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

[lou_fine]

I don't understand why there would be such a big difference in grade of one company saying it's a 8.0 and the other 9.0.

 

I can see why there will sometimes be a half grade difference, but if all the graders know how to grade, it should be pretty much spot on and not a full grade in difference.

 

 

I guess you must have missed my previous post on this exact same subject matter:

 

.....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.

 

In fact, not only can grading results be different between the grading companies themselves, grading can also be different over time within the same company itself since grading standards can change over time.

 

Especially in the case of CGC since they do not publish any of their grading standards at all, and hence are basically free to shift and reinterpret them almost at will.

[lou_fine]

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting.

 

Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own?

 

I think that is what comicwiz was referring to.

 

You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time.

 

You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for that.

 

If this is the case, then this should be pretty easy to track.

 

Would we not simply need to compile a chronological listing of all of their books and what they sold for and then compare the prices before and after the thread in question?

 

I was always under the impression that their books had in most cases always been going for either single digit percentages or very low double digit percentages to condition guide all along, due to their EP restoration rating. Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out.

 

Maybe read the Complaint again, and consider the timetable. And the Plaintiff status.

 

So, are you implying that it is not one of the contentions of the plaintiffs that the discussion within that particular thread on the boards here cast a negative light on their books and hence resulted in lower prices being received on their restored books?

 

 

[lou_fine]

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting.

 

TOS 39 Link

 

Any idea what kind of discount to condition guide or market value that other TOS 39 with EP restoration work have sold for in the past.

 

Of course, we would have to take into account that guide tops out at 9.2, but then we are really talking about super EP work here as opposed to the traditional regular EP work, so who really knows. Especially in the case of a SA book, where I thought EP restored copies have always sold for a tiny fraction of the value of an unrestored copy.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction.

 

If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace.

 

Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

Thanks, this also seems reasonable on the surface. However, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues from arising, I still feel that what you are describing here would more suitably fit a comic dealer, auctioneer, consignment house rep, or someone involved with a print or online price guide. Not someone whose profession is to grade comics.

 

I believe the way Rick coordinates to have a second person offering a value opinion whenever Mark Hall-Patton authenticates items is the correct procedure, but that's just my opinion.

 

Interested to hear what others think.

 

Since you have given me another opportunity to share my opinion further, by stating you are interested in what others think (never never give me an opening), I will do so, on the subject of profession.

 

I have always, on these boards and ats (until ats came to the conclusion that criticism is a very bad thing), stated that any person working for a TPG in any collectible venue should undergo a testing procedure that requires in depth knowledge of the subject that is being evaluated. The person should also be required to have at the minimum a complete ophthalmology exam (by a licensed Ophthalmologist), at a minimum of once a year and preferably 2 times a year. The person should then be licensed by whatever independent professional organization exists for the particular endeavor the person is involved in, and issued an ID number that remains with the person, even if they change employment or start their own business as a TPG. This ID should be identified in some manner on anything the person grades. Over time, the grading can be tracked and the information can be evaluated by the marketplace. If more than one grader is involved, both....or if three then three.....should also be identified in the same manner. The ID is private and is certified and held by the independent professional organization, and the ID is to be surrendered if the person leaves the profession. The person should be required to take yearly CEU, as determined by the independent professional organization. The person is not to be engaged in personal grading for others outside the employment position.

 

This is interesting. I believe an independent and authorized committee entrusted with the duty of reviewing indiscretions and missteps might help avert these types of situations from arising altogether. What do you think of E&O coverage requirements for the graders?

 

I have always believed this determination is a function of the independent organization, and if determined as a necessity for the grader, that the TPG pay the policy cost. I also believe any TPG should carry errors and omissions liability insurance as a general rule. It is foolish not to. Addenda covering employees is a savings method over independent policies purchased by the grader individually. It could also be addressed as an empolyee benefit, on par with licensed physicians. If the physician has an independent practice, the physician pays the malpractice insurance. If the physician works for the hospital entity or a super group, the employer/contract term pays for it.

[lou_fine]

And that is the basis of the entire disagreement between CGC and the Meyers.

 

Acc. to my understanding, CGC could not comfortably detect where the resto started and stopped.

 

I don't know much about professional restoration, but isn't the bolded part a textbook definition of good restoration work where someone can't discern original from resto?

 

If this is CGCs issue I can totally get why they would be hesitant to grade them as they might be having trouble identifying the extent of the work done.

 

 

Actually, this is the part of the issue that I could not understand even in the original thread from last year.

 

If the restoration is done so well that you cannot discern what is original from what is restored, is this not the definition of "perfect" restoration? Or are the restorers always supposed to do an "imperfect" job so that you can tell what is original from what has been restored?

 

From my point of view, this argument would make no sense at all if you compare it to pressing. Are the pressers supposed to "imperfectly" press a book so that you can still tell what has been pressed from what has not been pressed? If they pressed the book so well that you cannot tell what has been pressed as compared to what is original and not been pressed, then does this mean this should now become an ungradeable book?

 

Of course, if the Plaintiffs are reglossing the entire cover to intentionally mask what is original from what has been restored, then this is definitely not good. Or are they only recoloring the part of the cover that has been recreated and restored without touching the original part, which should then be fine?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting.

 

Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own?

 

I think that is what comicwiz was referring to.

 

You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time.

 

You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for that.

 

If this is the case, then this should be pretty easy to track.

 

Would we not simply need to compile a chronological listing of all of their books and what they sold for and then compare the prices before and after the thread in question?

 

I was always under the impression that their books had in most cases always been going for either single digit percentages or very low double digit percentages to condition guide all along, due to their EP restoration rating. Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out.

 

Maybe read the Complaint again, and consider the timetable. And the Plaintiff status.

 

So, are you implying that it is not one of the contentions of the plaintiffs that the discussion within that particular thread on the boards here cast a negative light on their books and hence resulted in lower prices being received on their restored books?

 

 

It is a contention. My comment is specific to your last sentence: ".....Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out..."

 

I would again refer to the plaintiff status and the timetable.

[Silver Surfer]

I did a quick glance on Voldy's board to see if this was being discussed over there but I didn't see anything?

 

It was for a day and then they more or less locked the thread saying its got nothing to do with us so we won't talk about CGC's issue

 

Interesting.

[MrBedrock]

I did a quick glance on Voldy's board to see if this was being discussed over there but I didn't see anything?

 

It was for a day and then they more or less locked the thread saying its got nothing to do with us so we won't talk about CGC's issue

It is definitely going to involve them, at least at a deposition level, as one of IGB's complaints is that CGC intentionally gave them lower grades than CBCS. Either IGB or CGC will want to explain why that is, and it can't be explained without CBCS's input.

[mschmidt]

I don't understand why there would be such a big difference in grade of one company saying it's a 8.0 and the other 9.0.

 

I can see why there will sometimes be a half grade difference, but if all the graders know how to grade, it should be pretty much spot on and not a full grade in difference.

 

 

I guess you must have missed my previous post on this exact same subject matter:

 

.....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.

 

In fact, not only can grading results be different between the grading companies themselves, grading can also be different over time within the same company itself since grading standards can change over time.

 

Especially in the case of CGC since they do not publish any of their grading standards at all, and hence are basically free to shift and reinterpret them almost at will.

 

 

None of the 3rd party grading companies publish their grading standards.

 

[comicwiz]

I did a quick glance on Voldy's board to see if this was being discussed over there but I didn't see anything?

 

It was for a day and then they more or less locked the thread saying its got nothing to do with us so we won't talk about CGC's issue

It is definitely going to involve them, at least at a deposition level, as one of IGB's complaints is that CGC intentionally gave them lower grades than CBCS. Either IGB or CGC will want to explain why that is, and it can't be explained without CBCS's input.

 

There is one other aspect which I won't get into here, but I agree, it seems likely they will be involved.

 

Also, my understanding was the thread was locked for reasons the OP had started to take one of the admins to task and/or wasn't following their request. One of the OP's posts was deleted, and soon after, the thread was locked when the person wouldn't listen, but that same admin allowed me to post a general question directed to a CBCS staff member.

[chrisco37]

I don't understand why there would be such a big difference in grade of one company saying it's a 8.0 and the other 9.0.

 

I can see why there will sometimes be a half grade difference, but if all the graders know how to grade, it should be pretty much spot on and not a full grade in difference.

 

 

I guess you must have missed my previous post on this exact same subject matter:

 

.....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.

 

In fact, not only can grading results be different between the grading companies themselves, grading can also be different over time within the same company itself since grading standards can change over time.

 

Especially in the case of CGC since they do not publish any of their grading standards at all, and hence are basically free to shift and reinterpret them almost at will.

 

 

None of the 3rd party grading companies publish their grading standards.

 

 

The other company, at least, attempts to lay out some basic guidelines. As Lou said, CGC does not publish "any".

[Transplant]

 

Isn't one of the conditions to work as a CGC grader that you can't be selling comics? What experience would a grader have selling comics?

 

Based on what I know as an accredited appraiser, CGC/NGC offering valuations on Pawn Stars would be considered arms length purchasing and selling activity.

 

 

Just wanted to pull this out of obscurity for the benefit of folks who haven't been involved in this discussion in the past.

 

For the record, the official position (as I understand it) is that EMPLOYEES of CGC may not deal commercially in comics. "Graders. Collectors or former dealers whom now work grading comic books for CGC. These graders are contractually obligated to not deal commercially in comic books while employed by CGC."

 

The way to get around that is to not EMPLOY some graders. Just make them independent contractors, instead of employees. THOSE graders are free to buy and sell comics all the time while grading for CGC. Presumably, there is some way to prohibit them from grading their own books.

[MrBedrock]

neato

[shadroch]

Once you see how sausage is made.......

[MrBedrock]

Grading and forced meat products...two ugly bidnesses.

[Junkdrawer]

Working at CGC is like a sausage party?

[comicwiz]

Once you see how sausage is made.......

 

[VintageComics]

And that is the basis of the entire disagreement between CGC and the Meyers.

 

Acc. to my understanding, CGC could not comfortably detect where the resto started and stopped.

 

I don't know much about professional restoration, but isn't the bolded part a textbook definition of good restoration work where someone can't discern original from resto?

 

If this is CGCs issue I can totally get why they would be hesitant to grade them as they might be having trouble identifying the extent of the work done.

 

 

Actually, this is the part of the issue that I could not understand even in the original thread from last year.

 

If the restoration is done so well that you cannot discern what is original from what is restored, is this not the definition of "perfect" restoration? Or are the restorers always supposed to do an "imperfect" job so that you can tell what is original from what has been restored?

 

I suppose a restoration job is supposed to make the book look as close to original as possible. That means if the restoration is not detected, they're probably doing their job.

 

The problem comes when someone is asked to appraise how much of the book is restored and they can't tell.

 

It's my understanding that IGB was painting / glossing covers to the point where you couldn't tell where it started or stopped.

 

It's also my understanding that this led to the books not feeling or looking like original comics.

 

As a buyer, how do you buy something when you can't quantify how much is original, since restored books are more or less valued on how much is original and how much isn't?

 

Of course, if the Plaintiffs are reglossing the entire cover to intentionally mask what is original from what has been restored, then this is definitely not good. Or are they only recoloring the part of the cover that has been recreated and restored without touching the original part, which should then be fine?

 

I think you should not have your answers.

 

And the Meyers did state that their techniques evolved over time with the earliest books being the 1st to be scrutinized and later books not restored as heavily.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

And that is the basis of the entire disagreement between CGC and the Meyers.

 

Acc. to my understanding, CGC could not comfortably detect where the resto started and stopped.

 

I don't know much about professional restoration, but isn't the bolded part a textbook definition of good restoration work where someone can't discern original from resto?

 

If this is CGCs issue I can totally get why they would be hesitant to grade them as they might be having trouble identifying the extent of the work done.

 

 

Actually, this is the part of the issue that I could not understand even in the original thread from last year.

 

If the restoration is done so well that you cannot discern what is original from what is restored, is this not the definition of "perfect" restoration? Or are the restorers always supposed to do an "imperfect" job so that you can tell what is original from what has been restored?

 

I suppose a restoration job is supposed to make the book look as close to original as possible. That means if the restoration is not detected, they're probably doing their job.

 

The problem comes when someone is asked to appraise how much of the book is restored and they can't tell.

 

It's my understanding that IGB was painting / glossing covers to the point where you couldn't tell where it started or stopped.

 

It's also my understanding that this led to the books not feeling or looking like original comics.

 

As a buyer, how do you buy something when you can't quantify how much is original, since restored books are more or less valued on how much is original and how much isn't?

 

Of course, if the Plaintiffs are reglossing the entire cover to intentionally mask what is original from what has been restored, then this is definitely not good. Or are they only recoloring the part of the cover that has been recreated and restored without touching the original part, which should then be fine?

 

I think you should not have your answers.

 

And the Meyers did state that their techniques evolved over time with the earliest books being the 1st to be ndffscrutinized and later books not restored as heavily.

 

That is not exactly what they stated, in regards to the defendant(s). The statement does not hold up at all and neither does the timetable or the status of the plaintiff at the time of the alleged improprieties by the defendant(s). It sounds good, but it is designed generalized confusion, as are most of the allegations, inclusive of who is who.

[mschmidt]

I don't understand why there would be such a big difference in grade of one company saying it's a 8.0 and the other 9.0.

 

I can see why there will sometimes be a half grade difference, but if all the graders know how to grade, it should be pretty much spot on and not a full grade in difference.

 

 

I guess you must have missed my previous post on this exact same subject matter:

 

.....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.

 

In fact, not only can grading results be different between the grading companies themselves, grading can also be different over time within the same company itself since grading standards can change over time.

 

Especially in the case of CGC since they do not publish any of their grading standards at all, and hence are basically free to shift and reinterpret them almost at will.

 

 

None of the 3rd party grading companies publish their grading standards.

 

 

The other company, at least, attempts to lay out some basic guidelines. As Lou said, CGC does not publish "any".

 

Those "guidelines" are copied from Overstreet and are no different than any you could find doing a google search for "comic book grading". They mean absolutely nothing.