Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[drice6900]

Getting back on subject a little, here are the results so far from the ads/endorsements poll:

 

What do you think of CGC accepting paid advertising for their website and forums?

43 responses to date:

 

Love the ads! If it keeps submittal prices down and the forums running, I like it. 21%

What ads? Don't notice, don't care. 26%

I don't like the ads, but I realize they are a necessary evil. 21%

I hate the ads, and feel they undermine CGC as an impartial 3rd party grading service. 23%

Mandatory 'crack' option here. 09%

 

Pretty much a close call across the board, with most not caring about the ads.

 

What do you think of CGC endorsing one company over another in their FAQ?

44 responses to date:

 

I think it is great! Quick consise info on a trusted provider. 09%

Who cares? Its CGC's FAQ - they can do what they want. 25%

Bad idea, unless they list more than one provider of the service. 09%

Terrible idea - it ruins the perception of CGCs impartiality. 45%

"Crack" is whack! 11%

 

Not a real surprise here: so far, most feel it is bad business by CGC to go this route.

 

Go here to vote if you haven't already: poll

[Sal]

I think it is great! Quick consise info on a trusted provider. 09%

Who cares? Its CGC's FAQ - they can do what they want. 25%

Bad idea, unless they list more than one provider of the service. 09%

Terrible idea - it ruins the perception of CGCs impartiality. 45%

"Crack" is whack! 11%

 

i would have voted for "terrible idea," but not because it had anything to do with impartiality, since it doesn't. i wish you hadn't put the reasoning in about why it's a terrible idea.

 

but it's definitely not an "impartiality" issue

[drice6900]

I think it is great! Quick consise info on a trusted provider. 09%

Who cares? Its CGC's FAQ - they can do what they want. 25%

Bad idea, unless they list more than one provider of the service. 09%

Terrible idea - it ruins the perception of CGCs impartiality. 45%

"Crack" is whack! 11%

 

i would have voted for "terrible idea," but not because it had anything to do with impartiality, since it doesn't. i wish you hadn't put the reasoning in about why it's a terrible idea.

 

but it's definitely not an "impartiality" issue

 

So feel free to respond to the poll with your reasons. I believe some people already have

[Sal]

I think it is great! Quick consise info on a trusted provider. 09%

Who cares? Its CGC's FAQ - they can do what they want. 25%

Bad idea, unless they list more than one provider of the service. 09%

Terrible idea - it ruins the perception of CGCs impartiality. 45%

"Crack" is whack! 11%

 

i would have voted for "terrible idea," but not because it had anything to do with impartiality, since it doesn't. i wish you hadn't put the reasoning in about why it's a terrible idea.

 

but it's definitely not an "impartiality" issue

 

So feel free to respond to the poll with your reasons. I believe some people already have

 

 

done, and done!

[garthgantu]

I have to leave this discussion now because I am getting infuriated by it.

 

Somehow I suspect your board sabbatical will be far shorter in duration than mine was.

[garthgantu]

He didn't say it on the boards, *spoon*. I was in charge of the tab at the last four wondercon dinners and he told ME to charge extra to his card (AFTER CGC paid separately for the appetizers) so that the tab would be less overall, and told ME that I didn't need to collect from forumites X, Y, and Z because he was covering their entire charge in some cases, and parts of their charges in others. He also mentioned in the context of a different discussion on a different occasion (and you know, I probably shouldn't have shared it with you) that he does not get reimbursed for stuff like that and that it bothers him to have people question his ethics or love for the hobby.

 

Sorry to beat this dead horse even further, but I was at one of those dinners and DO recall Steve making a public declaration more than once, to you and I believe to the waiter, that he wanted to contribute above and beyond the designated amount; in that instance it was specifically covering the appetizers.

 

And to reiterate, I'm not questioning Steve's ethics or love for the hobby. I'm simply pointing out that this kind of 'gesture' DOES reflect on him and CGC, whether he, or you believe it. I'm a corporate communications exec of 20 years; I spend a lot of time thinking about how a company's (or any of it's public figures') actions reflect on the company. Even if he only told you about his generosity, it would affect your opinion. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's the case.

[nearmint]

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

 

 

For the record, here is what Steve said about the Central Valley on these boards.....it is the only time the collection was discussed by anyone at CGC, on these boards......

 

As to the newest pedigree collection, the Central Valley collection: Many of these comics, in my opinion, will never be surpassed as the highest graded copy. [as of Dec. 16, 2006, of the over 350 Central Valley books that have been CGC graded, only 24 books have received grades that make them or tie them with the previous highest graded copies.]

 

If anyone here finds an OO collection of about 400 different books from 1938 to the early 50's of very tough books to find in high grade (which many are), let alone unbelievable page quality, we would be more than happy to pedigree it.

 

So what you see here, is a definite loosening of the rules of the generally accepted parameters for pedigree designation. At the same time that CGC states they are going to get tougher on labeling pedigrees and accepting dealer documentation on peds, this seems a definite liberalization of the standards as long as CGC gets to do the declaring. I have problems with this, as a collector interested in pedigrees.

 

In an effort to expand the discussion, and that's all that I want to do, I will be posting links to scans of the great pedigree article that appeared in CBM #32. Unless Gemstone forbids me, of course.

 

Red

 

Personally, I'm willing to accept a loosening of the rules if it helps maintain the provenance of a beautiful group of books. 10-15 years ago, a dealer named Joe Rainone brought to market a Nedor collection owned by Charles Strong, an editor for Nedor, who kept a single copy of every book he edited. The books were literally newsstand fresh, just amazing copies. They were sold mostly through CBG ads. Nedors were pretty much under the radar at the time, and frankly, only the rabid Schomburg collectors who realized that he'd worked for someone other than Timely, took notice. Unfortunately, there were no articles about the discovery of the collection, no paperwork(certificates of authenticity, etc.) sent along with the books when sold.

 

I have no idea how large the collection was, but the books were undoubtedly pedigree quality. As an example, I think I paid about $250 for the Fighting Yank #5...

 

 

One of the two 9.4 copies of Startling #49 in the census is the Charles Strong copy. When I sent the Charles Strong Exciting #30 to CGC, Steve called me to talk about the book because he thought it was Mile High quality. The Charles Strong Thrilling #33 is the highest graded copy of a Gerber no-show.

 

I'm sure many books from this collection have changed hands several times over the last 10+ years, and their original provenance has been lost. I look at some Nedors, like my America's Best #6, and believe it to be a Strong copy, but I have no way of knowing for sure. In fact, I've never seen a book advertised as the Charles Strong copy since Joe Rainone's original sale of the books. I would much prefer that CGC label such a collection as a pedigree up front, rather than risk any loss of provenance. The only alternative I can see is to label the books as a collection, but then what happens when the market eventually accepts the collection as a pedigree? Everyone sends their books back in for a label change?

 

What it comes down to for me is this...if I had to pick a three person committee that would determine whether a collection should be designated a pedigree, I'd be hard-pressed to find a better trio than Steve, West, & Mark.

[garthgantu]

I agree with your comments, and the sentiment behind them - some pretty nasty stuff here tonight. Someone needs to take another break from the boards if they can't contain their, well, I don't even really know what to call it??

 

Allow me to paraphrase a remark you once made to me: If you don't like what you're reading, you don't have to read it. I think the "someone" who needs a break from the boards might be you.

 

I've taken my break, and am re-energized to engage with you and anyone else on these boards. I'll call a spade a spade, which I know displeases you.

 

And I'm used to being "teamed up against" on these boards, so live it up - I'm in PR, I have no feelings

[garthgantu]

Something to remember is that the most vicious bashing I've ever seen of CGC has been at forum dinners. The Philly dinner a couple of years ago was very tense about the whole Wizard First fiasco, and last year's Chicago dinner was, at the end of the evening, very unpleasant, as two people who I like and respect really got into it.

 

Good info, Donut... maybe what we're doing here is getting that "bashing" and other unpleasantness out of the way so the dinner can be more upbeat...?

[Red Hook]

What it comes down to for me is this...if I had to pick a three person committee that would determine whether a collection should be designated a pedigree, I'd be hard-pressed to find a better trio than Steve, West, & Mark.

 

Jeff, your concerns about provenance would easily be solved by labeling Central Valley a collection. The books get a label and the books get tracked. At least until someone tries to further potentialize the books and the pedigree/collection designation gets laundered.

 

I think that if CGC wants to be the authority on pedigree designation, then they owe the collecting public a detailed explanation of why a particular group of books is to be deemed as such. And that explanation should jive totally with their published criteria.

 

You know..they'd open up their decision making process, not because they have to, ..but for the love of the hobby. I'd love to see CGC invite a dozen or more top collectors in to advise on the important job of pedigree designation. I would love to hear what guys like Jon Berk, you and other serious longtime golden age collectors and dealers have to say about collections like this.

 

Anyway, I'm done too on this. Movin' on.

[garthgantu]

Red Hook:

 

Somewhere, someone in the marketing department at CGC is already up in arms about that published list of pedigree criteria... why disclose specifics when you don't have to? It simply creates the potential for painting yourself into a corner, as in the Central Valley case.

 

I applaud CGC for attempting to build a list. I get the feeling that the list itself is pretty solid. (I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on pedigrees; I find them fascinating but beyond my modest financial means and demanding from a time/research standpoint.) But to create such a "guideline" and then not follow it to the letter is doing your business, and your customers, a disservice.

[Silver Surfer]

I'm going back to the GA section because these threads can feel like going to the dentist at times.

[MasterChief]

He didn't say it on the boards, *spoon*. I was in charge of the tab at the last four wondercon dinners and he told ME to charge extra to his card (AFTER CGC paid separately for the appetizers) so that the tab would be less overall, and told ME that I didn't need to collect from forumites X, Y, and Z because he was covering their entire charge in some cases, and parts of their charges in others. He also mentioned in the context of a different discussion on a different occasion (and you know, I probably shouldn't have shared it with you) that he does not get reimbursed for stuff like that and that it bothers him to have people question his ethics or love for the hobby.

 

Sorry to beat this dead horse even further, but I was at one of those dinners and DO recall Steve making a public declaration more than once, to you and I believe to the waiter, that he wanted to contribute above and beyond the designated amount; in that instance it was specifically covering the appetizers.

 

And to reiterate, I'm not questioning Steve's ethics or love for the hobby. I'm simply pointing out that this kind of 'gesture' DOES reflect on him and CGC, whether he, or you believe it. I'm a corporate communications exec of 20 years; I spend a lot of time thinking about how a company's (or any of it's public figures') actions reflect on the company. Even if he only told you about his generosity, it would affect your opinion. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's the case.

 

I have rationalized that some are unknowingly biased toward issue of integrity and impartiality with regard to the perceptions thereof. Their self-admitted personal relationships with parties that claim adherence to such ethical terms has compromised the ability to stand back and think critically and objectively at how certain behavior can be perceived as inappropriate -- particularly in situations that seem outwardly harmless.

[drbanner]

I've taken my break, and am re-energized to engage with you and anyone else on these boards. I'll call a spade a spade, which I know displeases you.

 

And I'm used to being "teamed up against" on these boards, so live it up - I'm in PR, I have no feelings.

It looks to me that the only one who thinks you're calling a spade a spade is you, everyone else here thinks it's something a bit different. As you're in PR, you're probably pretty good at calling a anything you want a spade, all the while really believing it's a spade since that's what you said it was.

[burntboy]

[quote

I don't know what to say, Garth. You seem to have a completely different view of what forum dinners are all about. As far as I'm aware (and I've been to a half dozen of them), they're just a great excuse for people in the hobby to get together, eat some food, drink some booze, and spend some time together talking about comics (or other stuff). I have yet to sense any kind of sinister corporate purpose at any of them. And I know for a fact that Steve has dug into his own pocket (unreimbursed) to help defray costs for forum members (and these are forum members who don't even submit books) who couldn't afford to attend the dinner if they had to pay full price. If you want to find some ulterior motive in that, I suppose that's your right. But it's a crappy thing to do.

 

finally, one of Scott's opinions that i can wholeheartily endorse ................Forum dinners are for meeting folks and geeking over comic books/related topics..........and doing so with a nice meal and a few drinks is just so much the better..............

[garthgantu]

It looks to me that the only one who thinks you're calling a spade a spade is you, everyone else here thinks it's something a bit different. As you're in PR, you're probably pretty good at calling a anything you want a spade, all the while really believing it's a spade since that's what you said it was.

 

Au contraire, mon frere... I've received PMs from several other board members who applaud my recent posts to this thread. They just choose not to make their sentiments known on the board. I suspect they make this choice so as not to incure the wrath of other board members like yourself.

 

I never said Steve was a bad person, I never questioned his personal motives for his actions. I simply pointed out that his actions create or affect perceptions among us.

 

And while I'm rabidly protective of my clients, I'd like to believe that I bring an objective viewpoint to these boards. Sorry you disagree.

[Architecht]

A general response to the thread:

 

This thread is getting a little over the top. Please use reasonable judgement and follow the board posting guidelines. You may refer to the detailed descriptions I've given in the past to help people decide what is acceptable constructive criticism and what is just accusatory and attacking. Please bear in mind that your behavior on these boards with respect to those guidelines will affect your ability to post here.

 

I know that some of these topics are hard to discuss dispassionately and therefore without hyperbole. Some of you may need to try a little harder.

 

Thanks.

Arch

[garthgantu]

Just checking: Is your post directed to me? Just curious. If the answer is yes, I'd sincerely appreciate you bringing to my attention the comments I posted that are considered inflammatory or inappropriate. With 3,000 posts to my credit, I've never had my hand slapped before...?

 

On a related note, which hopefully brings the original point of this thread back into focus, who from the Liason Committee will be attending the WonderCon dinner, and are there any plans to pose any of the questions that have been submitted to the Committee or discussed by the Committee to Steve B's attention at the dinner?

 

I realize the dinner is supposed to be a love-fest for the most part, but it does seem like an excellent opportunity to get responses from Steve to some outstanding questions...? It also seems like such a dialogue at the dinner would evoke more spontaneous answers than submitting those questions in writing might.

[Foolkiller]

Just checking: Is your post directed to me? Just curious. If the answer is yes, I'd sincerely appreciate you bringing to my attention the comments I posted that are considered inflammatory or inappropriate. With 3,000 posts to my credit, I've never had my hand slapped before...?

 

On a related note, which hopefully brings the original point of this thread back into focus, who from the Liason Committee will be attending the WonderCon dinner, and are there any plans to pose any of the questions that have been submitted to the Committee or discussed by the Committee to Steve B's attention at the dinner?

 

I realize the dinner is supposed to be a love-fest for the most part, but it does seem like an excellent opportunity to get responses from Steve to some outstanding questions...? It also seems like such a dialogue at the dinner would evoke more spontaneous answers than submitting those questions in writing might.

 

Garth:

 

The answer is I will be talking to Steve, and sending him an email to set up a time for today or tomorrow. Also, Scott will be at the dinner. And I will be seeing Steve in New York on Feb 23.

[Architecht]

It was a general reply to the thread.