Anyone attend the NOD panel at SD Con?

[tth2]

Ahhhh... back in Philly:

 

I'm going to post a full con-report (even though I was there one day) with pics as soon as I get the chance.

 

I ended up going to the meeting -- wanted to see what would be said there -- and I ran into Hari Nadu, Rocketeer, Tim Hugh, Borg, Richard Evans, Ed Jaster, Matt Nelson, tth, Tom Gordon, Nelson, Lon Allen, Steve Eichenbaum, Steve Borock, Peter Klee and some others that I didn't recognize.

 

The meeting was run by Mark Zaid, Brent Moeshlin -- Arnold Blumberg and the last AACC president were also there (name escapes me, but he was very eloquent).

 

The basic take -- and the most vocal commentator, was Richard Evans. Now, Rich has been around a long, long time and is one of the most respected and honest dealers that I've ever known -- and also has a good reputation with most other dealers as well.

 

Basically, the take appeared to be that while they admired the purpose of the NOD, they thought that it was an idea that would benefit a newbie dealer, but not benefit the established dealer at all (something that I believe many of us have observed). While the ideas and system for dispute resolution are over complicated in my opinion, if I'm being fair -- it is a new organization and there are kinks to work out. However, the whole problem is, dealers are asking why they would submit to arbitration and join as a member of the NOD. They fear it is creating an even more adversarial relationship.

 

What Richard Evans suggested, and it was an excellent suggestion (and something that myself, Learned Hand, and others have talked about but not as detailed as what Evans suggested) was to be about education first, not dispute resolution between dealer and collector (which is the point that got stuck on). Educate collectors on what pressing is, educate on a number of points about collecting, investing, grading etc. Set up a body to do that, and consult and work with the dealers. This is a great idea.

 

I know the detractors will say that it's just a continuation of the good old boy, insider network, but I don't think that's the case at all. If the purpose of the NOD is truly to help the collector insure a more safe and secure evnivronment -- perhaps it'd be better to give collectors a tool and a resource to go to in order to figure out what information will hep them in their collecting.

 

A lot of people afterwards equated Zaid and the NOD with McCarthyism -- I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but I understand the philosophy. Moreover -- while I know it was said tongue and cheek about McCarthyism, there was almost no positive reaction, and among some of the few collectors afterwards who I saw there and spoke to, most thought the idea was confused and misdirected. However, I think one of the problems for the NOD was that most of the attendees were once again well established collectors or dealers -- making it hard to really talk to some of their core audience: new collectors.

 

While I have remained vocally outspoken on the issues against the purpose of the NOD and the need to disclose pressing -- what I saw was an opportunity to have approached this differently and gotten some voluntary compliance from many dealers in discussing issues concerning pressing and disclosure without acting as if there was some threat over their head.

 

I'm sure this meeting won't dissuade any of the NOD members or the heads: that's fine -- I have never been against disclosure -- but rather against mandatory disclosure. The NOD meeting brought forth the debate that has been going on on the boards, and truly, I heard little support for the NOD from anyone in the audience, other than in a simple principle that trying to protect the collector/consumer is a good idea -- but that the approach is misguided.

 

That was my take...

Brian, I came away with a very different conclusion after witnessing the debate. Principally, the counterattack launched by the dealers (led by Rich Evans, Ed Jaster and Matt Nelson) shocked the hell out of me in its overt hostility. If I was a neutral observer beforehand, I certainly would have walked away thinking that NOD must be on to something, because something about it certainly seemed to be scaring the hell out of the dealers. I think it's ironic that on the one hand the dealers kept saying that none of the major industry insiders had been consulted, and on the other hand they seemed so concerned by the actions of a bunch of lowly nobodies.

 

Some thoughts:

 

1. I thought Ed Jaster made a good point that more thought needed to be put into the disclosure rules applicable to auction houses and consignment shops since there is only so much they might know about a book, particularly a consignment site like Comiclink or Pedigreecomics where Josh or Doug might never even see the book until the sale is completed. My personal suggestion is that NOD should prescribe certain questions that the auction houses/consignment sites must ask each consignor with respect to each consigned book, and then must disclose any negative responses. This doesn't apply to books actually owned by such sites of course, because the normal NOD rules should apply to such books.

 

2. I also thought that the dealers' comment, that some of the bigger players should have been consulted first, was valid, and engagement of these dealers would be a good idea. BUT, and this is a big but, if this "engagement" is simply the dealers' euphemism for watering down NOD's standards until they're completely hollow or ineffective, or simply a disguised attempt to fight a war of attrition by delaying and bogging things down until the whole NOD thing simply dies of inertia or frustration, then any such engagement should immediately cease. I think that the dealers or industry big wigs need to first appoint one or two representatives to speak for them. It's not fair to require NOD to deal with 8000 different voices. Second, if it turns out the dealers are engaging in bad faith, then such engagement should immediately cease and their bad faith actions should be publicly disclosed.

 

3. This may be apparent already, but I'm highly skeptical of the dealers' desire for engagement and amused by their irritation that a bunch of "outsiders" are trying to pull this off without getting sign-off from the powers that be. There seems to be a singular inability of the dealers to stand back for a moment and look at this from the perspective of an outsider or newcomer, and realize that (i) the entrenched dealers represent vested interests, (ii) the entrenched dealers therefore are incentivized to preserve the status quo, (iii) the status quo is currently rotten, and (iv) it's the entrenched dealers who are responsible for the rotten status quo. Hell, if I were them, I guess I'd be fighting tooth and nail to suppress any new ideas too that might challenge their status.

 

4. I think the whole education thing is a hopelessly idealistic and ineffective mirage. Of course, in principle, education is a good and desirable thing, but it's simply way too ephemeral to have any value and have any real impact on cleaning up the mess that we currently have. To me, it seems like the dealers are saying caveat emptor is a great thing, just make the consumer a little more educated so he'll be better armed in this jungle of a market. Since my background is in securities law, let me analogize to how the federal government has chosen to deal with unethical public companies: First, investors in the stock market SHOULD educate themselves about investments, and the broker/dealer industry should do their best to educate their customers. Quite frankly, this is like saying that Mom and apple pie are good things. NO ONE is disputing this. However, when the US government cleaned up securities laws in 1933 and 1934 after the excesses of the 1920s, it wisely did not focus its efforts on improving the education of investors. Rather, it focused its efforts on requiring public companies to affirmatively disclose material information that might be relevant to a reasonable investor, and created mechanisms to punish public companies that violated those requirements. What this did was ensure that the information required for an investor to make an informed decision was available. Whether investors chose to actually avail themselves of that information was up to them. The government can lead them to water but can't and shouldn't make them drink it. Right now in the comic hobby, collectors have to both educate themselves AND extract the necessary information upon which to make an educated decision. Can anyone really say this is a good situation?

 

5. Dealers should realize that in the long run, a healthy market is better for them, even if there is short-term pain in changing the way they currently do things. Drawing again upon my experience with securities law, particularly in the US and Asia, I find analogies to US stock markets vs. overseas stock markets to be illustrative. The US stock market is the deepest and healthiest in the world because the SEC's strict requirements have fostered transparency and accuracy, which in turn has fostered investor confidence, even with the recent Enron, MCI, etc. debacles. The fact is that a lot of this scandalous behavior is par for the course in overseas/emerging stock markets, whereas it results in convictions in the US. And what is the benefit to US companies, you may ask? Simple. On average, US companies enjoy a much higher valuation for the same dollar of earnings than their overseas counterparts. Why? Because US investors have more confidence that they can rely on what is being told to them, whereas investors in overseas companies view information with a much higher degree of skepticism and accordingly apply a discount in their valuations to account for the higher risk resulting from lack of transparency and lack of confidence in the accuracy of information.

 

6. If there seemed to be little support for NOD coming from the audience, it was because it was hard to get a word in edge-wise with Messrs. Evans, Jaster, Nelson and Zaid going full steam.

[tth2]

Mark and Brent did their best to point out that NOD is not just about pressing, but about the disclosure of any work done to a book, but the conversation came back to pressing, again and again and again.

I think the main reason for this is the fact that the other disclosure requirements (e.g., color touch, trimming, etc.) are not controversial. I don't know any reputable or semi-reputable dealer who doesn't believe that these types of restoration need to be disclosed. Therefore, the main disclosure issue is going to center on pressing, because it's the one form of book manipulation that is not unanimously agreed as being required to be disclosed.

[drbanner]

Mark and Brent did their best to point out that NOD is not just about pressing, but about the disclosure of any work done to a book, but the conversation came back to pressing, again and again and again.

I think the main reason for this is the fact that the other disclosure requirements (e.g., color touch, trimming, etc.) are not controversial. I don't know any reputable or semi-reputable dealer who doesn't believe that these types of restoration need to be disclosed. Therefore, the main disclosure issue is going to center on pressing, because it's the one form of book manipulation that is not unanimously agreed as being required to be disclosed.

 

Exactly, what's there to discuss as far as color touch, tears seals, piece replacement, etc.,.? The only thing left on the table is pressing, and of course those dealers dont' want to proactively disclose that their blue labeled slabbed books have been pressed. CGC can't detect it so it's left to the seller to inform the buyer of the books' status. Seller's don't want to disclose it unless asked, so it's up to the buyer to 1) know about the issue, and 2) ask Matt, Doug, et al about any book they're interested in. Unfortunately, those dealers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by signing on to any agreement like this.

 

Did Jaster/Heritage indicate what their response would be if someone inquired as to whether a book had been worked on? Along those lines, did the Crippen collection come up in any conversation about pressing and Heritage?

[Red Hook]

Brian, I came away with a very different conclusion after witnessing the debate. Principally, the counterattack launched by the dealers (led by Rich Evans, Ed Jaster and Matt Nelson) shocked the hell out of me in its overt hostility. If I was a neutral observer beforehand, I certainly would have walked away thinking that NOD must be on to something, because something about it certainly seemed to be scaring the hell out of the dealers. I think it's ironic that on the one hand the dealers kept saying that none of the major industry insiders had been consulted, and on the other hand they seemed so concerned by the actions of a bunch of lowly nobodies.

 

Some thoughts:

 

1. I thought Ed Jaster made a good point that more thought needed to be put into the disclosure rules applicable to auction houses and consignment shops since there is only so much they might know about a book, particularly a consignment site like Comiclink or Pedigreecomics where Josh or Doug might never even see the book until the sale is completed. My personal suggestion is that NOD should prescribe certain questions that the auction houses/consignment sites must ask each consignor with respect to each consigned book, and then must disclose any negative responses. This doesn't apply to books actually owned by such sites of course, because the normal NOD rules should apply to such books.

 

2. I also thought that the dealers' comment, that some of the bigger players should have been consulted first, was valid, and engagement of these dealers would be a good idea. BUT, and this is a big but, if this "engagement" is simply the dealers' euphemism for watering down NOD's standards until they're completely hollow or ineffective, or simply a disguised attempt to fight a war of attrition by delaying and bogging things down until the whole NOD thing simply dies of inertia or frustration, then any such engagement should immediately cease. I think that the dealers or industry big wigs need to first appoint one or two representatives to speak for them. It's not fair to require NOD to deal with 8000 different voices. Second, if it turns out the dealers are engaging in bad faith, then such engagement should immediately cease and their bad faith actions should be publicly disclosed.

 

3. This may be apparent already, but I'm highly skeptical of the dealers' desire for engagement and amused by their irritation that a bunch of "outsiders" are trying to pull this off without getting sign-off from the powers that be. There seems to be a singular inability of the dealers to stand back for a moment and look at this from the perspective of an outsider or newcomer, and realize that (i) the entrenched dealers represent vested interests, (ii) the entrenched dealers therefore are incentivized to preserve the status quo, (iii) the status quo is currently rotten, and (iv) it's the entrenched dealers who are responsible for the rotten status quo. Hell, if I were them, I guess I'd be fighting tooth and nail to suppress any new ideas too that might challenge their status.

 

4. I think the whole education thing is a hopelessly idealistic and ineffective mirage. Of course, in principle, education is a good and desirable thing, but it's simply way too ephemeral to have any value and have any real impact on cleaning up the mess that we currently have. To me, it seems like the dealers are saying caveat emptor is a great thing, just make the consumer a little more educated so he'll be better armed in this jungle of a market. Since my background is in securities law, let me analogize to how the federal government has chosen to deal with unethical public companies: First, investors in the stock market SHOULD educate themselves about investments, and the broker/dealer industry should do their best to educate their customers. Quite frankly, this is like saying that Mom and apple pie are good things. NO ONE is disputing this. However, when the US government cleaned up securities laws in 1933 and 1934 after the excesses of the 1920s, it wisely did not focus its efforts on improving the education of investors. Rather, it focused its efforts on requiring public companies to affirmatively disclose material information that might be relevant to a reasonable investor, and created mechanisms to punish public companies that violated those requirements. What this did was ensure that the information required for an investor to make an informed decision was available. Whether investors chose to actually avail themselves of that information was up to them. The government can lead them to water but can't and shouldn't make them drink it. Right now in the comic hobby, collectors have to both educate themselves AND extract the necessary information upon which to make an educated decision. Can anyone really say this is a good situation?

 

5. Dealers should realize that in the long run, a healthy market is better for them, even if there is short-term pain in changing the way they currently do things. Drawing again upon my experience with securities law, particularly in the US and Asia, I find analogies to US stock markets vs. overseas stock markets to be illustrative. The US stock market is the deepest and healthiest in the world because the SEC's strict requirements have fostered transparency and accuracy, which in turn has fostered investor confidence, even with the recent Enron, MCI, etc. debacles. The fact is that a lot of this scandalous behavior is par for the course in overseas/emerging stock markets, whereas it results in convictions in the US. And what is the benefit to US companies, you may ask? Simple. On average, US companies enjoy a much higher valuation for the same dollar of earnings than their overseas counterparts. Why? Because US investors have more confidence that they can rely on what is being told to them, whereas investors in overseas companies view information with a much higher degree of skepticism and accordingly apply a discount in their valuations to account for the higher risk resulting from lack of transparency and lack of confidence in the accuracy of information.

 

6. If there seemed to be little support for NOD coming from the audience, it was because it was hard to get a word in edge-wise with Messrs. Evans, Jaster, Nelson and Zaid going full steam.

 

 

Helpful post, Tim. Thanks.

[Calamerica]

I wished I could have been there.

 

CAL

[Sal]

Mark and Brent did their best to point out that NOD is not just about pressing, but about the disclosure of any work done to a book, but the conversation came back to pressing, again and again and again.

I think the main reason for this is the fact that the other disclosure requirements (e.g., color touch, trimming, etc.) are not controversial. I don't know any reputable or semi-reputable dealer who doesn't believe that these types of restoration need to be disclosed. Therefore, the main disclosure issue is going to center on pressing, because it's the one form of book manipulation that is not unanimously agreed as being required to be disclosed.

 

Exactly, what's there to discuss as far as color touch, tears seals, piece replacement, etc.,.? The only thing left on the table is pressing, and of course those dealers dont' want to proactively disclose that their blue labeled slabbed books have been pressed. CGC can't detect it so it's left to the seller to inform the buyer of the books' status. Seller's don't want to disclose it unless asked, so it's up to the buyer to 1) know about the issue, and 2) ask Matt, Doug, et al about any book they're interested in. Unfortunately, those dealers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by signing on to any agreement like this.

 

Did Jaster/Heritage indicate what their response would be if someone inquired as to whether a book had been worked on? Along those lines, did the Crippen collection come up in any conversation about pressing and Heritage?

 

it's not that they have nothing to gain, imho, it's that their fear of losing outweighs the promise of additional "investor confidence" if they pre-disclose.

 

 

dealers aren't - it seems - looking four or five years down the road, they're more concerned with what happens the day after they were to join the NOD. which is understandable, given this is how they make a living. but ideally, the NOD would encourage discussion and education between dealers and collectors, ultimately bringing greater levels of trust between the two groups.

 

but i don't see how a couple of dealers who have basically made a living on NDP and caveat emptor are ever going to do anything but fight this whole business tooth and nail. which is a shame, as there are many many collectors who don't mind pressing

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

My suggestion to NOD is this:

 

Draw a distinction between Dealers and Collectors when it comes to their memberships and the yearly fees each has to pay. If you make the Collectors yearly fee $20, I think you'd have a lot more folks signing up. Dealers should pay more, because they will benefit from the increased business received from Collector members.

 

Divide the Collectors into two groups: those who don't mind pressing, and those who do (as this is clearly the issue that concerns everyone today).

 

Wave the member list of Collectors who don't mind pressing (but do advocate and appreciate the full disclosure of it) in front of dealers, and you may have more of them signing up.

 

The bottom line is, for the NOD to work, it needs to have a bloc of members that will vote with their wallets in favor of dealers who are members as well. Once NOD members begin exercising their economic muscle, more and more dealers will realize their is indeed incentive to become part of the NOD.

 

For that to begin to happen though, the Collector roster of NOD needs to be expanded greatly, and that will only happen if the price of membership drops significantly.

[Darthdiesel]

So did Nelson and Zaid have beers together after all was said and done?

[Davenport]

So did Nelson and Zaid have beers together after all was said and done?

[Foolkiller]

Tim:

 

great finally meeting you in person --

 

at any rate -- I think your outlook is perfectly reasonable based on that meeting as well... the only thing I'll add is that I wish you had offered some of those thoughts during the actual meeting -- and I say that because I think that it would have offered some balance to the meeting -- because some of the points are very valid (and this is someone who clearly disagrees with the basics of the NOD).

 

I will add though that this is the first truly positive spin I've seen on the meeting... but -- I don't think the education outlook is a pipe dream. Ultimately, getting people to agree to be bound to the decision of a few people in an organization that wants such a wide net is really practically difficult. If disclosure -- or at least most dealers disclosing -- is truly the main goal -- I think there are other ways to approach it.

[Aman619]

Mark and Brent did their best to point out that NOD is not just about pressing, but about the disclosure of any work done to a book, but the conversation came back to pressing, again and again and again.

I think the main reason for this is the fact that the other disclosure requirements (e.g., color touch, trimming, etc.) are not controversial. I don't know any reputable or semi-reputable dealer who doesn't believe that these types of restoration need to be disclosed. Therefore, the main disclosure issue is going to center on pressing, because it's the one form of book manipulation that is not unanimously agreed as being required to be disclosed.

 

Exactly, what's there to discuss as far as color touch, tears seals, piece replacement, etc.,.? The only thing left on the table is pressing, and of course those dealers dont' want to proactively disclose that their blue labeled slabbed books have been pressed. CGC can't detect it so it's left to the seller to inform the buyer of the books' status. Seller's don't want to disclose it unless asked, so it's up to the buyer to 1) know about the issue, and 2) ask Matt, Doug, et al about any book they're interested in. Unfortunately, those dealers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by signing on to any agreement like this.

 

Did Jaster/Heritage indicate what their response would be if someone inquired as to whether a book had been worked on? Along those lines, did the Crippen collection come up in any conversation about pressing and Heritage?

 

it's not that they have nothing to gain, imho, it's that their fear of losing outweighs the promise of additional "investor confidence" if they pre-disclose.

 

 

dealers aren't - it seems - looking four or five years down the road, they're more concerned with what happens the day after they were to join the NOD. which is understandable, given this is how they make a living. but ideally, the NOD would encourage discussion and education between dealers and collectors, ultimately bringing greater levels of trust between the two groups.

 

but i don't see how a couple of dealers who have basically made a living on NDP and caveat emptor are ever going to do anything but fight this whole business tooth and nail. which is a shame, as there are many many collectors who don't mind pressing

 

I seem to recall most of these same dealers were deadset against CGC too, before it opened. Werent they? And now they have all seen the good outweight the bad aspects they had predicted---- and business is Good in selling slabbed comics. So who's to say that the same dealers antipathy to the NOD is not ALSO misplaced??? Face it--- these guys do not like change. Its scary. and always sounds like someones coming in to inspect the books for an audit! I am sure if given a chance, the dealers will embrace the changes NOD will bring to the market in the long run.

 

Unfortunately, theres no profit incentive for the NID. That is, CGC forged ahead anway in the face of scorn and criticism because it was/is a 'for profit' business endeavor. NOD if merely a consumer protection agency.... which needs public support to exist.

[nearmint]

Did Jaster/Heritage indicate what their response would be if someone inquired as to whether a book had been worked on? Along those lines, did the Crippen collection come up in any conversation about pressing and Heritage?

 

Mark mentioned during the panel that he has inquired about certain books in Heritage auctions in the past, and they've always been very helpful with info if they had any to offer. The Crippen collection was never mentioned.

[Foolkiller]

Aman:

 

Actually, Mark and Brent raised this exact same analogy, and if I recall correctly, Evans' point of view was that CGC held several meetings with the major dealers first and consulted them and got their input. Borock seemed to echo this as well. The point Evans was making was that this is being done, and even if it has a positive motive, to look like a crusade of a small set of people. No one ever contacted or consulted with many of the major dealers' to get their thoughts, or even the long time collectors -- and Evans mentioned people like Harry Matetsky.

 

Honestly, even though Tim has a different outlook on the content of the meeting, there was no vocal support from the audience for the NOD EXCEPT that I think there was lots of support for the generalized idea that honesty is a good thing and that educating new collectors is a worthwhile goal. I think what the problem here was the approach... there were positives for the NOD at this meeting -- it was not all negative.

[nearmint]

there were positives for the NOD at this meeting -- it was not all negative.

 

True. Richard Evans was hard on Mark, but eventually thanked both Mark and Brent, and after the panel, Mark and Richie wandered back to the convention floor together.

 

It was very interesting to cruise the convention floor after the panel, and hear snippets of conversation about the panel from 6 or 7 different groups of people. Some constructive, some not.

[ShoNuff-migration]

So did Nelson and Zaid have beers together after all was said and done?

[Aman619]

Aman:

 

Actually, Mark and Brent raised this exact same analogy, and if I recall correctly, Evans' point of view was that CGC held several meetings with the major dealers first and consulted them and got their input. Borock seemed to echo this as well. The point Evans was making was that this is being done, and even if it has a positive motive, to look like a crusade of a small set of people. No one ever contacted or consulted with many of the major dealers' to get their thoughts, or even the long time collectors -- and Evans mentioned people like Harry Matetsky.

 

Honestly, even though Tim has a different outlook on the content of the meeting, there was no vocal support from the audience for the NOD EXCEPT that I think there was lots of support for the generalized idea that honesty is a good thing and that educating new collectors is a worthwhile goal. I think what the problem here was the approach... there were positives for the NOD at this meeting -- it was not all negative.

 

I see. again, though, CGC was different in that in starting a business, certainly they sought to get input and support fromt he entrenched powers that be who would also be their customers. And, having consulted with them, still had th efreedom to go ahead ANYWAY if support was not forthcoming.

 

A NOD of course CANNOT proceed without the support they are seeking. So, I can only hope the dealers can see a parallel here in a prospective orgnization that may LOOK harmful to their business (and the status quo) beforhand, but in actuality benefit them later in ways they do not see right now.

 

In the final ananlysis, a NOD will be only a small voluntary toothless organization, subject to personalities and conflicts between members, etc. Thts just human nature. Personally, I prefer TTHs reasoning that the best deterrent to malpractices is rules and punishments. But, obviously, our hobby is a far cry away from warranting government control for the good of the masses like the investment business. Therefore, sadly, I confess I do not expect much change... and all that stuff that been "going on forever" will safely continue.

 

Honestly IS a good thing...except when it interferes with profits. C'est la vie.

[maxstuf]

Actually I had drinks with the 2 of them and they seemed fine at the forum dinner. But taking playful jabs, verbal that is, at each other and then ganging up on Mark Wilson, who was truly the funniest guy at the dinner. While differences may exist they both were professional and quite funny.

 

My observation.

 

And did I mention that NEAL ADAMS was there....WOW Thanks Steve.....

[october]

I think the whole education thing is a hopelessly idealistic and ineffective mirage. Of course, in principle, education is a good and desirable thing, but it's simply way too ephemeral to have any value and have any real impact on cleaning up the mess that we currently have.

 

You are probably right, but the way this organization is set up now isn't any better. It basically offers dealers a very real and immediate detriment (disclosure of pressed books) in exchange for a flimsy and ephemeral future benefit (increased trust between the collector and dealer). Not only that, they have to PAY for the privilege. I would be absolutely floored if a decent number of dealers signed up for this thing, and without that it's just a paper tiger.

 

If you want a thing like this to work there are only two ways to go about it. The positives for the dealers have to outweight the negatives, or you have to force them to comply. Anything in between just doesn't make a whole lot of sense and will ultimately be ineffectual.

[Rocketeer]

I see. again, though, CGC was different in that in starting a business, certainly they sought to get input and support fromt he entrenched powers that be who would also be their customers. And, having consulted with them, still had th efreedom to go ahead ANYWAY if support was not forthcoming.

 

A NOD of course CANNOT proceed without the support they are seeking.

 

..I agree to an extent,..however, if CGC never won over the dealers to their side I don't think they would still be around today in the capacity that they are,...and this sentiment was echoed several times throughout the course of the pannel,...I think everyone agreed that an organization such as NOD would be very beneficial to a new collector, but most people there were skeptical that this was the primary goal of the group,...point was brought up that if the primary goal was education then why is the word "disclosure" prominent in the acronym?...and that brought it back to a pressing crusade,..

[drbanner]

Did Jaster/Heritage indicate what their response would be if someone inquired as to whether a book had been worked on? Along those lines, did the Crippen collection come up in any conversation about pressing and Heritage?

Mark mentioned during the panel that he has inquired about certain books in Heritage auctions in the past, and they've always been very helpful with info if they had any to offer. The Crippen collection was never mentioned.

 

Thanks!