Sellers are now using projected grades?

[CKB]

What if I say:

 

This book is, IMHO, a 9.4. The 12 month average for a 9.4 is $500 and the last sale was $525. I'm offering the book here for $95.

 

Am I doing something wrong?

 

Would it be better if I said:

This book is, IMHO, a 9.4. I'm offering the book here for $95.

 

The first method is a "car salesman" approach. You can listen to it, but take it as you may.

 

The second way is straightforward, the way I prefer.

 

 

I don't mind the first way at all. I would mind it if it was

 

This book is, IMHO, a 9.4. The 12 month average for a 9.4 is $500 and the last sale was $525. I'm offering the book here for $450.

 

[Jeffro.]

If you don't like a seller's tactics, don't buy their stuff. I never understood why people get so annoyed with this kind of stuff. It's very easy to not give them your money.

 

I agree. There's so much other stuff is happening to our lives, and something small like this bothers them??? It tells me they might had a very privilege upbringing.

 

I don't think it has to do with a privileged upbringing. I think the general consensus that most people have here is that they expect pricing to reflect what they are buying, not what they will get if they spend additional funds to take the necessary steps to fulfill the seller's speculations that he - the seller - doesn't want to take the time to do.

 

People have a problem with paying a price for something they will not receive. Yes, it's as simple as "don't buy from them" or "The market will decide" - but that kind of attitude is very apathetic.

 

I don't think it's a matter of "how do we stop it" - it can't be stopped. There are buyers out there that percieve a value in those kinds of listings. But it's still worth talking about.

 

I just had a guy pass my office and complaining about how my shelves aren't properly organize. I told him...Who cares...if you don't like how it looks...just pass it up and don't saying anything.

 

Now...if somehow it was a potential fire-hazard, or stolen merchandise, then I would understand, but it's not.

 

I just love it when people try to tell us what we should and should not discuss on the boards.

[vaillant]

OK, why do some sellers user numerical and letter grades in the same sales thread selling raw books?

 

One book will be listed as NM and the next will be listed at 9.4. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought those were the same???

 

I used to list both, since some people are not familiar with the numerical grades.

But I guess an answer to your question could be: they are not able to associate any given grade to the numerical equivalent, so maybe they think 9.4 is better than NM? Could be.

 

Anyway, it’s easy:

9.2: NM-

9.4: NM

9.6: NM+

9.8: NM/M

9.9: M-

10: M!

[comicwiz]

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.

[DiceX]

In my opinion it comes down to what do we want out of our marketplace. Do we want a hands off anything goes marketplace? Or do we want policing to ensure it is a good marketplace for buyers and sellers. So far we have had a hands off marketplace and it has seemed to work well. People tend to price fairly and not try to rip people off. But if we keep hands off I can see this marketplace going the way of EBay if we aren't careful. As I stated previously I'm of two minds on this.

 

"Policing" is fine and even necessary when it comes to protecting members from scams or those who breach contracts. There are also a number of common sense measures in place to ensure that the marketplace remains viable and pleasurable. Beyond that is a giant slippery grey slope.

 

I agree. I don't think it's wise to police it to the extent that it dictates a strict selling environment, but in this case we are talking about - a simple 'GPA statistics can not be quoted in raw sales threads' would be an easy rule to implement that the majority of people would be okay with.

 

It's simple, easy-to-understand, and streamlines the sales area without hampering someone's ability to sell books. People can continue to register opinions like "would look great with a press" which can be taken based on the reputation of the seller - but it would weed out the misleading statistic-based information like GPA sales.

 

So how would you feel about someone selling a 9.4 with, say, a coupon on the back cover filled out by the original owner?

 

 

[bababooey]

What if I say:

 

This book is, IMHO, a 9.4. The 12 month average for a 9.4 is $500 and the last sale was $525. I'm offering the book here for $95.

 

Am I doing something wrong?

 

Would it be better if I said:

This book is, IMHO, a 9.4. I'm offering the book here for $95.

 

The first method is a "car salesman" approach. You can listen to it, but take it as you may.

 

The second way is straightforward, the way I prefer.

 

 

I don't mind the first way at all. I would mind it if it was

 

This book is, IMHO, a 9.4. The 12 month average for a 9.4 is $500 and the last sale was $525. I'm offering the book here for $450.

So if it's an accurately graded book that you could slab for $50 bucks - the math adds up but your issue is with the price you'd pay.

 

So the consensus seems to be that a seller needs to "pay to play"; a seller should pay the hobby taxes (pressing, grading, ebay/paypal juice, auction fees, GPA membership) before he gets the privilege of basing his pricing on the only broadly accepted pricing source?

 

[Logan510]

OK, why do some sellers user numerical and letter grades in the same sales thread selling raw books?

 

One book will be listed as NM and the next will be listed at 9.4. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought those were the same???

 

I used to list both, since some people are not familiar with the numerical grades.

But I guess an answer to your question could be: they are not able to associate any given grade to the numerical equivalent, so maybe they think 9.4 is better than NM? Could be.

 

Anyway, it’s easy:

9.2: NM-

9.4: NM

9.6: NM+

9.8: NM/M

9.9: M-

10: M!

 

I just always assumed that if they gave a numerical grade they were basically saying that's what they think the CGC grade would be. If they give a letter grade maybe they're not quite as sure.

 

Seems weird to me unless someone is offering some kind of guarantee on what CGC will grade a book at. I seem to recall at least two sellers here offering such a guarantee, one being Roy IIRC?

[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?

[vaillant]

I just always assumed that if they gave a numerical grade they were basically saying that's what they think the CGC grade would be. If they give a letter grade maybe they're not quite as sure.

 

Seems weird to me unless someone is offering some kind of guarantee on what CGC will grade a book at. I seem to recall at least two sellers here offering such a guarantee, one being Roy IIRC?

 

No, I ended up using mostly the numerical grades as well, as they are simply equivalents of the more explanatory worded grades.

 

What you say may be correct any way: I generally won’t venture in saying a book is better than NM+ (9.6) as I don’t feel enough skilled with microscopic vision. And in the same vein, you did not see much seller stating their books to be M or M-, even in pre-CGC days.

Numeric equivalents may have been originated with CGC grading, but nonetheless are just equivalents. At least to me.

[revat]

I just always assumed that if they gave a numerical grade they were basically saying that's what they think the CGC grade would be. If they give a letter grade maybe they're not quite as sure.

 

Seems weird to me unless someone is offering some kind of guarantee on what CGC will grade a book at. I seem to recall at least two sellers here offering such a guarantee, one being Roy IIRC?

 

No, I ended up using mostly the numerical grades as well, as they are simply equivalents of the more explanatory worded grades.

 

What you say may be correct any way: I generally wont venture in saying a book is better than NM+ (9.6) as I dont feel enough skilled with microscopic vision. And in the same vein, you did not see much seller stating their books to be M or M-, even in pre-CGC days.

Numeric equivalents may have been originated with CGC grading, but nonetheless are just equivalents. At least to me.

 

I like to use the letter grading because I would occasionally get mixed up with issue #'s or prices. Its just too many dam numbers floating around.

[vaillant]

I like to use the letter grading because I would occasionally get mixed up with issue #'s or prices. Its just too many dam numbers floating around.

 

I did so as well, and still prefer to do so, but in fact as long as you get accustomed to it, they are identical. With the numerical ones, you can also state a 8.3, being between VF and VF+, but I’ll leave that to Greggy during nights of full moon…

[dupont2005]

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.

[paperheart]

In my opinion it comes down to what do we want out of our marketplace. Do we want a hands off anything goes marketplace? Or do we want policing to ensure it is a good marketplace for buyers and sellers. So far we have had a hands off marketplace and it has seemed to work well. People tend to price fairly and not try to rip people off. But if we keep hands off I can see this marketplace going the way of EBay if we aren't careful. As I stated previously I'm of two minds on this.

 

"Policing" is fine and even necessary when it comes to protecting members from scams or those who breach contracts. There are also a number of common sense measures in place to ensure that the marketplace remains viable and pleasurable. Beyond that is a giant slippery grey slope.

 

I agree. I don't think it's wise to police it to the extent that it dictates a strict selling environment, but in this case we are talking about - a simple 'GPA statistics can not be quoted in raw sales threads' would be an easy rule to implement that the majority of people would be okay with.

 

It's simple, easy-to-understand, and streamlines the sales area without hampering someone's ability to sell books. People can continue to register opinions like "would look great with a press" which can be taken based on the reputation of the seller - but it would weed out the misleading statistic-based information like GPA sales.

 

So how would you feel about someone selling a 9.4 with, say, a coupon on the back cover filled out by the original owner?

 

 

if the original owner was Jack Kirby i wouldn't mind.

[Dr. Balls]

In my opinion it comes down to what do we want out of our marketplace. Do we want a hands off anything goes marketplace? Or do we want policing to ensure it is a good marketplace for buyers and sellers. So far we have had a hands off marketplace and it has seemed to work well. People tend to price fairly and not try to rip people off. But if we keep hands off I can see this marketplace going the way of EBay if we aren't careful. As I stated previously I'm of two minds on this.

 

"Policing" is fine and even necessary when it comes to protecting members from scams or those who breach contracts. There are also a number of common sense measures in place to ensure that the marketplace remains viable and pleasurable. Beyond that is a giant slippery grey slope.

 

I agree. I don't think it's wise to police it to the extent that it dictates a strict selling environment, but in this case we are talking about - a simple 'GPA statistics can not be quoted in raw sales threads' would be an easy rule to implement that the majority of people would be okay with.

 

It's simple, easy-to-understand, and streamlines the sales area without hampering someone's ability to sell books. People can continue to register opinions like "would look great with a press" which can be taken based on the reputation of the seller - but it would weed out the misleading statistic-based information like GPA sales.

 

So how would you feel about someone selling a 9.4 with, say, a coupon on the back cover filled out by the original owner?

 

 

It's not a 9.4 if there's a bunch of writing on the back cover.

[paperheart]

I just always assumed that if they gave a numerical grade they were basically saying that's what they think the CGC grade would be. If they give a letter grade maybe they're not quite as sure.

 

Seems weird to me unless someone is offering some kind of guarantee on what CGC will grade a book at. I seem to recall at least two sellers here offering such a guarantee, one being Roy IIRC?

 

No, I ended up using mostly the numerical grades as well, as they are simply equivalents of the more explanatory worded grades.

 

What you say may be correct any way: I generally wont venture in saying a book is better than NM+ (9.6) as I dont feel enough skilled with microscopic vision. And in the same vein, you did not see much seller stating their books to be M or M-, even in pre-CGC days.

Numeric equivalents may have been originated with CGC grading, but nonetheless are just equivalents. At least to me.

 

I like to use the letter grading because I would occasionally get mixed up with issue #'s or prices. Its just too many dam numbers floating around.

 

i use letter grade when selling a raw book, numerical grade when selling a slab.

[DiceX]

In my opinion it comes down to what do we want out of our marketplace. Do we want a hands off anything goes marketplace? Or do we want policing to ensure it is a good marketplace for buyers and sellers. So far we have had a hands off marketplace and it has seemed to work well. People tend to price fairly and not try to rip people off. But if we keep hands off I can see this marketplace going the way of EBay if we aren't careful. As I stated previously I'm of two minds on this.

 

"Policing" is fine and even necessary when it comes to protecting members from scams or those who breach contracts. There are also a number of common sense measures in place to ensure that the marketplace remains viable and pleasurable. Beyond that is a giant slippery grey slope.

 

I agree. I don't think it's wise to police it to the extent that it dictates a strict selling environment, but in this case we are talking about - a simple 'GPA statistics can not be quoted in raw sales threads' would be an easy rule to implement that the majority of people would be okay with.

 

It's simple, easy-to-understand, and streamlines the sales area without hampering someone's ability to sell books. People can continue to register opinions like "would look great with a press" which can be taken based on the reputation of the seller - but it would weed out the misleading statistic-based information like GPA sales.

 

So how would you feel about someone selling a 9.4 with, say, a coupon on the back cover filled out by the original owner?

 

 

It's not a 9.4 if there's a bunch of writing on the back cover.

 

CGC said that a filled out coupon on the back cover won't have any affect on the grade unless the three graders disagree. In that case, due to the writing, the grade would be given the lower of the grades.

That's how CGC rolls.

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

In my opinion it comes down to what do we want out of our marketplace. Do we want a hands off anything goes marketplace? Or do we want policing to ensure it is a good marketplace for buyers and sellers. So far we have had a hands off marketplace and it has seemed to work well. People tend to price fairly and not try to rip people off. But if we keep hands off I can see this marketplace going the way of EBay if we aren't careful. As I stated previously I'm of two minds on this.

 

"Policing" is fine and even necessary when it comes to protecting members from scams or those who breach contracts. There are also a number of common sense measures in place to ensure that the marketplace remains viable and pleasurable. Beyond that is a giant slippery grey slope.

 

I agree. I don't think it's wise to police it to the extent that it dictates a strict selling environment, but in this case we are talking about - a simple 'GPA statistics can not be quoted in raw sales threads' would be an easy rule to implement that the majority of people would be okay with.

 

It's simple, easy-to-understand, and streamlines the sales area without hampering someone's ability to sell books. People can continue to register opinions like "would look great with a press" which can be taken based on the reputation of the seller - but it would weed out the misleading statistic-based information like GPA sales.

 

So how would you feel about someone selling a 9.4 with, say, a coupon on the back cover filled out by the original owner?

 

 

It's not a 9.4 if there's a bunch of writing on the back cover.

 

CGC said that a filled out coupon on the back cover won't have any affect on the grade unless the three graders disagree. In that case, due to the writing, the grade would be given the lower of the grades.

That's how CGC rolls.

 

 

So scribbling on the back cover of a book doesn't affect the grade? No thanks, it's not a 9.4 when someone writes all over it. Just because it's organized into shapes of letters in the alphabet doesn't change the fact it's been written on.

 

CGC seems to have trouble defining things in black and white, don't they?

[shadroch]

Some of us who would prefer to buy unpressed books. I am happy that some sellers are offering the books before they squish them.

 

Say that a seller has a book that is currently an 8.0 with a value of $100 but is fairly likely to press to a 9.0 with a value of $200, wouldn't it make sense to to give people a chance to buy it at $150, and save all the expense/hassle/risk of pressing/grading/shipping, etc, especially since there is a segment of the market that would much prefer the unpressed book?

 

If no one wants to buy them unpressed, the seller can then squish and slab them like everyone else is doing.

 

Obviously, buying in this way creates extra uncertainty regarding the grade, but that is the nature of buying raw books.

 

A projected grade seller to me shows that the person wants your money upfront and none of the time/cost associated with doing the work. Hell, why don't I just find the book somewhere else and send you the profit you would have made if you went and bought it yourself.

 

 

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]

In my opinion it comes down to what do we want out of our marketplace. Do we want a hands off anything goes marketplace? Or do we want policing to ensure it is a good marketplace for buyers and sellers. So far we have had a hands off marketplace and it has seemed to work well. People tend to price fairly and not try to rip people off. But if we keep hands off I can see this marketplace going the way of EBay if we aren't careful. As I stated previously I'm of two minds on this.

 

"Policing" is fine and even necessary when it comes to protecting members from scams or those who breach contracts. There are also a number of common sense measures in place to ensure that the marketplace remains viable and pleasurable. Beyond that is a giant slippery grey slope.

 

I agree. I don't think it's wise to police it to the extent that it dictates a strict selling environment, but in this case we are talking about - a simple 'GPA statistics can not be quoted in raw sales threads' would be an easy rule to implement that the majority of people would be okay with.

 

It's simple, easy-to-understand, and streamlines the sales area without hampering someone's ability to sell books. People can continue to register opinions like "would look great with a press" which can be taken based on the reputation of the seller - but it would weed out the misleading statistic-based information like GPA sales.

 

So how would you feel about someone selling a 9.4 with, say, a coupon on the back cover filled out by the original owner?

 

 

It's not a 9.4 if there's a bunch of writing on the back cover.

 

CGC said that a filled out coupon on the back cover won't have any affect on the grade unless the three graders disagree. In that case, due to the writing, the grade would be given the lower of the grades.

That's how CGC rolls.

 

 

So scribbling on the back cover of a book doesn't affect the grade? No thanks, it's not a 9.4 when someone writes all over it. Just because it's organized into shapes of letters in the alphabet doesn't change the fact it's been written on.

 

CGC seems to have trouble defining things in black and white, don't they?

 

No. I'm just paraphrasing how it's being sold.

I don't mind that the guy quotes GPA and can't grade his way out of a wet paper bag, but passing this info to buyers is a bit too much, IMO.

 

 

[shadroch]

I'm buying less and less from these boards these days. I suspect its a trend that will continue.