Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[DrWatson]

Have anymore of my posts been acknowledged as great since I last checked?

I acknowledge that they're grating.

[comicwiz]

Have anymore of my posts been acknowledged as great since I last checked?

I acknowledge that they're grating.

 

[TupennyConan]

Have anymore of my posts been acknowledged as great since I last checked?

I acknowledge that they're grating.

 

This is the affirmation I sought.

[NP_Gresham]

Is this a debate about who should be the MVP?

 

It certainly is taking on alot of the characteristics of a "sabermetrics" vs old school baseball stats argument.

 

Personally I vote Trout.

 

Finally a topic i know a little about. Enough of this comic stuff. Dude!! Cabrera won the Triple Crown. THE TRIPLE CROWN!! And he got his team to the World Series.

 

Jeff

 

Cabrera was the best offensive player. Trout was the most valuable player. Value in baseball is about wins. Wins is a factor of runs scored vs runs allowed.

 

There is a high correlation between run differential (or Runs scored vs runs allowed) and wins. As evidence of this, no team with a below .500 record had a positive run differential this year. That is a fancy way of saying they scored less runs than they allowed. Every team with a .500 or better record scored more runs than they allowed. This fact tells me that there are at least 2 components to determining value, that is runs created and runs saved. Defense does make a difference.

 

Offensive value should come from primarily 1 area...runs created. Runs created encompasses so many different factors of offense, from hitting, to effective slugging, to baserunning. It also includes factors which are not included in sabermetric stats, such as the ability to hit a sacrifice fly, or drive in a run from 3rd base on a ground ball to the 2nd baseman. These 2 things have value, even though they are not factored in to the advanced metrics. There are new stats such as extra base taken%, but these are all included in runs scored. An extra base taken or a stolen base which does not score, generally has zero value. In actual value(runs created), the only stats that really have an impact on the club's win total are runs scored and runs driven in.

 

So my formula to determine the most valuable player would be the player who creates the most runs on offense and the player who saves the most runs on defense. Runs created + runs saved = MVP. Runs saved is extremely hard to judge, so going with metrics of plus or minus runs saved above average from Fan Graphs and the Fielding Bible.

 

Cabrera - 139 RBI + 109 runs - 44 HRs +(-8 PMRS) = 196

Trout - 83 RBI + 129 runs - 30 HRs + (21 PMRS) = 203

 

When you include defense, it is clear that Trout is in fact more valuable to his team than Cabrera. I was somewhat surprised by this outcome, but I feel it is a very fair way to evaluate who is the Most Valuable.

 

 

Defense is a big deal, ill agree there. But the Angels finished third this year if im not mistaken. Take Trout out and where do the Angels finish?? Im thinking still third. Take Cabrera away from the Tigers and where do they finish?? Not first and not in the Playoffs.

 

I know Sabermetrics and all this new stuff about analyzing a player is common and has become a big part in valuing a player, sometimes though i think the core of an evauation is right there in front of you and not beyond the numbers. If the Angels go to the playoff this year, then there is a bigger arguement for Trout, but still debatable,

 

Jeff

 

The MVP is misnamed.

The true MVP almost always get the Cy Young award.

While the MVP goes to the best hitter.

 

How can your MVP only play in 20% of your games?

 

Price faced over 700 batters last year.

Trout had about 700 PA.

How is that not equal?

So in all the games played by Trout, he had a very impressive 10.7 WAR.

In other words, he was indistinguishable from any other player, except in 10.7 wins.

Any Shmoe is NOT winning anywhere close to 20 games with Tampa in 2012.

Price was not exactly Verlander of 2011, but still won probably 12-14 games over any other league avg replacement.

Any starting pitcher dominates the games in which they pitch, any hitter is a minor piece of only a handful of games each year. In truth, a great starter, saves a bullpen, affecting games beyond his own starts. A great starting pitcher also hands off tie games, that a weak pitcher would never even give his team a chance to win.

Great pitching dominates great hitting.

This is not a popular opinion amoung most fans, nor does it put butts in seats. But pitchers like Verlander, are very unlikely to finish far out of the race. Great hitters often litter the teams in the basement.

 

 

 

[DrWatson]

Have anymore of my posts been acknowledged as great since I last checked?

I acknowledge that they're grating.

 

This is the affirmation I sought.

At least someone is a winner in this thread.

[TupennyConan]

Have anymore of my posts been acknowledged as great since I last checked?

I acknowledge that they're grating.

 

This is the affirmation I sought.

At least someone is a winner in this thread.

 

Dale's still posting here?

[ComicConnoisseur]

Interesting article up at BLEEDING COOL...

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/22/cgc-buys-classic-restorations-in-a-9-8-graded-conflict-of-interests/

 

How can he say pressing is controversial, I thought most people don't know about it and those that do don't care

Yes, people do not consider pressing restoration. And if they are unaware of the process, once explained, they do not care. But these crazy irrational types who do not like it, they are just in the head.

 

I PREFER a book that has not been pressed over a pressed book. But we can manufacture hg books for profit and should do so. Why leave cash on the table right? It worked well for the BA market, look how healthy those 9.4's are with all the "new" 9.8's.

 

100% agree, all is good in the comic book world. The biggest question in my mind is what "new" process are people doing to books to help push the grade even higher while maintaining the blue status. So far we know.

1. Pressing

2. Dry cleaning

3. Micro trimming (when done properly)

4. Disassembly and reassembly.

5. Staple replacement (when done properly with vintage staples)

6. Reattachment with tape

So the process done before the slabbing is actually of much more importance,then the content( the graded comic book) itself?

Edited November 25, 2012 by ComicConnoisseur

[trmoore54]

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?

 

Well, I personally prefer a numerical system to the old days... if for no other reason than it takes up less room on my labels. I just think the hobby went a bit too far on the number of breakdown points, that's all. For me, it's just simple logic. If a system, any system, cannot be largely consistent with its own standards, than to me, those standards are not valid.

 

I think many arguing with me simply make my point... as it's been stated that thousands of dollars can ride on a .2 difference. Exactly! And if that .2 difference cannot be applied with any consistency, due to the difficulties in detecting said differences, than a lot of money is in a constant state of risk due to such inconsistencies, which over time, is unhealthy for collectors or investors. Which is why there is such panic over pressing (which, more often than not, is about aiming for a .2 upgrade) and multiple resubmissions (same thing) and other anxieties often expressed here.

 

I simply posit a less-stressful collecting environment... which seems to inspire stress-filled threads!

 

I heard or read somewhere...maybe it was here (most likely) that the impetus to drop the alpha designation and give number-only grades was the psychological negative impact/perception of the minus (-) grades...having a minus in an alpha grade was considered (thusly) poor form...i.e., a person would be subconciously negative over a VF- but would be subconciously positive re. a FN/VF...

[trmoore54]

Surfing ebay I see lots of raw books advertised with numerical grades.

 

If I am not mistaken, doesn't the majority of raw collectors use OSPG as a reference for value?

 

If so, OSPG uses a alpha/numerical grading system now. I would bet money in a couple of years it will be a numerical grading scale only.

 

I'll take that bet any day of the week.

 

I've just searched through 200 Fantastic Four books on eBay...not one of them had solely a numeric grade.

 

A percentage (around 25%) had a numeric grade in parenthesis, with the alpha grade leading.

 

CGC have been using a numeric grade since inception, and solely a numeric grade since what, 2005?

 

Not exactly catching on in the overall market, is it?

 

The whole number versus letter for grades debate is serious hair-splitting with no payoff. Who cares? It matters so little that endlessly debating what amounts to personal preference is fruitless. Borock was changing the label to make the grades easier to read from a distance and chose the numbers instead of the letters...big schmeal. Not worth all the grief.

 

I endorse this statement/position!

 

(Catching up on this thread after being away for the Holiday...vastly amusing and of equal concern re. the potential down-side...

[trmoore54]

I love when I get a call from someone trying to sell a collection of old comics they found in the attic.

"Well ma'am, what kind of shape are they in?"

"Oh, They are all in very good shape. Very good. They are still in their original bags and everything."

Then they come in and the books are all dog-earred and water damaged and beat up in some crusty old yellow bags from the '70s.

"Sorry ma'am, these are what we call good condition. Some of them are only fair."

She gives me a blank stare.

 

Actually that last part is lie...

 

...I now say "Ma'am, on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the best, your books are mostly ones and twos."

 

She understands immediately.

 

Did you tell her the comics never came in bags (except for poly-pacs)...

[trmoore54]

Ever heard the expression 'it's not what you say, it's what you don't say that matters'.

 

That was CGC's approach to pressing. From day one, they should have made a public announcement through every media available that they did not consider pressing restoration. After all, that stance flew in the face of the industry's - and the industry's bible, Overstreet's - definition of restoration.

 

Rather a huge shift, don't you think? And as such, possibly worthy of widespread, proactive dissemination?

 

I have and I agree.

 

Even so, I think most of us can agree on this: many people don't consider it restoration for the reason that it is a benign procedure that simply mimics what can very possibly (and often likely) be a natural occurrence.

 

The simple addition of humidity in a humid climate will soften paper fibres and remove defects from a book just sitting on a table.

 

The simple addition of gravity to apply pressure on a book (something we have all been doing since childhood) will straighten out defects on a book.

 

It's very different than something additive and intrusive, that much cannot be disputed.

 

I genuinely believe that the outrage is not because pressing is considered evil, it's because money is being made from pressing.

And quite honestly, since Overstreet has made some mistakes (IMO - like when allowed staples to be replaced on Vintage books up to VF) he himself is not the be-all and end-all.

 

Let's face it, OSPG grading standards evolved into what they were in 1970 from a bunch of geeky collectors, evolved from 1970 until today and are still evolving currently.

 

BOOM.

 

Reality check, point blank.

 

Serious question: How many years was CGC's rollout? Before everything was fully and officially confirmed?

(off the top of my head it seems like 6 or 7 years, maybe longer. But I may be prone to sensationalism, or so I'm told. )

 

No "BOOM" whatsoever. I knew a few years in that CGC had not considered pressing restoration. CGC themselves told me. It wasn't a secret by any means.

 

Yes you like to use power words on a regular basis to try to emphasize (and sensationalize) your posts.

 

Roy

I get the pressing/CPR sayers and the naysayer's point of views...as a moderate (as opposed to hyper-conservative or hyper-liberal) anti-presser or proponent (I'm pretty much an all things in moderation kind of guy) it pizzes me off that people are making a ton of money by altering books in this fashion...pretty much just talking HG candidates. As Andrew, gaz/Garry and others have stated, it is vastly skewing the census/amount of books that have NATURALLY attained their pristine condition over many many years...as a collector and a somewhat purist that annoys me at best and depresses me at worst...

 

That is the point I would make...not just the making of money but the need to alter and re-define what constitutes the book higher-graded as a direct result of the pressing.

 

The fact that people have pressed books prior to CGC and many have done it "naturally" by stacking books or putting a heavy weighted object on top is not a defense of mass-pressing within the hobby...I think it is a very short-sighted view what is occurring now.

 

Another facet is that people like myself, being very selective and patient and finding a nice 9.4 say and paying top market or slightly over market at the time, ultimately see the value in the book they paid drop by half is disconcerting. I am a collector first but have a basic goal (or hope) that my books at least retain their value and not drop by half. This will happen with many books due to market correction and hyped books falling back down to earth but that is not what I am talking about...I get that.

 

And as a condition aesthete with my own particular idea of what constitutes a book in as nice as possible condition imaginable, the spine is plump and rounded...not squished flat. That bothers me.

Edited November 26, 2012 by trmoore54

[originalisbest]

See my answer in the other thread. 9.6 is 9.6 is 9.6 -- so you'd best be careful about "overpaying" for a 9.6. I suppose you are saying if given two books very similar in appearance -- and I inform you one has been pressed -- you'd know FOR CERTAIN which one it was every time?

 

Good luck with that.

[comicwiz]

See my answer in the other thread. 9.6 is 9.6 is 9.6 -- so you'd best be careful about "overpaying" for a 9.6. I suppose you are saying if given two books very similar in appearance -- and I inform you one has been pressed -- you'd know FOR CERTAIN which one it was every time?

 

Good luck with that.

 

You can press a warped record, but yours is broken.

[originalisbest]

Ooooohhh!

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Just putting these two threads here for continuity:

It's amazing how many of the predictions in this thread came true.

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2020 at 12:43 PM, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

It's amazing how many of the predictions in this thread came true.

You mean like the one that Brulato's collection was losing money as each day passed?

I quickly skimmed this thread for the 1st time in nearly a decade. Now I know where 10,000 of my 97,000 posts came from.