Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[garthgantu]

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.

 

Seems like it would be difficult for an unethical business to be impartial...? Or are you saying they're impartially unethical, that they apply their lack of business ethics to one and all and not just a select few?

[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.

 

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..?

 

Where did I say anyone was beholden to CGC or that anyone "owes" CGC anything if they attend a forum dinner? I know you guys can read. Go back and try to find my point amid what you're projecting onto my post.

[Straw-Man]

 

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.

 

i'm in the market, would like to own at least one of every recognized g.a. pedigree, and have put the central valley down on my list. love the books, ain't crazy about the prices [bit hi to my view]. any more info on the technicalities of 'pedirgeeing' books will just be that much more b.s. i don't need cluttering up the old bean.

[AussieRuss]

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.

 

 

(3) Why is Circle 8 missing from the recognised Pedigree list.

 

Is or is it not a recognised Pedigree anymore?

[Straw-Man]

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.

 

 

(3) Why is Circle 8 missing from the recognised Pedigree list.

 

Is or is it not a recognised Pedigree anymore?

 

i sure do have me a cgc blue label book that says "circle 8" up in the pedigee quadrant. just got it the other day, in fact.

[garthgantu]

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

 

Wouldn't they have to say "pedigree" too?

 

I still think this is a herd mentality approach... "CGC says this is the case, therefore it must be the case." Didn't we think for ourselves before CGC, and determine things like pedigrees by consensus and market acceptance?

 

Simply putting a word or two on a label and having people buy it does not equate to 'market acceptance'. If someone puts "fat free" on a product with fat in it and sells a few cases of it, that "market acceptance" (purchase of the product by consumers) does not make the product free of fat.

 

People will buy PLODs at discounted prices...but that doesn't make restored books "accepted" in the marketplace. Now, if the Central Valley books sell for as much of a premium as other, more established OO collections of similar age and etc., then THAT would be market acceptance... Any way to compare prices on books from various pedigrees in similar grades, to gauge which pedigrees are most 'respected' ?

[garthgantu]

Where did I say anyone was beholden to CGC or that anyone "owes" CGC anything if they attend a forum dinner? I know you guys can read. Go back and try to find my point amid what you're projecting onto my post.

 

You seemed to be holding up Steve's attendance of, and monetary contribution to, CGC dinners as a sign of personal altruism and love for the industry. This may be true. I simply pointed out that

- then again, it may not be true

- I'd actually prefer that Steve NOT pay for any part of the dinner beyond his own share

 

Frankly, a real company would hold focus groups with its 'end users' (not just the aggregators, distributors, and retailers) to glean information about how they perceive the product or service in question. If anything, CGC should be paying us for convening and (at least in part) pontificating on their product and business practices. But of course, that would only make sense if they actually WANTED our opinion.

[AussieRuss]

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.

 

 

(3) Why is Circle 8 missing from the recognised Pedigree list.

 

Is or is it not a recognised Pedigree anymore?

 

i sure do have me a cgc blue label book that says "circle 8" up in the pedigee quadrant. just got it the other day, in fact.

 

 

Thats great. Mile High II books have "Mile High II" up in the pedigree quadrant but they are also missing from the list.

 

Could both of these please be asked about during the next phone discussion please.

 

Thanks.

 

Russ...

[chaos_ad-migration]

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.

 

 

(3) Why is Circle 8 missing from the recognised Pedigree list.

 

Is or is it not a recognised Pedigree anymore?

 

i sure do have me a cgc blue label book that says "circle 8" up in the pedigee quadrant. just got it the other day, in fact.

 

 

Thats great. Mile High II books have "Mile High II" up in the pedigree quadrant but they are also missing from the list.

 

Could both of these please be asked about during the next phone discussion please.

 

Thanks.

 

Russ...

 

They've discussed the Mile High II thing before - it was a one time thing, for a pallet Chuck didn't know he had? I forget the details, but MH II is not a pedigree. Only those books on that pallet that were submitted have the notation.

 

Am I close, guys?

[AussieRuss]

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.

 

 

(3) Why is Circle 8 missing from the recognised Pedigree list.

 

Is or is it not a recognised Pedigree anymore?

 

i sure do have me a cgc blue label book that says "circle 8" up in the pedigee quadrant. just got it the other day, in fact.

 

 

Thats great. Mile High II books have "Mile High II" up in the pedigree quadrant but they are also missing from the list.

 

Could both of these please be asked about during the next phone discussion please.

 

Thanks.

 

Russ...

 

They've discussed the Mile High II thing before - it was a one time thing, for a pallet Chuck didn't know he had? I forget the details, but MH II is not a pedigree. Only those books on that pallet that were submitted have the notation.

 

Am I close, guys?

 

So let me get this straight. Now you are telling me that the right hand side of the slab is not just an area designated for Pedigree's. Its also an area set aside for "1 time things" like the MH2 missing pallet.

 

Maybe this and an inclusin or exclusion of the Circle 8 books should be added to the Pedigree's books & collections section of CGC web page.

[comicdonna]

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..?

Steve's is a very kind and generous guy. That's why he pays for some of the dinner. How does it reflect on CGC when he bought my daughter, wife, Paul and I lunch? It wasn't the six books I submitted earlier in the day.

[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.

 

Seems like it would be difficult for an unethical business to be impartial...? Or are you saying they're impartially unethical, that they apply their lack of business ethics to one and all and not just a select few?

 

All I am saying is, cgc does what it's supposed to and that is grade impartially. Of course they have more then a few questionable grades but majority is in the clear. Their practice is to grade comics, anything else they promote might reflect on them badly to some people but it doesn't affect what they ultimately do so I don't see the big deal.

[codfish]

OT- I like your Avatar and sig. art Sid

[Sid]

OT- I like your Avatar and sig. art Sid

 

Thank you.

 

Sonja would be my ideal woman Beautiful, curvy with a bad attitude.

[garthgantu]

So let me get this straight. Now you are telling me that the right hand side of the slab is not just an area designated for Pedigree's. Its also an area set aside for "1 time things" like the MH2 missing pallet.

 

Which is why CGC's designation of pedigrees is such a joke in the first place. NOW they have criteria for pedigrees... now that Chucky has cashed in his second lucky find of the (past) century.

 

Oh, and let us not forget "From the Dallas Stephens Collection," also noted on a sizable number of slabs thanks to Chuck's and CGC's "criteria"...

 

Again, if you want to be a monopoly, you have to remember Spidey's famous words... 'cause you're definitely going to have great power... to do things like work a side deal with Wizard for a "9.5" grade on select books.

 

Even most monopolies are smarter about squeezing the golden goose too hard and too fast... watching CGC in action you'd think they had no real plan beyond squeezing every last drop of money out of every angle that can worked against a "grading and encapsulation" play.

 

Oh, the humanity!

[ciorac]

And for the record, I do know something about the construction industry to, I am a senior executive at a GC that has been in business for over 50 years.

 

Glad to meet you, Ciorac! We have something else in common than just ‘funny books’. I have spent time in your neck of the woods. Gulfport to be exact.

 

--Mitch

 

Well I'll be darn Mitch! My company is in Gulfport! Next time you are going to be down here, shoot me a PM and we can do some comic book geeking!

[drice6900]

OT- I like your Avatar and sig. art Sid

 

Thank you.

 

Sonja would be my ideal woman Beautiful, curvy with a bad attitude.

 

Well, there are a few of those out there. How about, beautiful, curvy and deadly with a sword?

[ciorac]

Maybe their business model is moving away from impartiality and towards building lasting mutually beneficial partnerships that drive revenue sources. Not a bad idea, most companies do that. Successful ones anyway.

 

From the CGC web site:

 

"CGC is the only expert, impartial, third-party certification service."

 

Either they are impartial or they are not and according to them they are.

 

Not to be rude Old Guy, but quoting that tenet of theirs is a preposterous argument against advertising deals!!

 

So, they can't impartially grade because they allow only Matt to be a featured partner for restoration advertising? The very line you quoted states "impartial GRADING service", plain and simple. They can impartially grade AND sell featured ad space for Pete's sake.

 

The Henny Penny drama gets tiresome.

 

WTF are you talking about? You're the one that said "Maybe their business model is moving away from impartiality". Did you not say that? Now read what I posted again. Get it?

 

You sure did read a lot into my post that wasn't there. You seeing things that aren't there is what is getting tiresome. Stop creating drama where there isn't any.

 

Mr. Pot..meet Mr. Kettle...

 

Wait, are you saying you're black, I'm black, or we're both black?

 

 

Ostensibly yes...we are both black (Drama Queens)

[Sid]

OT- I like your Avatar and sig. art Sid

 

Thank you.

 

Sonja would be my ideal woman Beautiful, curvy with a bad attitude.

 

Well, there are a few of those out there. How about, beautiful, curvy and deadly with a sword?

 

Are you coming on to me?

[DeeDee-migration]

OT- I like your Avatar and sig. art Sid

 

Thank you.

 

Sonja would be my ideal woman Beautiful, curvy with a bad attitude.

 

Well, there are a few of those out there. How about, beautiful, curvy and deadly with a sword?

 

Are you coming on to me?

 

That kind of man love belongs in pms