Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[tth2]

So is CGC just "selling ad space" then? Is that what you're saying?

It's a space. Where an ad is. People pay to get their ad posted in that space. What possible conclusion is there other than "CGC is selling ad space"?

[tth2]

And I would be shocked were CGC to deny either Susan or Tracey any ad space were they were willing to pay for it as that would simply invoke a wave of justifiable criticism.

Why? TV networks, magazines and newspapers deny certain people or companies the right to advertise in their particular venues all the time, sometimes for controversial reasons, other times for completely mundane reasons.

[tth2]

When did people start using pizzas as a way to describe flatness?

[MasterChief]

The issue in question, which is what FK addressed with Steve B. in an earlier post, was the recommendation of Matt's business in a non-advertisement format.

 

Perhaps to you, my disclosing friend. But I see more than that. This is not just some legal thing to be broken out and addressed in the court of popular opinion. (what the HECK am I talking about?) This goes beyond isolating the idea of selling ad space and beyond isolating the idea of making restorer (presser) recommendations. This is about redefining restoration and eliminating one aspect of restoration from that redefinition, about advocating the manipulation of books to get a higher grade so dollars for them will increase, publicing and recommending that concept in the form of a restorer recommendation, and lastly selling ad space to the restorer who can then get more books submitted for pressing which would yield more books submitted to CGC. There is no one isolated thing here.

 

There is mnore but will leave it at that for now. I am still sober and I have not had my dinner yet.

 

I for one recognize the breadth of your undertone. Your thoughts are appreciated and provoke additional consideration. The objectives of recent actions are seemingly known, however, the possible end results thereof require further analysis to identify potential long-term effects.

 

Keep up the good work!

[esquirecomics]

The issue in question, which is what FK addressed with Steve B. in an earlier post, was the recommendation of Matt's business in a non-advertisement format.

 

Perhaps to you, my disclosing friend. But I see more than that. This is not just some legal thing to be broken out and addressed in the court of popular opinion. (what the HECK am I talking about?) This goes beyond isolating the idea of selling ad space and beyond isolating the idea of making restorer (presser) recommendations. This is about redefining restoration and eliminating one aspect of restoration from that redefinition, about advocating the manipulation of books to get a higher grade so dollars for them will increase, publicing and recommending that concept in the form of a restorer recommendation, and lastly selling ad space to the restorer who can then get more books submitted for pressing which would yield more books submitted to CGC. There is no one isolated thing here.

 

There is mnore but will leave it at that for now. I am still sober and I have not had my dinner yet.

 

Pov, my elderly soon to be drunk friend, I am with you 100%.

 

Wish you had been around when we were debating these issues last year!!! But this is a debate not yet settled and we should keep plugging away!

[esquirecomics]

And I would be shocked were CGC to deny either Susan or Tracey any ad space were they were willing to pay for it as that would simply invoke a wave of justifiable criticism.

Why? TV networks, magazines and newspapers deny certain people or companies the right to advertise in their particular venues all the time, sometimes for controversial reasons, other times for completely mundane reasons.

 

Sure, newspapers refuse to print holocaust denialist ads and other media outlets may not allow pro/anti-abortion ads to run, but I would love to hear CGC's explanation if they refused to publish either Tracey or Susan's ad.

 

In any event, I think this is a moot point. Didn't Steve B. say somewhere above (or maybe to me he did) that CGC would run their ads?

[Mr. Zipper]

When did people start using pizzas as a way to describe flatness?

 

Brooklyn style.... very thin and crispy.

 

Thin and crispy...

 

[MutantKeys]

When did people start using pizzas as a way to describe flatness?

 

Brooklyn style.... very thin and crispy.

 

Thin and crispy...

 

Grimaldis

[FlyingDonut]

I would love to hear CGC's explanation if they refused to publish either Tracey or Susan's ad.

 

Probably something like this:

 

"It is our board. We can refuse anybody we *spoon* well want to. Bite me, lawyer boy."

[esquirecomics]

I would love to hear CGC's explanation if they refused to publish either Tracey or Susan's ad.

 

Probably something like this:

 

"It is our board. We can refuse anybody we *spoon* well want to. Bite me, lawyer boy."

 

Oy boy, let em fly on that day!!!

 

Even I don't think CGC's pr machinery would go there.

[bluechip]

And I would be shocked were CGC to deny either Susan or Tracey any ad space were they were willing to pay for it as that would simply invoke a wave of justifiable criticism.

Why? TV networks, magazines and newspapers deny certain people or companies the right to advertise in their particular venues all the time, sometimes for controversial reasons, other times for completely mundane reasons.

 

Not as often or as cavalierly as you may think. The use of public airwaves is not a right but a privilege and one of the things you have to provide is equal access to people who want to advertise. ABC could never offer Matt Nelson the right to buy ads and deny it to another restoration expert just because they didn't like him. People who've been denied the right to buy ads can do file lawsuits against broadcasters.

[FlyingDonut]

I would love to hear CGC's explanation if they refused to publish either Tracey or Susan's ad.

 

Probably something like this:

 

"It is our board. We can refuse anybody we *spoon* well want to. Bite me, lawyer boy."

 

Oy boy, let em fly on that day!!!

 

Even I don't think CGC's pr machinery would go there.

 

PR machinery?

 

All kidding aside, it is their board. They could refuse to take anybody's ad.

[esquirecomics]

I would love to hear CGC's explanation if they refused to publish either Tracey or Susan's ad.

 

Probably something like this:

 

"It is our board. We can refuse anybody we *spoon* well want to. Bite me, lawyer boy."

 

Oy boy, let em fly on that day!!!

 

Even I don't think CGC's pr machinery would go there.

 

PR machinery?

 

All kidding aside, it is their board. They could refuse to take anybody's ad.

 

Sure Dan, that is true. Just in the same way they could declare that pressing is not restoration. Oh wait, they've done that already!!

 

But more seriously, they can obviously do anything they want but not to factor in potential repurcussions from decisions is irresponsible. And I think were CGC to ever deny Susan or Tracey the ability to place an ad on the CGC website would be a monumental blunder. The question is not could they do so, but would they do so. And I highly doubt they would, which brings me right back to my point that if either Tracey or Susan did want to place an ad would CGC still single out and recommend their competitor?

 

Quite an awkward situation and again reflective of CGC not thinking through its decisions (or maybe thinking through a great deal which begs further questions ), at least in my eyes.

[batman_fan]

I have had Tracey restore one book for me which looks incredible and Matt has done two books for me. I have never had Susan do any work for me, but I did see a Batman 1 before it was sent to Susan and also after. I held in in my hands both time and got to carefully inspect it both times and I would say Susan's work on it did not compare to Tracey's. The color match was not as good as I would expect and the general feel of the book seemed unnatural. The one thing I will say is the dealer that had the book pushed her to get it done quick so he could take it to SD con since the 1st Batman movie had just come out.

[garthgantu]

I have a question for the liaison committee:

 

Does CGC, which is staffed with comic book lovers, see any cause for concern in the loss of pedigree status for books that are cleaned, pressed and resubbed without their original CGC label that denotes the pedigree status? Sure, CGC is good at identifying pedigree books, but when a pedigree book has been cleaned and its typical identifying marks are removed and no original CGC label is included in the resub, clearly there are pedigree books making their way back onto the market without their provenance being preserved/maintained.

 

Doesn't this seem like a very unfortunate side-effect of CGC's current policy (of accepting cleaning and pressing without noting it in any way), and are there any plans to change this somehow?

 

thanks,

 

Garth

[Foolkiller]

I have a question for the liaison committee:

 

Does CGC, which is staffed with comic book lovers, see any cause for concern in the loss of pedigree status for books that are cleaned, pressed and resubbed without their original CGC label that denotes the pedigree status? Sure, CGC is good at identifying pedigree books, but when a pedigree book has been cleaned and its typical identifying marks are removed and no original CGC label is included in the resub, clearly there are pedigree books making their way back onto the market without their provenance being preserved/maintained.

 

Doesn't this seem like a very unfortunate side-effect of CGC's current policy (of accepting cleaning and pressing without noting it in any way), and are there any plans to change this somehow?

 

thanks,

 

Garth

 

I'll bring this up to Steve when I see him in New York.

[garthgantu]

Thanks, 'Killer - much appreciated!

[esquirecomics]

Is there any update as to when grader's notes will be online?

[bluechip]

[quoteJust in the same way they could declare that pressing is not restoration. Oh wait, they've done that already!!

 

 

Mark your heart is in the right place with the NOD.

 

But in truth if you or anybody else feels pressing is restoration then neither the CGC or anybody else can force you to call it otherwise.

 

And obviously there are many people who feel the reverse is true. If they don't believe it's restoration, they don't want to be forced to call it otherwise -- and they damn sure don't want to be fofced to put it in a label that calls it that.

 

Which is why the basic notion behind the NOD is the purest way to handle this.

 

Disclose it -- but let other people decide what to call it.

 

The argument has completely devolved into unresolvable rancor nonsense not so much because of disclosing or not disclosing but because of the insistence of calling it by the word "restoration" and the instence on putting it in a purple label.

 

If a book were disclosed as pressed, would you be unable to know to avoid the book unless it had a purple label?

 

Of course not.

 

You want to get rid of the ambiguity behind pressed books. The first step is to get rid of the ambiguity behind the purple label which equates a book that is merely pressed book with a book that is ore counterfeit than original.

 

That's why people resist your efforts. And when you think about it, can you really blame them. If you had a classic car that was all original but merely touched up in one spot, would you want to disclose it if doing so meant people would put the same label on it as a car that was virrtually a modern fake?

 

Disclose of pressing will never be the rule so long as that rtwisted dynamic rules the labelling.

[Ivanko]

[quoteJust in the same way they could declare that pressing is not restoration. Oh wait, they've done that already!!

 

 

Mark your heart is in the right place with the NOD.

 

But in truth if you or anybody else feels pressing is restoration then neither the CGC or anybody else can force you to call it otherwise.

 

And obviously there are many people who feel the reverse is true. If they don't believe it's restoration, they don't want to be forced to call it otherwise -- and they damn sure don't want to be fofced to put it in a label that calls it that.

 

Which is why the basic notion behind the NOD is the purest way to handle this.

 

Disclose it -- but let other people decide what to call it.

 

The argument has completely devolved into unresolvable rancor nonsense not so much because of disclosing or not disclosing but because of the insistence of calling it by the word "restoration" and the instence on putting it in a purple label.

 

If a book were disclosed as pressed, would you be unable to know to avoid the book unless it had a purple label?

 

Of course not.

 

You want to get rid of the ambiguity behind pressed books. The first step is to get rid of the ambiguity behind the purple label which equates a book that is merely pressed book with a book that is ore counterfeit than original.

 

That's why people resist your efforts. And when you think about it, can you really blame them. If you had a classic car that was all original but merely touched up in one spot, would you want to disclose it if doing so meant people would put the same label on it as a car that was virrtually a modern fake?

 

Disclose of pressing will never be the rule so long as that rtwisted dynamic rules the labelling.

 

Is a restored Action #1 a counterfeit and not an Action #1?