There's a Restored 9.4 Tec 33 Blowing up on Ebay

[AnkurJ]

So going from Extensive to Moderate would mean their stance on restoration has softened, no?

 

It may be a difference in the perception of "conservation" vs "restoration". That is, techniques now deemed conservation were at one time included in restoration. So with those conservation techniques out of the restoration picture, that could account for a bump down as in Ext to Mod or Mod to Sl.

 

Great point. I might even think that makes sence.

 

It might make Sense

[VintageComics]

So going from Extensive to Moderate would mean their stance on restoration has softened, no?

 

It may be a difference in the perception of "conservation" vs "restoration". That is, techniques now deemed conservation were at one time included in restoration. So with those conservation techniques out of the restoration picture, that could account for a bump down as in Ext to Mod or Mod to Sl.

 

That's what I was thinking.

[*matterus023*]

That's amazing... I mean it looks great!

 

And it seems (to me) like Emily and Matt are being honest and I for one, love hearing about restorative and conservative measures taken with comics.

 

It's something I wish I could learn to do for a living.

 

Me and you both. As some know I live in the UK and the market is soooo much saller than the U.S. But also there isn't a single restoration or professional press and clean company in the UK as far as I know. People talk about this a lot on say facebook comic pages and other places so I believe this to be true.

 

I would love to start my own press/clean and restoration company up in the UK but as I could only recreate stick man comics I would need to find some talent in the UK which I am sure is over here. For fun though I am going to start (hopefully sometime this year) practising restoration techniques on cheap, old beaten up comics. Should be fun :-)

[ciorac]

It would feel natural and normal. And far more natural and normal than the previous CGC 6.0 B-5 that it originally was. When we first cracked the 6.0, the book would not open well. Attached is a pic of the 6.0 after removing wraps and forcing it open. Of course we leaf cast, but when it comes to hinging we use a very strong, flexible, lightweight Tengucho (5-7 g/m² for SA and 9-11 g/m² for GA - shout out to Hiromi Paper in Los Angeles) supported by pure cellulose powder and methyl cellulose. Initially we too were having issues with spine stiffness which we assessed came form leaf casting discrepancies - too much wheat starch or methyl, larger areas being cast too quickly/thickly, warping, cockling... Too little and it would be too brittle. So for hinge flexibility (especially over time) we only use a reliable rice paper. Aside from that the book is thin, as I mentioned elsewhere we use a micrometer to gauge and monitor thickness both SA and GA. No acrylic on interior wraps. All mends reversible in distilled water, color and texture matched using de-acidified, same-era, same-media pulp.

 

Our earlier books (2-3 years ago) were no where near as refined or beautiful. So if you dig up one of IGB's practice books you might be able to use it as a deadly weapon. But this past year we are thrilled with our product. And if you check the grader's notes for the Tec 33, you will see no mention of thickness or spine stiffness - and believe me CBCS would note it and deduct, as they did for us early on. The only serious deduction on this Tec 33 is staining on centerfold wrap (which may be attributed to a slight mismatch on a reversible mend).

 

We have been very fortunate to have had some of the industry's top players (Matt Nelson and Steve Borock) advise us as we have evolved.

 

I do find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that you indicate you learned a lot from Matt Nelson as you evolved with your techniques, and that he was very open and candid with you on advice, Then some of your later posts indicated that now that you've perfected your techniques you no longer want to submit books to them for competitive reasons, fear of them now learning from you, and that you disagree with the grades and restoration level designations they give you.

 

Seems rather petty to me. I'm paraphrasing some of your remarks above, but I think I've fairly well captured the gist.

[bluechip]

Are many of us forgetting the Detective comics 27 that was in a CGC 9.2 Extensive holder, and now resides in a CGC 9.4 Moderate holder? No resto was removed from the book, but it was re-evaluated and maxed out. Restoration techniques have changed substantially from the years of grafting individual pieces of paper. With leafcasting, every defect is easily filled in, and if you so desire, you can color touch over everything to make the book look better than when it hit the newsstand.

 

But calling all restored books frankenbooks when you don't know what has been done to them is not correct if you ask me. Many books are restored in a way to improve their structural integrity and their overall appearance. When I restored my Action 7, I chose not to color touch the leafcasted areas as I didn't feel it was necessary, and the work could be reversed if need be. Adding color touch and blending it into the actual cover makes the work a little harder to undo.

 

Most people who restore do so with the best interest of the book and to preserve it. If people are doing resto for their own financial gain, then yes, they will do everything possible to max out the book, which appears to be the case with these books. However, I do not feel this should define the entire restored book market.

 

 

 

CGC 9.2 Extensive holder to 9.4 Moderate holder still has me thinking but you are 100% right with the rest of your post ( IMO ) Matt did my Action 10 and did little color that did not match up good but it could be undone easy. I would love unrestored Action 1 to 10 in poor grade but the 1 alone would cost more than the set Restored.

 

 

Resto standards have changed but so have resto designation standards. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that old book graded under CGC's old grading standards and the new book under the updated resto designations?

 

Yes. So going from Extensive to Moderate would mean their stance on restoration has softened, no?

 

I had a key book that was a 3.0 moderate which I consigned to somebody, only to discover (by accident) that he resubbed and got a much better grade -- 4.5 with slight resto.

 

In a subjective world it is impossible that such discrepancies wouldn't occur even no matter how impartial things are. Whether you think it's impartial depends on how you are getting the upgrade/downgrade, versus what happens after it's out of your hands.

[igb-migration]

It would feel natural and normal. And far more natural and normal than the previous CGC 6.0 B-5 that it originally was. When we first cracked the 6.0, the book would not open well. Attached is a pic of the 6.0 after removing wraps and forcing it open. Of course we leaf cast, but when it comes to hinging we use a very strong, flexible, lightweight Tengucho (5-7 g/m² for SA and 9-11 g/m² for GA - shout out to Hiromi Paper in Los Angeles) supported by pure cellulose powder and methyl cellulose. Initially we too were having issues with spine stiffness which we assessed came form leaf casting discrepancies - too much wheat starch or methyl, larger areas being cast too quickly/thickly, warping, cockling... Too little and it would be too brittle. So for hinge flexibility (especially over time) we only use a reliable rice paper. Aside from that the book is thin, as I mentioned elsewhere we use a micrometer to gauge and monitor thickness both SA and GA. No acrylic on interior wraps. All mends reversible in distilled water, color and texture matched using de-acidified, same-era, same-media pulp.

 

Our earlier books (2-3 years ago) were no where near as refined or beautiful. So if you dig up one of IGB's practice books you might be able to use it as a deadly weapon. But this past year we are thrilled with our product. And if you check the grader's notes for the Tec 33, you will see no mention of thickness or spine stiffness - and believe me CBCS would note it and deduct, as they did for us early on. The only serious deduction on this Tec 33 is staining on centerfold wrap (which may be attributed to a slight mismatch on a reversible mend).

 

We have been very fortunate to have had some of the industry's top players (Matt Nelson and Steve Borock) advise us as we have evolved.

 

I do find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that you indicate you learned a lot from Matt Nelson as you evolved with your techniques, and that he was very open and candid with you on advice, Then some of your later posts indicated that now that you've perfected your techniques you no longer want to submit books to them for competitive reasons, fear of them now learning from you, and that you disagree with the grades and restoration level designations they give you.

 

Seems rather petty to me. I'm paraphrasing some of your remarks above, but I think I've fairly well captured the gist.

 

Mr. Ciorac,

 

Matt Nelson and I are very open with each other and whatever we share with him would be kept in confidence. I have always been forthcoming with him in the past and will always be in the future. I trust him completely. But to open our books up to CCS as a whole (a department of our direct competition, people with whom we do not have personal relationships with) might jeopardize our trade secrets. Matt knows he can contact me at any time and talk shop.

 

More importantly it occurred to us that CCS and CGC being sisters could pose a conflict of interest, and the fact that CBCS doesn't have a restoration department was a more comfortable fit for us.

 

I would also like to add that it is not definite that we are done grading with CGC. As we gain our footing, we are comfortable with CBCS. Perhaps down the line we will feel more comfortable with CGC/CCS. I don't know what the future holds.

 

Great question, thanks for helping clear up!

Matt

[woowoo]

It would feel natural and normal. And far more natural and normal than the previous CGC 6.0 B-5 that it originally was. When we first cracked the 6.0, the book would not open well. Attached is a pic of the 6.0 after removing wraps and forcing it open. Of course we leaf cast, but when it comes to hinging we use a very strong, flexible, lightweight Tengucho (5-7 g/m² for SA and 9-11 g/m² for GA - shout out to Hiromi Paper in Los Angeles) supported by pure cellulose powder and methyl cellulose. Initially we too were having issues with spine stiffness which we assessed came form leaf casting discrepancies - too much wheat starch or methyl, larger areas being cast too quickly/thickly, warping, cockling... Too little and it would be too brittle. So for hinge flexibility (especially over time) we only use a reliable rice paper. Aside from that the book is thin, as I mentioned elsewhere we use a micrometer to gauge and monitor thickness both SA and GA. No acrylic on interior wraps. All mends reversible in distilled water, color and texture matched using de-acidified, same-era, same-media pulp.

 

Our earlier books (2-3 years ago) were no where near as refined or beautiful. So if you dig up one of IGB's practice books you might be able to use it as a deadly weapon. But this past year we are thrilled with our product. And if you check the grader's notes for the Tec 33, you will see no mention of thickness or spine stiffness - and believe me CBCS would note it and deduct, as they did for us early on. The only serious deduction on this Tec 33 is staining on centerfold wrap (which may be attributed to a slight mismatch on a reversible mend).

 

We have been very fortunate to have had some of the industry's top players (Matt Nelson and Steve Borock) advise us as we have evolved.

 

I do find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that you indicate you learned a lot from Matt Nelson as you evolved with your techniques, and that he was very open and candid with you on advice, Then some of your later posts indicated that now that you've perfected your techniques you no longer want to submit books to them for competitive reasons, fear of them now learning from you, and that you disagree with the grades and restoration level designations they give you.

 

Seems rather petty to me. I'm paraphrasing some of your remarks above, but I think I've fairly well captured the gist.

 

Mr. Ciorac,

 

Matt Nelson and I are very open with each other and whatever we share with him would be kept in confidence. I have always been forthcoming with him in the past and will always be in the future. I trust him completely. But to open our books up to CCS as a whole (a department of our direct competition, people with whom we do not have personal relationships with) might jeopardize our trade secrets. Matt knows he can contact me at any time and talk shop.

 

More importantly it occurred to us that CCS and CGC being sisters could pose a conflict of interest, and the fact that CBCS doesn't have a restoration department was a more comfortable fit for us.

 

I would also like to add that it is not definite that we are done grading with CGC. As we gain our footing, we are comfortable with CBCS. Perhaps down the line we will feel more comfortable with CGC/CCS. I don't know what the future holds.

 

Great question, thanks for helping clear up!

Matt

 

[AnkurJ]

It would feel natural and normal. And far more natural and normal than the previous CGC 6.0 B-5 that it originally was. When we first cracked the 6.0, the book would not open well. Attached is a pic of the 6.0 after removing wraps and forcing it open. Of course we leaf cast, but when it comes to hinging we use a very strong, flexible, lightweight Tengucho (5-7 g/m² for SA and 9-11 g/m² for GA - shout out to Hiromi Paper in Los Angeles) supported by pure cellulose powder and methyl cellulose. Initially we too were having issues with spine stiffness which we assessed came form leaf casting discrepancies - too much wheat starch or methyl, larger areas being cast too quickly/thickly, warping, cockling... Too little and it would be too brittle. So for hinge flexibility (especially over time) we only use a reliable rice paper. Aside from that the book is thin, as I mentioned elsewhere we use a micrometer to gauge and monitor thickness both SA and GA. No acrylic on interior wraps. All mends reversible in distilled water, color and texture matched using de-acidified, same-era, same-media pulp.

 

Our earlier books (2-3 years ago) were no where near as refined or beautiful. So if you dig up one of IGB's practice books you might be able to use it as a deadly weapon. But this past year we are thrilled with our product. And if you check the grader's notes for the Tec 33, you will see no mention of thickness or spine stiffness - and believe me CBCS would note it and deduct, as they did for us early on. The only serious deduction on this Tec 33 is staining on centerfold wrap (which may be attributed to a slight mismatch on a reversible mend).

 

We have been very fortunate to have had some of the industry's top players (Matt Nelson and Steve Borock) advise us as we have evolved.

 

I do find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that you indicate you learned a lot from Matt Nelson as you evolved with your techniques, and that he was very open and candid with you on advice, Then some of your later posts indicated that now that you've perfected your techniques you no longer want to submit books to them for competitive reasons, fear of them now learning from you, and that you disagree with the grades and restoration level designations they give you.

 

Seems rather petty to me. I'm paraphrasing some of your remarks above, but I think I've fairly well captured the gist.

 

Mr. Ciorac,

 

Matt Nelson and I are very open with each other and whatever we share with him would be kept in confidence. I have always been forthcoming with him in the past and will always be in the future. I trust him completely. But to open our books up to CCS as a whole (a department of our direct competition, people with whom we do not have personal relationships with) might jeopardize our trade secrets. Matt knows he can contact me at any time and talk shop.

 

More importantly it occurred to us that CCS and CGC being sisters could pose a conflict of interest, and the fact that CBCS doesn't have a restoration department was a more comfortable fit for us.

 

I would also like to add that it is not definite that we are done grading with CGC. As we gain our footing, we are comfortable with CBCS. Perhaps down the line we will feel more comfortable with CGC/CCS. I don't know what the future holds.

 

Great question, thanks for helping clear up!

Matt

 

Don't you feel that selling your own restored books is also a conflict of interest? Last I checked, all CGC/CCS employees are not allowed to deal in the collectible they're involved in.

[ciorac]

It would feel natural and normal. And far more natural and normal than the previous CGC 6.0 B-5 that it originally was. When we first cracked the 6.0, the book would not open well. Attached is a pic of the 6.0 after removing wraps and forcing it open. Of course we leaf cast, but when it comes to hinging we use a very strong, flexible, lightweight Tengucho (5-7 g/m² for SA and 9-11 g/m² for GA - shout out to Hiromi Paper in Los Angeles) supported by pure cellulose powder and methyl cellulose. Initially we too were having issues with spine stiffness which we assessed came form leaf casting discrepancies - too much wheat starch or methyl, larger areas being cast too quickly/thickly, warping, cockling... Too little and it would be too brittle. So for hinge flexibility (especially over time) we only use a reliable rice paper. Aside from that the book is thin, as I mentioned elsewhere we use a micrometer to gauge and monitor thickness both SA and GA. No acrylic on interior wraps. All mends reversible in distilled water, color and texture matched using de-acidified, same-era, same-media pulp.

 

Our earlier books (2-3 years ago) were no where near as refined or beautiful. So if you dig up one of IGB's practice books you might be able to use it as a deadly weapon. But this past year we are thrilled with our product. And if you check the grader's notes for the Tec 33, you will see no mention of thickness or spine stiffness - and believe me CBCS would note it and deduct, as they did for us early on. The only serious deduction on this Tec 33 is staining on centerfold wrap (which may be attributed to a slight mismatch on a reversible mend).

 

We have been very fortunate to have had some of the industry's top players (Matt Nelson and Steve Borock) advise us as we have evolved.

 

I do find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that you indicate you learned a lot from Matt Nelson as you evolved with your techniques, and that he was very open and candid with you on advice, Then some of your later posts indicated that now that you've perfected your techniques you no longer want to submit books to them for competitive reasons, fear of them now learning from you, and that you disagree with the grades and restoration level designations they give you.

 

Seems rather petty to me. I'm paraphrasing some of your remarks above, but I think I've fairly well captured the gist.

 

Mr. Ciorac,

 

Matt Nelson and I are very open with each other and whatever we share with him would be kept in confidence. I have always been forthcoming with him in the past and will always be in the future. I trust him completely. But to open our books up to CCS as a whole (a department of our direct competition, people with whom we do not have personal relationships with) might jeopardize our trade secrets. Matt knows he can contact me at any time and talk shop.

 

More importantly it occurred to us that CCS and CGC being sisters could pose a conflict of interest, and the fact that CBCS doesn't have a restoration department was a more comfortable fit for us.

 

I would also like to add that it is not definite that we are done grading with CGC. As we gain our footing, we are comfortable with CBCS. Perhaps down the line we will feel more comfortable with CGC/CCS. I don't know what the future holds.

 

Great question, thanks for helping clear up!

Matt

 

Thanks for your response Matt.

 

You'd be surprised Matt N shares with me in confidence as well, since he has been my closest personal friend for over 25 years

 

Just want to make sure you aren't being a one-way streeter, so to speak.

 

And CGC/CCS does not have an in-house restoration department. A simple call from you to Matt I'm sure will clear that up.

 

Best Regards,

 

Bill

[Red84]

It would feel natural and normal. And far more natural and normal than the previous CGC 6.0 B-5 that it originally was. When we first cracked the 6.0, the book would not open well. Attached is a pic of the 6.0 after removing wraps and forcing it open. Of course we leaf cast, but when it comes to hinging we use a very strong, flexible, lightweight Tengucho (5-7 g/m² for SA and 9-11 g/m² for GA - shout out to Hiromi Paper in Los Angeles) supported by pure cellulose powder and methyl cellulose. Initially we too were having issues with spine stiffness which we assessed came form leaf casting discrepancies - too much wheat starch or methyl, larger areas being cast too quickly/thickly, warping, cockling... Too little and it would be too brittle. So for hinge flexibility (especially over time) we only use a reliable rice paper. Aside from that the book is thin, as I mentioned elsewhere we use a micrometer to gauge and monitor thickness both SA and GA. No acrylic on interior wraps. All mends reversible in distilled water, color and texture matched using de-acidified, same-era, same-media pulp.

 

Our earlier books (2-3 years ago) were no where near as refined or beautiful. So if you dig up one of IGB's practice books you might be able to use it as a deadly weapon. But this past year we are thrilled with our product. And if you check the grader's notes for the Tec 33, you will see no mention of thickness or spine stiffness - and believe me CBCS would note it and deduct, as they did for us early on. The only serious deduction on this Tec 33 is staining on centerfold wrap (which may be attributed to a slight mismatch on a reversible mend).

 

We have been very fortunate to have had some of the industry's top players (Matt Nelson and Steve Borock) advise us as we have evolved.

 

I do find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that you indicate you learned a lot from Matt Nelson as you evolved with your techniques, and that he was very open and candid with you on advice, Then some of your later posts indicated that now that you've perfected your techniques you no longer want to submit books to them for competitive reasons, fear of them now learning from you, and that you disagree with the grades and restoration level designations they give you.

 

Seems rather petty to me. I'm paraphrasing some of your remarks above, but I think I've fairly well captured the gist.

 

Mr. Ciorac,

 

Matt Nelson and I are very open with each other and whatever we share with him would be kept in confidence. I have always been forthcoming with him in the past and will always be in the future. I trust him completely. But to open our books up to CCS as a whole (a department of our direct competition, people with whom we do not have personal relationships with) might jeopardize our trade secrets. Matt knows he can contact me at any time and talk shop.

 

More importantly it occurred to us that CCS and CGC being sisters could pose a conflict of interest, and the fact that CBCS doesn't have a restoration department was a more comfortable fit for us.

 

I would also like to add that it is not definite that we are done grading with CGC. As we gain our footing, we are comfortable with CBCS. Perhaps down the line we will feel more comfortable with CGC/CCS. I don't know what the future holds.

 

Great question, thanks for helping clear up!

Matt

 

Don't you feel that selling your own restored books is also a conflict of interest? Last I checked, all CGC/CCS employees are not allowed to deal in the collectible they're involved in.

 

That wouldn't be a conflict unless they were grading their own books.

[PovertyRow]

 

Don't you feel that selling your own restored books is also a conflict of interest? Last I checked, all CGC/CCS employees are not allowed to deal in the collectible they're involved in.

 

That wouldn't be a conflict unless they were grading their own books.

 

Agree 100%. I don't see how selling books they restore is a conflict. Even dealers just grading their own books and selling them sounds like more of a conflict of interest.

[Flash105]

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

[Flash105]

BTW- Three hours to go to place your bids.

[*matterus023*]

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

 

With you fully on this variant lark. Getting out of hand

 

There is one comic (can't remember) think spidey that has like 150 variants or something stupid like that anyway

[PovertyRow]

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

 

I do agree that vertical integration is not needed. Indeed, it offers the potential for some serious damage to the market side of the hobby.

 

But I don't think knowledgeable collectors really need protection from grading. A knowledgeable collector should be able to grade literally as well as any grader from any TPG. Further, they will have cultivated relationships with dealers based on trust and understanding of what to expect from said dealers. When I was actively buying I could pretty well predict what to expect before even pulling it out of the mylar or taking it off the wall when buying from dealers like Harley, Outer Limits, NEC, Metro, Superworld, Bedrock etc. etc.

 

To me, the main problem is actually not knowing the grading criteria used by TPGs, especially considering we usually never ever ever see the inside of the book or even the inside of the covers. To really attempt to understand a TPG criteria one would have to buy and crack out a lot of books of not only different grades but of different eras and even publishers within that era as well as degree of "keyness" and do real analysis/comparisons.

 

To me the most important thing about TPG is their ability to successfully detect restoration, which even experienced collectors can have a hard time with.

 

The concept of not revealing grading criteria feels like a cousin to vertical integration.

[Sqeggs]

Much good and enlightening discussion in this thread. I fear, though, that when the mods wakeup from their hangovers, it's all likely to be washed away.

[jimjum12]

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

 

I do agree that vertical integration is not needed. Indeed, it offers the potential for some serious damage to the market side of the hobby.

 

But I don't think knowledgeable collectors really need protection from grading. A knowledgeable collector should be able to grade literally as well as any grader from any TPG. Further, they will have cultivated relationships with dealers based on trust and understanding of what to expect from said dealers. When I was actively buying I could pretty well predict what to expect before even pulling it out of the mylar or taking it off the wall when buying from dealers like Harley, Outer Limits, NEC, Metro, Superworld, Bedrock etc. etc.

 

To me, the main problem is actually not knowing the grading criteria used by TPGs, especially considering we usually never ever ever see the inside of the book or even the inside of the covers. To really attempt to understand a TPG criteria one would have to buy and crack out a lot of books of not only different grades but of different eras and even publishers within that era as well as degree of "keyness" and do real analysis/comparisons.

 

To me the most important thing about TPG is their ability to successfully detect restoration, which even experienced collectors can have a hard time with.

 

The concept of not revealing grading criteria feels like a cousin to vertical integration.

 

Better a cousin to vertical integration than a vertical integration to a cousin, I suppose GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

....sorry Pov,..... sometimes it's difficult to hide my buffoonery .....

[*matterus023*]

Why would they get rid of this thread?

 

I am fairly new to the boards so don't know what kind of things they thrown upon. Semms well worth keeping

[PovertyRow]

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

 

I do agree that vertical integration is not needed. Indeed, it offers the potential for some serious damage to the market side of the hobby.

 

But I don't think knowledgeable collectors really need protection from grading. A knowledgeable collector should be able to grade literally as well as any grader from any TPG. Further, they will have cultivated relationships with dealers based on trust and understanding of what to expect from said dealers. When I was actively buying I could pretty well predict what to expect before even pulling it out of the mylar or taking it off the wall when buying from dealers like Harley, Outer Limits, NEC, Metro, Superworld, Bedrock etc. etc.

 

To me, the main problem is actually not knowing the grading criteria used by TPGs, especially considering we usually never ever ever see the inside of the book or even the inside of the covers. To really attempt to understand a TPG criteria one would have to buy and crack out a lot of books of not only different grades but of different eras and even publishers within that era as well as degree of "keyness" and do real analysis/comparisons.

 

To me the most important thing about TPG is their ability to successfully detect restoration, which even experienced collectors can have a hard time with.

 

The concept of not revealing grading criteria feels like a cousin to vertical integration.

 

Better a cousin to vertical integration than a vertical integration to a cousin, I suppose GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

....sorry Pov,..... sometimes it's difficult to hide my buffoonery .....

 

Well considered buffoonery is the opposite of buffoonery, for to conceive buffoonery properly requires the ultimate in non-buffoonery.

[Flash105]

I guess my beef with self grading is on the buy sell. I bought books from dealers that when bought were NM and then when you went back to sell them they were suddenly a VF. Also, we all know that multitudes of people were duped by books being sold as unrestored when they were actually restored. At the time I was young (16-22) and I wanted these books and it pissed me off so bad I got out of the hobby. Obviously, I was not smart enough to be in control of these situations and of course i was taken advantage of. But that does not change the fact that the dealers were unethical. When CGC became a player it gave me the confidence to get back in the game. There have been problems of course and we can still have these disagreements but if you want a real business and a real market, you have to have fairness and transparency.

 

We have made significant progress in the last 10+ years.