ComicConnect Event Auction!

[nearmint]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

I prefer uniformity in my collection. I don't have sig series books, and I don't have qualified labels. And my favorite color is blue.

[Jaydogrules]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

I prefer uniformity in my collection. I don't have sig series books, and I don't have qualified labels. And my favorite color is blue.

 

Better make sure they're all CGC then. Just to be on the safe side.

 

-J.

[jimjum12]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

...if your concern is for buyer friendliness then having one color for all degrees of restoration, no matter how slight, is even more confusing. Since you don't even collect restored books, I'm not even sure why this would be of such concern to you. Buying collectibles has always required it's due diligence..... and someone who is too busy or naïve to read a label still has some lessons to learn....perhaps the hard way. To penalize the owner of a rare 40's book that has nothing done but some minor colour touch by equating their book with one that has virtually been rebuilt from scratch is equally unfair and misleading. Percentages for restored book final sales have been growing steadily because that is what the market dictates. Borock realized that the Purple "one size fits all" was as misleading as no differentiation at all.....and I applaud his willingness to correct that oversight. "Fairness" by definition should apply to all interested parties..... not just the naïve, mentally challenged, or lazy ones. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimjum12(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Junkdrawer]

Reading the label before bidding or buying is for the intelligent people.

[Sqeggs]

...if your concern is for buyer friendliness then having one color for all degrees of restoration, no matter how slight, is even more confusing. Since you don't even collect restored books, I'm not even sure why this would be of such concern to you. Buying collectibles has always required it's due diligence..... and someone who is too busy or naïve to read a label still has some lessons to learn....perhaps the hard way. To penalize the owner of a rare 40's book that has nothing done but some minor colour touch by equating their book with one that has virtually been rebuilt from scratch is equally unfair and misleading. Percentages for restored book final sales have been growing steadily because that is what the market dictates. Borock realized that the Purple "one size fits all" was as misleading as no differentiation at all.....and I applaud his willingness to correct that oversight. "Fairness" by definition should apply to all interested parties..... not just the naïve, mentally challenged, or lazy ones. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimjum12(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Hey! Leave me out of this!

[jjeanius]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

First and foremost, I think there is a lot of "gray area" for restoration. Different levels of resto, conservation vs restoration, whether or not a "small amount of dried glue" or "small amount of color touch" even gets designated as restoration or not in the first place. This can all be extremely subjective, and so I think it should be left up to the consumer to determine what they do or do not accept on the books that they purchase. This is already the case amongst blue label collectors - there are those that accept tape on their books, and those that do not. There are those that will consider buying books with brittle pages, and those that will not. And...the only way to determine whether a book meets these more personalized criteria is to READ THE LABEL.

 

And yet, some would seemingly prefer the grading company to make some sort of judgement on a book in advance, but coloring a label blue (GOOD!), or purple (BAD!), when in truth there is much more to it than that.

 

Simply put: By giving books one label color, and then outlining all necessary grading criteria on the label, each consumer can make their own judgement as to how they feel about a particular book. All you have to do is read the label. It really isn't that hard.

 

Color-coding isn't buyer-friendly. It's lemming-friendly.

[Jaydogrules]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

...if your concern is for buyer friendliness then having one color for all degrees of restoration, no matter how slight, is even more confusing. Since you don't even collect restored books, I'm not even sure why this would be of such concern to you. Buying collectibles has always required it's due diligence..... and someone who is too busy or naïve to read a label still has some lessons to learn....perhaps the hard way. To penalize the owner of a rare 40's book that has nothing done but some minor colour touch by equating their book with one that has virtually been rebuilt from scratch is equally unfair and misleading. Percentages for restored book final sales have been growing steadily because that is what the market dictates. Borock realized that the Purple "one size fits all" was as misleading as no differentiation at all.....and I applaud his willingness to correct that oversight. "Fairness" by definition should apply to all interested parties..... not just the naïve, mentally challenged, or lazy ones. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimjum12(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Again, this point highlights the hypocrisy of their current labeling system: Different label colour for "verifying" un-witnessed signatures. But the same label colour (blue, natch) for both restored and original books.

 

The disclosure of the degree/extent of restoration is simply not as important as the disclosure *that* there is restoration.

 

Hiding restored books in slabs with blue labels is a disingenuous attempt to "level the playing field". Regardless of the extent of the books restoration there is still a fundamental difference between one that has been, and one that has not been. And that difference is *more* important than whether or not a book has been signed by a deceased creator. Yet one has a unique label, and the other does not.

 

 

-J.

[jimjum12]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

...if your concern is for buyer friendliness then having one color for all degrees of restoration, no matter how slight, is even more confusing. Since you don't even collect restored books, I'm not even sure why this would be of such concern to you. Buying collectibles has always required it's due diligence..... and someone who is too busy or naïve to read a label still has some lessons to learn....perhaps the hard way. To penalize the owner of a rare 40's book that has nothing done but some minor colour touch by equating their book with one that has virtually been rebuilt from scratch is equally unfair and misleading. Percentages for restored book final sales have been growing steadily because that is what the market dictates. Borock realized that the Purple "one size fits all" was as misleading as no differentiation at all.....and I applaud his willingness to correct that oversight. "Fairness" by definition should apply to all interested parties..... not just the naïve, mentally challenged, or lazy ones. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimjum12(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Again, this point highlights the hypocrisy of their current labeling system: Different label colour for "verifying" un-witnessed signatures. But the same label colour (blue, natch) for both restored and original books.

 

The disclosure of the degree/extent of restoration is simply not as important as the disclosure *that* there is restoration.

 

Hiding restored books in slabs with blue labels is a disingenuous attempt to "level the playing field". Regardless of the extent of the books restoration there is still a fundamental difference between one that has been, and one that has not been. And that difference is *more* important than whether or not a book has been signed by a deceased creator. Yet one has a unique label, and the other does not.

 

 

-J.

 

...highlighted above is an assumption made by you, based upon your own personal bias, Jay. To many people, the degree of resto is QUITE important. As for the sigs, the Autograph collectibles hobby has been using Signature Verification for billions of years...... we are, naturally, unable to witness an Abraham Lincoln signing, for example..... yet with expert verification these items are accepted at large. I, for one, would trust Borock and company's opinion.....and I'd welcome this type of service should CGC decide to provide it. It almost seems as if you have an "ax to grind" with Steve.....hopefully a misconception on my part, as he's really quite a decent guy. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[G.A.tor]

I'm not a coin collector but do the coin slabbing companies have different colored labels for coins that are pure vs worked on?

[Flex Mentallo]

I'm not a coin collector but do the coin slabbing companies have different colored labels for coins that are pure vs worked on?

 

Which leads me to wonder if they do resto on stamps - a much bigger collector market than comics I believe. And if so is any stigma attached to resto there?

[FutureFlash]

I have just started dipping my toe in GA deep end of the pond, this thread has been very informative to say the least.

 

As for the resto issue, I'm not sure why one would not read the label anyway when spending a large sum of money. I mean sure the color coding is nice for a quick glance, but the buyer really should to their own due diligence. The seller should also be up front about it as well. But as we all know common sense is not exactly common anymore.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

You can READ, right...? I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal to expect someone to read a label when spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

It just seems incredibly lazy to me to say that you have time to identify the color of a label, but you can't be bothered to read a few sentences of text on the label. Do you do the same with CGC blue labels (ignore any text printed on the label that might further detail the condition specifics of the book)?

 

Let me flip the question back around to you: why exactly do you have such a problem with a BUYER friendly colour coded labeling system that makes a restored book as easy to spot on sight as a book with an "un-witnessed" signature ?

 

-J.

 

...if your concern is for buyer friendliness then having one color for all degrees of restoration, no matter how slight, is even more confusing. Since you don't even collect restored books, I'm not even sure why this would be of such concern to you. Buying collectibles has always required it's due diligence..... and someone who is too busy or naïve to read a label still has some lessons to learn....perhaps the hard way. To penalize the owner of a rare 40's book that has nothing done but some minor colour touch by equating their book with one that has virtually been rebuilt from scratch is equally unfair and misleading. Percentages for restored book final sales have been growing steadily because that is what the market dictates. Borock realized that the Purple "one size fits all" was as misleading as no differentiation at all.....and I applaud his willingness to correct that oversight. "Fairness" by definition should apply to all interested parties..... not just the naïve, mentally challenged, or lazy ones. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimjum12(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Again, this point highlights the hypocrisy of their current labeling system: Different label colour for "verifying" un-witnessed signatures. But the same label colour (blue, natch) for both restored and original books.

 

The disclosure of the degree/extent of restoration is simply not as important as the disclosure *that* there is restoration.

 

Hiding restored books in slabs with blue labels is a disingenuous attempt to "level the playing field". Regardless of the extent of the books restoration there is still a fundamental difference between one that has been, and one that has not been. And that difference is *more* important than whether or not a book has been signed by a deceased creator. Yet one has a unique label, and the other does not.

 

 

-J.

 

...highlighted above is an assumption made by you, based upon your own personal bias, Jay. To many people, the degree of resto is QUITE important. As for the sigs, the Autograph collectibles hobby has been using Signature Verification for billions of years...... we are, naturally, unable to witness an Abraham Lincoln signing, for example..... yet with expert verification these items are accepted at large. I, for one, would trust Borock and company's opinion.....and I'd welcome this type of service should CGC decide to provide it. It almost seems as if you have an "ax to grind" with Steve.....hopefully a misconception on my part, as he's really quite a decent guy. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I have no axes to grind nor any horse in the race and I do not personally know anyone affiliated with the company. I'm offering an opinion strictly as a consumer and purchaser of slabbed comics. I'm not saying that the degree of restoration on a particular book "is not important". I'm saying that knowing *that* there is restoration, easily and at a glance, is more important than knowing if a particular grading company believes a particular signature on a book is authentic.

 

Yet for one scenario we have a different coloured label. And for the other we do not.

 

Nonsense.

 

-J.

[Sqeggs]

I'm not a coin collector but do the coin slabbing companies have different colored labels for coins that are pure vs worked on?

 

Which leads me to wonder if they do resto on stamps - a much bigger collector market than comics I believe. And if so is any stigma attached to resto there?

 

In the rare book market, it's pretty much up to the dealer to disclose any work that's been done -- assuming he is aware of it. If you look through the catalogs for Heritage's rare book auctions there are some fairly vague descriptions.

[Flex Mentallo]

I'm not a coin collector but do the coin slabbing companies have different colored labels for coins that are pure vs worked on?

 

Which leads me to wonder if they do resto on stamps - a much bigger collector market than comics I believe. And if so is any stigma attached to resto there?

 

In the rare book market, it's pretty much up to the dealer to disclose any work that's been done -- assuming he is aware of it. If you look through the catalogs for Heritage's rare book auctions there are some fairly vague descriptions.

 

I hadn't even thought of books.

[bluechip]

 

+1 Very well said, Roy.

 

+2

 

This is a perspective I share as well & have written about ad nauseam.

 

I agree with many of your points. However a restored book should not "look" like an un - restored book once it had been slabbed. We cannot inspect these things ourselves once they're entombed and it should be readily apparent (no pun intended) when a book that is slabbed has been restored. It should be easy and obvious to see even the most novice of collector. It is clear that that is not the goal of CBCS's labeling system.

 

CBCS is 15 years late to the comic grading and slabbing game. And they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to kow-tow to the restored comic book collector and seller by making his book look like an un-restored book in their slabs. Yet they also want to cash in on the established blue label universal grade colour identifying system that CGC has used for a decade and half.

 

I'm not saying they are being "deceptive", but I do think their system has a stink to it. Not the same kind of stink as PGX. But a fairly pungent reek in its own right. Needless to say, you can count me in the camp that would never buy one of their slabs.

 

-J.

 

I think you're looking for something nefarious when there isn't anything.

 

When Borock worked for CGC years ago he was already in favor of a blue label for all books (meaning restored and unrestored) and many board members (me included) agreed with the idea. I went on to be accused of having an agenda, of trying to sell restored books as unrestored, etc. All sorts of venom thrown my way even though my business model rarely includes (or included) restored books.

 

My own opinion is similar to that of bluchip's - the purple label created a much larger negative reaction for restored books than anyone expected and an all blue label forces people to think about what they are buying and what they will pay for it, rather than just create a pavlovian response of 'yes' or 'no'.

 

 

I think they should have created their own unique labeling system and done whatever the heck they wanted, instead of deliberately parroting what CGC has already been doing for 15 years, and then diluting and confusing matters. Their intentions may not be "nefarious" but they are certainly calculated. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment. Calculated, yes, as are all competitive businesses, but to suggest that either company is "parroting" the other is a cage liner too far.

 

As I see it, CGC & CBCS labels are substantially different, including the use of different encapsulation materials. In fact, each company's signature series labels have different color coding and unique services (one provides true signature authentication; the other provides staged events & a witness).

 

Are there similarities between the two companies? Sure, but using the analogy of a hamster instead of a parrot, why should any viable competitor be expected to reinvent the wheel.

 

PS: Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

 

That's actually another symptom of the overall problem: a different label colour to make it easy for people to know when they have "verified" an un-verified and un-witnessed/ dead person's signature scrawled on the front cover....? "yes".

 

A different label colour to make it easy for people to know when the book they are looking at has been restored...? "eh, why bother? That might hurt our dealer submissions."

 

Giving the impression that it is somehow more important for a prospective buyer of one of their slabs to know at first sight that this stain on the cover that says "Stan Lee '76" is the real deal, but that same buyer better be sure to look twice at a blue label, to make sure he hasn't missed any restoration notes buried in the fine print.

 

This company's one and only obvious purpose is to attract submissions from dealers/large sellers. That was their game plan from the beginning. To entice them to submit their books to them early on with a labeling and policy system that was lax and forgiving so as not to "stigmatize" certain books, and de-sensitize buyers to the critical differences of those books, so they could get as many of their slabs on the market as fast as possible. These are quite clearly not the policies and practices of a company that is concerned with the buyers of their slabs on the secondary market. To the contrary, this is about making themselves and the sellers of these altered books as much money as possible, and nudging shoppers back to a "buyer beware" mentality when they take a quick glance at one of these deceptively blue labels.

 

No thank you.

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

I would agree that a color is not necessary to distinguish verified signatures.

 

But it is a very big stretch to compare it to the purple label. Not least of which because the colored label for signatures tells the buyer two things which are objective, instead of subjective.

 

It tells you the book is signed (a positive) and that the signature has been verified after the fact (a positive for some, a negative for others. But it's left to the individual to decide whether the objective facts are good or bad.

 

The purple label is very much a subjective label. Books are labeled based on the "intent" behind a defect, not whether the book actually appears to be a higher grade than it is. I might never have had a problem with a colored label if it was restricted to extensively restored UHG books if they inarguably got a grade number that was much higher than they would have received without the improvements.

 

But books up to 4.0 labeled as restored when any experienced person knows it would get the same grade even the color touch were bigger and defaced the book instead of filling in a crease? Books in poor condition called restored? Restored from what original condition? "Really, really poor"? Books called restored if the tape is easily removed but not called restored if it's corrosive?

 

The purple label has been too much about attempting to punish the thought process behind efforts to improve a book (which the purists deem "desecration") and not enough about really identifying what has (or has not) been done to a book. All of that, and more (which has not all been listed here) make it clear that the purple label is entirely too much about subjective emotional criteria. CGC has been making an effort to correct it, and we'll see if their efforts help in that regard. I think they will.

 

Even on CBCS labels where they use only words it is arguable that subjective criteria is used

 

But whether you like restored labels or not, they simply aren't the same thing as coloring a label because something has been signed.

 

But then I don't think you asked the question sincerely looking for a response that might clarify whether they are different or the same. You've used incompatible arguments at different times because you always start with "purple label is good" and worked backwards from that. You want the purple label not because it doesn't stigmatize books unfairly or inconsistently, but because it does do that and it works for you. Hell, I've made it work for myself. Bought books for prices that were less than they should have been. But even then I knew it was, over the long term, not good for the hobby.

 

[bluechip]

...if your concern is for buyer friendliness then having one color for all degrees of restoration, no matter how slight, is even more confusing. Since you don't even collect restored books, I'm not even sure why this would be of such concern to you. Buying collectibles has always required it's due diligence..... and someone who is too busy or naïve to read a label still has some lessons to learn....perhaps the hard way. To penalize the owner of a rare 40's book that has nothing done but some minor colour touch by equating their book with one that has virtually been rebuilt from scratch is equally unfair and misleading. Percentages for restored book final sales have been growing steadily because that is what the market dictates. Borock realized that the Purple "one size fits all" was as misleading as no differentiation at all.....and I applaud his willingness to correct that oversight. "Fairness" by definition should apply to all interested parties..... not just the naïve, mentally challenged, or lazy ones. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimjum12(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Hey! Leave me out of this!

 

made me chuckle

 

[Mmehdy]

The purple label is the worst thing to happen to comic books in this entire grading system. It creates a stigma which reduces the value of the book...by creating a "SECOND CLASS" or tier of collect-ability in the eyes of ALL COLLECTORs. You can say I don't care about the rest..but you are gonna stare at a purple label every time you look at your comic book.

 

It is simply put....I have something "better" than you.....and its in a BLUE label.

 

Again, ELIMINATE THE COLOR OF GREEN, PURPLE AND CREATE A UNIVERSAL COLOR AND 10 POINT GRADING SYSTEM..DECREASING THE NUMBER GRADE IF RESO IS DONE.

 

 

plain and simple....

 

And now the biggest joke of all...some resto is called "conservation" and retain a blue label...while others do not..this is the biggest joke of all-see actions comic #2 at the last comic connect auction.....

 

pure insanity...and getting crazier every day..

[bluechip]

(thumbs u

 

 

The disclosure of the degree/extent of restoration is simply not as important as the disclosure *that* there is restoration.

 

 

The quote is a perfect example of the "pee-pee" smear mindset. To some, a deliberate attempt to improve a book makes it undesirable in the same way as if a guy deliberately took his weiner and waved it all over a book.

 

Regardless of whether or not the pee-pee did any actual damage to the book, they cannot stand knowing it was once exposed to a pee-pee. (accidental exposure doesn't count)

 

And they cannot believe anyone would ever own such a book. It shocks them that people buy them, anyway.

 

So they feel it must not only be disclosed that someone showed his weiner to the book in words but also with a purple label -- perhaps because the weiner at issue is assumed to have been purple.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

I'm not a coin collector but do the coin slabbing companies have different colored labels for coins that are pure vs worked on?

 

Which leads me to wonder if they do resto on stamps - a much bigger collector market than comics I believe. And if so is any stigma attached to resto there?

 

In the rare book market, it's pretty much up to the dealer to disclose any work that's been done -- assuming he is aware of it. If you look through the catalogs for Heritage's rare book auctions there are some fairly vague descriptions.

 

Book dealers are not appraisers and a dealer selling raw comics isn't a 3rd party grading service. One would assume that Heritage, like other major auction houses, have appraisers evaluate the authenticity of lots in their various auctions. Disclosure, obviously, is always paramount.

 

Paper ephemera values are determined by what is printed on them combined with factors such as size, wear, age, PQ, etc. Metal based coins are assessed by what is stamped on them with emphasis on the amount of wear (circulation) and scarcity of materials (gold, silver, etc.). Logically, conservation of paper collectibles via widely accepted professional restoration techniques is important as wear can factor into desirability when assessing appearance and/or functionality.

 

Again, the bottom line is that disclosure of restoration should be the guiding principle with color coding only used to differentiate universal grades from special cases such as autographs.

[Sqeggs]

I'm not a coin collector but do the coin slabbing companies have different colored labels for coins that are pure vs worked on?

 

Which leads me to wonder if they do resto on stamps - a much bigger collector market than comics I believe. And if so is any stigma attached to resto there?

 

In the rare book market, it's pretty much up to the dealer to disclose any work that's been done -- assuming he is aware of it. If you look through the catalogs for Heritage's rare book auctions there are some fairly vague descriptions.

 

Book dealers are not appraisers and a dealer selling raw comics isn't a 3rd party grading service. One would assume that Heritage, like other major auction houses, have appraisers evaluate the authenticity of lots in their various auctions. Disclosure, obviously, is always paramount.

 

 

With respect to rare books, authenticity questions sometimes arise, particularly with regard to signatures--and most particularly with regard to presentation copies and the like. Certainly, there have been spectacular frauds perpetrated over the years that managed to avoid detection for a long time.

 

Where restoration is concerned, though, disclosure seems strikingly casual in comparison with what we see with comic books. Even with respect to, say, marrying a book jacket, a rather difficult to detect practice in any event, there doesn't seem to be nearly the level of concern we see at our end of the collecting universe.