The "Review Committee" discussion

[tth2]

I nominate

 

Redhook

Nearmint

Oldguy

Pedigreeman

As mentioned in the earlier thread, I would nominate Davenport for this committee, as he seems to have ID`d quite a few resubs, which is often the first step in ID-ing a lost pedigree.

 

Although I think the world of Pedigreeman and his passion for pedigrees, I don`t think his expertise has ever been finding and identifying resubbed books that have lost their pedigree designation, or even really participating in the discussions to confirm that a book is the same as an earlier graded copy. Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this committee?

[PedigreeMan]

With regard to any questions about my involvement in this "pedigree review board," I would like to state here and now that I do not wish to participate in this endeavor, nor can I give it my endorsement.

 

Thank you,

Alan Flenard

[namralos]

I have no problem with the individuals named, and I have voted in their favor.

 

However, I still do not see how we have created any mechanism for catching the resub-pedigree-loss phenomenon. All this seems to accomplish is the creation of a committee.

 

The committee would have no access to the comics.

The committee would have no access to photos of the comics.

The committee would have no information given to it, other than what collectors happen to discover haphazardly, through chance.

SImply put, its existence would have no mechanism for success other than what already exists.

 

Since we're already discovering things haphazardly, and since we can already write to Steve and the others at CGC, this "weaker" committee would be of little use -- other than perhaps allowing people to FEEL more connected to the process. We wouldn't BE more connected; we'd just FEEL that way. It would make Steve's job easier, but that's about all it would accomplish. Or, a previous post put it, "he just waits ... and then promises."

 

Now, I have nothing against making things easier for CGC, but that wasn't why the committee was proposed. And since CGC is paid to catch these things, and since they claim to be "the expert" (and we do not), I'm against making things easier for them for its own sake. Then when resubs continue to get missed, CGC can simply say, "Oh, I have a committee of board members that looks into those things. It's their fault if they missed it; after all, they're not experts."

 

The pedigree for Sensation #1 (and other books) was lost because the resub wasn't tracked. I maintain that what is needed here is the introduction of the notion of provenance into comics collecting -- something that has existed in the antiques trade for many years. To say, "buyers will have to watch out for themselves" when careful monitoring could catch many (most?) resubs is an admission of permanent failure. It is a forecast of doom. And if we're going to be fatalistic about it, there's no need to do anything at all.

[esquirecomics]

I have no problem with the individuals named, and I have voted in their favor.

 

However, I still do not see how we have created any mechanism for catching the resub-pedigree-loss phenomenon. All this seems to accomplish is the creation of a committee.

 

The committee would have no access to the comics.

The committee would have no access to photos of the comics.

The committee would have no information given to it, other than what collectors happen to discover haphazardly, through chance.

SImply put, its existence would have no mechanism for success other than what already exists.

 

Since we're already discovering things haphazardly, and since we can already write to Steve and the others at CGC, this "weaker" committee would be of little use -- other than perhaps allowing people to FEEL more connected to the process. We wouldn't BE more connected; we'd just FEEL that way. It would make Steve's job easier, but that's about all it would accomplish. Or, a previous post put it, "he just waits ... and then promises."

 

Now, I have nothing against making things easier for CGC, but that wasn't why the committee was proposed. And since CGC is paid to catch these things, and since they claim to be "the expert" (and we do not), I'm against making things easier for them for its own sake. Then when resubs continue to get missed, CGC can simply say, "Oh, I have a committee of board members that looks into those things. It's their fault if they missed it; after all, they're not experts."

 

The pedigree for Sensation #1 (and other books) was lost because the resub wasn't tracked. I maintain that what is needed here is the introduction of the notion of provenance into comics collecting -- something that has existed in the antiques trade for many years. To say, "buyers will have to watch out for themselves" when careful monitoring could catch many (most?) resubs is an admission of permanent failure. It is a forecast of doom. And if we're going to be fatalistic about it, there's no need to do anything at all.

 

Excellent points.

[tth2]

Now, I have nothing against making things easier for CGC, but that wasn't why the committee was proposed.

Uh, yes it was. It was Steve Borock that proposed this committee.

 

And since CGC is paid to catch these things, and since they claim to be "the expert" (and we do not), I'm against making things easier for them for its own sake.

So because the committee is not exactly what you seem to think it should be, everyone should just pick up their ball and go home, rather than benefit from some incremental improvement over the way things are?

 

Then when resubs continue to get missed, CGC can simply say, "Oh, I have a committee of board members that looks into those things. It's their fault if they missed it; after all, they're not experts."

I`m really starting to wonder about your motivation for your posts now. Seems like you`re trying to pick a fight here for no good reason. The committee`s function is to identify, confirm and notify CGC of "lost" pedigrees. They can only identify what they can identify. How CGC might be able to hide behind the committee, or abdicate their duty to not miss the loss of the pedigree in the first place, I don`t understand. If the committee identifies and notifies CGC of a lost pedigree, and if after the agreed 30-day period CGC has taken no action, then I would think it`s perfectly within the rights of the committee to "out" the book publicly on these boards.

[Davenport]

As mentioned in the earlier thread, I would nominate Davenport for this committee, as he seems to have ID`d quite a few resubs, which is often the first step in ID-ing a lost pedigree.

 

Uh, sorry. But no F'n way.

 

First, I think the bottomline results of any "commitee" effort has already been clearly posted:

 

SB: "This is not to say that the pedigree designation could not be left off because a submitter does not want it to be known that the book was a re-submit, it is just that we would like to believe most people are honest and we (and we hope the boards) do not want them unfairly blamed for mistakes."

 

So I read those "conditions" as (1) Pedigree notations are submitter's choice, not manditory, and (2) if an honest mistake has been made it's an opportunity to correct it out of public view.

 

Both of those "results" are available now. Mark Zaid posted that he has had Pedigree label notations corrected with ease, both added and removed. And the Bill Hughes very honest email is the flip-side "No thanks" choice.

---------------

Part two: I think historical provenance, Pedigree status, is used primarily as a marketing tactic. At least that's what Chuck R. said in his ComicZone radio interview, that he came up with the "pedigree" idea because his Mom was a coin-dealer, and that's what they do to highten collector demand.

 

So, to collectors it's exciting history and VERY important to preserve, as it should be. To sellers it's a selling tactic to employ or not, depending on the +/- $$$ effect of it's use.

 

CGC respects that tactic-choice and already offers to correct any unintentional label errors.

----------------

Part three, and this is important...

 

Filter81: "I'm sure I'm going to get boo'ed straight off the boards for this next part."

 

Don't just read that sentence, feel it.

 

I don't think most people understand just how creepy it is to "see" shennanigans that make your jaw drop, and then choose to post it on a public messageboard so others can be warned. I applaud Filter81. Thank you for sharing.

 

So, again, sorry. No F'n way. Fellow consumers are one thing, but every For-Profit Service Provider on the planet is on their own as far as I'm concerned.

[tth2]

As mentioned in the earlier thread, I would nominate Davenport for this committee, as he seems to have ID`d quite a few resubs, which is often the first step in ID-ing a lost pedigree.

 

Uh, sorry. But no F'n way.

 

First, I think the bottomline results of any "commitee" effort has already been clearly posted:

 

SB: "This is not to say that the pedigree designation could not be left off because a submitter does not want it to be known that the book was a re-submit, it is just that we would like to believe most people are honest and we (and we hope the boards) do not want them unfairly blamed for mistakes."

 

So I read those "conditions" as (1) Pedigree notations are submitter's choice, not manditory, and (2) if an honest mistake has been made it's an opportunity to correct it out of public view.

 

Both of those "results" are available now. Mark Zaid posted that he has had Pedigree label notations corrected with ease, both added and removed. And the Bill Hughes very honest email is the flip-side "No thanks" choice.

---------------

Part two: I think historical provenance, Pedigree status, is used primarily as a marketing tactic. At least that's what Chuck R. said in his ComicZone radio interview, that he came up with the "pedigree" idea because his Mom was a coin-dealer, and that's what they do to highten collector demand.

 

So, to collectors it's exciting history and VERY important to preserve, as it should be. To sellers it's a selling tactic to employ or not, depending on the +/- $$$ effect of it's use.

 

CGC respects that tactic-choice and already offers to correct any unintentional label errors.

----------------

Part three, and this is important...

 

Filter81: "I'm sure I'm going to get boo'ed straight off the boards for this next part."

 

Don't just read that sentence, feel it.

 

I don't think most people understand just how creepy it is to "see" shennanigans that make your jaw drop, and then choose to post it on a public messageboard so others can be warned. I applaud Filter81. Thank you for sharing.

 

So, again, sorry. No F'n way. Fellow consumers are one thing, but every For-Profit Service Provider on the planet is on their own as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, I've just read, and re-read, and then re-read your post again, and I have absolutely no clue what you're saying.

 

I particularly don't understand why it's "creepy" to see something unsavory going on and then posting it on a public messageboard to warn others. If you saw something unsavory going on and warned everyone publicly about it, why in the world would I think that's creepy?

[namralos]

"So because the committee is not exactly what you seem to think it should be, everyone should just pick up their ball and go home, rather than benefit from some incremental improvement over the way things are?"

 

There wouldn't BE any improvement over the way things are -- except that we'd be doing some of CGC's work for them.

 

We'd still have NO WAY to discover such labeling problems apart from what channels are open to us now. The only difference is that Steve wouldn't have to read e-mails from everyone -- just those coming from "the committee." In short, since Steve already listens to us, it wouldn't rectify ANYTHING that isn't already being rectified.

 

Right now, when we happen to discover a problem, Steve addresses it.

What would change? Nothing...except that we'd have a committee who would address Steve instead of the rest of us doing so. How does this address the overall issue of FINDING lost pedigrees? It doesn't.

 

Mark understands this, and I'm sure plenty of others see it as well. As Davenport said, "Both of [the limited, proposed] "results" are available now."

 

Do you want to continue to report on resub issues when someone happens to find them? If so, we need no committee. We're already doing that. Hey, this group tends to create 100 posts or more per day when something like that comes up! Or do you want to actively search for issues as they arise, and offer them up for correction?

 

It was written: "The committee`s function is to identify, confirm and notify CGC of "lost" pedigrees."

 

This group is already doing that...and the members have been quite effective at observing what they can observe without formal assistance from the company. With no access to the books as they emerge from CGC, nothing would change ... EXCEPT that we'd create for ourselves a committee. I'm saying, let's be proactive and look for these things instead of waiting for them to fall into our laps.

 

Instead of happening to notice that a book sold this year might resemble a book you think you saw in 2002, the committee's duty would be to look at all the books (as they come up) to see whether a pedigree has been lost (or mistakenly reported). This would be an effective committee, then.

 

I'd still like to hear what Steve thinks. Steve...wouldn't the suggestions that a few of us have been making (including myself) be more effective in retrieving lost pedigrees?

[namralos]

Oh, and the proposal was not Steve's -- even though he's a great guy.

It came from Redhook. Quoting RH's earlier post:

 

"So my proposal is that CGC reach an informal agreement with a couple of willing collectors like Nearmint, Pedigree Man, etc.....and a couple of guys like myself and Davenport with the visual chops to do pretty good scan analysis....(I mean, lets face it....on the boards you have one of the greatest collecting braintrusts in existence....) and have them vet situations like this and only pass along the very-apparent cases (like this one) to CGC. They'll in essence filter out any questionable claims for CGC, save CGC time, and do a mitzvah in the process. And a little bit of comic collecting history will be reclaimed. "

[Davenport]

Sorry, I've just read, and re-read, and then re-read your post again, and I have absolutely no clue what you're saying.

 

I particularly don't understand why it's "creepy" to see something unsavory going on and then posting it on a public messageboard to warn others. If you saw something unsavory going on and warned everyone publicly about it, why in the world would I think that's creepy?

Let me count the ways...

 

First and foremost it's dickin' with folk's livelihoods. No way around it.

Like with that Northland Hulk Annual. No way in hell would I post what I "see" while that auction was active. No rules were being broken, just a seller working the system. I did PM Red Hook privately though, mainly because I was so stunned that a "leading expert" on Pedigrees would drop provenance like a hot-rock for more $$$.

 

Also, this isn't the Dairy Queen messageboard, and you're usually not posting about Joe Blow trying to pull a fast one. Almost 100% of the time it's posting about an industry "Name". A CGC "marketing partner" or "partial owner" or "charter member" or somesuch.

 

Plus...I just simply don't like it. It's being negative. It's pointing other's eyes to something ugly. It's a kind of every-party-needs-a-pooper-that's-why-we-invited-you type experience.

 

And finally, I'll just quote Filter81 again: "My own personal opinion, is that the stuff that we know regarding this situation is only a VERY small percentage of what is actually going on."

[shadroch]

When I went to vote,the thing told me that I had already voted,even though I had just logged on for the first time to this thread.

I've never had this happen before.

Anyways,why are people rushing into this,with a full committe suddenly placed full-blown in front of us.

Why not have a meaningful discussion and then elect the committee,in the open. 1 member,1 vote.

While I have no objections to any of the people Ken nominated,I think there are others just as worthy,and know from experiance a group of more than 4/5 people is worse than no group at all.

[Underdog]

I voted yes. Was going to vote for myself but realized I don't know [embarrassing lack of self control] about [embarrassing lack of self control]. Thats why I come here!

Seriously, these four are above reproach in my book (as are others).

[Red Hook]

Why not have a meaningful discussion and then elect the committee,in the open. 1 member,1 vote.

While I have no objections to any of the people Ken nominated,I think there are others just as worthy,and know from experiance a group of more than 4/5 people is worse than no group at all.

 

 

I think we're only talking about a group of four or five people. If you have any nominees....post em! And feel free to add to a meaningful discussion.

 

Currently, we are floating the idea of me, Nearmint and OldGuy.

 

DiceX, Arexcrooke expressed interest.

[shadroch]

As Assuie Russ is the one with the scans,I'd include him.PedigreeMan would seem to be the obvious choice,his chosing not to participate bodes ill. I'd find out what his objections are,and listen to them..And the person who seems to have the best eye for this sort of thing might be Tom Murname.

[Red Hook]

Thanks.

[esquirecomics]

"So because the committee is not exactly what you seem to think it should be, everyone should just pick up their ball and go home, rather than benefit from some incremental improvement over the way things are?"

 

There wouldn't BE any improvement over the way things are -- except that we'd be doing some of CGC's work for them.

 

We'd still have NO WAY to discover such labeling problems apart from what channels are open to us now. The only difference is that Steve wouldn't have to read e-mails from everyone -- just those coming from "the committee." In short, since Steve already listens to us, it wouldn't rectify ANYTHING that isn't already being rectified.

 

Right now, when we happen to discover a problem, Steve addresses it.

What would change? Nothing...except that we'd have a committee who would address Steve instead of the rest of us doing so. How does this address the overall issue of FINDING lost pedigrees? It doesn't.

 

Mark understands this, and I'm sure plenty of others see it as well. As Davenport said, "Both of [the limited, proposed] "results" are available now."

 

Do you want to continue to report on resub issues when someone happens to find them? If so, we need no committee. We're already doing that. Hey, this group tends to create 100 posts or more per day when something like that comes up! Or do you want to actively search for issues as they arise, and offer them up for correction?

 

It was written: "The committee`s function is to identify, confirm and notify CGC of "lost" pedigrees."

 

This group is already doing that...and the members have been quite effective at observing what they can observe without formal assistance from the company. With no access to the books as they emerge from CGC, nothing would change ... EXCEPT that we'd create for ourselves a committee. I'm saying, let's be proactive and look for these things instead of waiting for them to fall into our laps.

 

Instead of happening to notice that a book sold this year might resemble a book you think you saw in 2002, the committee's duty would be to look at all the books (as they come up) to see whether a pedigree has been lost (or mistakenly reported). This would be an effective committee, then.

 

I'd still like to hear what Steve thinks. Steve...wouldn't the suggestions that a few of us have been making (including myself) be more effective in retrieving lost pedigrees?

 

I think what Frank is saying, and I've been thinking the same thing: what exactly changes besides sorta bureaucratizing the process with a Committee? I've never seen CGC resistent to any pedigree correction I have raised or seen others raise.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no objections to the Committee being formed. Indeed, while I question the need I applaud the effort. If anything I think it might lead to an even more proactive approach to this problem. That would certainly be a positive impact.

 

But what would really make a difference is CGC implementing an image database of HG GA submissions (say 8.5 +) and providing them to the Committee in advance of slabbing to see if they can ascertain whether or not the book may be a pedigree copy that CGC has missed. Now I have my beliefs why CGC would not do this, but the better role for the comic book community is for a pre-slabbing role, not a post-slabbing.

 

Again, however, that is not to diminish the positive impact this Committee can have as well, but by no means would I want the existence of the Committee to enable CGC to say that individuals or non-Committee members cannot raise the same issues directly with CGC.

[tth2]

I think what Frank is saying, and I've been thinking the same thing: what exactly changes besides sorta bureaucratizing the process with a Committee? I've never seen CGC resistent to any pedigree correction I have raised or seen others raise.

Mark, maybe I'm approaching this from a different angle. In my mind, the single greatest benefit of the committee is that it formalizes a channel of communication with Steve/CGC.

 

Simply put, the current system is completely ad hoc and relies on Steve noticing a thread, or someone taking the intiative to directly notify him. Perhaps someone always does, but the point is everyone's relying on everyone else to take the initiative. Maybe that someone is always you, but periodically you go on vacation, get tied up at work, etc. Don't you see that the current ad hoc system provides Steve/CGC with a built-in excuse that he hadn't heard about the lost pedigree du jour.

 

Contrast that with a formalized channel of communication by the committee to Steve. He cannot claim that he didn't hear about a book.

 

I almost get the impression from your and Frank Daniel's posts that people think the creation of the committee means everyone else has to stop being a detective and publicly ID-ing lost pedigree books. I don't think that's the case at all, and I would not want to place that kind of burden on the committee. The committee would look for books, but everyone else would still be an "eye" too. It's just that now there would be a committee that would function as a conduit to filter/confirm identified books and convey that information to CGC to react accordingly.

[Red Hook]

I've already stated that any role I played on a committee as suggested would not stop me from continued involvement in other areas of examination.

 

Tim, your point about the formalization of a line of communication is dead on. See my long, characteristically verbose post in the "I hate when this happens" thread.

 

Bottom line is that the level of utility of the committee will quickly be shown......if it tanks, it tanks. I'm willing to risk a little time on it.

 

Brad

[Red Hook]

Interesting sidenote...... the coinees seem to have their own version of the "pressing" debate going....except it's about "artificial toning".

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Number=1360017

 

No one has ever satisfactorily answered this question that I’ve asked many times: “Why does it matter whether toning occurred over a period of 80 years in a 2x2 envelope or overnight in a petri dish if the end results are indistinguishable?” In each case the purchaser is buying exactly what he wants: a coin with pretty color.

 

 

Calling a process “coin doctoring” is a conclusion that plays on emotions without providing an answer. And it’s pointless to talk about disclosure to prospective buyers unless there’s a legitimate distinction between artificial and natural toning. Someone please tell me what it is.

[tth2]

Interesting sidenote...... the coinees seem to have their own version of the "pressing" debate going....except it's about "artificial toning".

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Number=1360017

 

No one has ever satisfactorily answered this question that I’ve asked many times: “Why does it matter whether toning occurred over a period of 80 years in a 2x2 envelope or overnight in a petri dish if the end results are indistinguishable?” In each case the purchaser is buying exactly what he wants: a coin with pretty color.

 

 

Calling a process “coin doctoring” is a conclusion that plays on emotions without providing an answer. And it’s pointless to talk about disclosure to prospective buyers unless there’s a legitimate distinction between artificial and natural toning. Someone please tell me what it is.

It's like a parallel universe! I wonder if the writer of that post is named "LearnedFoot"?