Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[Flaming_Telepath]

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.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the purple label that couldn't be resolved by employing a 'level of restoration' point scale. The idea of putting restored books in a blue label holder was , but giving purple label books a 'rating' along with specific information was an excellent one.

 

Perhaps pressed books, if they were ever to be identified with consistency, could be a '1' and Frankenbooks a '10'?

[FFB]

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.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the purple label that couldn't be resolved by employing a 'level of restoration' point scale. The idea of putting restored books in a blue label holder was , but giving purple label books a 'rating' along with specific information was an excellent one.

 

Perhaps pressed books, if they were ever to be identified with consistency, could be a '1' and Frankenbooks a '10'?

 

By that logic, no dealer should be allowed to sell a raw, restored book with full disclosure. No restored sales without a purple label!

[bluechip]

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.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the purple label that couldn't be resolved by employing a 'level of restoration' point scale. The idea of putting restored books in a blue label holder was , but giving purple label books a 'rating' along with specific information was an excellent one.

 

Perhaps pressed books, if they were ever to be identified with consistency, could be a '1' and Frankenbooks a '10'?

 

By that logic, no dealer should be allowed to sell a raw, restored book with full disclosure. No restored sales without a purple label!

 

FFB is correct, if I read him correctly. The good idea behind slabbing and labelling is to give people reassurance that a book is genuine as described.

 

The notion of putting one particular type of book in a special scarlet letter holder that strives to describe not the conditition or flaws but the intent behhind a flaw ---- was a very bad idea that got folded into the original good idea.

 

Especially since it has become abunfdantly clear that people on both sides of the purple label debate (pro and con) consider the label a deliberate and concerted attempt to put a stigma on restored books. That the whole idea behind them wasx to get people to have an emotional reaction and to avoid them even if they were not inclined to avoid them before.

 

It simplty it is not supposed to be the job of a responsible, unbiased third party grading system to tty to get people to have an emotional reaction to something. And it is not the job oif a third party grading system to get involved in trying to discenr th eintent behind a defect or to punish people for that supposed intent.

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

The notion of putting one particular type of book in a special scarlet letter holder -- designed not to educate but to induce people to react in a particular way they weren't always reacting before -- was a very bad idea that got folded into the original good idea. Especially since -- as is undeniable from the debate going on here -- the very definition of what constitutes that one particular type of book is not something everybody agrees upon.

 

Purple labels are not a bad idea...they are part of the concept of 'easy identification'...and they were not 'designed' to induce hysteria amongst buyers. The buyers did that all by themselves. Remember this...restored book values have not particularly fallen, but unrestored books have taken large leaps forward, extending the differential.

 

There's something slightly...concerning...about wanting to take a step backwards in the identification of restored books. The levels of information & education we can work on, but flagging them up cannot, in any circumstances, be a 'bad' thing?

 

Oh, and Scott...I seriously didn't understand the logic, but suspect it's more because I phrased my statement poorly. What was it you were suggesting?

[bluechip]

The notion of putting one particular type of book in a special scarlet letter holder -- designed not to educate but to induce people to react in a particular way they weren't always reacting before -- was a very bad idea that got folded into the original good idea. Especially since -- as is undeniable from the debate going on here -- the very definition of what constitutes that one particular type of book is not something everybody agrees upon.

 

Purple labels are not a bad idea...they are part of the concept of 'easy identification'...and they were not 'designed' to induce hysteria amongst buyers. The buyers did that all by themselves. Remember this...restored book values have not particularly fallen, but unrestored books have taken large leaps forward, extending the differential.

 

 

When I first heard the concept of "easy identification" I thought it failed to wash. But over time I have regretabbly come to feel it was and is completely disingenous.

 

The simple fact that many people collected restored books prior to CGC and that at least one of the founders of CGS particilarly and specifically avoided them means that for CGC to create a special "easy identification" for books thety consider uncollectible goes well beyond the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

If only for the very reasons you cite in your post -- those books (which the CGC founder did not own) have gone down in value, while the books the CGC founder did own have gone up in value. And the same CGC founder has said in print he considers it a good thing that such books as he did own have gone up and that such books as he did not own have become "more affordable."

 

Add to that the way that CGC refuses to differentiate between restored books or to give meaningful details about what was done. The purple label tells you essentially only that a book was "extensively restored" but fails to tell you what was done or whether it reaches a level that makes it a virtually counterfeit book. That makes people inclined to be fearfl of a book even if they don't mind restoration -- because they are not given the information about what was done

 

That single factor has gone a very long way to, as you point out, drive down the value of restored books. And, since, as pooiinted out earlier -- CGC's effect has been to drive down all restored books and drive up all unrestored books -- which a CGC founder specialized in acquiring before founding CGC -- makes the wholw situation go way way WAY past the line of the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

Add to all of that the fact there are many thigns about books which could be subjected to labels for "wasy identification: which are not. How about a special color for reprints?

 

And even with all that aside is a very large point which you cut from your quote and made no reference to.

 

And that is the fact people simple and positively do not agree on what constitutes a restored book. Because the definition of restored has become not whether a book has a defect but what was the intent behind a defect.

 

Since all those facts have been obvious in other posts as well as mine, your argument is not jsut wrong but also has the appearance of being disingenous.

 

[Mr. Zipper]

Purple labels are not a bad idea...they are part of the concept of 'easy identification'...

 

I never bought into the "easy identification" argument. It's not like we're talking about retail commodity items like a box of cereal where someone swoops by a display and throws it into the shopping cart without closely examining it.

 

Who buys any slab without looking at it closely and reading the label? (And please spare me the old small scan on ebay red herring. One shouldn't buy ANY comic from a small scan.)

 

If "easy identification" is the goal, why not just insert a red strobe light and claxon horn into every restored slab? It would have the same net effect.

[nearmint]

Especially since it has become abunfdantly clear that people on both sides of the purple label debate (pro and con) consider the label a deliberate and concerted attempt to put a stigma on restored books. That the whole idea behind them wasx to get people to have an emotional reaction and to avoid them even if they were not inclined to avoid them before.

 

It simplty it is not supposed to be the job of a responsible, unbiased third party grading system to tty to get people to have an emotional reaction to something. And it is not the job oif a third party grading system to get involved in trying to discenr th eintent behind a defect or to punish people for that supposed intent.

 

I'm not a fan of the PLOD or the GLOD, but you're the ONLY person I've heard suggest that the PLOD was/is a deliberate attempt to stigmatize restored books. Can you specifically name those "on both sides of the purple label debate" who agree with you on this?

[Lazyboy]

Especially since it has become abunfdantly clear that people on both sides of the purple label debate (pro and con) consider the label a deliberate and concerted attempt to put a stigma on restored books. That the whole idea behind them wasx to get people to have an emotional reaction and to avoid them even if they were not inclined to avoid them before.

 

It simplty it is not supposed to be the job of a responsible, unbiased third party grading system to tty to get people to have an emotional reaction to something. And it is not the job oif a third party grading system to get involved in trying to discenr th eintent behind a defect or to punish people for that supposed intent.

 

I'm not a fan of the PLOD or the GLOD, but you're the ONLY person I've heard suggest that the PLOD was/is a deliberate attempt to stigmatize restored books. Can you specifically name those "on both sides of the purple label debate" who agree with you on this?

 

I've definitely seen it suggested a few times before bluechip recently started ranting about it.

[Ze-man]

Add to that the way that CGC refuses to differentiate between restored books or to give meaningful details about what was done. The purple label tells you essentially only that a book was "extensively restored" but fails to tell you what was done or whether it reaches a level that makes it a virtually counterfeit book. That makes people inclined to be fearfl of a book even if they don't mind restoration -- because they are not given the information about what was done

 

 

I am not sure I follow your logic here.

 

We can argue about the meaning of the PLOD label all day, as it is a source of great irritation for many people for many reasons.. But I do not think it accurate to say CGC does not exactly tell us what was done to a restored book.

 

Be it Slight, Moderate, Extensive, Amateur or Professional. If a book has had extensive work done , it say's so right on the label. It tells us what was done to the book. You can also call and get the grader notes if you want more details about a given book.

 

We all would like to see more information on the, but you make it sound as if there is nothing at all(if I read you corrrectly)

 

I don't see this part of the thread staying up for very long due to the attacking nature of your post. But felt compelled to reply to you anyways in an effort to try and understand what you meant.

 

Ze-

 

edit-I see now you meant CGc implementing a number/rating system rather then keeping things as they are.

[nearmint]

Especially since it has become abunfdantly clear that people on both sides of the purple label debate (pro and con) consider the label a deliberate and concerted attempt to put a stigma on restored books. That the whole idea behind them wasx to get people to have an emotional reaction and to avoid them even if they were not inclined to avoid them before.

 

It simplty it is not supposed to be the job of a responsible, unbiased third party grading system to tty to get people to have an emotional reaction to something. And it is not the job oif a third party grading system to get involved in trying to discenr th eintent behind a defect or to punish people for that supposed intent.

 

I'm not a fan of the PLOD or the GLOD, but you're the ONLY person I've heard suggest that the PLOD was/is a deliberate attempt to stigmatize restored books. Can you specifically name those "on both sides of the purple label debate" who agree with you on this?

 

I've definitely seen it suggested a few times before bluechip recently started ranting about it.

 

Let's try to be specific here. In my mind, it's a ridiculous accusation. How does CGC gain from stigmatizing restored books? Aren't collectors less likely to submit a book that they fear might receive a purple label?

 

In a previous post(in another thread), bluechip suggested that Steve Borock sold off his restored books and then made a concerted effort to stigmatize restored books. Apparently to devalue them so he can buy them up at a later date for a fraction of the cost.

 

Ridiculous, baseless, and highly irresponsible accusations.

[Sal]

Especially since it has become abunfdantly clear that people on both sides of the purple label debate (pro and con) consider the label a deliberate and concerted attempt to put a stigma on restored books. That the whole idea behind them wasx to get people to have an emotional reaction and to avoid them even if they were not inclined to avoid them before.

 

It simplty it is not supposed to be the job of a responsible, unbiased third party grading system to tty to get people to have an emotional reaction to something. And it is not the job oif a third party grading system to get involved in trying to discenr th eintent behind a defect or to punish people for that supposed intent.

 

I'm not a fan of the PLOD or the GLOD, but you're the ONLY person I've heard suggest that the PLOD was/is a deliberate attempt to stigmatize restored books. Can you specifically name those "on both sides of the purple label debate" who agree with you on this?

 

I've definitely seen it suggested a few times before bluechip recently started ranting about it.

 

Let's try to be specific here. In my mind, it's a ridiculous accusation. How does CGC gain from stigmatizing restored books? Aren't collectors less likely to submit a book that they fear might receive a purple label?

 

In a previous post(in another thread), bluechip suggested that Steve Borock sold off his restored books and then made a concerted effort to stigmatize restored books. Apparently to devalue them so he can buy them up at a later date for a fraction of the cost.

 

Ridiculous, baseless, and highly irresponsible accusations.

 

not to mention libelous. perhaps.

[Red Hook]

 

If a book has had extensive work done , it say's so right on the label. It tells us everything that was done to the book.

 

Ze-

 

Manufactured Gold, notwithstanding, of course.

 

I never believed CGC intentionally looked to stigmatize restored books with the purple label. I think that came as a surprise to them, at least the degree to which they were negatively impacted.

[Lazyboy]

Let's try to be specific here. In my mind, it's a ridiculous accusation. How does CGC gain from stigmatizing restored books? Aren't collectors less likely to submit a book that they fear might receive a purple label?

 

In a previous post(in another thread), bluechip suggested that Steve Borock sold off his restored books and then made a concerted effort to stigmatize restored books. Apparently to devalue them so he can buy them up at a later date for a fraction of the cost.

 

Ridiculous, baseless, and highly irresponsible accusations.

 

Oh, I agree with you. I'm really not sure what bluechip's problem is. I was just saying that others have suggested the same thing.

[drice6900]

 

If a book has had extensive work done , it say's so right on the label. It tells us everything that was done to the book.

 

Ze-

 

Manufactured Gold, notwithstanding, of course.

 

I never believed CGC intentionally looked to stigmatize restored books with the purple label. I think that came as a surprise to them, at least the degree to which they were negatively impacted.

 

Agreed. Blame the person who came up with the acronym 'PLOD'.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Since all those facts have been obvious in other posts as well as mine, your argument is not jsut wrong but also has the appearance of being disingenous.

 

 

Thanks for putting me straight on that.

 

And for pointing out that I'm being disingenuous, presumably in defence of CGC?

 

 

 

You ain't been around these parts for long, have you?

[mica]

Let's try to be specific here. In my mind, it's a ridiculous accusation. How does CGC gain from stigmatizing restored books? Aren't collectors less likely to submit a book that they fear might receive a purple label?

 

In a previous post(in another thread), bluechip suggested that Steve Borock sold off his restored books and then made a concerted effort to stigmatize restored books. Apparently to devalue them so he can buy them up at a later date for a fraction of the cost.

 

Ridiculous, baseless, and highly irresponsible accusations.

Total agreement.

[ciorac]

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.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the purple label that couldn't be resolved by employing a 'level of restoration' point scale. The idea of putting restored books in a blue label holder was , but giving purple label books a 'rating' along with specific information was an excellent one.

 

Perhaps pressed books, if they were ever to be identified with consistency, could be a '1' and Frankenbooks a '10'?

 

I am in complete agreement with FT on this. I have been beating the drum for a 10 point resto scale as well. Leave them in purple, but let's not punish books on the edge by lumping them with Extensive Frankens when they are truly not.

 

I've mentioned it before that the Slight, Moderate and Extensive categories reek of GD, FN and MT. We've come a long way since then in grading definitions, let's finish the job and be done with it.

[G.A.tor]

 

I am in complete agreement with FT on this. I have been beating the drum for a 10 point resto scale as well. Leave them in purple, but let's not punish books on the edge by lumping them with Extensive Frankens when they are truly not.

 

I've mentioned it before that the Slight, Moderate and Extensive categories reek of GD, FN and MT. We've come a long way since then in grading definitions, let's finish the job and be done with it.

I too, agree with this...

rick

[nearmint]

Especially since it has become abunfdantly clear that people on both sides of the purple label debate (pro and con) consider the label a deliberate and concerted attempt to put a stigma on restored books. That the whole idea behind them wasx to get people to have an emotional reaction and to avoid them even if they were not inclined to avoid them before.

 

It simplty it is not supposed to be the job of a responsible, unbiased third party grading system to tty to get people to have an emotional reaction to something. And it is not the job oif a third party grading system to get involved in trying to discenr th eintent behind a defect or to punish people for that supposed intent.

 

I'm not a fan of the PLOD or the GLOD, but you're the ONLY person I've heard suggest that the PLOD was/is a deliberate attempt to stigmatize restored books. Can you specifically name those "on both sides of the purple label debate" who agree with you on this?

 

I've definitely seen it suggested a few times before bluechip recently started ranting about it.

 

Let's try to be specific here. In my mind, it's a ridiculous accusation. How does CGC gain from stigmatizing restored books? Aren't collectors less likely to submit a book that they fear might receive a purple label?

 

In a previous post(in another thread), bluechip suggested that Steve Borock sold off his restored books and then made a concerted effort to stigmatize restored books. Apparently to devalue them so he can buy them up at a later date for a fraction of the cost.

 

Ridiculous, baseless, and highly irresponsible accusations.

 

I should clarify that the part of my post in BOLD above was what I inferred from bluechip's posts, as I saw no other possible reason why he would think Steve would benefit from setting out to reduce the value of restored books, if not to take advantage of that situation to buy them up.

 

In the 5 emails bluechip has sent me since he received the strike , he has made it very clear that he did not mean to infer that. I've gone back and re-read his posts, and what's clear is that he believes that by setting out to reduce the value of restored books, Steve was thereby increasing the value of the blue labels in his personal collection.

 

Either way, bluechip is accusing Steve of market manipulation for his own financial benefit, and I still think it's NONSENSE.

 

FT is absolutely correct. The market decided how to value PLODS, not CGC, and not Steve Borock.

[Sid]

PLOD was developed by collectors not cgc. Seperating original vs restored shouldn't be this big of a deal, as I'd rather be able to tell them apart right away. To still even be arguing that instead of moving forward in identifying how we can work towards making progress seems pointless to me. Personal attacks on someone who obviously loves the hobby and has been generous and active within the community shouldn't be tolerated, specially since his company owns the medium used for this.