CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[Cat]

By pure coincidence I happened to have found the original thread in Gold just yesterday morning. Imagine my surprise to see it shunted to the front page by the time I'd finished reading it (yes, I read it all in 1 sitting).

 

Having read the complaint, a few things stand out to me. They're very specific, as they should be, but there's a few times where they're suddenly oddly vague, at times where they certainly have the data in question. Here's the example that stood out the most to me: they mention that they resubmitted a book originally restored by CCS. They list the prior grade of the book, 6.5. However, when it comes time to list the result of IGB's submission, no numerical grade is given, and in its place the objectively useless term 'absurd grade' is used.

 

They obviously know what the grade was. Including that information is much more useful than a meaningless hyperbolic term like 'absurd'. My assumption is that the grade on the resubmission was higher than CCS', although not to the extent they believe their work is worth. I assume that means it could have graded anywhere from a 7.0 to an 8.0, maybe even an 8.5 as an outside stretch, and still be considered 'absurd' by the Meyers.

 

Why would they not include that number, whatever it may be? Simple. If it's higher than CCS' submission, even a little, they're going to struggle to convince a jury that there's a conspiracy at play here. They were, after all, being rewarded for their work. They acknowledge CCS as one of the top dogs in the biz, and CGC's own company, yet this would show that CGC was not above giving IGB a higher rating than the work of their own company. That kind of hurts their case. A lot.

 

Whatever the truth, I find the lack of the mention of the grade of the CCS resubmission to be an odd omission.

[Mark Zaid]

By pure coincidence I happened to have found the original thread in Gold just yesterday morning. Imagine my surprise to see it shunted to the front page by the time I'd finished reading it (yes, I read it all in 1 sitting).

 

Having read the complaint, a few things stand out to me. They're very specific, as they should be, but there's a few times where they're suddenly oddly vague, at times where they certainly have the data in question. Here's the example that stood out the most to me: they mention that they resubmitted a book originally restored by CCS. They list the prior grade of the book, 6.5. However, when it comes time to list the result of IGB's submission, no numerical grade is given, and in its place the objectively useless term 'absurd grade' is used.

 

They obviously know what the grade was. Including that information is much more useful than a meaningless hyperbolic term like 'absurd'. My assumption is that the grade on the resubmission was higher than CCS', although not to the extent they believe their work is worth. I assume that means it could have graded anywhere from a 7.0 to an 8.0, maybe even an 8.5 as an outside stretch, and still be considered 'absurd' by the Meyers.

 

Why would they not include that number, whatever it may be? Simple. If it's higher than CCS' submission, even a little, they're going to struggle to convince a jury that there's a conspiracy at play here. They were, after all, being rewarded for their work. They acknowledge CCS as one of the top dogs in the biz, and CGC's own company, yet this would show that CGC was not above giving IGB a higher rating than the work of their own company. That kind of hurts their case. A lot.

 

Whatever the truth, I find the lack of the mention of the grade of the CCS resubmission to be an odd omission.

 

Very astute observation. My understanding is that the regraded book in question received a CGC 8.0 grade. They then submitted it to the "other company" and received a 9.0 grade.

[NoMan]

I've read court cases and attended trials for fun and entertainment (I know, it's weird) and this is what always happens: You watch the trial, attend court hearings, read the depos, read the filings understanding them the best you can and the case goes on for years.

 

Then as each side runs out of money, they settle and everything is sealed so you can really never tell what happened in the end.

 

See the C. Dickens story The Bleak House.

 

I predict this will be settled out of court and none of us will know the conclusion.

[comicwiz]

I read it as a reactiion to the item being assessed a lower grade than it legitimately deserved. Which sounds like a correct assumption if it eventually was assessed two grades higher at CBCS. Assuming this is a jury who would not understand the nuances of grading and the value differences with incremental grade increases, an explanation that might lead into a discussion on the value difference between an 8.0 and 9.0, could still be seen as being consistent with their claims of purposeful and intentional actions to inflict financial harm.

 

I'm far more interested in hearing more about these claims that an AF 15 they sent in was damaged.

[lou_fine]

My observation is that CGC and Voldemort slabs on auction sites that focus on comic books (Heritage, Comic Connect, ComicLink) sell for equivalent prices. I've seen many the same book/same grade slabs from both companies close out in auctions literally seconds apart. Little difference in price and typically whichever book looks a bit nicer is the one that sells for the most money.

 

 

According to many prominent board members here, what you are stating here is almost sacrilege.

 

They would state emphatically that CGC slabbed books will always sell for much more money than equivalently graded books slabbed by the other grading company.

[Cat]

I read it as a reactiion to the item being assessed a lower grade than it legitimately deserved. Which sounds like a correct assumption if it eventually was assessed two grades higher at CBCS. Assuming this is a jury who would not understand the nuances of grading and the value differences with incremental grade increases, an explanation that might lead into a discussion on the value difference between an 8.0 and 9.0, could still be seen as being consistent with their claims of purposeful and intentional actions to inflict financial harm.

 

I'm far more interested in hearing more about these claims that an AF 15 they sent in was damaged.

 

But the jury understands a clear series of rising numbers. Why not just list it as it was; 6.5, 8.0, 9.0? That's easier for them to follow then 'numbers, conjecture, numbers'. Reading the complaint as written, I think there's a reasonable chance you'd expect that middle number to be the lowest of the 3. The way it reads in the complaint, at least to me, makes one think that CGC must have graded the book lower than CCS' original submission, or at the very best, equal to the original (although that seems highly unlikely given the use of 'absurd', and the text that follows). Had they listed the actual grade CGC assigned, they could still have given commentary calling it absurd. The complaint implies it wasn't until the book reached the other grading company that the 'additional value' of the work the Meyers put in was 'noticed and duly rewarded', when that apparently wasn't the case at all (thank you Mr Zaid).

 

Ultimately, it's that, given the style and formatting of the rest of the document, the exclusion of the grade of the book at that stage of the process is inconsistent with the surrounding text, and it seems to me that there must be a reason for that. It seems, to me, to be a deliberate omission. My opinion is that it's because it severely undercuts their own case, as it shows that CGC was NOT above grading IGB's work above that of their own sister company CCS, and thus disproves some key components of IGB's case, mainly that CGC overgraded their own work and degraded the work of IGB. This book is a specific example of that being false, as we see here IGB receiving a higher grade than CCS.

 

Another point as to the jury not understanding the grading is that the ENTIRE case is about the increase available in graded comics after getting them restored, so I can't believe the judge or jury would be confused by it in this particular instance. Should this go to trial, I imagine they're going to have a pretty darn good understanding of the basics involved, and again, it's pretty straight-forward in this example.

 

Sorry for the long post, and IANAL.

 

I'm also interested in the AF15.

[comix4fun]

I read it as a reactiion to the item being assessed a lower grade than it legitimately deserved. Which sounds like a correct assumption if it eventually was assessed two grades higher at CBCS. Assuming this is a jury who would not understand the nuances of grading and the value differences with incremental grade increases, an explanation that might lead into a discussion on the value difference between an 8.0 and 9.0, could still be seen as being consistent with their claims of purposeful and intentional actions to inflict financial harm.

 

I'm far more interested in hearing more about these claims that an AF 15 they sent in was damaged.

 

There's no room for emotional reaction as was included in the complaint, and adjectives such as "absurd" standing in place of actual information in a pleading such as this. When a complaint doesn't lay out simple facts and details that lead to a conclusion and instead obscure one portion of the facts and details and replace them with editorialized commentary it sticks out like a sore thumb as a weakness in the pleading.

 

 

[comix4fun]

My observation is that CGC and Voldemort slabs on auction sites that focus on comic books (Heritage, Comic Connect, ComicLink) sell for equivalent prices. I've seen many the same book/same grade slabs from both companies close out in auctions literally seconds apart. Little difference in price and typically whichever book looks a bit nicer is the one that sells for the most money.

 

 

According to many prominent board members here, what you are stating here is almost sacrilege.

 

They would state emphatically that CGC slabbed books will always sell for much more money than equivalently graded books slabbed by the other grading company.

 

 

 

It's really going to be book for book in comparison. It's difficult to line them up as equivalent sales, especially on older books in varying grades with varying defects. The data sample is going to be small right now. So it's going to lead to anecdotal impressions taking the place of actual full spectrum data analysis.

 

However, there have been several examples of the same issues, carrying the same numerical grades, from each company selling side by side....that's where you're going to get people forming opinions.

 

If you looked at the two big books in Voldy slabs that sold in the last heritage signature auction, for example: an FF #1 in 7.0 and a TOS 39 in 7.5, you would have almost immediately noticed that those books sold for between 15% and 30% less than the comparable recent GPA sales of CGC books in the same grade with the CGC books sometimes having lesser PQ. These high profile, high demand books selling in that type of spotlight are what leads to opinions being formed of relative performance.

 

Last year and earlier this year I remember seeing several books from both companies being auctioned "side by side" and those results stuck out in my head. Like two copies of JIM 83, both in 5.0, with a CGC selling for $5k and a voldy selling for $3800...in the same auction a 4.0 CGC went for almost as much as the voldy 5.0.

 

 

[comicwiz]

It seems, to me, to be a deliberate omission. My opinion is that it's because it severely undercuts their own case, as it shows that CGC was NOT above grading IGB's work above that of their own sister company CCS, and thus disproves some key components of IGB's case, mainly that CGC overgraded their own work and degraded the work of IGB.

 

I'm not suggesting this argument isn't a persuasive one, but I'm also looking at it from seeing both sides of the debate. If they knew the book should have graded higher, it doesn't matter whether CGC is percieved to be maintaining impartiality because their claim is the downgrade was intentional, which again lends to some level of credence given it was properly assessed by another third-party who graded it higher with no skin in the game. On the face it it though, it's a very weak argument because at any given time two graders can assess a book differently - happens in coin grading, toy grading, and comic certification companies aren't immune to it. However I don't see the weakness of the claim itself undercutting their overall complaint in any way because it still lends to a narrative of indeferential treatment which not only was exemplified in community reactions and responses online, but allegedly manifested itself in the grading room.

 

I also cannot help but frame this entire scenario and the alleged claims to the backdrop of an issue that arose a little over a month ago when a guy who was submitting his pressed comics to CGC received a similar snubbing and treatment by Paul Litch - particularly, the "We'll gladly take your money. But you won't like the results" comment. That stuation became a rather unfortunate public spectacle that left me feeling underwhelmed by CGC's communication and manner of handling. I felt at the time it was very unprofessional, and regardless of whether these claims by the Meyers are deemed baseless or not, it's a troubling fact pattern that should be looked at as being more than CGC/CCS jockeying for position in a crowded services space. There's a very fine line between healthy competition and a coordinated smear campaign, and while the claimants may have their work cut out for them, CGC's online persona and conduct hasn't been helping the optics of the situation.

[comicwiz]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

[ygogolak]

 

All the defendants need to say is that whatever the community as a whole, there is a large amount of money at stake in the more specific sector of online auction venues, and that in those venues slabs make a significant difference in values realized. If the defendants are able to further establish that statistically CGC slabs realize higher values at auction than their competitors, they will have established at least a plausible premise for damages.

 

 

Yes. And just to be clear, I'm enjoying and learning from our discussion. <3

 

But this - prices realized of various brand slabs - is something I've paid a fair amount of attention to. That CGC "brings more $$" thing is not near so clear cut as many here and even CGC would have us believe. And it depends on where one sells their slabs.

 

My observation is that CGC and Voldemort slabs on auction sites that focus on comic books (Heritage, Comic Connect, ComicLink) sell for equivalent prices. I've seen many the same book/same grade slabs from both companies close out in auctions literally seconds apart. Little difference in price and typically whichever book looks a bit nicer is the one that sells for the most money.

 

If one sells to the....call them less informed...collectors on Facebook and eBay then you will get some "that's not a CGC graded book" and sometimes lower prices. But better informed collectors know who is running the competition.

 

Better informed collectors have also been skeptical for decades of the wisdom of "investing" in heavily restored keys. Seems like that is an important fact. But I'm not sure how it factors into this legal complaint .....

 

So the dummy's buy CGC only and all the intelligent collectors buy from auction houses.

Got it, thanks.

Edited December 25, 2016 by ygogolak

[shadroch]

The intelligent ones are buying the competition, and CGC purple labels.

[crassus]

My observation is that CGC and Voldemort slabs on auction sites that focus on comic books (Heritage, Comic Connect, ComicLink) sell for equivalent prices. I've seen many the same book/same grade slabs from both companies close out in auctions literally seconds apart. Little difference in price and typically whichever book looks a bit nicer is the one that sells for the most money.

 

 

According to many prominent board members here, what you are stating here is almost sacrilege.

 

They would state emphatically that CGC slabbed books will always sell for much more money than equivalently graded books slabbed by the other grading company.

 

 

 

It's really going to be book for book in comparison. It's difficult to line them up as equivalent sales, especially on older books in varying grades with varying defects. The data sample is going to be small right now. So it's going to lead to anecdotal impressions taking the place of actual full spectrum data analysis.

However, there have been several examples of the same issues, carrying the same numerical grades, from each company selling side by side....that's where you're going to get people forming opinions.

 

If you looked at the two big books in Voldy slabs that sold in the last heritage signature auction, for example: an FF #1 in 7.0 and a TOS 39 in 7.5, you would have almost immediately noticed that those books sold for between 15% and 30% less than the comparable recent GPA sales of CGC books in the same grade with the CGC books sometimes having lesser PQ. These high profile, high demand books selling in that type of spotlight are what leads to opinions being formed of relative performance.

 

Last year and earlier this year I remember seeing several books from both companies being auctioned "side by side" and those results stuck out in my head. Like two copies of JIM 83, both in 5.0, with a CGC selling for $5k and a voldy selling for $3800...in the same auction a 4.0 CGC went for almost as much as the voldy 5.0.

 

 

A related problem with an argument based on numbers is that in reality a book can be both an 8.0 and a 9.0 at the same time. "Universal Grade" on a CGC label means, respectfully, that the grade given is consistent given the grading standards applied universally by all CGC graders. Whether "universal" in that context also means "the universal industry standard" is a different and I'm sure arguable proposition.

 

The more extreme the differential in grades given the greater the problem, obviously, as it is hard to imagine an 8.0 being the same as a 9.4, granted, but the closer the numbers get, the less it is obvious that someone is making an error, of any kind, whether in good faith or in bad faith, by itself it demonstrates nothing.

 

The plaintiffs use the word "absurd" because they believe that the grade was given in bad faith when in good faith it should have been obvious that it was otherwise, but there is in fact no way to determine absolutely that the book is an 8.0 or a 9.0. That differential is not an absurdity, it is a difference of opinion simply.

 

[rjpb]

....In retrospect, perhaps CGC should have accepted the books and given them an "NG" ........ and the last time I checked, the identity of a specific restoration technician is never touted or revealed in an auction setting..... so how much reputation is actually involved ? GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a fiend of jesus)

 

I feel all extensively restored books should not be given an apparent grade. They have a place in the collecting community, as do coverless books, but at some point the comic itself isn't being graded, just the degree and quality of the restoration.

 

Even with slight and moderately restored books, there should probably be a grade cap. It depends on the type of restoration, and I admit I'm not really an uber-grade colector, so I may be unfairly biased, but I would think even slight restoration would be preclude 9.6 and above. In the better than NM grades, I would think that the very act of restoration would be a flaw that would keep a book out of that range, no matter how nice the book "looks".

 

I mention this with no hostility towards restoration, I have many restored books, but when minor grade differentials start reflecting major differences in value at the upper end, perhaps we should be more circumspect in assigning those grades, regardless of the qualifier.

[grebal]

^ Agreed, didn't the general rule used to be that restored grade could be no higher than the book would have received before the resto? Or was that covered by addition of the word "apparent"?

[lou_fine]

My understanding is that the regraded book in question received a CGC 8.0 grade. They then submitted it to the "other company" and received a 9.0 grade.

 

I read it as a reactiion to the item being assessed a lower grade than it legitimately deserved. Which sounds like a correct assumption if it eventually was assessed two grades higher at CBCS.

 

I believe it would be very tough for the Meyers to win this type of argument in a court of the law, especially since grading is just an opinion and hence totally subjective within reasonable limits.

 

In addition, it should also be pointed out that both companies most likely do not abide by the same grading standards, since they both have their own unique individual set of grading standards. Hence, one type of defect on a book might be hit more severely by CGC than it would be by the other company, while another type of defect might possibly be hit to a much lesser degree than how it would be treated by the other company.

 

As a result, it could be argued that it is indeed quite possible for a book to be properly graded as a 8.0 by one company and yet at the same time, still also be properly graded by the other company as a 9.0 copy.

[Sqeggs]

^ Agreed, didn't the general rule used to be that restored grade could be no higher than the book would have received before the resto? Or was that covered by addition of the word "apparent"?

 

Nope

[lou_fine]

I also cannot help but frame this entire scenario and the alleged claims to the backdrop of an issue that arose a little over a month ago when a guy who was submitting his pressed comics to CGC received a similar snubbing and treatment by Paul Litch - particularly, the "We'll gladly take your money. But you won't like the results" comment. That stuation became a rather unfortunate public spectacle that left me feeling underwhelmed by CGC's communication and manner of handling. I felt at the time it was very unprofessional, and regardless of whether these claims by the Meyers are deemed baseless or not, it's a troubling fact pattern that should be looked at as being more than CGC/CCS jockeying for position in a crowded services space. There's a very fine line between healthy competition and a coordinated smear campaign, and while the claimants may have their work cut out for them, CGC's online persona and conduct hasn't been helping the optics of the situation.

 

+1

 

Amazing coincidence as this was also one of the first things that popped into my mind as I started to read this thread here the other day.

[lou_fine]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

So, that explains why I couldn't find this thread in question when I went looking for it earlier this morning.

 

Certainly could be presented as evidence for an argument against CGC since it could be seen as supporting one of the claims being made by the plaintiffs in this action here.

[Sqeggs]

The best way to describe directional messaging is like a windsock, and would be actual fact from the way the claim is written, especially when people can't seem to sober up from full submersion dunking in the koolaid.

 

Do you actually read anything you write before you hit "post" or is English your seventh language?