New ComicLink Buyer Policy Affirms Confidence in CGC Graded Books

[divad]

Let's do a little more than dance around the issue . . .

 

[delekkerste]

While the policy is admirable, and I applaud the response, I am in disagreement as to the numbers used to bolster that stance.

 

I agree. The numbers would also look more meaningful if you exclude the universe of books that are unlikely to be worth trimming (most books from the past 20-25 years, low dollar value books, etc.) I think it's a fine move to implement this policy, but the gravity of the situation should not be minimized by using inaccurate or misleading statistics.

[divad]

While the policy is admirable, and I applaud the response, I am in disagreement as to the numbers used to bolster that stance.

 

I agree. The numbers would also look more meaningful if you exclude the universe of books that are unlikely to be worth trimming (most books from the past 20-25 years, low dollar value books, etc.) I think it's a fine move to implement this policy, but the gravity of the situation should not be minimized by using inaccurate or misleading statistics.

 

 

I concur . . .

[shrunkenhead]

Yeah, ditto, but I'm still very pleased about the policy.

[nik]

I agree, a very noble gesture to retain some faith in slabbed books.

 

A very positive post, but yet people will still find something negative, or a hidden message out of it.

[Foolkiller]

And that's the whole problem I have with it. Sure, we should applaud Josh for implementing the policy. Of course, it's good customer service, and great public relations. It's genuinely motivated in that it benefits him to do everything he can to quell the tide of concern and not harm Comiclink's new "record" sale.

 

BUT, all of those motivations are irrelevant in that this is still a policy that helps the buyer, and quite honestly, if Josh stands behind this policy, it would give added confidence to his books.

 

The problem is, you go too far when you start suggesting inaccurate statistics assuming that nobody on here knows the truth. Overly gushing pro-CGC statements do not help the entire collecting community. The idea is to force improvements and changes that will eventually encourage better resto detection so that all books have more confidence. But please, I know Josh is probably aware of the "real" numbers as well as I am and has talked to Steve and everyone else.

 

You can quell the fears simply by being honest about the problem, stating your return policy, and moving the hobby forward.

 

 

While the policy is admirable, and I applaud the response, I am in disagreement as to the numbers used to bolster that stance.

 

I agree. The numbers would also look more meaningful if you exclude the universe of books that are unlikely to be worth trimming (most books from the past 20-25 years, low dollar value books, etc.) I think it's a fine move to implement this policy, but the gravity of the situation should not be minimized by using inaccurate or misleading statistics.

[Foolkiller]

A very positive post, but yet people will still find something negative, or a hidden message out of it.

 

That's not it at all. It's called not trying to avoid the truth. The truth is also not that every Ewert book is trimmed or touched up. There's no "hidden message". It's obvious what the goal is here. It's negative to use inaccurate statistics.

[comicwiz]

Joseph:

 

What I think is interesting, and what I am simply holding up here, is that this policy, while admirable, is done to stem the tide of any possible negative impact this may have on ComicLink's business.

 

Now, if you are dealing with the books that have been officially outed by the boards or by scans and are known to be trimmed, then yes, those percentages are correct.

 

But we haven't looked at all the books. We don't have scans for all of them. CGC is going to have to inspect a number of other books before the exact numbers are going to be known.

 

If you base it on the fact that Jason tried to pass a number of other books in his last current submission to CGC which they are now catching, you have to presume that a lot of the books previously might have been missed. Compound that with the fact that obviously it's also others aside from Ewert (Bats 11) who have gotten resto by CGC.

 

While the policy is admirable, and I applaud the response, I am in disagreement as to the numbers used to bolster that stance.

 

Gotcha. And I agree with your point here Brian.

 

Its kind of the reverse psychology that they used to deter people from buying from comic-keys -- because the word was quickly getting around that all his books were restored. The spin job here is that there are so few books out of the total percentage found that CGC's claim for authority ought to remain irrefutable by the sheer numbers alone.

 

I guess its up to us to make sure those numbers don't get exaggerated or stretched anymore than they need to, especially because this one seems to be a bit of a sore point for a lot more people than the comic-keys fiasco ever was.

[garthgantu]

I'm impressed that Josh would implement such a policy on 'blind faith.' He's assuming that CGC has provided more or less full disclosure about the current situation, AND that CGC even has the ability to know the full truth in order to disclose it.

 

If in fact the last 6-9 months' worth of submissions from Ewert are suspect - and virtually all of them should be, given their consistently high grades (meaning he's not selling 4.5s and 7.0s in many cases), we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of potentially altered books.

 

Frankly, Josh shouldn't have to make such a 'guarantee' - CGC should. It's a little like the local Goodyear tire store 'guaranteeing' the tires it has in stock from Goodyear or another manufacturer, after that manufacturer announces a recall. When is it the third-party intermediary's responsibility to guarantee such things?

 

Of course, even CGC making such a guarantee would require that they have an airtight ability to now detect the trimming in question...and that's yet to be proven. Without more disclosure from CGC, even Josh's bold guarantee is a somewhat hollow promise - so you send a book back to CGC and it comes back in a Blue label once again...to my mind, that doesn't mean it's necessarily unrestored at this point.

[shrunkenhead]

 

 

Frankly, Josh shouldn't have to make such a 'guarantee' - CGC should. It's a little like the local Goodyear tire store 'guaranteeing' the tires it has in stock from Goodyear or another manufacturer, after that manufacturer announces a recall. When is it the third-party intermediary's responsibility to guarantee such things?

 

Right, the question here is how much does the legalese on the back of the slab protect CGC: a lot, a little, completely, or not a bit?

[nik]

Not to be naive Foolkiller, but just what exactly is the truth?

 

How many books out of 600k+ submitted were found to be trimmed/restored?

 

How many of those are JE? in Blue Slabs?

 

I have never dealt with JE, met him, hung around with him, so I dont want to come across as a defender of him either. As an outsider reading some posts in regards to him past/present, I get the feeling you dont like the guy at all for whatever reason you have(being valid or not).

 

I just wish that if/when the facts are found they are presented to everyone, and not worry whats the actual percent of books that have/have not been caught.

 

I think its good PR what Josh is doing, gives the collector a sense of security, and of course its good for his business, thats all.

[JoeJoeJoe-migration]

Well, as someone with their first CGC books currently listed as "grading" and planning to, hopefully, start selling some books I think it is a good move. It helps not only buyers but sellers as well (and I want to do both, but I have to sell first!).

 

I was considering using Comiclink and considering the whole [embarrassing lack of self control] going down right at the time I decide to start doing the CGC thing it is nice to know that Comiclink may be an option.

 

I don't think Ebay will go well with my 0 feedback record.

[COMICLINK]

 

 

I believe Josh was working from the total graded number (about 600K), and may have been alluding to the 1% in relation to the 6 books which have been reported/found.

 

 

Way to go Josh

 

 

Thanks for your support. I just want to clarify one thing - my numerical illustration is referring to items that have been shown to be problematic, not speculation as to how many items could be problematic. The percentage we are talking about here to have been shown to be trimmed is approximately 1 thousandth of 1 percent (not 1% which would be a very large number). As an insider, I know that if it were a pervasive or rampant problem, or it were going on for a long time and getting past CGC, I would have been aware of it before now. I know most of the major submitters and more would have leaked out. Jason happened to be one of the most tight lipped in this hobby so I am not surprised that this didn't. The bottom line is this - we can either try to talk down this market based on speculation or uphold the market based on fact. However, even if we speculate negatively on the numbers by, for example, multiplying it by 10, we have only 60 books out of 600,000 or a fraction of 1 hundredth of 1 percent. I would be surprised if that were actually the case but if it is, it is still a tiny percentage. No matter what, though, I will stand by the policy of refunding any CGC Graded book purchased through ComicLink that turns out to be in issue, so buyers are not afraid to bid, sellers don't get burned by lack of interest, and collectors can feel even more confident putting together collections.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Josh Nathanson

www.comiclink.com

[Foolkiller]

nikos:

 

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't like frauds and people who lie. Ewert has been proven both thus far.

 

In terms of the numbers, exact numbers, CGC has not finished their investigation, and we don't have all the Ewert books sold back yet, so how could we have the exact numbers yet?

 

And if you're not worried about the books not presented yet -- well, that's actually where my concern lies -- obviously if you've already caught it, great, but the problem is, those that are still out there.

 

 

Not to be naive Foolkiller, but just what exactly is the truth?

 

How many books out of 600k+ submitted were found to be trimmed/restored?

 

How many of those are JE? in Blue Slabs?

 

I have never dealt with JE, met him, hung around with him, so I dont want to come across as a defender of him either. As an outsider reading some posts in regards to him past/present, I get the feeling you dont like the guy at all for whatever reason you have(being valid or not).

 

I just wish that if/when the facts are found they are presented to everyone, and not worry whats the actual percent of books that have/have not been caught.

 

I think its good PR what Josh is doing, gives the collector a sense of security, and of course its good for his business, thats all.

[garthgantu]

 

Right, the question here is how much does the legalese on the back of the slab protect CGC: a lot, a little, completely, or not a bit?

 

I'm not worried about how much the legalese protects CGC ... and while I understand that CGC has to be worried about that, I still the bigger issue should be restoring (pun intended) customer confidence. Right now, CGC is busily trimming and color touching customer confidence, but not restoring it.

 

What kind of business do you have if your legally protected on all sides, but no prospective customers trust the service that you offer? You can slide into the "where are they now" file will full legal protection...the lawyers will be the only ones working there soon.

[Foolkiller]

Let's break this apart shall we?

The percentage we are talking about here to have been shown to be trimmed is approximately 1 thousandth of 1 percent (not 1% which would be a very large number

 

As Gene noted, throw out all the moderns they've graded in that percentage. But even under those calculations, there's still a small number.

 

As an insider, I know that if it were a pervasive or rampant problem, or it were going on for a long time and getting past CGC, I would have been aware of it before now.

 

As an insider, were you aware of the Ewert problem? No. How would you know what was getting past CGC -- CGC didn't freakin' know what was getting by them.

 

60 books out of 600,000

 

Hypothetically, what if there were more than sixty books right now at CGC that had been caught on the latest submission, or let's say, I'll even give you the benefit of a decent number, 30 books right now out of 300, 10% -- that'd be a problem, wouldn't it? You'd have to reconsider how many books were trimmed previously, and why CGC emphasized to go back 6 to 9 months.

 

No matter what, though, I will stand by the policy of refunding any CGC Graded book purchased through ComicLink that turns out to be in issue, so buyers are not afraid to bid, sellers don't get burned by lack of interest, and collectors can feel even more confident putting together collections.

 

Regardless of motivation or any dispute I have with your numbers, the policy is nonetheless a good one and I have to at the very least applaud Josh for that.

[shrunkenhead]

What kind of business do you have if your legally protected on all sides, but no prospective customers trust the service that you offer? You can slide into the "where are they now" file will full legal protection...the lawyers will be the only ones working there soon.

 

Sad, but true.

[divad]

 

Right, the question here is how much does the legalese on the back of the slab protect CGC: a lot, a little, completely, or not a bit?

 

I'm not worried about how much the legalese protects CGC ... and while I understand that CGC has to be worried about that, I still the bigger issue should be restoring (pun intended) customer confidence. Right now, CGC is busily trimming and color touching customer confidence, but not restoring it.

 

What kind of business do you have if your legally protected on all sides, but no prospective customers trust the service that you offer? You can slide into the "where are they now" file will full legal protection...the lawyers will be the only ones working there soon.

 

[shadroch]

josh,

As I said previously-I applaud your new policy.

I do have a question on it,however.

As you are a consignment site,will you be refunding the money,or going after the original consigners?Do past consigners now need to worry about you hiting them up for retroactive refunds?

[COMICLINK]

josh,

As I said previously-I applaud your new policy.

I do have a question on it,however.

As you are a consignment site,will you be refunding the money,or going after the original consigners?Do past consigners now need to worry about you hiting them up for retroactive refunds?

 

Good question. ComicLink itself will refund the buyer's money immediately, then try to collect from the guilty party or CGC. If a seller unwittingly purchased an item from a guilty party and then listed and sold the item on ComicLink, I would not hold him responsible. If the seller knowingly submitted a book that he knew was trimmed to be sold on ComicLink to sell, whether it is CGC Graded or not, I would consider him culpable and try to collect. Basically, if the seller is not guilty of any wrongdoing he has nothinng to worry about. In every case, though, the first step would be to refund the money to the buyer.

 

Josh Nathanson

www.comiclink.com