First they were CGG, then PGA, NOW PGX!!!!!

[Kevin Boyd]

Why are people some people so willing to blindly follow something, foresaking all others. I would think that it would be in everyone's best interest to at least listen to the evidence and not just cast it aside because you dont want to hear it. Both cgc and "the other guy" have made mistakes. CGC is making far less mistakes and is far better at dealing with their mistakes, but dont think that they dont happen.

 

Don't use me as your example. I am certainly not saying that CGC hasn't made mistakes or won't make mistakes in the future.

 

I will concede that the "other guy" has probably improved considerably since their April Fool's Day debut as a CGC copycat. Certainly they have with experience and from receiving advice from people that want to see a cheaper and faster version of CGC succeed. Does that mean I will ever try them? Probably not. Why is that? Because I already have a grading service that I'm happy with, the one that the "other guy" works so hard to copy and compare themselves against.

 

All we do here (and on other sites) is compare one service against the other because PGX continues to operate as a copycat grading service. Heck, they devote a chunk of their website trying to say why they are better than the industry leader by trying to compete with CGC by using the same basic tiers and pricing structure. I say, just do your jobs boys, grade books and work harder to DIFFERENTIATE yourself from the industry leader in areas other than price and speed. Grading itself is subjective, so we could argue constantly about who is over or undergrading what. I will conceed that they should know how to grade a book by now. CGC still has the edge because they are a Certification company, the other guy is still only just a grading company, that and the restoration check.

 

Honestly, their speed is due to the lack of volume - they would be just as slow if they received the volume of submissions CGC does. And pricing is lower to (a) get the attention of the budget-conscious (not a bad plan) and (b) use of cheaper materials and lower overhead (they don't spend any money advertising or promoting their services). I run a smaller convention in a market with a bigger con. The reason why the bigger con will always succeed is because we simply cannot afford to spend the money on advertising and promotion that they do. Until we can, more people locally will always be aware of their show.

 

When they use the same frigging tiers and basic pricing structure as CGC then all they are doing is trying to be another CGC instead of another legitimate grading service and I'm sorry, but CGC is far too entrenched in the infrastructure of this hobby to allow anyone the opportunity to be a legitimate contender. Buyers and sellers know and trust CGC, because they see them at shows, they talk to them here and on the web, they are reminded of CGC everywhere in trade magazines and on the web. The only place I see or hear anything about the "other guys" is on web chat boards.

 

Honestly, PGX should make up their own original tiers using different criteria, set their our own pricing structures and scrap the "worldwide" as opposed to CGC's "universal" label and call it something unique instead of a variation of what CGC has already done. Get rid of the uPVC inner wells because no matter how hard people try to deny it, PVC will always be perceived as unacceptable because the Library of Congress won't accept it... and they need to get out there and sell themselves beyond cheaper prices and faster turnaround times. They need to talk to people, make themselves less "faceless".

[Hobgoblin]

I think I'm going to be sending out some books. I have a pretty decent idea of what the grades should be. These are the ones I'm sending and their approximate grade range from the solid low end to slight chance at the high end (and please, no flack for my choices ):

 

ASM 50, 2.5 - 3.5

ASM 361, 9.4 - 9.8

Avengers 57, 6.5 - 7.0

Avengers Annual 10, 8.5 - 9.0

Batman 189, 5.0 - 6.0

Uncanny X-Men 266, 9.4 - 9.6

 

We'll see what kind of grades PGX give me. I'm very certain about the solid grades of the silver books. If the two main moderns fall to 9.2 or below, then there is definitely a problem with their grading.

[FFB]

You talk about cgc like they would never mislabel a book or be able to tell which version it was. I believe that they have some problems with some of the valiant books that they first saw. They may not have the problem now, but I believe that some of the first harbinger 0's were mislabel or at the least they did not understand that the differences were.

 

Here we go.

 

harbinger 0 census

 

I could be wrong but to me this looks like that thought/think that there are 3 different versions of harbinger 0..I am aware of 2 of them, but cant think of a 3rd. Could it be that they were wrong when they first started getting harbinger 0?

 

Fixed! Thanks, Dawg! The pop report will no longer have the Second Printing in the Variant field. We missed it. Sorry and thanks for the correction!

 

Thanks!

 

This is what I am talking about. CGC has a problem and they fix it intantly and even apologize for the making the mistake. It seems like "the other guy" makes mistakes and tries to explain why it wasnt their fault. Of course I am real big on customer service. Thanks again CGC!

 

This is true. The handling of the Batman #11 is probably the best example of this, as it resulted in CGC saying "Hey, we missed a call, we're really sorry, and we'll pay the winner of the auction several thousand dollars to make up for our goof." Mistakes happen. That is a fact of life. It's how we deal with them that is more important than the fact that mistakes have occurred.

 

PGX has made some boneheaded gaffes in the past when it comes to dealing with problems (the scan of the ASM#68 comes to mind). They need to make sure that going forward, they act responsibly when problems arise. Hopefully, they will.

[FFB]

I think I'm going to be sending out some books. I have a pretty decent idea of what the grades should be. These are the ones I'm sending and their approximate grade range from the solid low end to slight chance at the high end (and please, no flack for my choices ):

 

ASM 50, 2.5 - 3.5

ASM 361, 9.4 - 9.8

Avengers 57, 6.5 - 7.0

Avengers Annual 10, 8.5 - 9.0

Batman 189, 5.0 - 6.0

Uncanny X-Men 266, 9.4 - 9.6

 

We'll see what kind of grades PGX give me. I'm very certain about the solid grades of the silver books. If the two main moderns fall to 9.2 or below, then there is definitely a problem with their grading.

 

That is a good sampling across several grade levels. Make sure you save big scans of the raw books so that you can post them once you get the grades back.

[blazingbob]

PGX - Going for the soft porn approach to grading. Not XXX, only X rated grading of your collectibles. Send us you unwanted, send in those covers too risque to be graded by CGC. No titles turned back. We won't block out those risque butt shots deemed immoral by those CGC graders.

[garthgantu]

Talk to Colussus Comics, Liquid Adamantium, Bargin Box and see why they are not chomping at the bit to form any guaranteed elite grade subscription services with CGG/PGA/PGX?

 

Hi. OCDBoy here to tell you that "chomping at the bit" is incorrect. The actual turn of phrase is "champing at the bit." You really DO learn something new every day, and this is it for 12/21/04. Have a nice day!

[heinlein99]

I think I'm going to be sending out some books. I have a pretty decent idea of what the grades should be. These are the ones I'm sending and their approximate grade range from the solid low end to slight chance at the high end (and please, no flack for my choices ):

 

You're not supposed to tell this! It should be kept in a sealed envelope with the king's signet ring impression in red wax on the seal until the PGX-graded books come back! Then you crack open the envelope and reveal.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I think I'm going to be sending out some books. I have a pretty decent idea of what the grades should be. These are the ones I'm sending and their approximate grade range from the solid low end to slight chance at the high end (and please, no flack for my choices ):

 

You're not supposed to tell this! It should be kept in a sealed envelope with the king's signet ring impression in red wax on the seal until the PGX-graded books come back! Then you crack open the envelope and reveal.

 

 

I wanted to show the vast variety of grades that would be tested.

[garthgantu]

Guys that collect those particular genres that are more susceptible to this SCS/overflash damage can adjust by being more selective in the books they purchase and the sellers they use, sellers who can ship safely enough to counteract any SCS potential, by immobilizing the slab in the package. If the comic is loose and it is sliding enough of its own volition in the inner well, then it should be sent back to CGC to get fixed/reslabbed properly.

 

Hunh? Being selective won't help if the book has to be shipped and the damage in question occurs during shipping. As for packing the book more safely, we've seen many examples of SCS that occured in "bomb-proof" packages. As to your last point above, what if you send a loose book back to CGC and it incurs SCS damage on the way?

[garthgantu]

Why are people some people so willing to blindly follow something, foresaking all others. I would think that it would be in everyone's best interest to at least listen to the evidence and not just cast it aside because you dont want to hear it. Both cgc and "the other guy" have made mistakes. CGC is making far less mistakes and is far better at dealing with their mistakes, but dont think that they dont happen.

 

Don't use me as your example. I am certainly not saying that CGC hasn't made mistakes or won't make mistakes in the future.

 

I will concede that the "other guy" has probably improved considerably since their April Fool's Day debut as a CGC copycat. Certainly they have with experience and from receiving advice from people that want to see a cheaper and faster version of CGC succeed. Does that mean I will ever try them? Probably not. Why is that? Because I already have a grading service that I'm happy with, the one that the "other guy" works so hard to copy and compare themselves against.

 

All we do here (and on other sites) is compare one service against the other because PGX continues to operate as a copycat grading service. Heck, they devote a chunk of their website trying to say why they are better than the industry leader by trying to compete with CGC by using the same basic tiers and pricing structure. I say, just do your jobs boys, grade books and work harder to DIFFERENTIATE yourself from the industry leader in areas other than price and speed. Grading itself is subjective, so we could argue constantly about who is over or undergrading what. I will conceed that they should know how to grade a book by now. CGC still has the edge because they are a Certification company, the other guy is still only just a grading company, that and the restoration check.

 

Honestly, their speed is due to the lack of volume - they would be just as slow if they received the volume of submissions CGC does. And pricing is lower to (a) get the attention of the budget-conscious (not a bad plan) and (b) use of cheaper materials and lower overhead (they don't spend any money advertising or promoting their services). I run a smaller convention in a market with a bigger con. The reason why the bigger con will always succeed is because we simply cannot afford to spend the money on advertising and promotion that they do. Until we can, more people locally will always be aware of their show.

 

When they use the same frigging tiers and basic pricing structure as CGC then all they are doing is trying to be another CGC instead of another legitimate grading service and I'm sorry, but CGC is far too entrenched in the infrastructure of this hobby to allow anyone the opportunity to be a legitimate contender. Buyers and sellers know and trust CGC, because they see them at shows, they talk to them here and on the web, they are reminded of CGC everywhere in trade magazines and on the web. The only place I see or hear anything about the "other guys" is on web chat boards.

 

Honestly, PGX should make up their own original tiers using different criteria, set their our own pricing structures and scrap the "worldwide" as opposed to CGC's "universal" label and call it something unique instead of a variation of what CGC has already done. Get rid of the uPVC inner wells because no matter how hard people try to deny it, PVC will always be perceived as unacceptable because the Library of Congress won't accept it... and they need to get out there and sell themselves beyond cheaper prices and faster turnaround times. They need to talk to people, make themselves less "faceless".

 

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Copying the market leader and then improving incrementally in the easiest aspects of the product or service is a tried and true method. Look at Burger King. Look at Avis. Look at discount airlines. Should they have tried ferrying people in planes that don't actually leave the ground, thereby having the ability to lay claim to "safest airline" because they never had a crash?

 

Perhaps PGX has gone a little too far in some aspects, but

- I think it's better to go too far in copying the only successful example than not going far enough

- If PGX has/had crossed some line in terms of infringing on CGC's methods, there'd have been a lawsuit by now

- Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

Further, you point to the pricing and turnaround times...what about the grading? By all accounts, PGX may be stricter than the market leader - and that would be a pretty brash and gutsy position to take, considering it could very well cost you business almost from day one.

 

Creating a new grading criteria and new terminology wouldn't earn PGX any fans, IMO. They've improved on CGC in some ways (turnaround time, pricing, emailing of graders' notes in advance of slab delivery, inner well design) and as the (admittedly distant) # 2, they can and should focus on these and any other areas where they perceive some lack of customer confidence in CGC (e.g., resto detection). Then let the market decide.

[Hobgoblin]

Why are people some people so willing to blindly follow something, foresaking all others. I would think that it would be in everyone's best interest to at least listen to the evidence and not just cast it aside because you dont want to hear it. Both cgc and "the other guy" have made mistakes. CGC is making far less mistakes and is far better at dealing with their mistakes, but dont think that they dont happen.

 

Don't use me as your example. I am certainly not saying that CGC hasn't made mistakes or won't make mistakes in the future.

 

I will concede that the "other guy" has probably improved considerably since their April Fool's Day debut as a CGC copycat. Certainly they have with experience and from receiving advice from people that want to see a cheaper and faster version of CGC succeed. Does that mean I will ever try them? Probably not. Why is that? Because I already have a grading service that I'm happy with, the one that the "other guy" works so hard to copy and compare themselves against.

 

All we do here (and on other sites) is compare one service against the other because PGX continues to operate as a copycat grading service. Heck, they devote a chunk of their website trying to say why they are better than the industry leader by trying to compete with CGC by using the same basic tiers and pricing structure. I say, just do your jobs boys, grade books and work harder to DIFFERENTIATE yourself from the industry leader in areas other than price and speed. Grading itself is subjective, so we could argue constantly about who is over or undergrading what. I will conceed that they should know how to grade a book by now. CGC still has the edge because they are a Certification company, the other guy is still only just a grading company, that and the restoration check.

 

Honestly, their speed is due to the lack of volume - they would be just as slow if they received the volume of submissions CGC does. And pricing is lower to (a) get the attention of the budget-conscious (not a bad plan) and (b) use of cheaper materials and lower overhead (they don't spend any money advertising or promoting their services). I run a smaller convention in a market with a bigger con. The reason why the bigger con will always succeed is because we simply cannot afford to spend the money on advertising and promotion that they do. Until we can, more people locally will always be aware of their show.

 

When they use the same frigging tiers and basic pricing structure as CGC then all they are doing is trying to be another CGC instead of another legitimate grading service and I'm sorry, but CGC is far too entrenched in the infrastructure of this hobby to allow anyone the opportunity to be a legitimate contender. Buyers and sellers know and trust CGC, because they see them at shows, they talk to them here and on the web, they are reminded of CGC everywhere in trade magazines and on the web. The only place I see or hear anything about the "other guys" is on web chat boards.

 

Honestly, PGX should make up their own original tiers using different criteria, set their our own pricing structures and scrap the "worldwide" as opposed to CGC's "universal" label and call it something unique instead of a variation of what CGC has already done. Get rid of the uPVC inner wells because no matter how hard people try to deny it, PVC will always be perceived as unacceptable because the Library of Congress won't accept it... and they need to get out there and sell themselves beyond cheaper prices and faster turnaround times. They need to talk to people, make themselves less "faceless".

 

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Copying the market leader and then improving incrementally in the easiest aspects of the product or service is a tried and true method. Look at Burger King. Look at Avis. Look at discount airlines. Should they have tried ferrying people in planes that don't actually leave the ground, thereby having the ability to lay claim to "safest airline" because they never had a crash?

 

Perhaps PGX has gone a little too far in some aspects, but

- I think it's better to go too far in copying the only successful example than not going far enough

- If PGX has/had crossed some line in terms of infringing on CGC's methods, there'd have been a lawsuit by now

- Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

Further, you point to the pricing and turnaround times...what about the grading? By all accounts, PGX may be stricter than the market leader - and that would be a pretty brash and gutsy position to take, considering it could very well cost you business almost from day one.

 

Creating a new grading criteria and new terminology wouldn't earn PGX any fans, IMO. They've improved on CGC in some ways (turnaround time, pricing, emailing of graders' notes in advance of slab delivery, inner well design) and as the (admittedly distant) # 2, they can and should focus on these and any other areas where they perceive some lack of customer confidence in CGC (e.g., resto detection). Then let the market decide.

 

This is the way I see it:

 

Why should one company have the monopoly on comic book slabbing and grading? That's not the American way. We should have choices, and we should not be penalized for using another option. The "OTHER GUYS," as people like to call them, has every right to do what CGC does and try to compete with them. We already have a basis, or standard, for grading comics, so a 9.4 from one company should be a 9.4 from the other.

 

There may, of course, be differences, but that's only human nature. The best grader at CGC may give a book a 9.4 grade, while another excellent grader would give it a 9.6. The same CGC grader may grade two books on different occasions that look exactly alike, and give one a 9.4 and the other a 9.6. No body is perfect, and there really is no way to get a grade exactly as it should be every single time.

 

So people just need to trust the graders, no matter which company they grade for, and assume that they did their best job in grading, knowing that there is a chance that the actual grade may be slightly higher or lower. But really, people still buy 9.8 books from dealers that look more like 9.4's. They just want the slab with the 9.8 on it. So it really makes no difference.

[Kevin Boyd]

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Copying the market leader and then improving incrementally in the easiest aspects of the product or service is a tried and true method. Look at Burger King. Look at Avis. Look at discount airlines. Should they have tried ferrying people in planes that don't actually leave the ground, thereby having the ability to lay claim to "safest airline" because they never had a crash?

 

Burger King doesn't copy the text from McDonald's website word for word. Nor do they go online and say "we are better than McDonald's because our cheeseburgers are 25 cents cheaper and cook faster and use a slightly different wrapper". I don't see Burger King offering something called a "Big King" or a "Fourth of a Pound Burger with Cheddar". On a basic level they are similar, but the contenders in both examples you site at least made some attempt to be more unique in the naming and presentation of their services.

 

Perhaps PGX has gone a little too far in some aspects, but

- I think it's better to go too far in copying the only successful example than not going far enough

- If PGX has/had crossed some line in terms of infringing on CGC's methods, there'd have been a lawsuit by now

- Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

They did change their name pretty quickly when the cease and desist letter arrived.

 

Further, you point to the pricing and turnaround times...what about the grading? By all accounts, PGX may be stricter than the market leader - and that would be a pretty brash and gutsy position to take, considering it could very well cost you business almost from day one.

 

As I said in my post, grading is subjective. If all I cared about was getting a grade on a book and a plastic holder then I would consider their services.

 

Creating a new grading criteria and new terminology wouldn't earn PGX any fans, IMO. They've improved on CGC in some ways (turnaround time, pricing, emailing of graders' notes in advance of slab delivery, inner well design) and as the (admittedly distant) # 2, they can and should focus on these and any other areas where they perceive some lack of customer confidence in CGC (e.g., resto detection). Then let the market decide.

 

Doing things like sending grader's notes is exactly what I'm talking about. CGC doesn't do this - they should be selling that service as a benefit along with speed and price. Those things make them different, make them unique. The problem is I look at the two side by side and all I see are the similarities to CGC, and I don't have a problem with CGC. I don't need another CGC, and I don't see superficial things as an improvement on what I already get from CGC. A slightly different label does nothing for me.

[OldGuy]

I could really go to town on this post, but I'll restrain myself.

 

Why should one company have the monopoly on comic book slabbing and grading? That's not the American way.

 

What America do you live in? The America I live in encourages competition in the hope that you will crush your opponent and be the "last man standing".

 

We should have choices, and we should not be penalized for using another option.

 

How are you "penalized" for using the "other" option?

 

The "OTHER GUYS," as people like to call them, has every right to do what CGC does and try to compete with them.

 

Who said they don't have that right?

 

We already have a basis, or standard, for grading comics, so a 9.4 from one company should be a 9.4 from the other.

 

My wife has a t-shirt that says "Don't should on me. I would insert a picture of that shirt here if I had one.

[Darthdiesel]

Hi. OCDBoy here to tell you that "chomping at the bit" is incorrect. The actual turn of phrase is "champing at the bit." You really DO learn something new every day, and this is it for 12/21/04. Have a nice day!

 

 

ummm...I call 'typo'

 

 

Thanks Garth - looked it up myself and champing it is

 

Champing at the bit

If someone is eager or anxious to do something, they are said to be champing at the bit, (not chomping at the bit. nor chomping on the bit).

CHAMPING: Repetitious, strong opening and closing action of the mouth which produces sounds when the teeth hit together. Champing in swine may be a threat signal, but also is performed by boars during courtship and mating. Definition from Hurnik et al., 1995.

- The Encyclopedia of Farm Animal Behavior

champ

v. tr. - To bite or chew upon noisily.

v. intr. - To work the jaws and teeth vigorously.

Idiom: - champ at the bit

To show impatience at being held back or delayed.

- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

Some other colloquialisms....

Whet your appetite

If something makes you more hungry it is said to whet your appetite, (not wet your appetite).

whet tr.v.

1. To sharpen (a knife, for example); hone.

2. To make more keen; stimulate: The frying bacon whetted my appetite.

- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

High dudgeon

If someone is extremely angry, they are said to be in high dudgeon, (not in high dungeon).

dudgeon

NOUN: A sullen, angry, or indignant humor: "Slamming the door in Meg's face, Aunt March drove off in high dudgeon" (Louisa May Alcott).

ETYMOLOGY: Origin unknown.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/49/d0414900.html

 

Redress the balance

To restore a state of equity one is said to redress the balance, (not redress the imbalance).

This phrase derives from the phrase "dress the balance" which means to adjust the weights on the empty balance scale to show a weight of zero (i.e. tare weight). Thus the "balance" referred to in "redress the balance" is an object (the balance scale), not a state (being balanced).

[qualitycomix]

Burger King doesn't copy the text from McDonald's website word for word. Nor do they go online and say "we are better than McDonald's because our cheeseburgers are 25 cents cheaper and cook faster and use a slightly different wrapper". I don't see Burger King offering something called a "Big King" or a "Fourth of a Pound Burger with Cheddar". On a basic level they are similar, but the contenders in both examples you site at least made some attempt to be more unique in the naming and presentation of their services.

 

I disagree! Imitation occurs almost instantly when there's money to be made. Look at all the imitation designer clothes/products out there. And look at generic drugs. The only difference is that they are cheaper!

 

PGA is providing a different product because it's a different holder, and different graders and different level of liquidity. Just because they are imitating the market leader doesn't make them bad per se. All they need to do is capitalize on the market leader's weaknesses and that will draw customers assuming they can hold up their end on the other things like resto check and customer service.

[Hobgoblin]

I could really go to town on this post, but I'll restrain myself.

 

Why should one company have the monopoly on comic book slabbing and grading? That's not the American way.

 

What America do you live in? The America I live in encourages competition in the hope that you will crush your opponent and be the "last man standing".

 

We should have choices, and we should not be penalized for using another option.

 

How are you "penalized" for using the "other" option?

 

The "OTHER GUYS," as people like to call them, has every right to do what CGC does and try to compete with them.

 

Who said they don't have that right?

 

We already have a basis, or standard, for grading comics, so a 9.4 from one company should be a 9.4 from the other.

 

My wife has a t-shirt that says "Don't should on me. I would insert a picture of that shirt here if I had one.

 

Dude, if you did not understand my post, those statements were made in favor of PGX/CGG. They do have the right to do what they're doing, and I was defending that for them, since a lot of people seem to think that they should just pack up and let CGC do it on their own.

 

And the "penalized" comment ..... Some are arguing on this very thread that a PGX graded book will not bring it what a CGC book of the same grade will. Now that's for an obvious reason, because more people know of CGC and what they do, while PGX is relatively unknown (I had just heard of them this morning when this thread was posted). So users of PGX are in fact being penalized in a way for using them over CGC. This really shouldn't be the case, and in time hopefully that will change.

 

American business was not built on the standards of "crushing your opponent" from competition. That is truely a European standard of business. It may be America's way in terms of military pursuits, and some businessmen (Bill Gates) may do just that, but thats not what the US economy is based on. US economy thrives on coexisting businesses battling with each other to get their services out there to the public. If Walmart became the ONLY national discount store chain, forcing Target, K-Mart, and any others you can name to close down, the market would crash.

[Darthdiesel]

Guys that collect those particular genres that are more susceptible to this SCS/overflash damage can adjust by being more selective in the books they purchase and the sellers they use, sellers who can ship safely enough to counteract any SCS potential, by immobilizing the slab in the package. If the comic is loose and it is sliding enough of its own volition in the inner well, then it should be sent back to CGC to get fixed/reslabbed properly.

 

Hunh? Being selective won't help if the book has to be shipped and the damage in question occurs during shipping. As for packing the book more safely, we've seen many examples of SCS that occured in "bomb-proof" packages. As to your last point above, what if you send a loose book back to CGC and it incurs SCS damage on the way?

 

 

Garth - if the books are THAT loose in the slab that SCS could result then send it back to CGC to fix. I have books that take a suddent violent jolt to get to move from one end of the well to the other, if at all. The problem as I see it is that overflash protrudes farther out and is the first to bend against meeting up with the inner well before the rest of the book can be there to support and prevent the overflash bending.

 

I'm just saying that there have been books mailed from CGC to me or other customers or from me as a seller to my ebay customers, and mailed properly such that SCS doesn't or did not occur. The way you phrased it above, it seemed like SCS was bound to occur regardless of how the comic fits in the well or how it is packed; you seem to be saying that SCS was an inevitability rather than an exceptional phenomena that probably occurs under heavy duress and "mistreatment" during shipping.

 

Being selective will help you pick out books where SCS may not be a possibility due to the security of the book itself in the inner well.

[Hobgoblin]

Burger King doesn't copy the text from McDonald's website word for word. Nor do they go online and say "we are better than McDonald's because our cheeseburgers are 25 cents cheaper and cook faster and use a slightly different wrapper". I don't see Burger King offering something called a "Big King" or a "Fourth of a Pound Burger with Cheddar". On a basic level they are similar, but the contenders in both examples you site at least made some attempt to be more unique in the naming and presentation of their services.

 

I disagree! Imitation occurs almost instantly when there's money to be made. Look at all the imitation designer clothes/products out there. And look at generic drugs. The only difference is that they are cheaper!

 

PGA is providing a different product because it's a different holder, and different graders and different level of liquidity. Just because they are imitating the market leader doesn't make them bad per se. All they need to do is capitalize on the market leader's weaknesses and that will draw customers assuming they can hold up their end on the other things like resto check and customer service.

 

Ditto. that's good business.

[Hobgoblin]

Burger King doesn't copy the text from McDonald's website word for word. Nor do they go online and say "we are better than McDonald's because our cheeseburgers are 25 cents cheaper and cook faster and use a slightly different wrapper". I don't see Burger King offering something called a "Big King" or a "Fourth of a Pound Burger with Cheddar". On a basic level they are similar, but the contenders in both examples you site at least made some attempt to be more unique in the naming and presentation of their services.

 

I disagree! Imitation occurs almost instantly when there's money to be made. Look at all the imitation designer clothes/products out there. And look at generic drugs. The only difference is that they are cheaper!

 

PGA is providing a different product because it's a different holder, and different graders and different level of liquidity. Just because they are imitating the market leader doesn't make them bad per se. All they need to do is capitalize on the market leader's weaknesses and that will draw customers assuming they can hold up their end on the other things like resto check and customer service.

 

I actually just talked to the PGX guys on the phone. They were very helpful

 

Am I gonna get into major trouble giving PGX props on the CGC boards?

 

Ditto. that's good business.

[sterlingcomics]

I personally think all points are valid. PGX is in fact imitating CGC, but I also believe that they need to have key differences to separate them from the rest of the pack. Speed, etc are very temporary as it expresses the current business condition, not a specific strategic advantage. The idea about making the grader's notes available, and actually e-mailing customers when the grading is done to me is a key strategic advantage.

 

OT: I like the guys in Sarasota, but why do I have to call to get my grades/grader's notes? Automate this--when that field in your DB says "Finalized/Shipped"---have a process send the person the grades / grader's notes.