Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[FFB]

 

Anyone who has ever stayed up with Steve Borock until 2 in the morning after a forum dinner knows that he's not there just to promote the company. He's there until the wee hours because he loves the hobby and enjoys spending time with his friends.

 

That may be well and true, but that's exactly the kind of altruistic overused chestnut I was referring to earlier. It's irrelevant to a discussion of CGC's practices. Steve's a businessman first and foremost and his role as CGC head trumps everything else. Not criticising, just describing.

 

I don't want this to become an analysis of Steve. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about CGC and their business model. Hosting dinners is essentially part of CGC's promotional program.

 

Then explain to me why Steve pays a chunk of those dinners out of his own pocket, oftentimes going unreimbursed by CGC? It seems to me that you're extrapolating here (as you've also done recently with the "history of the hobby's opinions on what is a pedigree") without really knowing what the facts are. Of course, knowing that makes your cynicism much more understandable.

[FFB]

 

What you call "buzz" I call "seemingly endless caterwauling." I think you overestimate the benefit CGC gets from these boards, particularly when balanced against the headaches caused by all of the griping.

 

That sucking sound you hear is Scott attempting to ingratiate himself to the powers that be once again.

 

And if you see the Liaison Committee as the equivalent of a three-headed press secretary for CGC, I suspect you're in the minority.

 

No, the sucking sound you hear is you attempting to ingratiate yourself to the griping contingent on the boards by (once again) hoisting the "Who do you think you're fooling, CGC?" banner. I don't need to ingratiate myself to CGC because I don't need anything from CGC. I just think it's a pretty lousy thing to do to mischaracterize Steve's generosity at forum dinners as a no-cost, company-mandated exercise for him based solely on your mistaken assumption that he's getting reimbursed 100% by CGC. And coming from someone who has happily accepted his generosity in that regard (on multiple occasions, I believe), I think it shows a remarkable lack of class for you to do it.

[Red Hook]

Central Valley still isn't a pedigree.

[FFB]

Central Valley still isn't a pedigree.

Sure it is. CGC said so, and the people who are actually buying the books seem to agree. Those who put their money where their mouths are typically prevail over those who complain from the sidelines.

[MutantKeys]

The love on these boards

[Red Hook]

No, the sucking sound you hear is you attempting to ingratiate yourself to the griping contingent on the boards by (once again) hoisting the "Who do you think you're fooling, CGC?" banner. I don't need to ingratiate myself to CGC because I don't need anything from CGC. I just think it's a pretty lousy thing to do to mischaracterize Steve's generosity at forum dinners as a no-cost, company-mandated exercise for him based solely on your mistaken assumption that he's getting reimbursed 100% by CGC. And coming from someone who has happily accepted his generosity in that regard (on multiple occasions, I believe), I think it shows a remarkable lack of class for you to do it.

 

I think you've packed in quite a few more CGC dinners than I have.

 

I go to the dinners to hang with my fellow collectors. I pay whatever the going rate is. Are you saying that I should skew my belief system because someone bought me a beer?

[Red Hook]

Central Valley still isn't a pedigree.

Sure it is. CGC said so, and the people who are actually buying the books seem to agree. Those who put their money where their mouths are typically prevail over those who complain from the sidelines.

 

Nope it's not. It falls far short of CGC's own just-updated criteria.

 

[drice6900]

The love on these boards

 

They make the perfect couple, don't they?

[FlyingDonut]

Central Valley still isn't a pedigree.

Sure it is. CGC said so, and the people who are actually buying the books seem to agree. Those who put their money where their mouths are typically prevail over those who complain from the sidelines.

 

Nope it's not. It falls far short of CGC's own just-updated criteria.

 

Do the "Central Valley" books that have been slabbed say "Central Valley" on them? If they do, then its a pedigree.

[DeeDee-migration]

The love on these boards

 

[FFB]

No, the sucking sound you hear is you attempting to ingratiate yourself to the griping contingent on the boards by (once again) hoisting the "Who do you think you're fooling, CGC?" banner. I don't need to ingratiate myself to CGC because I don't need anything from CGC. I just think it's a pretty lousy thing to do to mischaracterize Steve's generosity at forum dinners as a no-cost, company-mandated exercise for him based solely on your mistaken assumption that he's getting reimbursed 100% by CGC. And coming from someone who has happily accepted his generosity in that regard (on multiple occasions, I believe), I think it shows a remarkable lack of class for you to do it.

 

I think you've packed in quite a few more CGC dinners than I have.

 

I go to the dinners to hang with my fellow collectors. I pay whatever the going rate is. Are you saying that I should skew my belief system because someone bought me a beer?

 

I'm sure that's not what I said, but don't let that stop you!

[FFB]

Central Valley still isn't a pedigree.

Sure it is. CGC said so, and the people who are actually buying the books seem to agree. Those who put their money where their mouths are typically prevail over those who complain from the sidelines.

 

Nope it's not. It falls far short of CGC's own just-updated criteria.

 

 

How do you know the books didn't all come from a single source, original owner? The similarities in page quality and color preservation suggest that you're wrong about that.

 

And the books are high grade. They may not all be 9.0s or better (several of them are 9.0 or better, but some of the books have issues), but that's true of virtually every "pedigree" collection. And then there's the page quality and color preservation, which rivals or exceeds the Church pedigree in most cases.

 

Also, the books in the collection are not easily found in high grade. It may not be the Church pedigree in terms of breadth or the Allentown in terms of ultra-keys being present, but it definitely has some best-known copies of some books that people cannot find in high grade otherwise. While the lack of breadth would militate against CGC recognizing the collection as a pedigree if CGC were to follow its own criteria with iron-like rigidity, clearly the other factors outweighed the lack of breadth as a single factor, and the people who have actually seen the books in person (i.e., not you) seem to think it is a very special collection and generally do not dispute the fact that there is value in keeping the provenance of these books intact and easily researchable. I believe that we refer to that as "market acceptance" -- and beyond you and a few other people like you who have no interest or intention of actually purchasing the books, no one else has gotten up in arms over the recognition of the books as a pedigree.

 

And yet the griping continues.

[mica]

The love on these boards

It's either this or rob Mick Jagger

[EvilAsh]

The love on these boards

It's either this or rob Mick Jagger

I think "The Knights of Prosperity" is a fun show so far

[Red Hook]

 

How do you know the books didn't all come from a single source, original owner? The similarities in page quality and color preservation suggest that you're wrong about that.

I think the burden of proof lies with the party claiming that they were. Someone claiming that the books come from a single source needs to show some proof. None has been provided. Zero.

 

 

And the books are high grade. They may not all be 9.0s or better (several of them are 9.0 or better, but some of the books have issues), but that's true of virtually every "pedigree" collection. And then there's the page quality and color preservation, which rivals or exceeds the Church pedigree in most cases.

 

In his only statement about the collection's qualifications (one, uno, 1), Steve stated that he •was sure the majority of these books would yield census toppers. He was wrong. I believe about 8% of them fall into that category. It's on Nelson's site.

 

Also, the books in the collection are not easily found in high grade. It may not be the Church pedigree in terms of breadth or the Allentown in terms of ultra-keys being present, but it definitely has some best-known copies of some books that people cannot find in high grade otherwise. While the lack of breadth would militate against CGC recognizing the collection as a pedigree if CGC were to follow its own criteria with iron-like rigidity, clearly the other factors outweighed the lack of breadth as a single factor, and the people who have actually seen the books in person (i.e., not you) seem to think it is a very special collection and generally do not dispute the fact that there is value in keeping the provenance of these books intact and easily researchable. I believe that we refer to that as "market acceptance" -- and beyond you and a few other people like you who have no interest or intention of actually purchasing the books, no one else has gotten up in arms over the recognition of the books as a pedigree.

 

Note:

 

• I do expect CGC to follow their own criteria with iron-like rigidity.

 

• I do think it's probably a very nice collection, it's just not a pedigree.

 

• I think that most people buying the books don't care whether it's a pedigree or (more accurately described) a collection.

 

Scott, you argument that I should stfu because I may or may not personally be laying down coin for Central Valley is irrelevant. It's also attacking the person, not the points of the debate.

 

My concern is for the broader long-range ramifications for pedigree / collection designation and status. This particular case will effect the observed "specialness" of all current and future pedigrees.

 

This is not just an isolated case. It's the beginning of a softening and muddling of the more accepted parameters of pedigrees and collections. The whole rollout was way too smooth, and I think cheapens the concept of pedigrees.

 

Finally, no one involved in the actual decision to declare this a pedigree has stepped forward and explained in detail why these books should be considered a pedigree. I would love to hear from Mark Haspel. If CGC wants the collecting community to accept this as a pedigree, they should do more than just slap a label on it and ship it out the door.

[FFB]

 

How do you know the books didn't all come from a single source, original owner? The similarities in page quality and color preservation suggest that you're wrong about that.

I think the burden of proof lies with the party claiming that they were. Someone claiming that the books come from a single source needs to show some proof. None has been provided. Zero.

 

 

Other than the fact that the books are 50 years old or more and exhibit similar and highly unusual preservation characteristics that suggest that they were stored together for all of their existence. I mentioned this (which I consider to be pretty conclusive evidence) before, but apparently you need a letter from Epstein's mother?

 

And the books are high grade. They may not all be 9.0s or better (several of them are 9.0 or better, but some of the books have issues), but that's true of virtually every "pedigree" collection. And then there's the page quality and color preservation, which rivals or exceeds the Church pedigree in most cases.

 

In his only statement about the collection's qualifications (one, uno, 1), Steve stated that he •was sure the majority of these books would yield census toppers. He was wrong. I believe about 8% of them fall into that category. It's on Nelson's site.

 

Also, the books in the collection are not easily found in high grade. It may not be the Church pedigree in terms of breadth or the Allentown in terms of ultra-keys being present, but it definitely has some best-known copies of some books that people cannot find in high grade otherwise. While the lack of breadth would militate against CGC recognizing the collection as a pedigree if CGC were to follow its own criteria with iron-like rigidity, clearly the other factors outweighed the lack of breadth as a single factor, and the people who have actually seen the books in person (i.e., not you) seem to think it is a very special collection and generally do not dispute the fact that there is value in keeping the provenance of these books intact and easily researchable. I believe that we refer to that as "market acceptance" -- and beyond you and a few other people like you who have no interest or intention of actually purchasing the books, no one else has gotten up in arms over the recognition of the books as a pedigree.

 

Note:

 

• I do expect CGC to follow their own criteria with iron-like rigidity.

 

• I do think it's probably a very nice collection, it's just not a pedigree.

 

• I think that most people buying the books don't care whether it's a pedigree or (more accurately described) a collection.

 

Scott, you argument that I should stfu because I may or may not personally be laying down coin for Central Valley is irrelevant. It's also attacking the person, not the points of the debate.

 

Actually, it's completely relevant to the issue of market acceptance, which you omitted from your discussion. You and a few others who aren't even in the market for books like that don't accept it as a pedigree. Those people actually buying the books do, as a general matter (I say that because I only know what I've read and heard from those who I know have bought some of the books). Their opinion carries more weight on the market acceptance issue because they are in the market, and you're not. (And market acceptance, if you've read the CBM 32 article that you have referenced on several occasions as authoritative, is a key factor in a pedigree collecting continuing to be regarded as such over the long term.) You can complain all you want about this definition and that definition and watering down pedigrees and ad infinitum. But if, at the end of the day, those who are buying the books consider them special and worthy of being denoted as part of a particular collection, all the complaining in the world by a couple guys with no skin in the game isn't going to change that. You may as well argue that CGC shouldn't exist, for all the good it is going to do you.

 

My concern is for the broader long-range ramifications for pedigree / collection designation and status. This particular case will effect the observed "specialness" of all current and future pedigrees.

 

This is not just an isolated case. It's the beginning of a softening and muddling of the more accepted parameters of pedigrees and collections. The whole rollout was way too smooth, and I think cheapens the concept of pedigrees.

 

Finally, no one involved in the actual decision to declare this a pedigree has stepped forward and explained in detail why these books should be considered a pedigree. I would love to hear from Mark Haspel. If CGC wants the collecting community to accept this as a pedigree, they should do more than just slap a label on it and ship it out the door.

 

Good idea. Maybe someone on the liaison committee will call and set up some time to ask him.

 

And for the record, I believe Steve Borock himself weighed in on the issue of why CGC considers it a pedigree.

[Sid]

I think a lot of people seem to be underestimating the pull cgc has on the hobby now. And because of this pull, in my opinion, it IS unethical of them to recommend a service. However, I don't think this puts their impartiality in any sort of jeopardy.

 

The community relationship they've kept is far more then I expected out of a company and the fact that Borock actually participates in the discussions is a credit to the buisness. I have no complaints about what they do on their website, every buisness in some form or other provides this or should provide it.

 

I read the contractor comment some posts above, so referencing to that, if a 3rd party judge can see Buisness 1 does better job then Buisness 2, I would prefer he let me know. And most everyone who can claw their way to cgc website and look up faq and consider restoration, in my opinion, knows enough to not let this sway their opinion on who to pick to get their books restored.

[MasterChief]

While the lack of breadth would militate against CGC recognizing the collection as a pedigree if CGC were to follow its own criteria with iron-like rigidity, clearly the other factors outweighed the lack of breadth as a single factor...

 

What's the sense in creating and implementing acceptance criteria if it's not going to be adhered to?

 

If a criterion standard is in place, it must be followed to the letter. There can be no exception. If there are, whether the exception(s) exceed or fall short of the acceptance level, then the process is invalid.

 

If you guys have the time, I'm curious to know:

 

(1) Have the four criteria areas been weighted. If so, what are the assigned values.

(2) How is the original owner criteria validated.

[garthgantu]

No, the sucking sound you hear is you attempting to ingratiate yourself to the griping contingent on the boards by (once again) hoisting the "Who do you think you're fooling, CGC?" banner. I don't need to ingratiate myself to CGC because I don't need anything from CGC. I just think it's a pretty lousy thing to do to mischaracterize Steve's generosity at forum dinners as a no-cost, company-mandated exercise for him based solely on your mistaken assumption that he's getting reimbursed 100% by CGC. And coming from someone who has happily accepted his generosity in that regard (on multiple occasions, I believe), I think it shows a remarkable lack of class for you to do it.

 

Is there a way for me to NOT accept that generosity from CGC at the upcoming dinner? Not a reflection on Steve at all; I just don't want to be beholden to CGC in any way, shape or form. Especially if you're going to hold that generosity up as some sort of reason for me or others to not voice our opinions as vociferously as we feel we should.

 

Further, to say that Steve has no ulterior motive in helping pay for those dinners is to assume you know what he's thinking. Even on a subconcious level, such generosity often has some self-serving rationale behind it, I find.

 

I guess my real point is that nothing Steve does at these dinners is 'outside of CGC business' at least in terms of customer relations. His gesture of paying for some of the dinner, even out of his own pocket, still reflects on him and CGC. In that sense, it affects our perception of him and CGC, and I prefer to have my perceptions unaltered - in this respect.

 

But to NOT accept Steve's generosity is probably even more ungracious, if it's even possible... passing you another $40 for my portion of the tab would do it..?

[FFB]

While the lack of breadth would militate against CGC recognizing the collection as a pedigree if CGC were to follow its own criteria with iron-like rigidity, clearly the other factors outweighed the lack of breadth as a single factor...

 

What's the sense in creating and implementing acceptance criteria if it's not going to be adhered to?

 

If a criterion standard is in place, it must be followed to the letter. There can be no exception. If there are, whether the exception(s) exceed or fall short of the acceptance level, then the process is invalid.

 

You could say all of those same things about the Overstreet Grading Guide or any other standard where a subjective decision is made under an overlay of supposedly objective criteria. Where is it written in the laws of the universe that guidelines have to be followed to the letter in every case, with no exceptions? Especially when it comes to the company that wrote down the guidelines in the first place being the decision maker?