Some Guys Get All The Breaks - 8.5 to 9.2

[nearmint]

I agree with you. The way I look at it, trust should be earned not automatically given. I don't think that necessarily cynical, just practical. There are too many people out there who have little regard for others and just look out for number one. Personally, the only thing I freely extend is courtesy.

 

I, too, agree that trust should be earned, but even when meeting someone for the first time, I don't assume the worst. I try keep an open mind until I have a better sense of the person...THEN I think the worst.

[comicwiz]

 

I don't mean to put you on the spot here Brad, but from where was this so-called "Marnin" motive born?

 

Brad can certainly answer in his own way, but I wanted to say that I flat out asked both of them WTF the deal was between them. And of course both had a different story. Not that I discount Marnins version..but rather I just know Steve personally and consider him a stand up guy that does not go around making up stories.. I asked him about something, and he openly told me about it.

Let us just say there is a history between them. It was not exactly a secret they knew each other back in the day, whatever the reason, bad blood was formed between them on some level.

 

So what then about the bias of Marnins rants towards CGC? There is reason to believe he has an axe to bury, but it was more the method that Marnin chose to bring his arguments against CGC that made me question his motives.Then what he was actually bringing to light

The issues he brought up might be well worth exploring, I am all for hearing both sides of any story. But one tends to tune out a person screaming at the top of his lungs. Even if it is something worth hearing

 

Lotsa different worms in that can Marnin opened.

Anyone got a ten foot pole?

 

Ze-

 

This is the first time I'm hearing this. This is what I meant about "motive", and personally if its a disagreement over opinion its a shame. Nonetheless, I think Marnin has brought to light some important issues -- like you Ze, I think they are issues worth exploring -- but in the back of my mind, I wondered how it had come that people so quickly arrived at the conclusions that his opinions/claims were formed from some long-standing grudge with Steve/CGC

[esquirecomics]

I understand everyone's frustration with inconsistent grading, but what's the solution? Do we really want CGC to reseach every book that comes in to see if they've graded before, and just slap the same grade on all re-subs?

 

I think for certain books that are of a certain high value (especially with clear distinguishing marks), and particularly pedigrees, that is something to consider without a doubt.

[Foolkiller]

If you point blank ask a dealer whether a book is pressed or not, and they say 'I don't know' and have lied, I have an issue. If they submit a book that's been pressed, and they pressed it themselves therefore have that knowledge, then again, I have a problem with that. But only because they are lying. Not because of the pressing itself.

 

It's more than a select group of people who made the decision to not automatically disclose pressing. CGC's stance was that they will not consider it resto. They also can't always detect it. Prior to that, the naked eye was guesswork as to whether the book was pressed or not pressed. Or perhaps you were of the select few who might submit it.

 

I'm not suggesting there is an accepted standard when I say they are playing within the rules Mark, what I'm saying is that there are NO rules regarding disclosure of pressing because there is no agreement as to whether or not it's truly "restoration". You want to know if a book is pressed, then ask. Otherwise, there's no agreement on whether or not it "should" be disclosed. Thus, everyone who is not disclosing it, is in my mind, playing by the rules set out... non disassembly pressing is not resto. No obligation to disclose unless point blank asked, and then it's the ethic of simply telling the truth.

 

It's not going to bring a lot of satisfaction because most dealers when asked really don't know whether it's been pressed, and those who do will still answer that they don't know.

[esquirecomics]

The community is certainly not yet at the point where disclosure of pressing is automatically required. Perhaps it will be, perhaps not. But this is something where we, as members of the community, can play a role.

 

People like Marnin, and I believe perhaps RedHook and some others, have started by disclosing on websites whether the books they are selling are pressed or not. I plan to do the same when I have time.

 

For now, the role I can play - and the influence I can exert on my own behalf - is to put my money where my mouth is. If I ask a dealer/seller whether a book I am interested in has been pressed, I expect them to say either "Mark, yes it has", "Mark, it has not", or "Mark, I honestly don't know", and then I will exercise my judgment with respect to a purchase. If I find out they lied to me, that dealer/seller is in a lot of trouble.

[Foolkiller]

Well how are you going to know if a dealer says, I don't know, unless you can determine that the dealer pressed the book himself. If he says no, the book isn't pressed, and you catch him, does that mean he lied? Maybe to his eye, the book isn't pressed... it's a whole can of worms that only has one definitive answer is when the dealer himself actually got the book pressed or directly knew of its being pressed, which is going to be a rare instance you will discover that.

 

I understand point blank asking and not wanting to be lied to, but I think the practical result in all this is that you can ask all you want, but you'll never be able to expose anyone who actually knowingly sells them, or it will be a rare occurence if you can. That's why it's just a non issue for me.

 

It's always hard for me argue that people "shouldn't" disclose the press job. The reason it is hard is partially due to people (and I don't mean this in a negative tone mark) like you making an issue out of it. The reason dealers are fearful is that they are afraid of being unfairly labeled and exposed. It's a catch 22... you say disclose it and let me make my own decision, but oh yeah, pressing is resto and I will never buy those books.

 

The community is certainly not yet at the point where disclosure of pressing is automatically required. Perhaps it will be, perhaps not. But this is something where we, as members of the community, can play a role.

 

People like Marnin, and I believe perhaps RedHook and some others, have started by disclosing on websites whether the books they are selling are pressed or not. I plan to do the same when I have time.

 

For now, the role I can play - and the influence I can exert on my own behalf - is to put my money where my mouth is. If I ask a dealer/seller whether a book I am interested in has been pressed, I expect them to say either "Mark, yes it has", "Mark, it has not", or "Mark, I honestly don't know", and then I will exercise my judgment with respect to a purchase. If I find out they lied to me, that dealer/seller is in a lot of trouble.

[Ze-man]

 

But I don't accept that the rules are either established or accepted. The rules were created by a select minority without notice to the majority. I've never seen the "rules". Has anyone? And who gave this minority the right to create rules for the rest of us?

 

Personally, I just think this so called "minority" were among the first ones compelled to take action/ advantage of the framework set up by CGC when they became the benchmark for selling HG books.

 

Crooks, or Con men? take your pik depending on your perspective.

 

Or are they just businessmen working the system in place till they are told to do otherwise by either a vocal majority, or lack of sales of the product they are pushing?

 

 

 

Ze-

[nearmint]

I understand everyone's frustration with inconsistent grading, but what's the solution? Do we really want CGC to reseach every book that comes in to see if they've graded before, and just slap the same grade on all re-subs?

 

I think for certain books that are of a certain high value (especially with clear distinguishing marks), and particularly pedigrees, that is something to consider without a doubt.

 

That would be workable only if CGC had graded consistently since day one. Most collectors and dealers believe that there have been periods of time when CGC grading was looser, and other times harsh. Why would you want a grade repeated that was assigned during a period of growing pains? I'd much rather they grade the book in front of them at that moment.

 

I'm sure you don't mean just slap the old grade on. You'd want them to make sure there were no additional defects that might have occurred since it was last graded. Why wouldn't you also want them to confirm that they hadn't graded the book too harshly the last time?

[Red Hook]

Although not directly implied, the point you made does allude to the idea that Marnin might have a bone to pick with CGC. I'm asking WTF this bone pickings all about. Otherwise, lets stop making examples of people who have called out CGC on some tough issues and dismiss their claims as being motivated by nothing more than some sort of vendetta or agenda.

 

Joseph.....you completely misinterpreted my post. I think what Marnin is doing is a cool idea. Marnin read my post. He has no problem with it. He does have a history of disagreement with CGC over various issues. My point was is that I try to take in the whole picture of the relatioship between two parties (or at least as much as I am privy to). These things don't occur in a vacuum. I wasn't implying that's why he had taken the stance he has. Go back and reread what I wrote. You drew an incorrect conclusion.

 

I mean, are we going to start playing truth or dare? I will if you will.

[FlyingDonut]

ummm. TRUTH.

 

 

Just as long as we don't start playing drunken "I Never" at the forum dinner. Could get ugly.

[Red Hook]

Not to worry. We just talk big around here!

[GertHammink-migration]

 

I am kinda new to this game, but it appears the book has been re-submitted and received a higher grade. No one can prove the book has been pressed. It appears exactly the same. Are people saying that it was up to this seller to disclose that the book was once an 8.5 and is now a 9.2 if it was just a straight resubmit? I am sorry, but if I don't feel a seller needs to do this if it is a straight resubmit.

 

The other question I have is if this or any other seller was asked if a particular book was pressed and the answer is "I don't know" or "no", are we saying that he is not telling the truth and we won't beleive any answer unless it is "yes"?

 

I am directing this question more to esquire since he seems to be one of the larger dispute parties of books being resubmitted for higher grades.

[esquirecomics]

I am kinda new to this game, but it appears the book has been re-submitted and received a higher grade. No one can prove the book has been pressed. It appears exactly the same. Are people saying that it was up to this seller to disclose that the book was once an 8.5 and is now a 9.2 if it was just a straight resubmit? I am sorry, but if I don't feel a seller needs to do this if it is a straight resubmit.

 

The other question I have is if this or any other seller was asked if a particular book was pressed and the answer is "I don't know" or "no", are we saying that he is not telling the truth and we won't beleive any answer unless it is "yes"?

 

I am directing this question more to esquire since he seems to be one of the larger dispute parties of books being resubmitted for higher grades.

 

Well, for one thing, I never commented about whether or not this particular book had been pressed, nor did I comment about whether a dealer/seller should reveal whether a book has been resubmitted. Nevertheless, if I ask a seller a direct question, I expect a honest answer. If someone says "I don't know" or "no", I see no reason why they should not be believed, unless there is evidence or history to the contrary. That applies to comic books as much as it does anything in life. I do not want to be involved with people who lie, particularly for the sole purpose of simply profiting from my, in this scenario, lack of knowledge.

 

Personally, I don't believe in resubmits because I feel it degrades the integrity and reliability of CGC and none of us should want that. If you don't agree with a CGC grade (and there have been many instances where I do not), then simply crack the book from its holder and grade it as you see fit.

 

While I commend and encourage those who identify possible resubmits, particularly because that is information I would like to have before purchasing a book, frankly, IMHO, it damages CGC's reputation. Though, as a caveat, I do not believe the difference of one grade (i.e., first an 8.0, then an 8.5) reveals anything other than human subjectivity. Reasonable minds can differ, as can the same mind on different days. However, more than one grade (i.e., first an 8.5, then a 9.2) becomes far more problematic.

[tth2]

As customers wise up and get more educated, I suggest that these insane multiples will start coming right on down. I'm seeing it now with 9.4 books--how much longer do we wait before it affects the 9.6 and 9.8 books?

The decline in multiples has nothing to do with trust in CGC's grading consistency. It primarily reflects two things:

 

1. The OS top prices have increased significantly since the advent of CGC, so in effect the OS has "caught up" to some degree with the higher prices that collectors were willing to pay for the assurance that a book was of the specified grade. CGC 9.4 books couldn't stay at a 4X multiple to OS forever, nor should they have.

 

2. Awareness of availability. The biggest drops in multiples have been in the post-1966 SAs and BAs, which I attribute to the Census (people can see just how many 9.4 copies there of any given book) and internet sites/eBay, which again allows people to see just how many 9.4 copies of any particular book there are. Regardless of the multiple, I'm still amazed by the prices, in terms of absolute dollars, that people continue to be willing to pay for 9.4 and 9.6 copies of ASM 33 and Avengers 24, for instance.

[esquirecomics]

Well how are you going to know if a dealer says, I don't know, unless you can determine that the dealer pressed the book himself. If he says no, the book isn't pressed, and you catch him, does that mean he lied? Maybe to his eye, the book isn't pressed... it's a whole can of worms that only has one definitive answer is when the dealer himself actually got the book pressed or directly knew of its being pressed, which is going to be a rare instance you will discover that.

 

I understand point blank asking and not wanting to be lied to, but I think the practical result in all this is that you can ask all you want, but you'll never be able to expose anyone who actually knowingly sells them, or it will be a rare occurence if you can. That's why it's just a non issue for me.

 

It's always hard for me argue that people "shouldn't" disclose the press job. The reason it is hard is partially due to people (and I don't mean this in a negative tone mark) like you making an issue out of it. The reason dealers are fearful is that they are afraid of being unfairly labeled and exposed. It's a catch 22... you say disclose it and let me make my own decision, but oh yeah, pressing is resto and I will never buy those books.

 

Look, the issue of ethics and honesty is no different in the comic world than it is in any other aspect of our lives. Unless there is a reason not to, sometimes you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. I would like to think people don't lie to me. Sometimes I find out they do, other times I think they are but can't be sure.

 

Do clients sometimes lie to us? Do our loved ones sometime lie to us? Our friends? Our business colleagues? Our fellow comic book dealers/sellers? What is the common demoninator to hopefully dissuade someone from doing so - consequences.

 

You may be right. Perhaps we will not expose 9/10 dealers/seller who lie about whether a book has been pressed or whatever. But you better believe there will be consequences for the 1/10 I catch, and hopefully that will additionally dissuade the other 9/10 not to try for fear of being that 1/10 the next time.

[Aman619]

...Though, as a caveat, I do not believe the difference of one grade (i.e., first an 8.0, then an 8.5) reveals anything other than human subjectivity. Reasonable minds can differ, as can the same mind on different days. However, more than one grade (i.e., first an 8.5, then a 9.2) becomes far more problematic.

 

thats the rub. well said. And even though I agree that a single grade difference in two different CGC gradings is almost to be expected owing to human error or involvement..... it STILL it's a funny "way to run an airline" as the old ad slogan went. To sell "inconsistency" across the board like this would be tolerated in which other industries? I am aware that CGC is only selling their opinion as to the grade, but, if at its essence, thats all it is, why have so many of us surrendered to their opinion above all others so readily? are we not men? We are Devo. ( dont know where that came from sorry.)

 

And, again, that single grade difference is a lotta dough when you are talking about a 9.2 or a 9.4 FF12 for instance. Id sure like to know "for sure" which one Im buying regardless of the label it wears.... Then again, unless things changed, Im not sure whether Id rather have the true 9.4 in a 9.2 slab (sure it was a bargain but I can only sell it as a 9.2!) or the 9.2 in a 9.4 slab (cause if things do change and people "wake up" I'll be selling a 9.2 for less than the 9.4 cost me)....

[toro]

I think the question had been raised, but has anyone called for the notes on the book,,,if so does it mention a 1/2 tear? I don't know who Mosconi is, and I'm not saying he is telling any thing but the truth,,,but maybe it isn't a tear. In the blow up does it look like a tear? Not to me, but then again I need reading glasses.

 

And has anyone ever submitted a modern book with a 1/2 inch tear and received a 9.2. I've never seen it.

 

On to pressing, I didn't see anything that suggest pressing and how would that help a book if it has a 1/2 inch tear in it?

[Aman619]

A tear in thst area can only be a printing defect, especially on a Giant Size book. So does CGC excuse such defects, or just downgrade one notch? Perhaops this is really an instance of then softening their standards: perhaps early on a rip was a rip and the book was a 8.5. But now its just a printing defect like a non color breaking crease....

 

I dont know.

[iron maniac]

I think the question had been raised, but has anyone called for the notes on the book,,,if so does it mention a 1/2 tear? I don't know who Mosconi is, and I'm not saying he is telling any thing but the truth,,,but maybe it isn't a tear. In the blow up does it look like a tear? Not to me, but then again I need reading glasses.

 

And has anyone ever submitted a modern book with a 1/2 inch tear and received a 9.2. I've never seen it.

 

On to pressing, I didn't see anything that suggest pressing and how would that help a book if it has a 1/2 inch tear in it?

Here's the original thread:

Original STL Ewert Thread

He lists a "1/2 inch tear below the Beast's hand" that was in the grading notes.

I haven't called for the notes personally but I don't see why Mosconi would make it up.

[GertHammink-migration]

 

I don't see where this seller is unethical. I don't know this seller very well, but it sounds like the guy has been really active and successful in comics for a really long time. I look at his ebay feedback and he has 2287 positive feedbacks with raving reviews and no negatives. He has had a legion of people stand up for him on these boards and speak positively on his behalf, as it appears he is not active here.

 

So let me get this straight, this seller is unethical because (and if any of the following is incorrect, please let me know):

 

a.) He resubmitted this book and acquired a higher grade despite the book looking exactly as it did in the prior 8.5 holder (and that may not even be the case - does he still own it ? Did he maybe sell it to someone else who resubmitted it to acquire the higher grade ? Did he buy it back or have it consigned back to him in the higher grade ? - the original poster mentioned the book was purchased last year. It would seem like a strange mindset to hold a marginal potential undergraded book for over a year in hopes of resubmitting for a higher grade).

 

and

 

b.) (and this is based on a collection of old threads I tried to review here on these boards) he bought a Daredevil #11 like a year and a half ago, the seller of the book said he shipped it directly to someone else, the book got upgraded at some point , according to Pedigree the book was offered to Pedigree from another collector, Pedigree didn't need to buy if from this other collector as he already owned a Daredevil #11, it was then consigned back to this seller with the higher grade holder ,and then finally pulled from auction because the consignor gave him instructions to do so. Other threads have shown this seller's responses to questions directly emailed to him stating he is more than happy to reveal if he personally pressed a book he was selling.

 

No offense, but I just don't see the unethicalness (is that a word?)