Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[nearmint]

It's ridiculous to think that CGC would do anything in this situation that even smells of a conflict of interest - does anyone honestly think they're going to flush a reputation earned over 12 years down the toilet simply so they can sell a couple extra $10 press jobs?

 

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*.

 

I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices.

 

I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace.

 

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc.

 

You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books.

 

+1

[Transplant]

It's ridiculous to think that CGC would do anything in this situation that even smells of a conflict of interest - does anyone honestly think they're going to flush a reputation earned over 12 years down the toilet simply so they can sell a couple extra $10 press jobs?

 

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*.

 

I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices.

 

I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace.

 

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc.

 

You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books.

So what's changed from the time that they decided PCS was a bad idea? My money is NOT on "people just accept pressing more now."

[500Club]

Until I see a problem which results from the acquisition, I have no problem with it.

 

I honestly don't see anything happening which has not been done before. Books have been getting pressed by CI, they submit them to CGC, books get graded. Should be the exact same process now.

 

Is there the appearance of a possibility of conflict of interest? Sure. However, if Paul and the other graders really don't know whose books they are grading, then I don't see how it is a problem.

 

That's a mighty big if. Before, CGC had no direct financial interest in knowing whose book is being graded. Now they do. That's the problem to me.

It's a small 'if'. Hasn't happened. Won't happen.

 

And, CGC, with the HA ownership issue, did/does have a previous direct financial interest in knowing the submitter.

 

Not only that, as I said before, this is a minimal COI compared to the Final Value Fee calculation COI.

 

Frankly, this issue is more of a tinfoil hat wearer's wet dream than a valid COI concern. Two years from now, all the angst of this thread will be long forgotten.

 

In the immortal words of what's becoming the battle cry of this thread, prove it. How do you know it hasn't happened? You can't prove it hasn't any more than I can prove it has. But CGC now has a more immediate financial reason to commingle. This announcement is a Rorschach test. But not every one who sees a problem with it was a conspiracy nut when they heard it.

Any proof, in 12 years, that CGC has abused the tying of the FVF to the grade given to a book? Any at all? Any rumors? Whispers?

 

None. Not one.

 

Would there be? Will there be, if the CI relationship is abused? Look at the board's history of uncovering things like Ewert's shenanigans and the Schmell JIM resub...

[Chespirito]

All of this must make you wonder if the time is right for competent competition to raise its head and challenge CGC. It would seem like the industry is just begging for it. The backlog on moderns is just ripe for the taking and there are so many competent former graders out there now that virtually all of them have left CGC.

 

Define "virtually"....

[Mister_Comics]

I'm selling all my slabbed books as fast as I can. A year from now nobody is gonna want slabbed comics.

[cheetah]

All of this must make you wonder if the time is right for competent competition to raise its head and challenge CGC. It would seem like the industry is just begging for it. The backlog on moderns is just ripe for the taking and there are so many competent former graders out there now that virtually all of them have left CGC.

 

Define "virtually"....

 

Meaning 'I don't know any grader at CGC but assume that has to be at least one'.

[Chespirito]

I'm selling all my slabbed books as fast as I can. A year from now nobody is gonna want slabbed comics.

 

I can't wait!!!! HGs are going to be dirt cheap....hell yeah..maybe a HoS 88-95 mini-run.....hell yeah...let it burn, let it burn!! Let the mothafolly BURN!!!

[500Club]

It's ridiculous to think that CGC would do anything in this situation that even smells of a conflict of interest - does anyone honestly think they're going to flush a reputation earned over 12 years down the toilet simply so they can sell a couple extra $10 press jobs?

 

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*.

 

I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices.

 

I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace.

 

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc.

 

You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books.

So what's changed from the time that they decided PCS was a bad idea? My money is NOT on "people just accept pressing more now."

What is your money on?

[drbanner]

All of this must make you wonder if the time is right for competent competition to raise its head and challenge CGC. It would seem like the industry is just begging for it. The backlog on moderns is just ripe for the taking and there are so many competent former graders out there now that virtually all of them have left CGC.

 

 

Well, the time was right in 2000 as well and no other guests showed up to the party. However, there are so many issues with this acquisition that added to the constant raising of fees, horrific wait times, decrease in customer service, and loss of experienced staff, that the time may be right again.

 

How one cannot see that having a company that presses, restores, and removes restoration from books with the goal of earning a higher grade or blue label from itself (and the additional revenue that it would entail) is perplexing. I guess the eyes see what the eyes want to see.

 

This is a rather bold step in moving this hobby from one of collecting neat, old funny books into a money-making junket of manufactured collectibles. The watering down of grading standards, the explosion of the census for high-grade books, the growth in the number of middle-men (not referring to dealers) looking to make bank in this hobby, has all resulted in much less book for your buck these days...

[Transplant]

Any proof, in 12 years, that CGC has abused the tying of the FVF to the grade given to a book? Any at all? Any rumors? Whispers?

 

None. Not one.

 

Would there be? Will there be, if the CI relationship is abused? Look at the board's history of uncovering things like Ewert's shenanigans and the Schmell JIM resub...

Explain to me how, in a perfect world, one could hope to prove such a thing as grade inflation to bump a FVF. It's such a miniscule risk to begin with. If anything, I think people underestimate their value to stay in a certain tier and it goes uncorrected. They'd make more fixing that leak.

 

A MUCH more financially rewarding scenario is to make your new acquisition have a far great track record in positive grading outcomes. But, short of a whistleblower employee, you'll never see proof of that either. There's nothing public or ineherently objective about CGC's grading. Any discrepancy is written off to a margin of error or different graders or natural variation.

 

The JIM resubs are objective data. The microtrimming scandal was only dealt with after objective, photographic proof was offered.

[Transplant]

So what's changed from the time that they decided PCS was a bad idea? My money is NOT on "people just accept pressing more now."

What is your money on?

My money is on the idea that CGC is no longer a burgeoning enterprise seeking the approval of the market makers. They are deeply ingrained. Far more people have hitched their monetary wagon to CGC's team. Combine that with the fact that the purchase is a done deal. People can see the writing on the wall. There is no undoing of this deal.

 

PCS was far easier to unwind. It was just a simple corporate filing and an office at headquarters, moving over existing employees. Here, I assume that Matt has brokered some real protection in his purchase agreement before committing to moving his family and employees to Sarasota and divesting his interest in WWComics.

 

That's what I think makes this different.

[Prince Namor]

This is all just business.

Number of items per transaction, man. That's what it's all about.

CGC is aware that they can only milk the current 'crack-press-resub-repeat' group that they have for so long; it's time to expand.

Looking at all of your charts, CGC has probably already figured out it's going to eventually slow down amongst who's already here. Time to pull in more customers!

And they'll have the option to press as a part of their services, so they can pull in even more 'obsessive-compulsive-must-have-highest-grade' people they can.

Unless they have something up their sleeve for next year, turn around times are REALLY going to get scary.

Mo' money. Mo' money. Mo' money. It's the nature of business.

 

And why give big customers any gift grades? You're saying they're going to risk their reputation on a BAD BUSINESS MODEL?

Really the incentive for big customers should be to NOT give them gift grades. You KNOW they're going to resubmit. Where's that customer going to go? The competition? There isn't any. What's the alternative? Switch to coins?

The big guys are either dealers who've invested in this as a part of their business, or the super HG collector who want everything 9.8

Neither has an additional option open to them.

 

When you're the only crack dealer in town, the crackhead who buys it from you in bulk, gets the same unit price as the crackhead that buys one rock. Oh, and it's extra for the baggie.

[Dr. Balls]

It's ridiculous to think that CGC would do anything in this situation that even smells of a conflict of interest - does anyone honestly think they're going to flush a reputation earned over 12 years down the toilet simply so they can sell a couple extra $10 press jobs?

 

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*.

 

I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices.

 

I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace.

 

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc.

 

You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books.

 

Up until this point, CGC had no business interests in grading books impartially, as they had no means to upsell the customer a service that increased the value of the book. Preferential treatment to high volume submitters? Intentionally damaging books? These things have no reason to be done because there is nothing to gain from it.

 

I send my book in, I pay the fee, I get the book back. It was very simple.

 

Now, there is plenty to gain for CGC. Even $10 services multipled by thousands of customers increases the bottom line significantly enough that it could easily skew someone into doing the "wrong" thing, which is why it's not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to apples, because the ethical issues that have arisen. That's what I was pointing out.

 

There will be plenty of people who chose to trust CGC because they don't think that a company will put dollars in front of customers given the choice. That's fine, people are entitled to think that way. As I've said before at the beginning of the thread - this decision is about perception, not whether or not it will actually do anything questionable to it's customer's books.

 

Regardless of what transpires - whether you wear a tinfoil hat or not - the bottom line is that CGC's decision to do this has or will potentially create a negative public perception of the company to it's customers.

[500Club]

Any proof, in 12 years, that CGC has abused the tying of the FVF to the grade given to a book? Any at all? Any rumors? Whispers?

 

None. Not one.

 

Would there be? Will there be, if the CI relationship is abused? Look at the board's history of uncovering things like Ewert's shenanigans and the Schmell JIM resub...

Explain to me how, in a perfect world, one could hope to prove such a thing as grade inflation to bump a FVF. It's such a miniscule risk to begin with. If anything, I think people underestimate their value to stay in a certain tier and it goes uncorrected. They'd make more fixing that leak.

Are you understanding the FVF issue correctly? It's not about submitters underestimating values. It's about CGC charging 3% of market value for books graded over a certain market value.

 

Take an AF 15, 8.5 vs 9.0. CGC charges that 3% based on after-market value. Therefore that 3% is larger if the grade is larger. Therefore an inherent COI, as bigger grade given equals bigger payday for CGC.

 

How would it be proven? With difficulty, but with the number of eyes and ears on the ground here, patterns would be spotted. That was the point of the Ewert reference - it was a pretty miniscule finding that led to the discovery.

[Prince Namor]

It's ridiculous to think that CGC would do anything in this situation that even smells of a conflict of interest - does anyone honestly think they're going to flush a reputation earned over 12 years down the toilet simply so they can sell a couple extra $10 press jobs?

 

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*.

 

I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices.

 

I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace.

 

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc.

 

You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books.

 

Up until this point, CGC had no business interests in grading books impartially, as they had no means to upsell the customer a service that increased the value of the book. Preferential treatment to high volume submitters? Intentionally damaging books? These things have no reason to be done because there is nothing to gain from it.

 

I send my book in, I pay the fee, I get the book back. It was very simple.

 

Now, there is plenty to gain for CGC. Even $10 services multipled by thousands of customers increases the bottom line significantly enough that it could easily skew someone into doing the "wrong" thing, which is why it's not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to apples, because the ethical issues that have arisen. That's what I was pointing out.

 

There will be plenty of people who chose to trust CGC because they don't think that a company will put dollars in front of customers given the choice. That's fine, people are entitled to think that way. As I've said before at the beginning of the thread - this decision is about perception, not whether or not it will actually do anything questionable to it's customer's books.

 

Regardless of what transpires - whether you wear a tinfoil hat or not - the bottom line is that CGC's decision to do this has or will potentially create a negative public perception of the company to it's customers.

 

BUT, why break that trust?

They're a monopoly.

All the money is coming to them anyway.

Stick the funnel in the bucket and win.

There's no reason to conspire for gain.

If anything it benefits them more to NOT conspire and let the cards fall where they do. There are no alternatives.

[seanfingh]

It's ridiculous to think that CGC would do anything in this situation that even smells of a conflict of interest - does anyone honestly think they're going to flush a reputation earned over 12 years down the toilet simply so they can sell a couple extra $10 press jobs?

 

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*.

 

I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices.

 

I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace.

 

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc.

 

You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books.

 

Up until this point, CGC had no business interests in grading books impartially, as they had no means to upsell the customer a service that increased the value of the book. Preferential treatment to high volume submitters? Intentionally damaging books? These things have no reason to be done because there is nothing to gain from it.

 

I send my book in, I pay the fee, I get the book back. It was very simple.

 

Now, there is plenty to gain for CGC. Even $10 services multipled by thousands of customers increases the bottom line significantly enough that it could easily skew someone into doing the "wrong" thing, which is why it's not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to apples, because the ethical issues that have arisen. That's what I was pointing out.

 

There will be plenty of people who chose to trust CGC because they don't think that a company will put dollars in front of customers given the choice. That's fine, people are entitled to think that way. As I've said before at the beginning of the thread - this decision is about perception, not whether or not it will actually do anything questionable to it's customer's books.

 

Regardless of what transpires - whether you wear a tinfoil hat or not - the bottom line is that CGC's decision to do this has or will potentially create a negative public perception of the company to it's customers.

 

It sounds like you are positing that CGC will (or could) excessively tighten up grading to effectively give books a lower grade than the book deserves on the theory that the recipient will then CPR the book, and they will get re-sub fees and now, pressing fees.

 

How is that risk increased by the absorption of CI? If we were to believe that CGC was motivated by that type of "business model" wouldn't they be doing it already?

[Straw-Man]

Classic reading on the about face of PCS last time.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1139470#Post1139470

 

Well, we did try and tell them it was a stinker.

 

reasonable minds differ on what constitutes classic reading.

Classic meaning old. Not classic meaning great. I didn't read much of it.

 

then we agree, young man.

[Transplant]

Any proof, in 12 years, that CGC has abused the tying of the FVF to the grade given to a book? Any at all? Any rumors? Whispers?

 

None. Not one.

 

Would there be? Will there be, if the CI relationship is abused? Look at the board's history of uncovering things like Ewert's shenanigans and the Schmell JIM resub...

Explain to me how, in a perfect world, one could hope to prove such a thing as grade inflation to bump a FVF. It's such a miniscule risk to begin with. If anything, I think people underestimate their value to stay in a certain tier and it goes uncorrected. They'd make more fixing that leak.

Are you understanding the FVF issue correctly? It's not about submitters underestimating values. It's about CGC charging 3% of market value for books graded over a certain market value.

 

Take an AF 15, 8.5 vs 9.0. CGC charges that 3% based on after-market value. Therefore that 3% is larger if the grade is larger. Therefore an inherent COI, as bigger grade given equals bigger payday for CGC.

 

How would it be proven? With difficulty, but with the number of eyes and ears on the ground here, patterns would be spotted. That was the point of the Ewert reference - it was a pretty miniscule finding that led to the discovery.

Yes. I understand it. I was saying CGC's cut on inflating a grade to make a higher FVF is far less than you make it out to be. I was pointing to the fact that people understate a book's value to have it grade on a modern or economy rather than a standard or whatever. That's far more prevalent and easier to fix than what you're alleging.

 

But, accepting what you say as true, I'm not sure how you prove it given that grading is so subjective. One party will say they graded soft on a book to make more money. The other side will say that's just normal variation. The submitter won't care because they have a higher graded book and will make more money if they sell. Most are not going to raise that issue in public. It will devalue their book. Others won't be able to grade well enough to say whether it was too high or too low.

[Transplant]

Classic reading on the about face of PCS last time.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1139470#Post1139470

 

Well, we did try and tell them it was a stinker.

 

reasonable minds differ on what constitutes classic reading.

Classic meaning old. Not classic meaning great. I didn't read much of it.

 

then we agree, young man.

That and Miles' post game conference was amazing.

[drbanner]

This is all just business.

Number of items per transaction, man. That's what it's all about.

CGC is aware that they can only milk the current 'crack-press-resub-repeat' group that they have for so long; it's time to expand.

Indeed, I can see a new thread already:

 

"Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Comic Verification Authority" bgraves

 

(Insert your own snarky parody of the CGC/CI announcement replacing "CI" with "CVA", mention the former CGC employees associated with it, streamling the process, providing synergy across services, and how excited everyone is about this great new opportunity.)