's value is determined.

 

Most if not all the indications I've seen are that, overwhelmingly, buyers of the highest graded copy don't care that much what grade it was before, or whether its first, non-hobbyist, owner got a lesser label than its ultimate owner and reseller. Not so much whether the book was gamed but whether it was gamed in a way that ends up with the most valuable label.

 

Anything's possible. So it's possible there are buyers out there who are lacking enough in market awareness that they would never have heard or figured out this 9.4 book used to be the 8.5 copy in any other way, but they are, nonetheless, digligent and determined enough to have studied the census and come to that conclusion by the disappearance of the 8.5. To me, that buyer seems like something of a walking contradiction. But then, many things about the choices made in this hobby are contradictory.

 

 

[lou_fine]

The logic has gotten a little confusing in some posts here. It seems to be implied that a guy would have a "dishonest" purpose, and presumably some financial gain, by neglecting to send in a label for a book that he's managed to get a higher grade -- and which he continues to own.

 

Bluechip;

 

Now either your logic escapes me completely or you are reading another thread entirely.

 

Are you trying to imply that the person who brought the 8.5 copy of Action 5 and had it pressed up to a 9.4 is going to hold onto this book? I thought this thread was all about the newly improved 9.4 copy being available in the upcoming February Heritage auction.

 

 

If he sold the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of lessening the value of his old book, or other books in general, that would be dishonest.

 

If he sold the 9.4 copy of the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of hoping that nobody would noticed that it used to be only a 8.5 copy, that would be what?

 

I hadn't seen anybody express that theory about the express purpose. I would agree that, if that were the purpose, it would not be honest or at least not in the best interests of the buyer.

 

 

Bluechip;

 

I find it absolutely shocking that you haven't heard of the old crack, press, and resub game since you have been here on the boards for several years now. Although some of the collectors are doing it for their own books, the large majority is probably doing it for the simple fact that they can flip and resell the book for a substantial profit.

 

Do you not remember the classic Manufactured Gold thread which identifed a large number of books (including many pedigrees) that had been worked on, resubbed for substantially higher grades, and then auctioned off again within a very short period of time? Or the fact that many of the pedigree designations have been removed from the resubs as the consignors are attemtping to concel the linkage to the fact that the book had been originally graded lower prior to the work being done.

[bluechip]

The logic has gotten a little confusing in some posts here. It seems to be implied that a guy would have a "dishonest" purpose, and presumably some financial gain, by neglecting to send in a label for a book that he's managed to get a higher grade -- and which he continues to own.

 

Bluechip;

 

Now either your logic escapes me completely or you are reading another thread entirely.

 

Are you trying to imply that the person who brought the 8.5 copy of Action 5 and had it pressed up to a 9.4 is going to hold onto this book? I thought this thread was all about the newly improved 9.4 copy being available in the upcoming February Heritage auction.

 

 

If he sold the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of lessening the value of his old book, or other books in general, that would be dishonest.

 

If he sold the 9.4 copy of the book and held onto the old label for the express purpose of hoping that nobody would noticed that it used to be only a 8.5 copy, that would be what?

 

I hadn't seen anybody express that theory about the express purpose. I would agree that, if that were the purpose, it would not be honest or at least not in the best interests of the buyer.

 

 

Bluechip;

 

I find it absolutely shocking that you haven't heard of the old crack, press, and resub game since you have been here on the boards for several years now. Although some of the collectors are doing it for their own books, the large majority is probably doing it for the simple fact that they can flip and resell the book for a substantial profit.

 

Do you not remember the classic Manufactured Gold thread which identifed a large number of books (including many pedigrees) that had been worked on, resubbed for substantially higher grades, and then auctioned off again within a very short period of time? Or the fact that many of the pedigree designations have been removed from the resubs as the consignors are attemtping to concel the linkage to the fact that the book had been originally graded lower prior to the work being done.

 

Lou,

 

Of course I've heard of the crack, press and resub game. And I wish it weren't such a big factor in the hobby. When I first heard of CGC I expected some things would be different, but one thing I hoped people would do was to put them in slabs when they are selling and buying, and take them out of slabs in-between. I figured people could then send the books back to CGC, which would keep records of every defect of a book, and purposely identify the book as one they slabbed before, giving it the same grade if no additional defects were acquired. I didn't think it would lead to rare and highly identifiable books being treated as if it wasn't extremely easy, let alone possible, to keep track of what the book was graded at the last time around.

 

Of course I know it hasn't turned out that way.

 

And I didn't say it was right, or wrong. But you described a very specific situation, in which the label was buried to prevent potential buyer(s) from seeing the 8.5 had disappeared and figuring it it was the same book. I hadn't said that was right. I just said it hadn't occured to me that there would be buyers who are so tremendously clued in as well as clueless at the same time.

 

If a guy is so clued in to the census, and so clued in to the crack-press-resub game, that they would see the 8.5 disappeared and make a conclusion it was the same book -- I just didn't imagine that same guy would, conversely, be clueless enough that he'd buy any brand new top of census book without looking into whether it had been a crack-resub.

 

That's all.

 

I wish press-crack-resub was less a factor in the hobby. If anyone is taken in as you suspect, it is not the usual HG deep pockets but the novice collector, whom, I think, naturally tend to assume the grade of a book is not subject to upward change, and it wouldn't occur to most of them that something like crack and resub would be a major factor.

 

[MasterChief]

I had a similar problem with your Gallery of Disclosure, which should have been composed of books volunteered for inclusion in the gallery. You could have had documentation of the work done to the books, rather than guess work. But, rather than making the gallery about education, you made it about catching the bad guys manipulating comics. People own the books in the gallery, and some of them spent a great deal of money on those books. You've branded them with a scarlet letter based on your opinion that they were manipulated. Had the gallery been composed of volunteered books accompanied by documentation, there would have been no cause for controversy. It would have become a useful tool to educate newcomers to the hobby.

 

If I were in your shoes, I think I would feel the same way.

 

Your opinion was in the minority back then and the construction of the gallery went forward against your will.

 

It's all water under the bridge now anyway. No hard feelings.

[MrBedrock]

I had a similar problem with your Gallery of Disclosure, which should have been composed of books volunteered for inclusion in the gallery. You could have had documentation of the work done to the books, rather than guess work. But, rather than making the gallery about education, you made it about catching the bad guys manipulating comics. People own the books in the gallery, and some of them spent a great deal of money on those books. You've branded them with a scarlet letter based on your opinion that they were manipulated. Had the gallery been composed of volunteered books accompanied by documentation, there would have been no cause for controversy. It would have become a useful tool to educate newcomers to the hobby.

 

If I were in your shoes, I think I would feel the same way.

 

Your opinion was in the minority back then and the construction of the gallery went forward against your will.

 

It's all water under the bridge now anyway. No hard feelings.

Funny how times change and peoples opinions changed as they got the facts. Especially the fact that the gallery was, and is, an uninformed exercise in pure guesswork compiled by folks who possibly have an agenda, and certainly have little involvement in or knowledge of collecting the books that are presented.

[nearmint]

I had a similar problem with your Gallery of Disclosure, which should have been composed of books volunteered for inclusion in the gallery. You could have had documentation of the work done to the books, rather than guess work. But, rather than making the gallery about education, you made it about catching the bad guys manipulating comics. People own the books in the gallery, and some of them spent a great deal of money on those books. You've branded them with a scarlet letter based on your opinion that they were manipulated. Had the gallery been composed of volunteered books accompanied by documentation, there would have been no cause for controversy. It would have become a useful tool to educate newcomers to the hobby.

 

If I were in your shoes, I think I would feel the same way.

 

I'm astonished that anyone would feel differently, regardless of whose shoes they're wearing. Logic is logic.

[comicdonna]

I like MasterChief, MeBedrock, nearmint and Action Comics.

[Matt Nelson]

No point in me sending you any information. You seem to have a ball putting yours out there with without my help! So just throw the number out there...how many? There's well over 1,000,000 CGC graded books, so you must have an awful lot of missing labels to make the census wildly inaccurate! 50,000? Even 10,000?

[CrocHntr]

 

 

And BTW, I'm not letting CGC off the hook on this. Books that are cracked out and resubmitted (especially high grade GA books that have unique identifiers) should be caught by CGC regardless of the end grade.

 

I am not sure what you mean by your comment that these books should be caught by CGC. Are you implying that resubmissions should be flagged by CGC and marked accordingly? This would go against CGC's business model as their grading standards and grading practices have been formulated to encourage resubmissions. To do anything that would discourage resubmissions would not make any economic and/or business sense to them.

 

No, not at all. What I meant was that if we can look at scans of books and easily identify an 8.5 that is now a 9.4, then CGC graders who compile notes on these unique high-grade books should be able to make that jump as well and delete the vanished 8.5 from their census. Clearer now? (thumbs u

 

Last year I stumbled upon a similar issue with a Sensation #1 that was cracked, pressed, and re-subbed without sending in the label. Here was the discussion:

 

CGC Census and Duplicate Entries

 

I really don't have a huge problem with pressing, but it does irk me that the owner didn't send in the original label. I even e-mailed CGC to point out the duplicate census copies (both a 5.0 and a 5.5 census for Sen1). CGC's response (which was reasonable) was that

Both show in the Census, but without the actual original label there is no way to 100% prove they are the same book, so we cannot remove it. We never take scans as proof as they can be easily doctored and are never used as proof of anything by CGC.

 

I am sorry, but since whomever pressed and re-submitted the book did not provide the original label, the Census on this book will remain as is.

 

While reasonable, by reading the grading notes and comparing the images, it's painfully obvious that these books were one and the same. Wouldn't CGC have original "un-doctored" scans that they could compare along with their grading notes?

 

I think the resub without sending in the original label is a big deal with high dollar, low census books. We all want those rare high graded gems, and overstating the census would obviously overstate the supply and potentially reduce demand for some books based on where they land on the census.