Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[THE_BEYONDER]

Fair enough Mark (thumbs u I've met you. You're an intelligent guy. I would hope that would bring a measure of introspection as well. Ask yourself, if you don't have the time to devote to this issue, then perhaps its time to step aside.

 

 

What are you guys talking about? We finally have someone with bona fides in the hobby working on the inside and being responsive and simply because he is not working on your time table he should quit? And this would achieve what exactly? Who else is going to take his place that also has the interests of our hobby?

 

Mark works tirelessly on comic book issues and matters of national security in his profession. I think he deserves a little bit more of a break for having to deal with some other issues for the time being. He gave tons of free time in trying to stop Dupcak and has provided legal assistance to numerous collectors - including many on these boards - pro bono. I really don't understand where this antagonism is coming from, but it is misplaced and unhelpful.

 

Absolutely right. It's absurd to go after Mark and it obfuscates from the issue at hand. You get the impression that people think there are many other candidates qualified and willing to do the same job. Although there are many lawyers that are comic collectors, I don't think there are many that are willing to devote the time to this issue.

 

Maybe it's because some of us know Mark would be screaming from the rooftops about all these CGC/CCS shenanigans if not on retainer.

[DrWatson]

Fair enough Mark (thumbs u I've met you. You're an intelligent guy. I would hope that would bring a measure of introspection as well. Ask yourself, if you don't have the time to devote to this issue, then perhaps its time to step aside.

 

 

What are you guys talking about? We finally have someone with bona fides in the hobby working on the inside and being responsive and simply because he is not working on your time table he should quit? And this would achieve what exactly? Who else is going to take his place that also has the interests of our hobby?

 

Mark works tirelessly on comic book issues and matters of national security in his profession. I think he deserves a little bit more of a break for having to deal with some other issues for the time being. He gave tons of free time in trying to stop Dupcak and has provided legal assistance to numerous collectors - including many on these boards - pro bono. I really don't understand where this antagonism is coming from, but it is misplaced and unhelpful.

 

Absolutely right. It's absurd to go after Mark and it obfuscates from the issue at hand. You get the impression that people think there are many other candidates qualified and willing to do the same job. Although there are many lawyers that are comic collectors, I don't think there are many that are willing to devote the time to this issue.

 

Maybe it's because some of us know Mark would be screaming from the rooftops about all these CGC/CCS shenanigans if not on retainer.

Exactly.

 

Let's hold off on lighting the fires of martyrdom. The Maid of Orleans hasn't even begun to approach the battlefield.

[fantastic_four]

No big rich whale comic book collector has been upset enough to call the proper authorities. When the authorities got involved in the baseball card or coin scandals it was because some rich whale coin or baseball card collectors with gobs of money felt like they were being screwed, so they wanted retribution.

An example is not much will be done if Joe Average Collector complains that his comic book was altered, but when Joe Big Whale Collector complains then the proper authorities might take notice. IMHO

 

It's a matter of resources--the number of petty crimes committed per year is huge. Police can usually only go after criminals when significant dollar amounts are involved. The FBI has something like 14,000 agents, but they'd need five times that amount to prosecute the kind of crime involving the dollar amounts that "Joe Average Collector" would be losing. That's why eBay is crammed full of so many scammers...they're only scamming enough to fly under the dollar radar of local and federal agencies. When the anonymity of the Internet comes into play, usually local police can't do jack about it because they just don't have the knowledge to chase people down electronically, so the FBI has to do it, but for the FBI to get involved, the dollar amounts have to be rather significant.

[thirdgreenham]

Fair enough Mark (thumbs u I've met you. You're an intelligent guy. I would hope that would bring a measure of introspection as well. Ask yourself, if you don't have the time to devote to this issue, then perhaps its time to step aside.

 

 

What are you guys talking about? We finally have someone with bona fides in the hobby working on the inside and being responsive and simply because he is not working on your time table he should quit? And this would achieve what exactly? Who else is going to take his place that also has the interests of our hobby?

 

Mark works tirelessly on comic book issues and matters of national security in his profession. I think he deserves a little bit more of a break for having to deal with some other issues for the time being. He gave tons of free time in trying to stop Dupcak and has provided legal assistance to numerous collectors - including many on these boards - pro bono. I really don't understand where this antagonism is coming from, but it is misplaced and unhelpful.

 

Absolutely right. It's absurd to go after Mark and it obfuscates from the issue at hand. You get the impression that people think there are many other candidates qualified and willing to do the same job. Although there are many lawyers that are comic collectors, I don't think there are many that are willing to devote the time to this issue.

 

Maybe it's because some of us know Mark would be screaming from the rooftops about all these CGC/CCS shenanigans if not on retainer.

Exactly.

 

Let's hold off on lighting the fires of martyrdom. The Maid of Orleans hasn't even begun to approach the battlefield.

 

[Foolkiller]

First, let me say that I believe Mark has his priorities correct in attending to his primary work first as a high profile attorney on some high profile cases that have national significance.

 

Second, I think Mark is much more detached from the intimate day to day goings on of the boards (as I am as well increasingly) that makes it hard to put the same level of energy and focus.

 

Third, as he and I discussed when he was deciding whether to accept CGC's invitation, I was concerned this would tie his hands to some degree.

 

Fourth, I'm not sure the answers to Mark are going to be all that different than already supplied here on the boards, so the notion that there's going to be substantial movement as a direct result of Mark's influence (or anyone's from the outside or even acting as a consultant) seems slim to me.

 

Fifth, I know several dealers and significant collectors have expressed their concerns about many of the issues and problems raised in this thread. Some of which CGC has addressed, others, it may not come here and make some sort of grand sweeping statement.

 

Finally, criticizing Mark for not being responsive in the time frame the boards deems appropriate seems unfair. The bottom line is that none of these issues are going to be addressed overnight.

 

I hear several folks expressing disdain for the money train at the expense of the books. This problem is not reversing itself.

 

I have said it before, I will say it again. If you don't like the trend and tactics of CGC, stop buying slabbed books, stop getting books graded. Start paying dealers aggressive slab like numbers for raw books and CGC becomes marginalized.

 

But that won't happen. They continue to be backed up because so many people are utilizing their services and books "have" to be sent there before being sold. People are looking for the security of CGC and for them to be acting in some sort of uber benevolent manner and not for profit. When operating for profit, tactics that manipulate the books to the edge of reason are going to be tested. The people making the "money decisions" and running the business side of CCS and CGC want to max the profit. That's not Paul or even Matt. Their job is to improve the process by which money can be gained. The people making the money decisions are not comic book fans or conservators.

[Sqeggs]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

 

I'm sure they want to continue to attract business from dealers who hope to push their high grade books even higher. I know nothing of the mechanics of pressing, but I will hazard a guess that to improve the grade of books that are already high grade requires greater than normal use of heat/moisture/pressure or whatever, with the result that at least some page fanning will occur.

 

The key to resolving this issue has always been for CGC to take page fanning into account when grading. I think it's unlikely they will do this because it would result in reduced submissions from dealers trying to get higher grades for already high-grade books, thereby hurting both the CCS and CGC ends of the business.

 

If page fanning were taken into account in grading books, the CS books shown in this thread would have received lower grades, rather than higher grades,

[Davenport]

People are looking for the security of CGC and for them to be acting in some sort of uber benevolent manner and not for profit. When operating for profit, tactics that manipulate the books to the edge of reason is going to be tested. The people making the "money decisions" and running the business side of CCS and CGC want to max the profit. That's not Paul or even Matt. Their job is to improve the process by which money can be gained. The people making the money decisions are not comic book fans or conservators.

That's what doesn't seem to get through. That the "issues" in these types of threads aren't "problems". They're examples of the System operating the way it was designed to.

 

Encapsulation and the crack out game were intentionally imported over from coins to take advantage of 'grade certification' in conjunction with undisclosed grade altering treatments.

 

Shorly after the Doug Schmell / Heritage multimillion dollar crack-out-game cashout, Classics Inc was finally and openly brought in-house. The decade long rollout concluded. So there's really nothing left to hide at this point. CGC in conjunction with CCS invite everyone to play the gamed system for all it's worth.

[jimbo_707]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

 

Agreed, which is why I will personally be avoiding any books that have any page peek-out* that, in my judgment, is not "natural". I hope others will do the same; right now, there are still too many people who aren't aware of the issue.

 

I have looked over my old (purchased pre-CGC books), and most of them have no pages showing at all. A few have some pages showing along the very top of the right edge. None have pages showing along the entire right edge of the book, which is now commonly seen. I will not dispute that that can happen without pressing - RARELY - but I think it's usually fairly easy to tell the difference.

 

*I make a distinction between page peek-out, which is caused from cover shrinkage, and fanning, which results from a rolled spine.

 

I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet, because I have become very dependent on the CGC to detect restoration. If I can become competent at that myself, I hope to eventually purchase more books raw.

[drbanner]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

So you're exactly right, CGC isn't going to say anything more about it because the current system makes sure everyone gets to dip their hand in the cookie jar.

[Foolkiller]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

 

Agreed, which is why I will personally be avoiding any books that have any page peek-out* that, in my judgment, is not "natural". I hope others will do the same; right now, there are still too many people who aren't aware of the issue.

 

I have looked over my old (purchased pre-CGC books), and most of them have no pages showing at all. A few have some pages showing along the very top of the right edge. None have pages showing along the entire right edge of the book, which is now commonly seen. I will not dispute that that can happen without pressing - RARELY - but I think it's usually fairly easy to tell the difference.

 

*I make a distinction between page peek-out, which is caused from cover shrinkage, and fanning, which results from a rolled spine.

 

I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet, because I have become very dependent on the CGC to detect restoration. If I can become competent at that myself, I hope to eventually purchase more books raw.

 

You would never buy any book with any peek through? I don't mind it as a small amount if it's natural or even a slight amount from a press. The extreme examples are ugly, but I don't think a small amount is that bad aesthetically.

[mschmidt]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

[rjrjr]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

 

Do we know that definitively?

[jimbo_707]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

 

Agreed, which is why I will personally be avoiding any books that have any page peek-out* that, in my judgment, is not "natural". I hope others will do the same; right now, there are still too many people who aren't aware of the issue.

 

I have looked over my old (purchased pre-CGC books), and most of them have no pages showing at all. A few have some pages showing along the very top of the right edge. None have pages showing along the entire right edge of the book, which is now commonly seen. I will not dispute that that can happen without pressing - RARELY - but I think it's usually fairly easy to tell the difference.

 

*I make a distinction between page peek-out, which is caused from cover shrinkage, and fanning, which results from a rolled spine.

 

I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet, because I have become very dependent on the CGC to detect restoration. If I can become competent at that myself, I hope to eventually purchase more books raw.

 

You would never buy any book with any peek through? I don't mind it as a small amount if it's natural or even a slight amount from a press. The extreme examples are ugly, but I don't think a small amount is that bad aesthetically.

I don't mind a small amount if I think it's natural, but I'd still consider it a defect; since it's a defect the CGC is ignoring, I would likely not agree with the slabbed grade on such a book. If a book looks pressed AND has peek through, I'm going to make the assumption that the shrinkage was caused by cover shrinkage that resulted from pressing. Not paying for those sorts of books is the only way to discourage the practice.

 

What I don't care about is whether a book lies perfectly flat. I don't even care much about NCB creases. I would much rather have a slightly wavy book with some NCB creases than a preternaturally flat book with page peek-out.

[DrWatson]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

[rjrjr]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

 

Symantics. CGC + CCS = CGC

[drbanner]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

 

Symantics. CGC + CCS = CGC

(thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

The key to resolving this issue has always been for CGC to take page fanning into account when grading. I think it's unlikely they will do this because it would result in reduced submissions from dealers trying to get higher grades for already high-grade books, thereby hurting both the CCS and CGC ends of the business.

 

They're unlikely to do this because grading is about appearance. All of these suggestions to have CGC stop downgrading as a disincentive for pressers to stop creating pokethrough are approaching the entire idea about grading from the wrong direction.

 

Obviously I know a few dozen of you guys think that 1/8" pokethrough completely ruins a book and CGC doesn't downgrade enough, but I've seen no evidence from the history of grading that supports such a view. I'm highly interested in discussing that much further with anyone who has the interest.

[fantastic_four]

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

 

Symantics. CGC + CCS = CGC

(thumbs u

 

Yea I don't get the point of differentiating CCS from CGC. It's all CGC to me.

[rjrjr]

The key to resolving this issue has always been for CGC to take page fanning into account when grading. I think it's unlikely they will do this because it would result in reduced submissions from dealers trying to get higher grades for already high-grade books, thereby hurting both the CCS and CGC ends of the business.

 

They're unlikely to do this because grading is about appearance. All of these suggestions to have CGC stop downgrading as a disincentive for pressers to stop creating pokethrough are approaching the entire idea about grading from the wrong direction.

 

Obviously I know a few dozen of you guys think that 1/8" pokethrough completely ruins a book and CGC doesn't downgrade enough, but I've seen no evidence from the history of grading that supports such a view.

 

So, a book with no poke thru gets a 9.2 and a book that has the poke thru gets a 9.4 instead? If you look at some of those books earlier in this thread, their appearance is *worse* than they originally looked. How do they get a grade bump? That is the part I don't get.

 

I'll admit though, one of the last books posted here did look better. At least the front cover does and we never did see the back cover to see how it looks. But I believe that was a spine realignment book, not a pressed book with a cover that shrunk.

 

I think the poke thru is going to be like miswrapped books. Some people are going to be fine with them and some people are not going to want to have them in their collection.

[mschmidt]

Here's my guess: CCS will, in fact, try to avoid the substantial page fanning they introduced into the CS books. They will not, however, make any definitive statement on the subject because they intend to continue to use techniques that will (or might) introduce page fanning -- just not to the extent seen in the CS books.

I agree, the latest CGC-pressed books have not shown the extent of damage shown in the Schave books, so they've changed whatever they did to damage those books as far as their manufacturing and processing steps.

 

In the past, when I sent a book to CGC for grading and CGC damaged it, CGC would take responsibility and compensate me for the damage. When Doug sent these books to CGC for pressing before grading and they damaged them BEFORE they graded them, they took no responsibility and in fact awarded many of the books with higher grades. Everyone makes money this way, the presser makes money, the submitter makes money, and the grader makes money...the only losers are the buyers of the damaged/tainted books.

 

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

 

Nonsense.

 

Banner is complaining that CGC isn't taking responsibility for damaging books they're pressing and, in fact, rewarding them with higher graders. Which would be a valid point if CGC was actually in the business of pressing books - but they aren't.

 

What CGC is doing is grading books that are coming from CCS and treating them no differently than they they'd grade books coming from any of us. That CCS is trying to maximize the "potential" of their customers' books and taking advantage of a loophole within the grading system is unfortunate - and I personally hope that CGC will tweak their grading standards so shrunken covers more severely impact the grade - but it's still ridiculous to claim that CGC should somehow be responsible for what happens to a book whilst it's at CCS.

 

It's funny how all the people who are complaining about a conflict of interest between CGC and CCS, the death of the impartiality of CGC grading, etc, now suddenly wants CGC to actively punish books that are coming from CCS - which, last time I checked, would be the exact opposite of impartiality.