Sellers are now using projected grades?

[DiceX]

I'll stop paraphrasing and be the bad guy...

 

Action 258 9.4 last gpa 9.2 for $1005 this would be highest graded my price $854

 

I confirmed with cgc graders that the writing in the coupon on the back cover does not affect grade unless the graders are between grades, then it tilts to the lower grade of the two the book otherwise grades at, but it does not affect the grade by itself. It is like an arrival date.)

 

 

 

[vaillant]

What price is $854, anyway?

[Logan510]

I was searching the sales forum and came across a guy selling books with the grades he projected they would be after a proper press.

Amazingly, he has actually sold a few books.

Is this where we are headed?

That's been going on for a while. I'd tell the seller to press it and grade it himself if he wants that kind of money for it.

 

 

That seems fair to me. Though I can totally understand if someone is asking over guide for a raw HG copy of a key or hot book.

[Hamlet]

There is a whole little industry devoted to doing exactly that via crack/press/re-submit.

 

An 8.0 with a very good chance to press to a 9.0 is obviously going to sell for more than an 8.0 with no upgrade potential.

 

My way just skips the press and the silly plastic case.

 

It is also always possible for me to press and grade the book if I do choose to sell it.

 

Does it make sense to pay $150 for a book that is currently worth $100, especially if you have no plans to press it into a better grade?

[DiceX]

What price is $854, anyway?

 

I have to question the grading algorithm used to come up with that number, and wonder why it was rounded to the nearest dollar.

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

I'll stop paraphrasing and be the bad guy...

 

Action 258 9.4 last gpa 9.2 for $1005 this would be highest graded my price $854

 

I confirmed with cgc graders that the writing in the coupon on the back cover does not affect grade unless the graders are between grades, then it tilts to the lower grade of the two the book otherwise grades at, but it does not affect the grade by itself. It is like an arrival date.)

 

 

 

Wow. I guess I can see what the fuss is about here. That's a flagrantly misleading description. Quoting GPA towards the value of a book that is not only not slabbed, but has grading issues with it that are explained away (to improve the saleability) by the seller's statement that he called CGC and talked to them?

 

I'm sure CGC will absolutely, positively stand by their statement made over the telephone to an unknown person who isn't engaging in their services when the buyer decides to submit the book several months later.

 

I'm sorry, but I would have a problem with that kind of listing.

[Transplant]

So yeah, I don't see a point in getting bent out of shape.

 

AK, I don't think it's so much about people going on a bender as it is to just lay out the ground rules. I don't know how it happened that anyone thought it would be a good idea to quote GPA on raw book sales, but it's not a practice that should be used. Period.

 

GPA is stricly for slabs.

 

Quote Overstreet for raw books. Alternatively, do multiple raw book checks on eBay or the forums in the listed grade and use as much sales data as possible rather than cherry picking sales to help skew your ask price.

 

I guess my point is, who are we protecting by instituting that kind of a restriction?

We're protecting people who don't want more information.

 

Would people similarly have a problem if I said:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Current GPA value is $525. Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

Or would people prefer:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

If you're okay with the latter in each set of examples, ask yourself why.

[THE_BEYONDER]

My head hurts....

[COI]

So yeah, I don't see a point in getting bent out of shape.

 

AK, I don't think it's so much about people going on a bender as it is to just lay out the ground rules. I don't know how it happened that anyone thought it would be a good idea to quote GPA on raw book sales, but it's not a practice that should be used. Period.

 

GPA is stricly for slabs.

 

Quote Overstreet for raw books. Alternatively, do multiple raw book checks on eBay or the forums in the listed grade and use as much sales data as possible rather than cherry picking sales to help skew your ask price.

 

I guess my point is, who are we protecting by instituting that kind of a restriction?

We're protecting people who don't want more information.

 

Would people similarly have a problem if I said:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Current GPA value is $525. Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

Or would people prefer:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

If you're okay with the latter in each set of examples, ask yourself why.

 

That's what I don't get.

 

Someone quoting GPA for a raw book is essentially just explaining their pricing rationale. Instituting a "no gpa for raw books" rule accomplishes nothing other than removing information about how the seller came to his price. And for what purpose?

[Dr. Balls]

So yeah, I don't see a point in getting bent out of shape.

 

AK, I don't think it's so much about people going on a bender as it is to just lay out the ground rules. I don't know how it happened that anyone thought it would be a good idea to quote GPA on raw book sales, but it's not a practice that should be used. Period.

 

GPA is stricly for slabs.

 

Quote Overstreet for raw books. Alternatively, do multiple raw book checks on eBay or the forums in the listed grade and use as much sales data as possible rather than cherry picking sales to help skew your ask price.

 

I guess my point is, who are we protecting by instituting that kind of a restriction?

We're protecting people who don't want more information.

 

Would people similarly have a problem if I said:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Current GPA value is $525. Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

Or would people prefer:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

If you're okay with the latter in each set of examples, ask yourself why.

 

I prefer the latter. Because when I buy something, I don't need to be quoted the price for something not related to my purchase.

 

The difference between buying raw and buying slabbed is huge. With raw, there's no wait time. There's no handling and submission fees. There's no pressing issues. There's no return shipping charges. There's no determining market value. There's no risk in slabbing a book that might see a change (for better/worse) in market value during the time it's gone being graded. These are factors that play into the valuation of a book, including the benefit of utilizing CGC's service.

 

Buying raw is not in the same ballpark as buying slabbed. Quoting GPA in a raw listing doesn't seem to serve no other purpose than make your book like it has a greater value than it does.

 

If I go to a car lot and want to buy a used car, and the salesman is telling me how much the car I am looking at goes for "new" instead of the determined used Kelly Blue Book value - I'm not going to be very impressed with that sales tactic.

 

Overstreet is for raw. GPA is for slabbed. I don't think the two need to mix.

[COI]

I don't disagree with anything you just posted, but it doesn't explain why this should be a rule.

[THE_BEYONDER]

We don't need more rules....just more CG threads throwing sellers under the bus.

[Dr. Balls]

I don't disagree with anything you just posted, but it doesn't explain why this should be a rule.

 

I think the rule should be that GPA pricing should not be posted for raw books. GPA is based on CGC graded books. If a book has not been graded by CGC, it cannot/should not be compared to pricing statistics that are specifically collected for graded books.

 

I understand that the seller is posting a dicounted price in comparison to the GPA information, but that is still comparing an ungraded book to data taken from graded book sales.

 

Utilizing the two methods in a sales thread - ungraded raw with GPA-based pricing - no matter how you large you make the discount is not an accurate representation of what you are selling.

 

If the seller wants to formulate that in his head based on GPA, that's perfectly fine. Quoting data in your sales thread that is not related to your book is misleading because when it's posted it is technically part of the description of the book/sales thread.

[comicwiz]

[comicwiz]

We don't need more rules....just more CG threads throwing sellers under the bus.

 

[sufunk]

So yeah, I don't see a point in getting bent out of shape.

 

AK, I don't think it's so much about people going on a bender as it is to just lay out the ground rules. I don't know how it happened that anyone thought it would be a good idea to quote GPA on raw book sales, but it's not a practice that should be used. Period.

 

GPA is stricly for slabs.

 

Quote Overstreet for raw books. Alternatively, do multiple raw book checks on eBay or the forums in the listed grade and use as much sales data as possible rather than cherry picking sales to help skew your ask price.

 

I guess my point is, who are we protecting by instituting that kind of a restriction?

We're protecting people who don't want more information.

 

Would people similarly have a problem if I said:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Current GPA value is $525. Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

Or would people prefer:

 

This book is a 9.4 (or NM, however you want to say it). Overstreet value is $10 for a NM. My price is $10. Would that be okay?

 

If you're okay with the latter in each set of examples, ask yourself why.

 

I prefer the latter. Because when I buy something, I don't need to be quoted the price for something not related to my purchase.

 

The difference between buying raw and buying slabbed is huge. With raw, there's no wait time. There's no handling and submission fees. There's no pressing issues. There's no return shipping charges. There's no determining market value. There's no risk in slabbing a book that might see a change (for better/worse) in market value during the time it's gone being graded. These are factors that play into the valuation of a book, including the benefit of utilizing CGC's service.

 

Buying raw is not in the same ballpark as buying slabbed. Quoting GPA in a raw listing doesn't seem to serve no other purpose than make your book like it has a greater value than it does.

 

If I go to a car lot and want to buy a used car, and the salesman is telling me how much the car I am looking at goes for "new" instead of the determined used Kelly Blue Book value - I'm not going to be very impressed with that sales tactic.

 

Overstreet is for raw. GPA is for slabbed. I don't think the two need to mix.

 

I disagree with that. I've sold plenty of raw books on here and have never even looked at over street. If i've graded the book a 8.0, i look at gpa and basically take the price of a 7.5 and either round down or up a tiny bit. I've sold a ton of raw books

here that way and never had a complaint

[sufunk]

What price is $854, anyway?

 

I have to question the grading algorithm used to come up with that number, and wonder why it was rounded to the nearest dollar.

 

 

Earlier the price was like $1354

[ItsJustRyan]

"This book here is a 9.2, but if you hold it just right in low light settings... It's a 9.8."

[comicwiz]

"This book here is a 9.2, but if you hold it just right in low light settings got another tree fiddy burning a hole in your pocket... It's a 9.8."

 

Fixed it for ya (thumbs u

[ItsJustRyan]