The BIGGEST problems in the hobby right now

[Boba]

Well, this thread has already degraded into the usual dealer match and back biting. Where's the fun in that. Sheesh

 

Heres you a link to the "Trip over a Dead Boardie" poll if you still have a shread of faith in the so called humans that frequent these boards

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=267497&Number=5907845#Post5907845

[Boba]

"Hindsight" has nothing to do with it. Its just wrong and experts in the field know better. People have been clammering about it for years and its been mentioned here numerous times before yet CGC choose to ignore it [and from what I can see, continues to do so].

 

Hindsight has lots to do with it because even all the experts in the world can't envision every possibly angle and scenario. As others have mentioned, once CGC was up and running it was too late to change it.

 

Why's it too late to change it?

 

Because they'd be devaluing some very expensive books that they've charged a percentage of FMV to grade. That would be my guess, anyways.

Leaving aside this point for a moment, changing their stance would be a great way for CGC to demonstrate that they are in this game to grade comics accurately and detect resto, and not to play potential-maximization games with (for) their customers. I know I for one would be incredibly impressed with CGC is they made this change, even if it negatively affected the value of my cute little AF 15 1.0.

 

Assuming that this hobby will be around for a good while to come, and that CGC will remain a player, it's pretty depressing to think that they have no option ever to correct an error made during their infancy.

 

bravo Speedy-D

[DeliBebek]

Leaving aside this point for a moment, changing their stance would be a great way for CGC to demonstrate that they are in this game to grade comics accurately and detect resto, and not to play potential-maximization games with (for) their customers. I know I for one would be incredibly impressed with CGC is they made this change, even if it negatively affected the value of my cute little AF 15 1.0.

 

Assuming that this hobby will be around for a good while to come, and that CGC will remain a player, it's pretty depressing to think that they have no option ever to correct an error made during their infancy.

 

You're asking a large company that has probably graded 2 MIL books to date to change a policy that would affect many of the books that have already been graded and with one fell swoop devalue 1000's of books.

 

I see and understand the problem with tape but this far in the game (10 years and 2 MIL books), the solution is not clear except that the market will speak with their wallets and either pay or not pay for things that they disagree with (and that includes most of the stuff that some collectors complain about like writing, miswraps, tape, etc).

If they ever do it once, it will be easier to do it again. Completely changing a single criteria would undermine what CGC means in the first place. Collectors would lose trust in the integrity of the numbers on the slabs.

 

Then, there would be the riots…

[Boba]

Completely disagree.

Their current policy undermines their credibility in my eyes.

Having the onions to correct a mistake would restore it.

[Speedy-D]

But I am saying that it'd be great if they based their decision on what makes most sense in terms of accurate grading and resto checking, and not on how it will affect the bottom lines of previous customers.

 

That's like telling people that they need to tighten their belts and give up a little for the greater good and we all know how that is going to fly in any economy. Most people are not willing to do it or go along with it. Some of those bottom lines of previous customers might be quite hefty depending on the books AND some of those previous customers are also still current customers. It's not so easy to snub a large group of people and maintain respect.

You seem not to be drawing much of a distinction between CGC and their customers. I'm not suggesting that anyone 'tighten their belts and give up a little for the greater good.' I'm suggesting that CGC change their policy on a restoration issue going forward.

 

I do see the flip side that the purist who dislikes tape might conversely feel snubbed but in reality, they have the ability to not choose a book with tape.

Again, putting the onus on the buyer is not necessarily reasonable, and ignores the plain truth that CGC has a lot of power in this hobby, and their grades (and label color) are not to be so easily dismissed with a "buy the book, not the label" attitude.

 

Let's say there are 10,000 comics with tape that have Blue labels currently (I'm sure the number is much lower, but I just need a number). Assuming CGC will remain a viable company, there will be just as many, if not more, coming through their doors in the next 12 years, and many many more in the next 24. Why should concern over past grades for 10,000 automatically trump concern over all future grades?

 

Assuming that what we're discussing is generally accepted to be undesirable for the health of our beloved comics and the longevity and viability of our beloved hobby, why do past grades trump all?

 

Because in my opinion, CGC (or any grading company) is not a lobby group or a political party or a police force for the hobby. They merely grade the book in front of them and display on a label what they found for the buyer, not assess whether something is ethical or not.

 

Nobody complained when Overstreet allowed tape on books in certain grades.

 

Why is that?

I don't know anything about Overstreet, and that's not what we're talking about. Again, please don't think this is an attempt to criticize or demonize CGC. It's just not, I promise!

 

As for being a lobbying group or whatever, I don't get that point either. They do a resto check, and they determine what they consider to be resto. That's part of the service they provide. To determine that tape is resto is not a political move any more than determining that color touch is. And changing their stance on something is not such a radical idea. It happens all the time.

[Speedy-D]

I see and understand the problem with tape but this far in the game (10 years and 2 MIL books), the solution is not clear except that the market will speak with their wallets and either pay or not pay for things that they disagree with (and that includes most of the stuff that some collectors complain about like writing, miswraps, tape, etc).

 

 

 

That would be true, if it was an efficient market.

 

The market is inefficient in regards to tape because of some arcane internal rules which are counter-intuitive to the average collector.

 

Also, it's crazy or naive not to acknowledge that CGC's grade and label color have a massive impact on purchase decisions. They're incredibly powerful selling points, often the most powerful. This may be good, it may be bad, it may be both, but one thing it certainly is is true.

 

One reason why I have been a strong believer that one colour label with all work notated to a book's label would be much more stable than having a purple and blue label.

I'm coming around to this notion. There are a lot of grey areas in the worlds of purple and green...

[Speedy-D]

 

with one fell swoop devalue 1000's of books.

 

 

If this is of any concern to CGC, then we might have a bigger problem than tape on books.

 

Jim

Hear hear! I'd so much rather believe that they are not basing these decisions on maximizing others' returns, but rather on the best resto check they can offer, and an honest grade.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

The "integrity of the numbers on the slabs" in the mind of the average collector, is a solid reputation that CGC has established in the market.

 

The problem is, the current grading procedure, in regards to tape, allows that integrity to be compromised.

 

That is why there is market inefficiency.

 

[fantastic_four]

Completely disagree.

Their current policy undermines their credibility in my eyes.

Having the onions to correct a mistake would restore it.

 

It seems that way when you're acutely aware of the problem as we are right now in this thread, but more often what will happen is people will unforgivingly blame them for their inconsistency in grading. That's why they feel locked into their standards decisions, because we don't like it when we see a bunch of books graded one way and another bunch graded a different way. Collectors tend to focus heavily on the grade differences and associated market pricing differences associated with those varying standards and get into absolute hissy-fits when they spot inconsistency. These forums are full of those hissy-fits.

[VintageComics]

 

with one fell swoop devalue 1000's of books.

 

 

If this is of any concern to CGC, then we might have a bigger problem than tape on books.

 

Jim

Hear hear! I'd so much rather believe that they are not basing these decisions on maximizing others' returns, but rather on the best resto check they can offer, and an honest grade.

 

Much of the conversation that goes on about what CGC should or should not do goes on sometimes without people considering what goes on within the grading guidelines.

 

That's why I made that post a few pages ago about grading a book with tape (the post where I used the word incidental).

 

Sometimes, you don't know exactly what the tape is doing on a book without either

 

a) removing the tape and looking underneath it.

b) examining the book before it's taped.

 

So let's say (for hypothetics) that someone has a piece fallen off of a corner and the book grades a 4.0 with the missing corner. Now there is a piece of tape added and the corner is perfectly re-attached...only you can't tell whether the tape is just there incidentally and the corner was never detached (since it looks like a crease) or if it was actually reattached.

 

I was in this same situation many years ago when I had an FF #1 that I bought for resale - I could not for the life of me tell whether the tape was incidental because the corner was about to fall off but had not fallen off yet or whether someone had reattached it.

 

What is the correct procedure to make everyone happy?

 

Do you grade the book a 4.0, which is what it is without the corner even though it's still present?

 

Do you grade it a 5.0 which is an accurate grade because the corner is not detached and a small piece of tape is allowed in that grade?

 

Everyone wants the rules changed but it's not as simple as it seems, in my opinion.

[VintageComics]

Completely disagree.

Their current policy undermines their credibility in my eyes.

Having the onions to correct a mistake would restore it.

 

It seems that way when you're acutely aware of the problem as we are right now in this thread, but more often what will happen is people will unforgivingly blame them for their inconsistency in grading. That's why they feel locked into their standards decisions, because we don't like it when we see a bunch of books graded one way and another bunch graded a different way. Collectors tend to focus heavily on the grade differences and associated market pricing differences associated with those varying standards and get into absolute hissy-fits when they spot inconsistency. These forums are full of those hissy-fits.

 

And many of the conversations are not thought through to their end results.

 

It's very easy to say form behind a laptop "I think this needs to change" and something different altogether to implement it effectively and thoroughly.

 

 

[comicwiz]

Here's my take on the subject. Pretty black and white, but I think it's a perspective worth throwing in to the fray.

 

There is a similarly distressing issue that has reared it's head in the packaged toy category. Carded, boxed, and sealed packaged toys are having "vintage" price stickers placed on them to hide defects so when the item is being graded, those defects will not be deducted from the items sub score.

 

Some of the higher-end, more obscure items are being discovered in the wild through some super-sleuthing of collectors finding the item previous to its stickered/graded state.

 

A few PT dealers and collectors have been called out for the practice and their reputations have taken a hit.

 

If we cross-over to comics, whether or not tape is being used to hide anything, it is an attempt to mend or repair and item.

 

Like a sticker applied to hide a defect, the grading result of having tape placed on a comic doesn't appear to have a penalty in place to deter the practice. I don't anticipate there will be a change in grading policy either to allay community concerns.

 

For some people, it isn't thrilling or fun enough to find an item that was originally meant to be played with or read. Things need to done to recondition the item or improve it, and in both the example of sticker and tape use, it comes down to money.

 

If you followed the comment this far, and you follow the money trail to its end path, absolutely nothing can be done unless this type of activity is ridiculed and chastised and the resulting market resistance disincentivizes practitioners to the point there is little or no financial benefit.

[VintageComics]

That is pretty much the conclusion I came to when I said in a post that the market will decide with their wallets by either paying for books with tape or avoiding them..

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

 

with one fell swoop devalue 1000's of books.

 

 

If this is of any concern to CGC, then we might have a bigger problem than tape on books.

 

Jim

Hear hear! I'd so much rather believe that they are not basing these decisions on maximizing others' returns, but rather on the best resto check they can offer, and an honest grade.

 

Much of the conversation that goes on about what CGC should or should not do goes on sometimes without people considering what goes on within the grading guidelines.

 

That's why I made that post a few pages ago about grading a book with tape (the post where I used the word incidental).

 

Sometimes, you don't know exactly what the tape is doing on a book without either

 

a) removing the tape and looking underneath it.

b) examining the book before it's taped.

 

So let's say (for hypothetics) that someone has a piece fallen off of a corner and the book grades a 4.0 with the missing corner. Now there is a piece of tape added and the corner is perfectly re-attached...only you can't tell whether the tape is just there incidentally and the corner was never detached (since it looks like a crease) or if it was actually reattached.

 

I was in this same situation many years ago when I had an FF #1 that I bought for resale - I could not for the life of me tell whether the tape was incidental because the corner was about to fall off but had not fallen off yet or whether someone had reattached it.

 

What is the correct procedure to make everyone happy?

 

Do you grade the book a 4.0, which is what it is without the corner even though it's still present?

 

Do you grade it a 5.0 which is an accurate grade because the corner is not detached and a small piece of tape is allowed in that grade?

 

Everyone wants the rules changed but it's not as simple as it seems, in my opinion.

 

Roy, its one thing if you legitimately can't tell (which I believe is a non factor 99% of the time, considering they are using microscopes to check for resto, the same could be done for tape), but its completely another when you are looking at a Superman #1 (which they have probably seen before) and it is clearly evident that the spine is completely split, and has been put back together with tape.

 

And let me be clear about my initial post....... My problem is that books like Superman #1, Action #1, Batman #1, Detective #27 are being taped up, solely because someone sees dollars in it. I could care less if it happens on a Dollman #8. I am talking about the biggest, most important, most historically significant books in the hobby.

[VintageComics]

Roy, its one thing if you legitimately can't tell (which I believe is a non factor 99% of the time, considering they are using microscopes to check for resto, the same could be done for tape), but its completely another when you are looking at a Superman #1 (which they have probably seen before) and it is clearly evident that the spine is completely split, and has been put back together with tape.

 

And let me be clear about my initial post....... My problem is that books like Superman #1, Action #1, Batman #1, Detective #27 are being taped up, solely because someone sees dollars in it. I could care less if it happens on a Dollman #8. I am talking about the biggest, most important, most historically significant books in the hobby.

 

Dale, they can't have different rules for big books that they might recognize. They have to treat all books the same, and that means that they have to treat each book like it's the first time.

 

The entire concept of 3rd party grading relies on them being impartial, or as impartial as humanely possible.

 

And as far as the subject of recognizing books goes, there are probably only a handful of books that they will recognize after a few days. Most books are a blur when you are grading several hundred books a day.

 

And as far as outcrying about which books are taped - all comics should be treated the same, regardless of value or age.

 

Tape affects a Tec #27 the same as it does a Dollman #8.

[Theagenes]

Roy, you make a good point about CGC not necessarily being able to tell if tape is repairing a flaw or just there for reinforcement. But, here's the flaw in that reasoning. Let's use your example of the FF1 with the taped corner. Let's say that instead of tape there was rice paper on that corner. CGC will still call it restoration and give it an 'apparent' grade. What's the difference?

 

You say CGC should only grade the book that's in front of them and that's exactly what we are asking them to do. A book that has a cover reattached with tape is still a book with a detached cover because the attachment is artificial. If the book is graded as though the cover were still attached, then it is only an 'apparent' grade. Yet that grade is going on a universal label. That is the root of the problem and the inherent inconsitency in the policy.

 

Here are some excerpts from a post I made a year ago on this subject referencing a real example of a book that was a 2.0 with a detached cover that became a 4.0 after the cover was reattached. This sums up my feelings on the subject and presents possible solutions.

 

I think there is little doubt that CGC’s resto check is one of the best things ever to happen to this hobby. But that said, there are still some flaws in the system, the PLOD stigma being one of the biggest. This tape loophole is another one. . .

 

You can take a blue label CGC 2.0 book with a detached cover, reattach it with harmful tape, resubmit it and it comes back blue 4.0, doubling in value. Do the same thing with archivally-safe (and reversible) rice paper and comes back PLOD 4.0 (sp), losing value. That is an indication that the system is flawed. . . CGC really needs to step up to the plate and close this loophole.

 

They are several ways to do this:

 

1. CGC could consider the tape damage (as they claim they do now), but not recognize the “apparent” improvement in structure. The book would still be a 2.0, but now has tape added to it. The small amount of tape might be acceptable in grade so the book would come as a blue 2.0 again or maybe drop to blue 1.8. “Cover reattached with non-archival tape” noted on label.

 

2. Or they could continue to consider tape as damage, but recognize the “apparent” improvement in structure by giving it a qualified grade. The Green label is often used for books that appear to have a certain grade but have a hidden defect that isn’t readily visible. In this case the book would come back GLOD Qualified 4.0. “Cover reattached with non-archival tape” noted on label.

 

3. Finally, they could choose to consider tape to be amateur restoration and recognize the apparent improvement. So it would come back PLOD App. 4.0 (sa). “Cover reattached with non-archival tape” noted on label.

 

Personally, I favor number 2 as it makes the most sense, but option 1 would probably cause the least shake-up to the current system.

[VintageComics]

I understand your POV (as well as that of several others).

 

I just had personally not considered tape a restorative procedure in the classic sense of restoration. At least not until the discussion on tape had started.

 

It was always just treated as a 'childhood' repair by myself, those that I collected with and by Overstreet.

 

If people are clamouring for tape to be considered restoration, that is altogether a very different thing than asking CGC to downgrade for it several to close a loophole.

 

In any case, I need to step out for the day. I'm sure there will be lots to read when I get back.

 

Have fun, all!

[Transplant]

So are we going to have a test for whether something was a "childhood restorative technique" now? I probably wiped a booger on a book back in the day. I guess that's not a defect since I was a kid. Or was I?

[Theagenes]

I understand your POV (as well as that of several others).

 

I just had personally not considered tape a restorative procedure in the classic sense of restoration. At least not until the discussion on tape had started.

 

It was always just treated as a 'childhood' repair by myself, those that I collected with and by Overstreet.

 

If people are clamouring for tape to be considered restoration, that is altogether a very different thing than asking CGC to downgrade for it several to close a loophole.

 

In any case, I need to step out for the day. I'm sure there will be lots to read when I get back.

 

Have fun, all!

 

And honestly, since it is sort of borderline, that's why I would favor the GLOD as that puts it in the same category as other borderline things like replaced/cleaned staples, though I can understand the reasoning for calling it amateur resto as well.

[comicwiz]

Blue labeling tape is far less concerning than "undetectable" work getting the pass, especially when you find people swapping staples and throwing in an MJ insert for kicks.