Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[VintageComics]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

[comicwiz]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

Apparently, even the amount of people viewing the book has recently been contested (at least to my knowledge) that when inquiring about graders notes, they no longer provide the once "democratic" and peer reviewed process of using three graders opinions to arrive at a final (mean) grade.

[The-Collector]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

Edited November 21, 2012 by The-Collector

[ciorac]

Just is just my opinion, but please do not attempt to compare the pressing of comic books to another collecting field that you may not be educated in. All that this does is either make you look like you do not know what you are talking about; or causes someone who is knowledgeable in the stated field to come and state facts, thus proving you wrong.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but this is so undeserved. It's pretty clear that you don't know who you are 'talking' to on these boards. If so, you might not be so confident in your 'expertise.'

 

When it comes to the hobby we talk about on these pages most of the time, I'll take Moondog's opinion over yours any day.

 

OPINION duly noted.

 

 

 

 

Moondog is truly an expert in the field of comics and one who is very well respected. He's also a very bright, thoughtful and kind person, overall.

 

 

And he is quite the looker as well

[comicwiz]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

[VintageComics]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

[Dale Roberts]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

[comicwiz]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

I see what your saying, but it really isn't a contextually valid talking point because the kind of manipulation I'm bringing-up makes it impossible to level the playing field between seller and buyer.

 

It's one thing when you have a speculator market that is buying up all the properties faster than they're being built, but another thing when the developer, builder and city deliberately hold back information on the land history (swamp, bog, hazardous waste site, etc.).

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

And I would counter that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can give just as good a service.

 

In fact, with certain honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealers, you might well get increased disclosure.

[comicwiz]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I'd have to say that the rules would need some HEAVY revision when the grader is the one who performed the work.

[VintageComics]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think that Joseph may be implying that CGC knew that the resto was removed and should have pro-actively notated it on the label but I do agree that the grader should really only knows what they see in front of them - ie the condition of the book and paper and nothing really more.

 

 

[VintageComics]

And I would counter that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can give just as good a service.

 

In fact, with certain honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealers, you might well get increased disclosure.

 

Nobody doubts that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can. There are many dealers who are just as good at grading as CGC but dealers are not the ones that are advertising themselves as graders or appraisers with a heavy marketing budget.

 

The general public is going to go with whoever portrays themselves as the standard to follow.

[The-Collector]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

And I would counter that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can give just as good a service.

 

In fact, with certain honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealers, you might well get increased disclosure.

 

I am mot advocating that cgc=good I am just tring to provide a model of how the market prices graded books.

 

So your point is valid. You may get better service with a good dealer. But my model still stands.

 

Cgc offers a risk mitigation service. Which minimizes risk and hence why higher prices are paid.

 

If I knew dealers that could offer the same service at a reduced price to Cgc open market books I would buy from them.

[Comicopolis]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

Define professional.

[The-Collector]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

Define professional.

 

I knew that would cause problems.

 

I would say it is someone with a level of expertise in the field. For the purposes of market pricing, it wouldn't matter whether they actually had expertise, just that the market thought they did.

[comicwiz]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

And I would counter that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can give just as good a service.

 

In fact, with certain honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealers, you might well get increased disclosure.

 

Cgc offers a risk mitigation service.

 

Whenever I read a study, the first thing I do is find out who funded the research.

 

That will pretty much get you the nitty gritty merits of the study without spending a second of wasted time reading how theory/science is used in a predetermined way to achieve a desired outcome.

 

When you apply this to the certification model in the comic hobby, look at what CGC did to mitigate resistance.

 

That model (which was hugely successful because of the people involved) is what makes the present certification model both accepted and coherent.

 

It is a model that doesn't bear any resemblance to what you are describing, and the only way I see it is a business evolving with a plan (developed by the multi-faceted operation with investment in multiple categories) to mitigate the kind of harmful resistance which might effect its viability.

[seanfingh]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

Apparently, even the amount of people viewing the book has recently been contested (at least to my knowledge) that when inquiring about graders notes, they no longer provide the once "democratic" and peer reviewed process of using three graders opinions to arrive at a final (mean) grade.

 

The finalizer was the autocratic grade giver. There was no democracy, nor any determination of a "mean" grade.

[The-Collector]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

And I would counter that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can give just as good a service.

 

In fact, with certain honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealers, you might well get increased disclosure.

 

Cgc offers a risk mitigation service.

 

Whenever I read a study, the first thing I do is find out who funded the research.

 

That will pretty much get you the nitty gritty merits of the study without spending a second of wasted time reading how theory/science is used in a predetermined way to achieve a desired outcome.

 

When you apply this to the certification model in the comic hobby, look at what CGC did to mitigate resistance.

 

That model (which was hugely successful because of the people involved) is what makes the present certification model both accepted and coherent.

 

It is a model that doesn't bear any resemblance to what you are describing, and the only way I see it is a business evolving with a plan (developed by the multi-faceted operation with investment in multiple categories) to mitigate the kind of harmful resistance which might effect its viability.

 

What?

 

So you don't think that individuals pay premiums for Cgc books because they feel that they know with a higher degree of certainty what the book is?

 

Because that is my argument.

[comicwiz]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

Apparently, even the amount of people viewing the book has recently been contested (at least to my knowledge) that when inquiring about graders notes, they no longer provide the once "democratic" and peer reviewed process of using three graders opinions to arrive at a final (mean) grade.

 

The finalizer was the autocratic grade giver. There was no democracy, nor any determination of a "mean" grade.

 

I really don't know for certain and don't doubt what your saying, and I know the "mean" grade was not the correct term to use, but I thought it came down to a book needing at least 2 votes (grades) to winning the race.

 

Every book I ever had graded always had at least 2 (sometimes all three) grades that were reflected in the final grade, and whenever there was a higher outcast sole grade, I'd use that information to consider resubbing.

[The-Collector]

 

Also your sentence below is circular and has no content. If we remove the parentheses it reads:

 

"That model is what makes the present certification model both accepted and coherent."

 

Can't use the term you are seeking to define in the definition.