Getting GPA Current?

[paperheart]

The answer is obvious. Of course we want better accounting of all the data. Reality squashes that hope because it isn't possible and won't happen.

 

GPA is the best we have and I'm sure the owner is doing his best to provide those of us who subscribe to it.

 

 

obviously the answer isn't obvious enough because the OP can't seem to hear it although it's been said countless times in the thread.

[roulette44]

The answer is obvious. Of course we want better accounting of all the data. Reality squashes that hope because it isn't possible and won't happen.

 

GPA is the best we have and I'm sure the owner is doing his best to provide those of us who subscribe to it.

 

 

I disagree - the answer is not obvious - you yourself say you want better accounting of the data. Rather than say non-helpful things like "reality squashes that", why don't we look for some ideas to make things better......even incremental improvement is something.

 

For example (and I've been trying not to call anyone out, but after a week of back and forth with no progression in this thread....Sorry Rick!) - Rick (Gator) says he used to report to GPA, but doesn't anymore. He personally is reponsible for a non-negligible chunk of key books, is well trusted and respected by these boards, and I've seen several examples of him noting recent book sales WAY outside GPA ranges.

 

If Rick were to report his data, the overall dataset improves. Would he be willing? Perhaps, given he did this before.....

 

Now what about Dale (also well respected and highvolume)? Bob Storms? etc, etc.

 

My primary concern (selfishly, frankly) is the $2,500+ books, particularly the ones that trade is low volume. But i'm sure others have other interested segments of the market and we should work together to produce solutions.

 

Again, please, if you want to hate, ridicule or tell me all the reasons why things are what they are - I GET IT, really. But anyone who has ideas for what COULD be done, please share!!

[Mark 1]

The answer is obvious. Of course we want better accounting of all the data. Reality squashes that hope because it isn't possible and won't happen.

 

GPA is the best we have and I'm sure the owner is doing his best to provide those of us who subscribe to it.

 

 

obviously the answer isn't obvious enough because the OP can't seem to hear it although it's been said countless times in the thread.

 

 

 

[joecgcmaniac]

The answer is obvious. Of course we want better accounting of all the data. Reality squashes that hope because it isn't possible and won't happen.

 

GPA is the best we have and I'm sure the owner is doing his best to provide those of us who subscribe to it.

 

 

I disagree - the answer is not obvious - you yourself say you want better accounting of the data. Rather than say non-helpful things like "reality squashes that", why don't we look for some ideas to make things better......even incremental improvement is something.

 

For example (and I've been trying not to call anyone out, but after a week of back and forth with no progression in this thread....Sorry Rick!) - Rick (Gator) says he used to report to GPA, but doesn't anymore. He personally is reponsible for a non-negligible chunk of key books, is well trusted and respected by these boards, and I've seen several examples of him noting recent book sales WAY outside GPA ranges.

 

If Rick were to report his data, the overall dataset improves. Would he be willing? Perhaps, given he did this before.....

 

Now what about Dale (also well respected and highvolume)? Bob Storms? etc, etc.

 

My primary concern (selfishly, frankly) is the $2,500+ books, particularly the ones that trade is low volume. But i'm sure others have other interested segments of the market and we should work together to produce solutions.

 

Again, please, if you want to hate, ridicule or tell me all the reasons why things are what they are - I GET IT, really. But anyone who has ideas for what COULD be done, please share!!

 

If you are too dense to understand that there is not much more that can be done due to the circumstances and shady dealer ethics involved, just keep banging your head against the wall and don't listen to others when they tell you it most likely can't be perfect. (thumbs u

[Mark 1]

The answer is obvious. Of course we want better accounting of all the data. Reality squashes that hope because it isn't possible and won't happen.

 

GPA is the best we have and I'm sure the owner is doing his best to provide those of us who subscribe to it.

 

 

I disagree - the answer is not obvious - you yourself say you want better accounting of the data. Rather than say non-helpful things like "reality squashes that", why don't we look for some ideas to make things better......even incremental improvement is something.

 

For example (and I've been trying not to call anyone out, but after a week of back and forth with no progression in this thread....Sorry Rick!) - Rick (Gator) says he used to report to GPA, but doesn't anymore. He personally is reponsible for a non-negligible chunk of key books, is well trusted and respected by these boards, and I've seen several examples of him noting recent book sales WAY outside GPA ranges.

 

If Rick were to report his data, the overall dataset improves. Would he be willing? Perhaps, given he did this before.....

 

Now what about Dale (also well respected and highvolume)? Bob Storms? etc, etc.

 

My primary concern (selfishly, frankly) is the $2,500+ books, particularly the ones that trade is low volume. But i'm sure others have other interested segments of the market and we should work together to produce solutions.

 

Again, please, if you want to hate, ridicule or tell me all the reasons why things are what they are - I GET IT, really. But anyone who has ideas for what COULD be done, please share!!

 

Curious, do you report sales to GPA? Would GPA take sales data from any dealer who sells a CGC slab?

 

I'm not sure why Rick doesn't report data. Perhaps it's time consuming? Perhaps he doesn't want to for other reasons.

 

I know of dealers who do sell big ticket books also and use GPA often. I don't see them looking for answers to make GPA better. Just wondering why you seem to be the only one?

 

Do you believe your solution will show that higher prices should be included and aren't...thus you are leaving money on the table?

 

 

[roulette44]

hm

 

I am trying to solicit opinions (and offer some of my own) for how things can be improved. If you don't think things can be improved at all (or don't care, or whatever), then okay - fine.

 

But a few people seem to think that "because we only have a 10% solution today, to he|| with it........ who cares if we can get from 10% to 25%"

 

Perfect and foolproof is unachievable - but what about an improvement of some kind?

[slym2none]

I think the message here can be summed up by the title of this movie:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119822/?ref_=sr_1

 

 

 

-slym

[bababooey]

I still want to know how the OP thinks other people use GPA improperly.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Perfect and foolproof is unachievable - but what about an improvement of some kind?

 

No problem with that.

 

So how would you improve it?

[Benjamin Grimm]

What about the 100's of thousands of dollars of CGC books that these boards sell that aren't reported? Surely our information would help the accuracy of lower GPA greatly because everyone here is a cheap azz.

 

Fixed that for ya. (thumbs u

 

[namisgr]

There's too much dependence on GPA.

 

These are comics, after all, and not stocks. There are too few sales of any comic to establish firm moment to moment pricing. There is too much variation in key features that affect eye appeal and dramatically influence sale prices to establish a 'set' price for a book based on numerical grade and page quality alone.

 

Even with page quality now being reported by GPA for most sales, the data are too scant and the contribution of eye appeal too great to use GPA for anything more than a 'ballpark' guide for pricing. The addition of more data is always welcome, but will still not make GPA more than it can be, a rough price guide.

[roulette44]

The answer is obvious. Of course we want better accounting of all the data. Reality squashes that hope because it isn't possible and won't happen.

 

GPA is the best we have and I'm sure the owner is doing his best to provide those of us who subscribe to it.

 

 

I disagree - the answer is not obvious - you yourself say you want better accounting of the data. Rather than say non-helpful things like "reality squashes that", why don't we look for some ideas to make things better......even incremental improvement is something.

 

For example (and I've been trying not to call anyone out, but after a week of back and forth with no progression in this thread....Sorry Rick!) - Rick (Gator) says he used to report to GPA, but doesn't anymore. He personally is reponsible for a non-negligible chunk of key books, is well trusted and respected by these boards, and I've seen several examples of him noting recent book sales WAY outside GPA ranges.

 

If Rick were to report his data, the overall dataset improves. Would he be willing? Perhaps, given he did this before.....

 

Now what about Dale (also well respected and highvolume)? Bob Storms? etc, etc.

 

My primary concern (selfishly, frankly) is the $2,500+ books, particularly the ones that trade is low volume. But i'm sure others have other interested segments of the market and we should work together to produce solutions.

 

Again, please, if you want to hate, ridicule or tell me all the reasons why things are what they are - I GET IT, really. But anyone who has ideas for what COULD be done, please share!!

 

Curious, do you report sales to GPA? Would GPA take sales data from any dealer who sells a CGC slab?

 

I don't today, but would certainly be open to it. I'm small time compared to many, but market data is market data. Most of my sales are person to person and private, so they're not hitting GPA now, but I have the data

 

I'm not sure why Rick doesn't report data. Perhaps it's time consuming? Perhaps he doesn't want to for other reasons.

 

Maybe he'll weigh in here too, but my guess is the time consuming piece (which could be addressed via process improvement). And again, I only used him as an example, because he noted he used to do it. WWComics is another example of someone who reports today (I believe)

 

I know of dealers who do sell big ticket books also and use GPA often. I don't see them looking for answers to make GPA better. Just wondering why you seem to be the only one?

 

That's a good question......according to paperheart, this topic has been debated and re-debated, so maybe other dealers have asked the question.....I don't know the answer, but it's important to me, so I'm voicing my concern. I know when you're concerned about something (anything), you voice your opinion

 

Do you believe your solution will show that higher prices should be included and aren't...thus you are leaving money on the table?

 

I find many times (as I noted earlier on) that there is a segment of buyers/traders that look at GPA as gospel and believe it's "the source". This is faulty logic, sure, but I get sick of having to try to point out what I know is there, when if it were noted on GPA

 

Works in both directions, not just "selling at a higher price" or "leaving money on the table"

 

My main concern, is that along with all the other challenges in the hobby today, the main reporting tool further complicates the issue.

 

 

[Mark 1]

Spelling out the obvious Routlette...

 

Unless it is a documented auction...nobody knows it the reported data is legitimate.

 

Nobody is saying that well know dealers would fudge the numbers...but without a true unbiased third party auditing the actual sales...who knows what it real?

 

The way it is right now is fine. eBay is a good way to track most true sales. Heritage also.

 

When independent dealers are providing their own sales numbers...I'd start to get skeptical about the accuracy of the numbers. Again, I'm not saying any of the dealers we know here would do that. We do know of some auction houses who were reporting messed up number...or some sales and not others. It's too much of a slippery slope to have this happen.

 

The way it works now is fine and I don't see other dealers complaining about it. If they thought it wasn't accurate...they wouldn't use it.

[roulette44]

Perfect and foolproof is unachievable - but what about an improvement of some kind?

 

No problem with that.

 

So how would you improve it?

 

How about a poll of the major dealers to start? Who to include could be measured by annual sales volume, a vote by boardies, or some other method.

 

We ask this subset of dealers

- would you contribute your sales data to GPA?

- what method would make this easiest for you?

- what concerns would you want addressed to make this happen (simplicity, quality, timeliness, etc)

 

If they all say no, well......end loop

 

If a good number of them are willing, then focus on

- how to ensure selection is kept to a minimum

- how to monitor the day for errors/challenges/etc

 

Then, if really successful, could try to

- encourage any remaining auction houses to submit (and be held to the same monotoring standard above)

- move to smaller dealers as well (same monotoring)

- move to board sales?

 

Nick, as a major dealer yourself, what do you think?

Dale/Rick/Greg/Others - would appreciate your weighing in here too.....candidly, if this is unimportant to you all, then I have no reason to care!!!

 

Joey

 

 

[Bio-Rupp]

Bob Storms said it best a few years back in my provocative "After Press Pricing for books NOT PRESSED YET " thread...

 

All this thread is showing that fewer and fewer people want to leave any crumbs on the table.

 

As a dealer I can understand that logic. We all want to maximize sales.

 

As a buyer, that lack of crumbs keeps us normal collectors from buying books.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Perfect and foolproof is unachievable - but what about an improvement of some kind?

 

No problem with that.

 

So how would you improve it?

 

How about a poll of the major dealers to start? Who to include could be measured by annual sales volume, a vote by boardies, or some other method.

 

We ask this subset of dealers

- would you contribute your sales data to GPA?

- what method would make this easiest for you?

- what concerns would you want addressed to make this happen (simplicity, quality, timeliness, etc)

 

If they all say no, well......end loop

 

If a good number of them are willing, then focus on

- how to ensure selection is kept to a minimum

- how to monitor the day for errors/challenges/etc

 

Then, if really successful, could try to

- encourage any remaining auction houses to submit (and be held to the same monotoring standard above)

- move to smaller dealers as well (same monotoring)

- move to board sales?

 

Nick, as a major dealer yourself, what do you think?

Dale/Rick/Greg/Others - would appreciate your weighing in here too.....candidly, if this is unimportant to you all, then I have no reason to care!!!

 

Joey

 

 

And all great ideas, Joey.

 

And I'll guarantee that George Pantela has already been down this route. He's either met with disinterest, or caveats that he couldn't live with if he wished to maintain the integrity of what he's doing.

[roulette44]

Bob Storms said it best a few years back in my provocative "After Press Pricing for books NOT PRESSED YET " thread...

 

All this thread is showing that fewer and fewer people want to leave any crumbs on the table.

 

As a dealer I can understand that logic. We all want to maximize sales.

 

As a buyer, that lack of crumbs keeps us normal collectors from buying books.

 

 

Well, if the thread was provocative......I must read it!

 

the concept of maximizing sales is not the primary point of my post - it's about maximizing the compreshensiveness of the data, which I believe it adds credibility!

[roulette44]

Perfect and foolproof is unachievable - but what about an improvement of some kind?

 

No problem with that.

 

So how would you improve it?

 

How about a poll of the major dealers to start? Who to include could be measured by annual sales volume, a vote by boardies, or some other method.

 

We ask this subset of dealers

- would you contribute your sales data to GPA?

- what method would make this easiest for you?

- what concerns would you want addressed to make this happen (simplicity, quality, timeliness, etc)

 

If they all say no, well......end loop

 

If a good number of them are willing, then focus on

- how to ensure selection is kept to a minimum

- how to monitor the day for errors/challenges/etc

 

Then, if really successful, could try to

- encourage any remaining auction houses to submit (and be held to the same monotoring standard above)

- move to smaller dealers as well (same monotoring)

- move to board sales?

 

Nick, as a major dealer yourself, what do you think?

Dale/Rick/Greg/Others - would appreciate your weighing in here too.....candidly, if this is unimportant to you all, then I have no reason to care!!!

 

Joey

 

 

And all great ideas, Joey.

 

And I'll guarantee that George Pantela has already been down this route. He's either met with disinterest, or caveats that he couldn't live with if he wished to maintain the integrity of what he's doing.

 

Thanks Nick, you're a true professional....

 

Well, that makes things tough (without collaboration, this wouldn't be possible)

 

I wonder if George would post here?

[paperheart]

honestly, if i was a dealer why would i turn over my proprietary sales data to a third party in which i am going to see no benefit? for the good of the hobby? information is power. i'd love to see Clink cough up their data but i've got 7 years of Clink auction data on the stuff i collect, so it wouldn't benefit me if they did.

[zosocane]

What's interesting about reading this thread is how less relevant (irrelevant?) the OPG has become. I have gone from looking at the bloody thing almost every day to rarely consulting it. GPA has become my number 1 pricing tool (HA to a lesser extent), but I consider all sorts of intangible factors (e.g., PQ, cover appeal) when figuring out the fairness of a price.

 

I think it's really incumbent on GPA to encourage (i.e., compensate) the high volume non-reporters out there to get their numbers in to GPA, which would thereby make GPA a more fulsome price reporter. Of course that would then mean compensating all dealers that report their numbers, which probably isn't economically viable for GPA.