Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[Transplant]

For those that think both are relevant, and yet both convey the same thing, I have to ask: "Why have more information on a label than you need?"

You mean like, "Why stop noting things on a label that you used to?" Since when is more information a bad thing?

[Speedy-D]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

Only because you're used to seeing the finer grades. You could just as easily say that CVA helps to determine the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7.

 

And the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7 is less relevant than the difference between a 9.5 and a 10.

I don't know about 'relevant.' Relevant to what? If a 0.2 grade difference can double the value of a comic, why should a 0.1 grade difference mean nothing?

 

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

[VintageComics]

Fair question.

I didn't put Steve's name because it doesn't matter "who". The position at CGC was the point, and where that position advanced to.

 

I went out of my way to not make it personal, because it's not. Glance up a few posts and you'll see someone accusing me of spewing "sensationalism". Look at your own defensive reaction. Making it about beloved personalities is a conversation-killer. So I purposely avoided it.

 

Maybe I should've only posted the links. Let them speak for themselves.

 

If you knew none of the personalities, none of the company names, would you consider:

...an auction house owner with a past involving grading conflicts

...a comic book grading company who accepts the action house owner's investment capital.

...a comic book restoration expert who has worked with and for the auction house

...a head grader and spokesperson for the comic book grading company

 

creates a "conflict of interest" if the head grader promotes to the auction house and the restoration expert sells his company to the recipient of the auction house owner's capital investment, the grading company?

 

That was the point, no more no less. And it just seemed ridiculous that people were debating whether the restoration expert might have insight to the grading company's methodology. Like they're not all marketing partners, interacting with one another, all working the same system.

 

 

.

 

To touch on this and add a little perspective, the hobby has always been incestual that way. It's a very small hobby and it's tough to find new, outside people with money to invest who also have a lot of experience in comics.

 

We were at the blunt end of nerd jokes for decades. Finding an investor, a grader, a resto expert is not as easy as finding an accountant. You don't have a stream of college graduates to choose from.

 

When CGC came around, the internet was in full upward swing. eBay was exploding, online stores were exploding and collectors were doing person to person transactions at a rate far faster than snail mail used to allow. It was just a matter of time before someone started a grading service that facilitated internet comic book sales.

 

Finding an investor like Donald Trump would not have happened. "You want how much money for a company that puts comics into plastic cases?". Remember, we were the comic nerds back in the 1990's.

 

Finding a competent grader to work for a booming internet auction house who could purchase effectively would have been difficult (by the way, I applied for that job a few years ago when Heritage advertised an opening on this very forum)

 

Finding a person who can expertly detect restoration would have been difficult.

 

The reality is that we're still a relatively small hobby and keep in mind that we are now much larger than we were 12 years ago.

 

Ultimately, most money and experience has to come from inside initially and with relatively few players to choose from your options are limited. That is the reality of any small community.

 

If the "Chinese Wall" stands and an investor has no "voting rights" and can not affect the grade outcome of a book, if the Senior consignment director at Heritage who used to be President of CGC can not have any more effect on the grade outcome of a book than his current employer and if the resto expert can not have any more or less affect on the grade of a book than he did when he pressed and removed restoration in Texas, then is it a conflict of interest in reality?

 

I am concerned about the integrity of the system because I have a vested interest in it.

 

I guess that all depends on how secure that wall is.

[KingOfRulers]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

[nearmint]

It doesn't really matter what you call them. You can change it to "Ripe" "Just right" or "Butt ugly".

 

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

 

Your opinion isn't heresy. I just disagree and see high grade comics differently.

 

I agree, the fine division of grades, the sometimes huge monetary difference between a very small defect, and the fact that some books get different grades on re-submission is a root problem for much of the angst in the hobby.

 

However, I think the grading system is right where it should be, and I don't think the system you use would be very useful, and would bring about it's own set of controversies.

 

Bookery's grading system would actually make CVA relevant.

Only because you're used to seeing the finer grades. You could just as easily say that CVA helps to determine the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7.

 

And the difference between a 9.6 and a 9.7 is less relevant than the difference between a 9.5 and a 10.

I don't know about 'relevant.' Relevant to what? If a 0.2 grade difference can double the value of a comic, why should a 0.1 grade difference mean nothing?

 

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

 

I didn't say that a .1 difference means nothing. I said that it means less than a .5 difference. You're welcome to your opinion, but I think the current scale works just fine.

[VintageComics]

For those that think both are relevant, and yet both convey the same thing, I have to ask: "Why have more information on a label than you need?"

You mean like, "Why stop noting things on a label that you used to?" Since when is more information a bad thing?

 

No, that's not what I meant at all. Now you're adding fuel to a fire that doesn't exist to stir something up.

 

Even though it's not relevant to this discussion at all, we already know why those notes were removed. They were not consistent creating a disparity between books, and are usually available (probably the majority of the time) through grader's notes anyway.

 

In regards to Alpha/Numerical I'm asking, why be redundant?

 

Tradition is the only answer I can come up with.

[Flaming_Telepath]

While Alpha is traditional it's quickly being outgrown...

 

Er, not in 95% of the back issue market, it's not.

 

So why can't the 5% actually fall in line with the rest of the hobby?

 

Get back to Alpha and if you really need it, throw some big numbers on there too.

 

Much like Alpha is outgrown in most cultures and turning to numbers for conveying scales (it died in Ancient Greece a long time ago) it is going through a transition in this hobby. It's a natural progression to convey something qualitative in numbers rather than letters.

 

It might be alive and well in the ungraded back issue market (which is admittedly large) it is slowly petering out in the graded market.

 

For those that think both are relevant, and yet both convey the same thing, I have to ask: "Why have more information on a label than you need?"

 

We're talking about comic books, right? Whether they are in plastic or not, right?

 

And 95% of the back issue market deals in Alpha grades. They are not going anywhere and that proportion of the market that they're recognised in isn't going to change much.

 

So why does a very small proportion of the same hobby not use Alpha like everybody else?

 

And it's not a 'natural progression'. It's a simplification. It's describing a condition, rather like 'beautiful', 'sexy' or 'dog-rough' describe. Now, unless you're suggesting that those adjectives will soon be replaced by '3267', '10097' and '72', it's not a 'natural progession'. It's a code, just as the Alpha scale was a code, and when one code dominates 95% of the market, I have to wonder why the numbers are actually needed?

 

In fact, they could be a barrier to new blood coming into the slabbed market. Without the Alpha code, there are people who will not understand - and consequently not trust - what they are actually getting.

 

 

[nearmint]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

 

(thumbs u

[Transplant]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

Congratulations.

[VintageComics]

We're talking about comic books, right? Whether they are in plastic or not, right?

 

And 95% of the back issue market deals in Alpha grades. They are not going anywhere and that proportion of the market that they're recognised in isn't going to change much.

 

So why does a very small proportion of the same hobby not use Alpha like everybody else?

 

And it's not a 'natural progression'. It's a simplification. It's describing a condition, rather like 'beautiful', 'sexy' or 'dog-rough' describe. Now, unless you're suggesting that those adjectives will soon be replaced by '3267', '10097' and '72', it's not a 'natural progession'. It's a code, just as the Alpha scale was a code, and when one code dominates 95% of the market, I have to wonder why the numbers are actually needed?

 

In fact, they could be a barrier to new blood coming into the slabbed market. Without the Alpha code, there are people who will not understand - and consequently not trust - what they are actually getting.

 

 

Tradition is the only answer I can come up with.

 

That's a pretty good answer and one I hadn't thought of. Maybe that tradition does have a place for the time being.

 

[VintageComics]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

Congratulations.

 

 

[Transplant]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

Congratulations.

 

 

I started to say so what. But then I figured it was not completely irrelevant as people's reaction to this news, and how it affects their views on the hobby, are not completely irrelevant.

[seanfingh]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

Congratulations.

 

 

Congratulations for breaking my heart

Congratulations for tearing it all apart

Congratulations you finally did succeed

Congratulations for leaving me in need

 

This morning I looked out my window and found

A bluebird singing but there was no one around

At night I lay alone in my bed

With an image of you goin' around in my head

 

Congratulations for bringing me down

Congratulations now I'm sorrow bound

Congratulations you got a good deal

Congratulations how good you must feel

 

I guess that I must have loved you more than I ever knew

My world is empty now cause it don't have you

And if I had just one more chance to win your heart again

I would do things differently but what's the use to pretend

 

Congratulations for making me wait

Congratulations now it's too late

Congratulations you came out on top

Congratulations you never did know when to stop

 

Congratulations

[VintageComics]

I buy comic books and original art, and this buy-out (whether conflict of interest or not) will not hamper in any way the joy brought to me by comic books and original art.

Congratulations.

 

 

Congratulations for breaking my heart

Congratulations for tearing it all apart

Congratulations you finally did succeed

Congratulations for leaving me in need

 

This morning I looked out my window and found

A bluebird singing but there was no one around

At night I lay alone in my bed

With an image of you goin' around in my head

 

Congratulations for bringing me down

Congratulations now I'm sorrow bound

Congratulations you got a good deal

Congratulations how good you must feel

 

I guess that I must have loved you more than I ever knew

My world is empty now cause it don't have you

And if I had just one more chance to win your heart again

I would do things differently but what's the use to pretend

 

Congratulations for making me wait

Congratulations now it's too late

Congratulations you came out on top

Congratulations you never did know when to stop

 

Congratulations

 

[Bookery]

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

 

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices.

 

BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected.

 

 

[Davenport]

If the "Chinese Wall" stands and an investor has no "voting rights" and can not affect the grade outcome of a book, if the Senior consignment director at Heritage who used to be President of CGC can not have any more effect on the grade outcome of a book than his current employer and if the resto expert can not have any more or less affect on the grade of a book than he did when he pressed and removed restoration in Texas, then is it a conflict of interest in reality?

 

I am concerned about the integrity of the system because I have a vested interest in it.

 

I guess that all depends on how secure that wall is.

Take a look at what you wrote and really think about it.

 

The Senior Consignment Director at Heritage developed the methodology CGC uses. And their (newly acquired) Restoration Expert knows Heritage intimately, having worked for and with them for years.

 

You see no advantages for a consignment to reach its top possible CGC grade, getting the most bang for Heritage, and have that final hammer amount fed to dataminers for mass consumption?

 

Take a moment and just let it percolate a bit. A potential "conflict of interest" may present itself. Step back from it, tilt your head, squint your eyes, and look again.

[Bookery]

This morning I looked out my window and found

A bluebird singing but there was no one around

 

That cannot factually be accurate.

 

My world is empty now cause it don't have you

 

But you've still got the bluebird. As a veteran birdwatcher of 40+ years, I'll take the bluebird over a fickle female.

 

 

[nearmint]

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

 

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices.

 

BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected.

 

 

I've been at this for 40 years, so I'm not a child of the CGC era, and despite my screen name, I own comics at every grade level.

 

Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today?

[VintageComics]

If the "Chinese Wall" stands and an investor has no "voting rights" and can not affect the grade outcome of a book, if the Senior consignment director at Heritage who used to be President of CGC can not have any more effect on the grade outcome of a book than his current employer and if the resto expert can not have any more or less affect on the grade of a book than he did when he pressed and removed restoration in Texas, then is it a conflict of interest in reality?

 

I am concerned about the integrity of the system because I have a vested interest in it.

 

I guess that all depends on how secure that wall is.

Take a look at what you wrote and really think about it.

 

The Senior Consignment Director at Heritage developed the methodology CGC uses. And their (newly acquired) Restoration Expert knows Heritage intimately, having worked for and with them for years.

 

You see no advantages for a consignment to reach its top possible CGC grade, getting the most bang for Heritage, and have that final hammer amount fed to dataminers for mass consumption?

 

Take a moment and just let it percolate a bit. A potential "conflict of interest" may present itself. Step back from it, tilt your head, squint your eyes, and look again.

 

Did Steve develop the methodology or help develop it? My understanding is that a lot of people were involved in it including most major dealers.

 

I don't understand how Matt's professional relationship with Heritage affects CGC graders. I might be missing something obvious.

 

There are plenty of people that know how to grade well and detect resto well (plenty relatively speaking, within the hobby). I think I am one of them, after learning about it for years through conversations, the chat forum, etc.

 

Does that mean that the system is slanted in my favour?

 

I suppose if you're good at what you do they would be.

 

I'm going to need you to spell it out for me, Dav.

 

[fantastic_four]

Anyway, it's a question of scale. Why is a 0.2 difference the right level of granularity above 9.0? I think it's too fine. I think it's not possible to discern accurately by two percentage points the condition of a comic. Others may think it's not fine enough and would welcome a 100 point scale.

 

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices.

 

BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected.

 

 

I've been at this for 40 years, so I'm not a child of the CGC era, and despite my screen name, I own comics at every grade level.

 

Things haven't changed at all. In the old days it was VF/NM, NM-, NM, NM+, NM/MT, MT. How is that different than the .2 grade differences that we have today?

 

It's the same thing. It seems fairly obvious why Fishler used .2 increments above 9.0 when he developed the scale that Borock adopted--people love to split hairs at the top end of the scale. Having said that, I generally agree with Speedy-D that CGC and the industry's level of precision is too rough for a 25-point scale, but it's better than the overly optimistic 100 point scale Overstreet had been pushing that Fishler was trying to simplify. A 25-point scale isn't far off from reality and can be thought of as a laudable goal to push the standard towards, but something like a 15-point scale is probably closer to the reality of how consistently tight the top end of the hobby is able to grade.