Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[garthgantu]

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.

 

Cool... looking forward to what comes of those interactions with Steve!

[divad]

reasonable judgement

 

judgment hey, I'm in the business . . .

[garthgantu]

reasonable judgement

 

judgment hey, I'm in the business . . .

 

Yow - if you go around correcting misspellings on these boards, you're not only in the business, you've got a full-time job right HEAR !

[FFB]

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.

 

If I want to get answers from Steve, I can get them on the phone. I will not be bringing a list of questions to the forum dinner. I know you've been to exactly one forum dinner, and my recollection was that while all of the other collectors were chatting and getting to know each other, you spent the entire meal arguing with Steve for several hours. It's cool if you want to ask Steve questions, but you could just as easily do that on the convention floor during the day and it would probably be better for all involved if you let the forum dinner remain a good time among friends. If you have other ideas, try to respect the fact that your agenda may not be the reason that other people are coming to the dinner. I don't want to stifle your "free speech," but I also don't want you to create discomfort among the other dinner attendees by taking on an adversarial attitude at what is supposed to be a fun event.

[DeeDee-migration]

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.

 

If I want to get answers from Steve, I can get them on the phone. I will not be bringing a list of questions to the forum dinner. I know you've been to exactly one forum dinner, and my recollection was that while all of the other collectors were chatting and getting to know each other, you spent the entire meal arguing with Steve for several hours. It's cool if you want to ask Steve questions, but you could just as easily do that on the convention floor during the day and it would probably be better for all involved if you let the forum dinner remain a good time among friends. If you have other ideas, try to respect the fact that your agenda may not be the reason that other people are coming to the dinner. I don't want to stifle your "free speech," but I also don't want you to create discomfort among the other dinner attendees by taking on an adversarial attitude at what is supposed to be a fun event.

 

If things get ugly at the forum dinner, I'm going to the strip club across the street

[kc120us]

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.

 

If I want to get answers from Steve, I can get them on the phone. I will not be bringing a list of questions to the forum dinner. I know you've been to exactly one forum dinner, and my recollection was that while all of the other collectors were chatting and getting to know each other, you spent the entire meal arguing with Steve for several hours. It's cool if you want to ask Steve questions, but you could just as easily do that on the convention floor during the day and it would probably be better for all involved if you let the forum dinner remain a good time among friends. If you have other ideas, try to respect the fact that your agenda may not be the reason that other people are coming to the dinner. I don't want to stifle your "free speech," but I also don't want you to create discomfort among the other dinner attendees by taking on an adversarial attitude at what is supposed to be a fun event.

 

If things get ugly at the forum dinner, I'm going to the strip club across the street

 

 

[drice6900]

If things get ugly at the forum dinner, I'm going to the strip club across the street

 

[Ze-man]

You guys will be lucky to get through the formal introduction segment of the evening before your dinner arrives, let alone have a panel discussion tackling serious issues. Not to mention what a buzzkill it would be.

 

Stick around after the dinner is well over, hash out the serious matters over cigars and brandy by the fire. By Monday it will just be one fuzzy memory among many and you can get back to whatever it is you feel still needs discussing

 

 

Ze-

[FFB]

You guys will be lucky to get through the formal introduction segment of the evening before your dinner arrives, let alone have a panel discussion tackling serious issues. Not to mention what a buzzkill it would be.

 

Stick around after the dinner is well over, hash out the serious matters over cigars and brandy by the fire. By Monday it will just be one fuzzy memory among many and you can get back to whatever it is you feel still needs discussing

 

 

Ze-

 

[esquirecomics]

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

44 responses to date:

 

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

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

 

Looks like a consensus to me.

[FlyingDonut]

Again - 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.

[Red Hook]

We heard.

[Ze-man]

We heard.

 

Why youooo...

 

 

[Straw-Man]

reasonable judgement

 

judgment hey, I'm in the business . . .

 

Yow - if you go around correcting misspellings on these boards, you're not only in the business, you've got a full-time job right HEAR !

 

i generally don't agree with your posts on this thread, but love the cents of humor.

[MasterChief]

Overall, I found it to be a reasonable debate on ‘perception’ and I appreciate the essence thereof. Sure hate to see that type of dialog censured -- in any form.

 

Well, I suppose I spoke too soon...

 

There was censure of several posts from the recent discussion. Those deleted, however, may not have been the ones expected to be, and it appears the author of such copy has been given a strike...

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

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.

 

So, given the information above, why was Mark Haspel's response to whether the Cape Cod books are pedigree worthy the following:

 

"CGC currently does not recognize it as a pedigree, although I feel that the collection is overall a superb group of original owner comics."

 

If there are nearly 900 OO high grade Golden Age books in the collection (and the "ND" thread is littered with 8.5-9.4 examples), why is this collection getting ignored while a much smaller collection (like the Central Valley) qualifies as a pedigree?

[nearmint]

I wouldn't give up on the ND books. I think, as you've mentioned in the past, that the absence of a complete list is a roadblock. No one really knows the breadth of the collection, what keys are present, etc. Have you had any luck getting ahold of that list?

[esquirecomics]

This debate concerns perceived corporate favoritism towards a particular dealer/person. I say "perceived corporate" because this is the view that is conveyed to the general public but I truly doubt this is CGC's corporate position. Instead it reflects - and I know this to be true by first hand knowledge - the personal feelings of certain CGC employees. That personal feeling should be expressed privately in e-mails or phone conversations but not on the CGC website.

 

I want to modify my position somewhat based on a conversation I had this weekend as it would only be fair and appropriate.

 

I should have clarified my view as to whether this is a personal or professional decision to promote Matt Nelson so brazenly. I do truly perceive that there is a strong personal undertone driving this position. If certain CGC staff did not have the personal relationship with Matt that they do I do doubt CGC would take such a public stand on promoting his business. I would be interested to know whether the decision was cleared in advance with the higher-ups who have no personal connections with the comic community.

 

However, clearly there is also a business reason for this plug. I can only presume CGC would want people to crack, if required, and press the books so that they are resubmitted to CGC or to have raw books pressed and submitted for high grades to achieve high noteworthy sales. The same can be said about promoting restoration in general. In both instances CGC's business model would financially benefit. On that level the decision is certainly understandable.

 

Nevertheless, whether business or personal driven, or a little bit of both, I view it as a poor public relations decision that should be reversed.

[bluechip]

This debate concerns perceived corporate favoritism towards a particular dealer/person. I say "perceived corporate" because this is the view that is conveyed to the general public but I truly doubt this is CGC's corporate position. Instead it reflects - and I know this to be true by first hand knowledge - the personal feelings of certain CGC employees. That personal feeling should be expressed privately in e-mails or phone conversations but not on the CGC website.

 

I want to modify my position somewhat based on a conversation I had this weekend as it would only be fair and appropriate.

 

I should have clarified my view as to whether this is a personal or professional decision to promote Matt Nelson so brazenly. I do truly perceive that there is a strong personal undertone driving this position. If certain CGC staff did not have the personal relationship with Matt that they do I do doubt CGC would take such a public stand on promoting his business. I would be interested to know whether the decision was cleared in advance with the higher-ups who have no personal connections with the comic community.

 

However, clearly there is also a business reason for this plug. I can only presume CGC would want people to crack, if required, and press the books so that they are resubmitted to CGC or to have raw books pressed and submitted for high grades to achieve high noteworthy sales. The same can be said about promoting restoration in general. In both instances CGC's business model would financially benefit. On that level the decision is certainly understandable.

 

Nevertheless, whether business or personal driven, or a little bit of both, I view it as a poor public relations decision that should be reversed.

 

 

From the way CGC was formed to "root out" restoration and from the way they label all restored books with a mark of cain and ambiguous labels, and from the way they advertise the service of slabbing brand new 9.8 books, and from the way they tout the finding and slabbing of high grade modern books, I would say their business model has been to do anything but promote restoration. The numer of books worth restoring is limited, compared to the unlimited number of brand new books which can be slabbed. So it seems highly unlikely they are promoting restoration. If anything they are recognizing it and dealing with it, and not even as much as they should have in the first place. But the other points -- that they would oromnote a restoration process and not call it restoration, or that they would unfairly favor one person's restoration work over another -- are points worth considering. . (and no slam to Matt Nelson)

[Flaming_Telepath]

This debate concerns perceived corporate favoritism towards a particular dealer/person. I say "perceived corporate" because this is the view that is conveyed to the general public but I truly doubt this is CGC's corporate position. Instead it reflects - and I know this to be true by first hand knowledge - the personal feelings of certain CGC employees. That personal feeling should be expressed privately in e-mails or phone conversations but not on the CGC website.

 

I want to modify my position somewhat based on a conversation I had this weekend as it would only be fair and appropriate.

 

I should have clarified my view as to whether this is a personal or professional decision to promote Matt Nelson so brazenly. I do truly perceive that there is a strong personal undertone driving this position. If certain CGC staff did not have the personal relationship with Matt that they do I do doubt CGC would take such a public stand on promoting his business. I would be interested to know whether the decision was cleared in advance with the higher-ups who have no personal connections with the comic community.

 

However, clearly there is also a business reason for this plug. I can only presume CGC would want people to crack, if required, and press the books so that they are resubmitted to CGC or to have raw books pressed and submitted for high grades to achieve high noteworthy sales. The same can be said about promoting restoration in general. In both instances CGC's business model would financially benefit. On that level the decision is certainly understandable.

 

Nevertheless, whether business or personal driven, or a little bit of both, I view it as a poor public relations decision that should be reversed.

 

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not in black-and-white somewhere that Jim Halperin strongly encouraged Matt to relocate to Texas to make the most of the 'opportunities' that would come his way?