Doug Schmell cashing in his vaulted massive collecion. Poll: Is this the top?

[Flaming_Telepath]

You just seem to constantly try to "expose" some kind of "behind the scenes" master plan when you call it a "system" in the context of your posts. You're always seem to be talking about it from a negative point of view which leads me to believe that you think the system is negative.

 

The 'system' was known to only a select few for many, many years. The secrets were keenly protected, the buyers (the 'marks', if you will) deliberately left out of the loop.

 

Please explain how this was 'positive' for the majority of us?

 

I'll wait.

 

While I am not entirely in agreement with the way CGC grades books, conveys restoration or deals with certain issues, as a whole the concept of grading comics has standardized the grading scale, made the previously hidden restoration found on comics easily explained on a label and increased the ability of a person to sell comics on the internet without a middle man. Those are all very big positives in my opinion.

 

Where we differ is the notion that there is some covert operation going on, keep special knowledge guarded at everyone's expense, and I'll explain why:

 

I've known about CGC since about 2003 when I slabbed my first books. Since then I've come to know (many personally and in a great detail) including many of the people involved in what you and Dav are calling "the system" or "the game". I've spent a lot of time reading and learning about it on here and talking to people about it, as have you and Dav and many others.

 

I can tell you, based on my experience that there is no "grand master plan" as a whole to either "keenly protect" from the general public or to "reveal knowledge" to the select few.

 

That is just a myth in my opinion that propels itself through those that dislike the pressing of comics, and it is fair to dislike the pressing cf comics. I just don't think it's fair to propel things that are not entirely accurate.

 

The grading company was started and people started submitting books. The grading company kept their grading criteria "secret", they did not reveal them to a select few. Those dealers that sat in on the meetings for consulting before the grading company was started still don't know the grading guidelines.

 

People started realizing that if they could flatten a book they could get a higher grade. I don't believe there was a covert pressing operation or a covert "remove the resto operation". As people started submitting books, people started to learn how the grading system worked and how to get higher grades. I think a good word to describe it would be intrepid.

 

The "system" evolved into some people trying to take advantage of the system through unethical means but that doesn't mean the entire system is corrupt. In every business model you are going to have those that know more and those that know less. You are also going to have those that don't care and those that take advantage of whatever system is offered.

 

I know there are several people that are considered the "poster children" of the "system"...I won't name their names (although Doug is named in this thread as is Ewert) but it's not like they were revealed anything special that others did not know about. They simply took the initiative to learn the system on their own, much like any entrepreneur would....or a gambler learning to play cards, and game it. Not a very nice thing to do, trying to micro trim books and I disagree with someone trying to slip a trimmed book past CGC but I find it a leap of logic to infer or support the notion that there were individuals who were "privy" to the inner workings of the "system" and gamed everyone else when in fact I think every single person had the same opportunities to learn the same system.

 

It's all a very organic, naturally evolving cycle that will occur in any "system".

 

It wasn't like there was a small, select group of people who were shared "special information". CGC started slabbing books and people slowly learned, got wind of and understood the system over time.

 

Describing at a system as though there is a great Oz behind the curtains pulling strings doesn't really represent the concept properly at all in my opinion and that is why I said what I did.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding but that was my perception of what Dav was (and seems to always) be saying.

 

You are entirely incorrect and missed the point entirely.

[Flaming_Telepath]

As conspiratorial as this may sound, the one thing I will mention in relation to what Dav and FT are saying is that there were hints of an inner circle of folks that were profiting from being at the game early. This would be the equivalent of insider information in stock trading.

 

Are you refering to the dealers who were informed that pressing would get a Blue label or to the dealers who signed a non-disclosure agreement and were allowed to use PCS' services before they went public? (The second attempt to go public I mean, not the first time).

 

Ah, somebody who's happy to acknowledge what was actually going on.

[Mark 1]

I interpreted it as he did not repay the clients he "borrowed" from and that many are unhappy that he is reaping the benefits with this new sale of his collection.

 

I asked earlier if his clients were ever paid back and no response was given.

[troydivision1]

I then asked the question again, as no response was given.

[VintageComics]

I interpreted it as he did not repay the clients he "borrowed" from and that many are unhappy that he is reaping the benefits with this new sale of his collection.

 

I asked earlier if his clients were ever paid back and no response was given.

 

I believe his clients were paid back.

 

I could be wrong but he'd be in jail serving time for theft if they weren't.

[Flaming_Telepath]

To put it plainly, it was the contributors to these boards that more or less made the discovery that pressing was being allowed in a Blue label, through their own detective work.

 

Steve Borock finally admitted that it was.

 

This was at least three years after CGC had not only told certain dealer parties, but had actually offered to press the books for them, providing they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

 

What 'positive' did the vast majority of the market enjoy?

 

Nothing winds me up more than agenda-led revisionism.

[VintageComics]

2) Doug was disbarred. I believe in second chances as well, and those actions cost him his law license. However, I think what's really offensive to many folks is that Doug is now benefiting from that illegal conduct by the fruits of selling the collection that was partially assembled by "borrowing" from his clients. For those of you who don't know the situation, the whole reason he got caught was because regardless of his intent to pay it back, he wasn't able to as he was supposed to. That's theft. With that said, I'm quite certain Doug understands the implications and wrongness of his actions. Doesn't mean people still are going to want to bid on the items.

 

I may have misinterpreted Brian's comment - but that's how I understood it. That's why I'm asking for clarification and confirmation.

 

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics and is not reaping the rewards by selling some of the same books.

 

I think that is what Brian was referring to.

 

 

[DR.X]

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics

 

I'm confused here now. So he actually had permission ( he asked ) from his clients to use the money for comics. If he did, that's borrowing. If he used the funds without their knowledge, I would think thats theft. It's not like he was a brokerage house doing short sales.

[Mark 1]

I interpreted it as he did not repay the clients he "borrowed" from and that many are unhappy that he is reaping the benefits with this new sale of his collection.

 

I asked earlier if his clients were ever paid back and no response was given.

 

I believe his clients were paid back.

 

I could be wrong but he'd be in jail serving time for theft if they weren't.

 

See the bolded area

2) Doug was disbarred. I believe in second chances as well, and those actions cost him his law license. However, I think what's really offensive to many folks is that Doug is now benefiting from that illegal conduct by the fruits of selling the collection that was partially assembled by "borrowing" from his clients. For those of you who don't know the situation, the whole reason he got caught was because regardless of his intent to pay it back, he wasn't able to as he was supposed to. That's theft. With that said, I'm quite certain Doug understands the implications and wrongness of his actions. Doesn't mean people still are going to want to bid on the items.

 

I'm unclear if they were ever paid back based in this post

[Davenport]

You just seem to constantly try to "expose" some kind of "behind the scenes" master plan when you call it a "system" in the context of your posts. You're always seem to be talking about it from a negative point of view which leads me to believe that you think the system is negative.

 

The 'system' was known to only a select few for many, many years. The secrets were keenly protected, the buyers (the 'marks', if you will) deliberately left out of the loop.

 

Please explain how this was 'positive' for the majority of us?

 

I'll wait.

 

I've known about CGC since about 2003 when I slabbed my first books. Since then I've come to know (many personally and in a great detail) including many of the people involved in what you and Dav are calling "the system" or "the game". I've spent a lot of time reading and learning about it on here and talking to people about it, as have you and Dav and many others.

 

I can tell you, based on my experience that there is no "grand master plan" as a whole to either "keenly protect" from the general public or to "reveal knowledge" to the select few.

 

That is just a myth in my opinion that propels itself through those that dislike the pressing of comics, and it is fair to dislike the pressing cf comics. I just don't think it's fair to propel things that are not entirely accurate.

Would it be accurate to say many. many, many highly knowledgeable dealers and collectors were extremely shocked by revelations as they slowly came to light over the past decade?

 

There are probably hundreds of threads where that appears to have been the case.

 

I could start linking to them, but what's the point? If you didn't read them then, why would you now? Besides, they should've all known what you were privy to going back to '03. Right?

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics

 

I'm confused here now. So he actually had permission ( he asked ) from his clients to use the money for comics. If he did, that's borrowing. If he used the funds without their knowledge, I would think thats theft. It's not like he was a brokerage house doing short sales.

 

I think the correct word would be misappropriated.

 

He certainly didn't borrow, as that does imply consent, of which there wasn't.

[comicwiz]

2) Doug was disbarred. I believe in second chances as well, and those actions cost him his law license. However, I think what's really offensive to many folks is that Doug is now benefiting from that illegal conduct by the fruits of selling the collection that was partially assembled by "borrowing" from his clients. For those of you who don't know the situation, the whole reason he got caught was because regardless of his intent to pay it back, he wasn't able to as he was supposed to. That's theft. With that said, I'm quite certain Doug understands the implications and wrongness of his actions. Doesn't mean people still are going to want to bid on the items.

 

I may have misinterpreted Brian's comment - but that's how I understood it. That's why I'm asking for clarification and confirmation.

 

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics and is not reaping the rewards by selling some of the same books.

 

I think that is what Brian was referring to.

 

 

Did you mean "is now reaping.."

 

Otherwise I need to relearn how to read.

[DR.X]

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics

 

I'm confused here now. So he actually had permission ( he asked ) from his clients to use the money for comics. If he did, that's borrowing. If he used the funds without their knowledge, I would think thats theft. It's not like he was a brokerage house doing short sales.

 

I think the correct word would be misappropriated.

 

He certainly didn't borrow, as that does imply consent , of which there wasn't.

 

 

That's what I thought. So no matter how it's worded or sugar coated its theft

 

[comicwiz]

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics

 

I'm confused here now. So he actually had permission ( he asked ) from his clients to use the money for comics. If he did, that's borrowing. If he used the funds without their knowledge, I would think thats theft. It's not like he was a brokerage house doing short sales.

 

I think the correct word would be misappropriated.

 

He certainly didn't borrow, as that does imply consent, of which there wasn't.

 

Commingling is the correct term to describe the allegation.

 

I know I'm mincing words, but it shouldn't even be correct to use "borrowing" or "misappropriation" as those are terms which are technically associated to funds intended to be rightfully cared for by a person or organization, and are mismanaged.

 

No such intention exists with customer-owned funds, and any breach or mixing of customer-owned funds with an attorney's personal account should itself be regarded as theft, regardless of intent for repayment or restitution.

[Kevin76]

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics

 

I'm confused here now. So he actually had permission ( he asked ) from his clients to use the money for comics. If he did, that's borrowing. If he used the funds without their knowledge, I would think thats theft. It's not like he was a brokerage house doing short sales.

 

I think the correct word would be misappropriated.

 

He certainly didn't borrow, as that does imply consent , of which there wasn't.

 

 

That's what I thought. So no matter how it's worded or sugar coated its theft

 

Correct.

[VintageComics]

2) Doug was disbarred. I believe in second chances as well, and those actions cost him his law license. However, I think what's really offensive to many folks is that Doug is now benefiting from that illegal conduct by the fruits of selling the collection that was partially assembled by "borrowing" from his clients. For those of you who don't know the situation, the whole reason he got caught was because regardless of his intent to pay it back, he wasn't able to as he was supposed to. That's theft. With that said, I'm quite certain Doug understands the implications and wrongness of his actions. Doesn't mean people still are going to want to bid on the items.

 

I may have misinterpreted Brian's comment - but that's how I understood it. That's why I'm asking for clarification and confirmation.

 

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics and is now reaping the rewards by selling some of the same books.

 

I think that is what Brian was referring to.

 

 

Did you mean "is now reaping.."

 

Otherwise I need to relearn how to read.

 

Correct, that was typo.

 

[VintageComics]

He borrowed money from his clients as an attorney to buy comics

 

I'm confused here now. So he actually had permission ( he asked ) from his clients to use the money for comics. If he did, that's borrowing. If he used the funds without their knowledge, I would think thats theft. It's not like he was a brokerage house doing short sales.

 

I think the correct word would be misappropriated.

 

He certainly didn't borrow, as that does imply consent, of which there wasn't.

 

Commingling is the correct term to describe the allegation.

 

I know I'm mincing words, but it shouldn't even be correct to use "borrowing" or "misappropriation" as those are terms which are technically associated to funds intended to be rightfully cared for by a person or organization, and are mismanaged.

 

No such intention exists with customer-owned funds, and any breach or mixing of customer-owned funds with an attorney's personal account should itself be regarded as theft, regardless of intent for repayment or restitution.

 

Correct, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't theft. He "borrowed" without permission to do so.

 

[Davenport]

To put it plainly, it was the contributors to these boards that more or less made the discovery that pressing was being allowed in a Blue label, through their own detective work.

 

Steve Borock finally admitted that it was.

 

This was at least three years after CGC had not only told certain dealer parties, but had actually offered to press the books for them, providing they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

 

What 'positive' did the vast majority of the market enjoy?

 

Nothing winds me up more than agenda-led revisionism.

THANK YOU.

 

It gets so frustrating watching reality get twisted to fit some fantasy about how things actually unfolded.

Then it takes me long-winded paragraphs to try and communicate what you can in a single sentence.

 

So please stay on it. Revisionists shouldn't have their way with rewriting reality.

 

[VintageComics]

You are entirely incorrect and missed the point entirely.

 

I think there are a lot of "points" being made.

 

As conspiratorial as this may sound, the one thing I will mention in relation to what Dav and FT are saying is that there were hints of an inner circle of folks that were profiting from being at the game early. This would be the equivalent of insider information in stock trading.

 

Are you refering to the dealers who were informed that pressing would get a Blue label or to the dealers who signed a non-disclosure agreement and were allowed to use PCS' services before they went public? (The second attempt to go public I mean, not the first time).

 

Ah, somebody who's happy to acknowledge what was actually going on.

 

I am entirely unaware of a non-disclosure agreement and the PCS service being offered twice.

 

To put it plainly, it was the contributors to these boards that more or less made the discovery that pressing was being allowed in a Blue label, through their own detective work.

 

Steve Borock finally admitted that it was.

 

This was at least three years after CGC had not only told certain dealer parties, but had actually offered to press the books for them, providing they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

 

What 'positive' did the vast majority of the market enjoy?

 

Nothing winds me up more than agenda-led revisionism.

 

To put it even more plainly, I don't think CGC ever denied that pressing was not allowed in a blue label. People just didn't think to ask the question.

 

Admittedly, I am a little late to the show. I restarted back into comics in 2003 after being out of comics from 1991 to 2002 and joined these boards in 2004. My first exposure to pressing was through a phone call with Court Eilerson (circa summer of 2004, I remember it vividly), and was indifferent to the topic.

 

Maybe it's me being new, maybe it's me not being privy to all the discussions that happen from 1999 - 2003 including Stu's letters to CB etc, or maybe some people don't care to make as emotional topic about it but pressing has never really bothered me.

 

So maybe it's not agenda-led revisionism. Maybe it's just how some people actually feel about it or understand and see it.

 

There's plenty of agendas in this thread if you want to be fair about it.

 

Would it be accurate to say many. many, many highly knowledgeable dealers and collectors were extremely shocked by revelations as they slowly came to light over the past decade?

 

There are probably hundreds of threads where that appears to have been the case.

 

I could start linking to them, but what's the point? If you didn't read them then, why would you now? Besides, they should've all known what you were privy to going back to '03. Right?

 

I've read many if not most of them.

 

Yes, many people were shocked...but look at my reaction as typed out to F_T above.

 

I wasn't shocked. To me it seemed common sense to try to flatten a book to improve the grade. I'd held books under encyclopedias (while they were still around) my whole life since I was 5 years old trying to flatten them and make them look nicer. It only seemed logical to me that someone would make a business model out of it so when someone (Court) finally told me about it, it was common sense.

 

If you take the emotion out of the equation, it's seems like a natural progression.

 

So then, does the whole discussion seem to come down to the NDA from PCS and that a select group of dealers were told that pressing was allowed in a blue label?

[VintageComics]

To put it plainly, it was the contributors to these boards that more or less made the discovery that pressing was being allowed in a Blue label, through their own detective work.

 

Steve Borock finally admitted that it was.

 

This was at least three years after CGC had not only told certain dealer parties, but had actually offered to press the books for them, providing they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

 

What 'positive' did the vast majority of the market enjoy?

 

Nothing winds me up more than agenda-led revisionism.

THANK YOU.

 

It gets so frustrating watching reality get twisted to fit some fantasy about how things actually unfolded.

Then it takes me long-winded paragraphs to try and communicate what you can in a single sentence.

 

So please stay on it. Revisionists shouldn't have their way with rewriting reality.

 

Where reality gets twisted is when people say things based on assumptions.

 

There is a myth that books get hammered for bends and NCB creases when in fact they don't. They downgrade slightly for them if at all, depending on the grade.

 

There is a myth that CGC graders on the lookout to "grade bump" books to increase revenue, and while this is true in the purest sense, the fact is that they are in my experience very conservative in bumping books.

 

There is a myth that big dealers get better grades implying that the service is impartial when in fact the majority of the time the graders do not know who's books are being graded.

 

All of these myths are very "well known" and accepted by many people simply because they are repeated over and over on here even though they are not true. Most of the time they are repeated by people who have a dislike for pressing or "that game" so you can understand why I'm compelled to dispel those myths based on my experiences.

 

If you stick to the facts, the myths disappear.

 

So let's stick to the facts, ma'am.