Action 5, CGC 9.4 blue on CLINK

[chrisco37]

We've definitely had the invisible ink discussion before.

 

Some people thought it was a good idea. Most did not.

 

It's certainly not in CGC's best interest to do it. As someone else said, resub for bumps is part of their business. If books had a unique identifier like a coded invisible stamp, the amount of resubs would go down.

 

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

We've definitely had the invisible ink discussion before.

 

Some people thought it was a good idea. Most did not.

 

It's certainly not in CGC's best interest to do it. As someone else said, resub for bumps is part of their business. If books had a unique identifier like a coded invisible stamp, the amount of resubs would go down.

 

Bingo!

[Cat-Man_America]

We've definitely had the invisible ink discussion before.

 

Some people thought it was a good idea. Most did not.

 

It's certainly not in CGC's best interest to do it. As someone else said, resub for bumps is part of their business. If books had a unique identifier like a coded invisible stamp, the amount of resubs would go down.

 

 

 

Mike, that's an interesting observation that gives voice to the Catch 22 aspect of this issue. In the short term, changing the status quo isn't favorable to CGC.

 

That begs the question, which is more important to their business model, the number of resubmissions or building greater trust into the census? IMO, the latter course is the wiser, but history has proven time and again that folks aren't always inclined towards doing what is in their long term best interest, and this can't be achieved without some pain.

 

Whether intended or not, providing an accurate census of graded books is a crucial part of CGC service, perhaps as important as the grade itself since that can be altered. If it becomes a matter of routine that not only the grades are transitory, but that the actual census numbers don't reflect existing books in the system how could it not erode CGC's status in the collector community over time?

 

For the continued health of the hobby and growth of CGC's business, it just seems the common sense approach would be to clean this up using whatever practical tools are at their disposal.

[Silver Surfer]

We've definitely had the invisible ink discussion before.

 

Some people thought it was a good idea. Most did not.

 

It's certainly not in CGC's best interest to do it. As someone else said, resub for bumps is part of their business. If books had a unique identifier like a coded invisible stamp, the amount of resubs would go down.

 

 

 

Mike, that's an interesting observation that gives voice to the Catch 22 aspect of this issue. In the short term, changing the status quo isn't favorable to CGC.

 

For the continued health of the hobby and growth of CGC's business, it just seems the common sense approach would be to clean this up using whatever practical tools are at their disposal.

 

Don't hold your breath.

[Cat-Man_America]

We've definitely had the invisible ink discussion before.

 

Some people thought it was a good idea. Most did not.

 

It's certainly not in CGC's best interest to do it. As someone else said, resub for bumps is part of their business. If books had a unique identifier like a coded invisible stamp, the amount of resubs would go down.

 

 

 

Mike, that's an interesting observation that gives voice to the Catch 22 aspect of this issue. In the short term, changing the status quo isn't favorable to CGC.

 

For the continued health of the hobby and growth of CGC's business, it just seems the common sense approach would be to clean this up using whatever practical tools are at their disposal.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

 

Too late!

[rodan57]

 

You weren't there.

[markseifert]

It's certainly not in CGC's best interest to do it. As someone else said, resub for bumps is part of their business. If books had a unique identifier like a coded invisible stamp, the amount of resubs would go down.

 

Ultimately, that will change - probably already has changed.

 

Certainly, this thread has done this book no favors, no matter what the circumstance of the resub. No big, rare, book is going to get resubbed unnoticed at this point. The marketplace is watching.

 

I know many will disagree, but I'd suggest at this point that if the book had been resubbed and the 8.5 had come off the census already, this thread would have had a FAR different tenor -- and the seller would be better off for it.

 

Resubs for a variety of reasons are an accepted part of the marketplace now. Though many don't like it, it barely raises an eyebrow in most circumstances. It is a known part of the marketplace equation. It's only when people have to get out scans and start doing detective work that people start wondering about intent (rightly or wrongly).

 

Eventually, sellers will realize that.

[tth2]

CGC themselves recognizes that fact and have issued a legal disclaimer for same which reads:

 

Notices regarding CGC’s Census Report

 

The utilization of this report as a tool for assessing the population and value of certified comic books in any character or grade is unreliable. The following characteristics inherent in the marketplace undermine the accuracy of this report:

• Inexpensive comics, which are not generally submitted for certification, may appear scarce but are not Inexpensive comics, which are not generally submitted for certification, may appear scarce but are not
   
  
• Comic certification services are predominantly utilized for higher-grade comics
   
  
• Certified comic books are often removed from their holders without notifying the grading service; therefore, computer tallies utilized to provide population reports may be misleading
   
  
• Rarity is only one factor that must be weighed in determining the market value of a comic book

CGC encourages all collectors to seek the counsel of qualified professionals familiar with the certified comics marketplace before making any purchase based on this report.

 

 

While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Matt, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them, I wouldn`t read too much into the disclaimer as anything other than fear of legal liability. If I were their lawyer, I`d advise them to put in that kind of disclaimer even if the Census were 99.9% accurate.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that I don't care about the consistency of the census report from my post?

"I usually do submit the old label with the books, sometimes I do not."

[MrBedrock]

While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Matt, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them,

Why are you singling out Matt? How do you even know if he does or doesn't send in labels? I could also just make up a post that says...

 

"While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Tim, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them."

 

[tth2]

While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Matt, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them,

Why are you singling out Matt? How do you even know if he does or doesn't send in labels? I could also just make up a post that says...

 

"While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Tim, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them."

The difference is that you have no evidence to support your statement about me. The only books I've ever resubbed were in the slab, thus ensuring that CGC received the old label.

 

In contrast, my statement about Matt was supported by both Sharon's anecdotal evidence and Matt's own admission.

[MrBedrock]

While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Matt, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them,

Why are you singling out Matt? How do you even know if he does or doesn't send in labels? I could also just make up a post that says...

 

"While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Tim, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them."

The difference is that you have no evidence to support your statement about me. The only books I've ever resubbed were in the slab, thus ensuring that CGC received the old label.

 

In contrast, my statement about Matt was supported by both Sharon's anecdotal evidence and Matt's own admission.

How do you have evidence that Matt "doesn't care"? All he said was that sometimes he sends the labels in "with the book". Now I infer from that that the other times Matt sends the labels in at a later date. You, on the other hand, infer that he doesn't send them in at all. Therefore, by your brilliantly slanted deduction, Matt is "disgraceful" and "doesn't care". So yes, my statement about you was just as wildly fanciful and truthful as yours about Matt. People like Tim are also ignorant.

[DrWatson]

Sorry, I lol'd.

[damonwad]

 

My earlier use of the term "flippers" was not correct as I was really referring to buyers who purchase books, surreptitiously manipulate them, and then resell them without any disclosure even though the work that was done is legally okay from CGC's point of view.

 

I use the word laundering because their very behaviour leaves the impression that is exactly what they are doing as evident by Jeff's comment below:

 

. I'm sure the 8.5 label will be submitted after the auction is over.

 

Since it's actually okay to press and resubmit books according to CGC, then I don't understand why they simply don't turn in the label at the time of resub, instead of waiting until the auction is over. This key difference in timing leaves the impression that the seller himself believes that what he is doing is not totally above board and honest. If he felt what he was doing is okay, shouldn't he also have the balls to MANNUP and turn in the old label up front instead of waiting until the auction is over.

 

 

Lou, you're proceeding from the assumption that the book's owner is the one that cracked it out, rather then the person pressing the book. My understanding from Matt is that he does send labels in, but who knows how often.

 

I usually do submit the old label with the books, sometimes I do not. It all depends on the situation. But if I don't, will gather them up at some point and send them to CGC to remove from the census. I'm a strong supporter of an accurate census, and go to great lengths to make sure CGC eventually gets all of their old tags. Even though there might be some important old labels that never got back to CGC over the years, I wouldn't say CGC's census is wildly inaccurate. There's not many people cracking out expensive books. I know many of them, and we all agree that getting the old grades off the census is in everyone's best interest. More copies on the census simply means more percieved supply, which can adversely affect a book's value.

 

But there can be many reasons why a tag would not go back with the book when it's submitted to CGC a second time.

 

Unless I'm missing something, he says that he always sends the label in. Just not always with the book.

[cheetah]

While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Matt, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them,

Why are you singling out Matt? How do you even know if he does or doesn't send in labels? I could also just make up a post that says...

 

"While I agree with you that the Census may be inaccurate and it`s disgraceful that people like Tim, who should know better, don`t seem to care about its accuracy except when it suits them."

 

It's his MO. Stir the mess. Cast aspersions on their character, then try to make himself the victim when he is called on it. He's pretty one dimensional with this stuff.

[skypinkblu]

 

My earlier use of the term "flippers" was not correct as I was really referring to buyers who purchase books, surreptitiously manipulate them, and then resell them without any disclosure even though the work that was done is legally okay from CGC's point of view.

 

I use the word laundering because their very behaviour leaves the impression that is exactly what they are doing as evident by Jeff's comment below:

 

. I'm sure the 8.5 label will be submitted after the auction is over.

 

Since it's actually okay to press and resubmit books according to CGC, then I don't understand why they simply don't turn in the label at the time of resub, instead of waiting until the auction is over. This key difference in timing leaves the impression that the seller himself believes that what he is doing is not totally above board and honest. If he felt what he was doing is okay, shouldn't he also have the balls to MANNUP and turn in the old label up front instead of waiting until the auction is over.

 

 

Lou, you're proceeding from the assumption that the book's owner is the one that cracked it out, rather then the person pressing the book. My understanding from Matt is that he does send labels in, but who knows how often.

 

I usually do submit the old label with the books, sometimes I do not. It all depends on the situation. But if I don't, will gather them up at some point and send them to CGC to remove from the census. I'm a strong supporter of an accurate census, and go to great lengths to make sure CGC eventually gets all of their old tags. Even though there might be some important old labels that never got back to CGC over the years, I wouldn't say CGC's census is wildly inaccurate. There's not many people cracking out expensive books. I know many of them, and we all agree that getting the old grades off the census is in everyone's best interest. More copies on the census simply means more percieved supply, which can adversely affect a book's value.

 

But there can be many reasons why a tag would not go back with the book when it's submitted to CGC a second time.

 

Unless I'm missing something, he says that he always sends the label in. Just not always with the book.

 

I sent my book to Matt in the case (mostly because I'm afraid I'll damage one if I crack it out). Not sure this is the case with most people, they may crack them out before sending them in. He may get a number of them without the labels.

 

My use of the word "wildly" was based on my own experiences. I may have been a bit "wild" using "wildly" ...as I said, my experiences are just a very small sample. I also never made a study of anything, these were just things I noticed because I was curious in these specific cases. A small sample, but the ones* I* specifically looked at were not accurate.

 

 

[skypinkblu]

When I said I had a book that was the highest graded copy, it was Hit 3, I own the 6.5 (blue). When I had it graded, the next highest copy was a 4.0 (blue).

 

Either last year, or the year before, I don't remember, one sold on the boards, I seem to remember it being a 5.0.

 

There is no 5.0 listed, but there is an 8.5 (blue). I have no idea if the 5.0 was pressed into an 8.5 and the label submitted, but if it was not, and it's still around, it's still not on the census.

 

 

Country/Variant

-

Grade Universal Qualified Signature Series Restored

See Detail Total

Mint 10.0 0 0 0 0 0

Mint 9.9 0 0 0 0 0

Near Mint/Mint 9.8 0 0 0 0 0

Near Mint + 9.6 0 0 0 0 0

Near Mint 9.4 0 0 0 0 0

Near Mint - 9.2 0 0 0 0 0

Very Fine/Near Mint 9.0 0 0 0 0 0

Very Fine + 8.5 1 0 0 0 1

Very Fine 8.0 0 0 0 1 1

Very Fine - 7.5 0 0 0 0 0

Fine/Very Fine 7.0 0 0 0 0 0

Fine + 6.5 1 0 0 0 1

Fine 6.0 0 0 0 0 0

Fine - 5.5 0 0 0 0 0

Very Good/Fine 5.0 0 0 0 0 0

Very Good + 4.5 0 0 0 0 0

Very Good 4.0 1 0 0 0 1

Very Good - 3.5 0 0 0 0 0

Good/Very Good 3.0 3 0 0 0 3

Good + 2.5 0 0 0 0 0

Good 2.0 1 0 0 0 1

Good - 1.8 0 0 0 0 0

Fair/Good 1.5 0 0 0 0 0

Fair 1.0 0 0 0 0 0

Poor 0.5 0 0 0 0 0

 

Total 7 0 0 1 8

Search again

 

Find CGC Graded Hit Comics # 3 on ebay!

 

[adamstrange]

The Hit #3 8.5 is recent -- it's the Billy Wright copy.

[skypinkblu]

The Hit #3 8.5 is recent -- it's the Billy Wright copy.

 

 

thanks:) I guess I missed Billy Wright, ...the only Billy I follow is parker;)

 

Edit....I wish I could do searches better, I KNOW the book sold in the forum...I was discussing POSSIBLY selling my copy at the time and I was surprised when this other one showed up.

 

.

[G.A.tor]

The Hit #3 8.5 is recent -- it's the Billy Wright copy.

Exactly. Could just be someone cracked a book out and turned label in

[skypinkblu]

The Hit #3 8.5 is recent -- it's the Billy Wright copy.

Exactly. Could just be someone cracked a book out and turned label in

 

It was CGC'd when it was sold onthe forum and it was NOT on the census at that time...I know, I looked then and a month and 2 months later. I thought maybe it was new and didn't hit the census yet.