• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CGC 9.8 Hulk Annual #1

Started by tth2,

303 posts in this topic

JiveTurkeyMoFo

JiveTurkeyMoFo

Posted
Posted
What a load of bullcrap from one of the supposed pillars of our hobby. There is so much wrong with this response, I hardly know where to begin.

 

Time? It took Bill's time to remove the notation that the book had been pressed - time he could have spent with a grandchild.

 

Vocal minority? Then why remove the notation, if it is irrelevant to the majority of potential buyers? This same "argument" has been voiced by each and every dealer that either presses books or sells books they know have been pressed, and it rings of fear and loathing.

 

Can't do this for every comic? Not each and every book is in question, just the Hulk Annual #1 that not only was pressed, but also had the pedigree designation purposely witheld upon resubmission to hide its history of being in a case with a lower grade.

 

Complainers are secretly pressing books? Not this complainer. But hey, if everyone else is doing it, does that make it OK for a pillar of the biz as well, despite the inherent underhandedness of the practice?

 

Giving your clients what they want? Maybe not, if your clients knew one of your books had been pressed to a higher grade.

 

It's good enough for you if it's in a blue holder? Fine for you, but what about your prospective customers?

 

Doesn't feel obligated to do anyone's bidding? Then this potential customer doesn't feel obligated to do any bidding - on your stock.

 

Good luck Mr. Hughes with the dumping of this Annual for your measly profit. Then ask yourself afterward whether the practice of crack/press/resub has undermined buyer confidence and might be behind the current softening of the high grade slabbed market, which in turn has depressed the valuation of your stock far more than the minute profit you might have squeezed out of this one book.

 

Bob, very well said. 893applaud-thumb.gifthumbsup2.gif

 

Its schenanegans like this that made me sell off my high grade Marvels a LONG time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scheradon

Scheradon

Posted
Posted
Were Bill and Rob Hughes a member of NOD?

 

If yes, why did they leave?

 

Bill was never a member.

 

It would be more appropriate to ask Rob directly why he made a personal decision to leave NOD.

 

Wow, that's disappointing that Rob left. What's his handle here, I'd be more than happy to ask him why?

 

I noticed he's also eliminated the "press free" logo from his site. Yes, I do have questions about his apparent new position on disclosure or lack of it. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
Were Bill and Rob Hughes a member of NOD?

 

If yes, why did they leave?

 

Bill was never a member.

 

It would be more appropriate to ask Rob directly why he made a personal decision to leave NOD.

 

Wow, that's disappointing that Rob left. What's his handle here, I'd be more than happy to ask him why?

 

I noticed he's also eliminated the "press free" logo from his site. Yes, I do have questions about his apparent new position on disclosure or lack of it. frown.gif

 

He does not participate on the boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scheradon

Scheradon

Posted
Posted
Were Bill and Rob Hughes a member of NOD?

 

If yes, why did they leave?

 

Bill was never a member.

 

It would be more appropriate to ask Rob directly why he made a personal decision to leave NOD.

 

Wow, that's disappointing that Rob left. What's his handle here, I'd be more than happy to ask him why?

 

I noticed he's also eliminated the "press free" logo from his site. Yes, I do have questions about his apparent new position on disclosure or lack of it. frown.gif

 

He does not participate on the boards.

 

Oh, okay, for some reason I thought he did.

 

I just went ahead and emailed him. I'm most interested in why he's eliminated all disclosure on his site. Even if he's decided to leave the NOD, that would not keep him from continuing his "press free" declarations which are now gone or being willing to still disclose known work on books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Even if he's decided to leave the NOD, that would not keep him from continuing his "press free" declarations which are now gone or being willing to still disclose known work on books.

You've kind of answered your own question, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
Even if he's decided to leave the NOD, that would not keep him from continuing his "press free" declarations which are now gone or being willing to still disclose known work on books.

You've kind of answered your own question, don't you think?

 

Non-NOD members are not permitted to use NOD logos. Of course, non-membership should or would not stop any sellers from disclosure of relevant information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scheradon

Scheradon

Posted
Posted
Even if he's decided to leave the NOD, that would not keep him from continuing his "press free" declarations which are now gone or being willing to still disclose known work on books.

You've kind of answered your own question, don't you think?

 

Perhaps I have. I'm still waiting for a reply from my email to him. It's just that he had a "press free" icon and a statement explaining that Archangels would give that distinction to books where the lineage is known and the book is unaltered well before the NOD existed.

 

I understand by leaving the NOD, that logo would have to come down, but I'm curious by the apparent departure of the other logo and relative information that came with it.

 

I'll find it sad if he has taken a complete 180 in his thinking on disclosure frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
BILL'S RESPONSE TO MY E-MAIL...

 

A simply stunning collection of half-baked justifications and tortured logic.

 

It's just a variation of the old "we can't be sure we catch 'em all, so we won't bother to catch any" chestnut that is trotted out to justify all kinds of non-disclosure in this hobby.

 

I'm so tired of the "most collectors don't care" spin as well. Total bunk. If "most collectors" don't care or don't ask it's only because they don't know what's going on.

 

Is it any wonder collectors have so little trust in dealers?*

 

 

 

[* Generalization not intended to defame or disparage the upstanding, ethical dealers in the hobby such as Bob Storms. grin.gif ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Even if he's decided to leave the NOD, that would not keep him from continuing his "press free" declarations which are now gone or being willing to still disclose known work on books.

You've kind of answered your own question, don't you think?

 

Perhaps I have. I'm still waiting for a reply from my email to him. It's just that he had a "press free" icon and a statement explaining that Archangels would give that distinction to books where the lineage is known and the book is unaltered well before the NOD existed.

 

I understand by leaving the NOD, that logo would have to come down, but I'm curious by the apparent departure of the other logo and relative information that came with it.

 

I'll find it sad if he has taken a complete 180 in his thinking on disclosure frown.gif

Like I said, you've kind of answered your own question. Why would he back off the "press free" declarations and willingness to disclose? The simplest answer is that it's because he's planning on selling books that have been pressed, and doesn't want to be liable for misrepresentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scheradon

Scheradon

Posted
Posted
Even if he's decided to leave the NOD, that would not keep him from continuing his "press free" declarations which are now gone or being willing to still disclose known work on books.

You've kind of answered your own question, don't you think?

 

Perhaps I have. I'm still waiting for a reply from my email to him. It's just that he had a "press free" icon and a statement explaining that Archangels would give that distinction to books where the lineage is known and the book is unaltered well before the NOD existed.

 

I understand by leaving the NOD, that logo would have to come down, but I'm curious by the apparent departure of the other logo and relative information that came with it.

 

I'll find it sad if he has taken a complete 180 in his thinking on disclosure frown.gif

Like I said, you've kind of answered your own question. Why would he back off the "press free" declarations and willingness to disclose? The simplest answer is that it's because he's planning on selling books that have been pressed, and doesn't want to be liable for misrepresentation.

 

Well, he's never answered my email I sent him. It's too bad, I had a high level of respect for him. I might still if I ever get to hear his reason for leaving. (You may be right Tim, but I'd really like to hear it from him)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted

I suspect there are three types of dealers in the hobby, those that think NOD will have an affect, those that don't, and those who are on the fence and waiting to see what happens.

 

If I had to guess, and this is ONLY a guess, I'd say Rob fell off the fence, perhaps with a little help from those who don't believe NOD will be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
I suspect there are three types of dealers in the hobby, those that think NOD will have an affect, those that don't, and those who are on the fence and waiting to see what happens.

 

If I had to guess, and this is ONLY a guess, I'd say Rob fell off the fence, perhaps with a little help from those who don't believe NOD will be effective.

 

There is also the group, and I am not opining one way or the other whether Rob belongs in this group, who are doing business with certain dealers whose practices are fundamentally contrary to what the NOD believes in and the value (i.e., $$$$$) involved in that relationship does not permit their own participation in the NOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing