Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[Aman619]

I read Borocks comments about prices speaking to CGC delivering a more accurate grade than dealers were calling their books. In the past a dealer called a book a VF and priced it accordingly. Now, that same book slabbed usually has a big beautiful 5.5 or 6.5 on the label. Most dealer inventories were pummelled by CGCs "accurate" grading standards, which was why they werent too happy to see a third party grader come onto their scene. But their true NMs and better increased in value so much (overnight) that the sting wasnt as bad as they feared.

 

So IMO, Steve was talking about how lower grade books in slabs are now trading closer to their "true values" (by grade) now.

[nearmint]

I don't see how Steve's comments are either positive or negative. Nor do I see how they smack of impartiality. He's simply commenting on the state of the market, and how it's reacted to the existence of a 3rd party grading company.

 

If I had lost any amount of money as a result of the devaluation of restored books, I'd be frustrated, but not at CGC, and not at Steve.

 

That's more of an effect of the internet as a whole and more specifically, ebay. When collectors realized that mid grade and below was really, really plentiful, prices dropped. Prior to the internet, stuff was a lot more difficult to come by. CGC only facilitated this, it wasn't the cause.

 

Very true, in regards to mid and low-grade comics. But, I do think that when it comes to values of restored vs. unrestored, CGC did have a significant affect. For the first time, people could look at a label and know whether a book had been worked on. They didn't have to know the dealer, they didn't have to know how to spot resto. It's no surprise to me that this caused unrestored books to spike, and restored books to take a hit.

 

In no way is that a slam against CGC. In fact, I think it was a positive step in the evolution of the hobby. Now it seems clear that we need to evolve once again towards a graduated scale of resto(1-10 please, not the 0-10 that CGC proposed). As has often been said recently, the PLOD no longer provides sufficient information to aid the buyer/seller/collector.

[nearmint]

I don't see how Steve's comments are either positive or negative. Nor do I see how they smack of impartiality. He's simply commenting on the state of the market, and how it's reacted to the existence of a 3rd party grading company.

 

 

When a person, any person, says values of property were "lowered"they might be stating a fact. When they say prices were lowered to a "fair price" they are offering an opinion. And that's a fact.

 

An opinon about whether it is good that prices have been lowered, and whether those prices should, or should not, have been lowered.

 

I am not ascribing any motive to that opinion. But it is, without question, an opinion.

 

What's wrong with an opinion? I'm not seeing your point.

[bluechip]

I read Borocks comments about prices speaking to CGC delivering a more accurate grade than dealers were calling their books. In the past a dealer called a book a VF and priced it accordingly. Now, that same book slabbed usually has a big beautiful 5.5 or 6.5 on the label. Most dealer inventories were pummelled by CGCs "accurate" grading standards, which was why they werent too happy to see a third party grader come onto their scene. But their true NMs and better increased in value so much (overnight) that the sting wasnt as bad as they feared.

 

So IMO, Steve was talking about how lower grade books in slabs are now trading closer to their "true values" (by grade) now.

 

I never thought of 5.5 and 6.5 books as "lower grade" books. Most of the time people describe those as mid grade or even high grade.

 

Aside from the "fair price" comment there is a whole section describing how the "true collector" is now able to afford "low grade" books they couldn't afford before. That means "goods" and "fairs" etc. being lower. And I saw enough of those graded prior to CGC to know that people bought them for higher prices without any deception going on at all. They knew what it was and they knew what they were paying. In fact, I've seen some truly low grade books which were graded the same (or even higher) before being slabbed, yet they sell for less now than they would have out of the slab.

 

I don't know where the quotes are that you're talking about, but his comments about the price droppage in the article I read are clearly about low grade books and restored books in general.

 

And, regardless of whether one thinks he is accepting blame , or taking credit, I will add that it's not entirely to CGC's credit, or fault. The overstreet guide is a bitg factor.

 

When Steve and Mark first told me about slabbing books, they predicted prices would rise --- after a while -- on lower grade golden age because people would see how comparitively rare they were. And within a very short time we did see big price rises in some low grade key issues like Detective 27 and Action 1 selling in good for 55-65K. But the next year the guide didn't raise the price at all. And more than five years later the good prices are still below that, rising last year only a fraction of one percent.

 

Steve makes a point in the article about how finding they bought a restored book can make a person run screaming from the hobby.

 

How do you think on-the-frence potential collectors would feel if publications outside the hobby focused on the fact that the most famous and valuable comics of all have gone up in value less than ten percent over the last ten years?

[bluechip]

I don't see how Steve's comments are either positive or negative. Nor do I see how they smack of impartiality. He's simply commenting on the state of the market, and how it's reacted to the existence of a 3rd party grading company.

 

 

When a person, any person, says values of property were "lowered"they might be stating a fact. When they say prices were lowered to a "fair price" they are offering an opinion. And that's a fact.

 

An opinon about whether it is good that prices have been lowered, and whether those prices should, or should not, have been lowered.

 

I am not ascribing any motive to that opinion. But it is, without question, an opinion.

 

What's wrong with an opinion? I'm not seeing your point.

 

 

Geez., this is confusing. You seemed to be insistent that he wasn't stating an opinion.

 

As for what's wrong with an opinion. Nothing -- unless you are supposed to be objective. That means without an opinion, or at least not being swayed by your opinion. And, when it;s about property values -- and you have an effect on those values -- it means not expressing an opinion that it's a good thing some people's property dropped in value.

 

I'm not even sure I'd use the word "wrong." But I'd for sure say it's not advisable, or the best way to go.

[nearmint]

I don't see how Steve's comments are either positive or negative. Nor do I see how they smack of impartiality. He's simply commenting on the state of the market, and how it's reacted to the existence of a 3rd party grading company.

 

 

When a person, any person, says values of property were "lowered"they might be stating a fact. When they say prices were lowered to a "fair price" they are offering an opinion. And that's a fact.

 

An opinon about whether it is good that prices have been lowered, and whether those prices should, or should not, have been lowered.

 

I am not ascribing any motive to that opinion. But it is, without question, an opinion.

 

What's wrong with an opinion? I'm not seeing your point.

 

 

Geez., this is confusing. You seemed to be insistent that he wasn't stating an opinion.

 

As for what's wrong with an opinion. Nothing -- unless you are supposed to be objective. That means without an opinion, or at least not being swayed by your opinion. And, when it;s about property values -- and you have an effect on those values -- it means not expressing an opinion that it's a good thing some people's property dropped in value.

 

I'm not even sure I'd use the word "wrong." But I'd for sure say it's not advisable, or the best way to go.

 

In my opinion. Steve only needs to be impartial in how he grades books, and how he checks for resto. In other words, he has to go through the same process, and use the same criteria, whether he's grading one book from me, or a hundred books from Heritage.

 

He's welcome to have, and discuss, any opinion he has with anyone.

[adamstrange]

A couple general points might be useful to the discussion.

 

1. The spread between Good and Mint books has been growing since the Overstreet Guide was first published.

 

2. The spread between the equivalent of Good and Mint in coins, cards, and stamps all grew considerably after the introduction of 3rd party grading.

 

3. Restored books took a general dive in the marketplace after the big explosion in the 93-95 time frame.

 

4. CGC grading increased the supply of known restored books as many collectors had them without knowing that to be the case.

[codfish]

I think one of the problems that has compounded this debate is the existence of books with even just the slightest restoration in Blue Labeled holders. No matter how slight or whether a book has had nothing added or taken away there seems to be exceptions to the rules on what is and isn't restoration. Throw in books like MasterChief has shown us and you have a serious problem with just the rules and their application.

 

Leaving dollars and market talk out of the picture it is truly confusing to most people I know to see how the community can convince themselves that restoration has not happened when it clearly has. It becomes even more frustrating when someone who sells a raw book with just a minute bit of resto on an otherwise HG book has to flog it as restored when there are a number of pedigree books out there with the same degree of resto in snappy blue labeled holders.

 

When I look at the playing field it isn't level. That, imo, is a bigger problem than arguing over the label colours. The rules that everyone wants raw sellers to follow should also be followed by CGC.

[bluechip]

I don't see how Steve's comments are either positive or negative. Nor do I see how they smack of impartiality. He's simply commenting on the state of the market, and how it's reacted to the existence of a 3rd party grading company.

 

 

When a person, any person, says values of property were "lowered"they might be stating a fact. When they say prices were lowered to a "fair price" they are offering an opinion. And that's a fact.

 

An opinon about whether it is good that prices have been lowered, and whether those prices should, or should not, have been lowered.

 

I am not ascribing any motive to that opinion. But it is, without question, an opinion.

 

What's wrong with an opinion? I'm not seeing your point.

 

 

Geez., this is confusing. You seemed to be insistent that he wasn't stating an opinion.

 

As for what's wrong with an opinion. Nothing -- unless you are supposed to be objective. That means without an opinion, or at least not being swayed by your opinion. And, when it;s about property values -- and you have an effect on those values -- it means not expressing an opinion that it's a good thing some people's property dropped in value.

 

I'm not even sure I'd use the word "wrong." But I'd for sure say it's not advisable, or the best way to go.

 

In my opinion. Steve only needs to be impartial in how he grades books, and how he checks for resto. In other words, he has to go through the same process, and use the same criteria, whether he's grading one book from me, or a hundred books from Heritage.

 

He's welcome to have, and discuss, any opinion he has with anyone.

 

 

Of course you're welcome to that opinion or any opinion.

 

But I want to point out CGC is not just about grading and resto check. It's also about policies.

 

Like the policy of putting some books in labels which connote a special "problem":with the intent behind a defect. That means values are affected by an opinon about a defect as opposed to the defect itself. (and if that weren't happening there'd be little or no debate about whether a book deserves a blue label for "accidental" glue as opposed to intentional glue)

 

When you add in that the same person who set those policies has further made an opinion that a resultant drop in value is a good thing, then you have opinion affecting policy affecting values.

 

Essentially, what I am saying here is that I agree with some of your own expressed opinions here that the purple label has created many more problems than it may have solved.

 

Even if the purple label was initially not about expressing an opinion with a color, that is undoubtedly what it has evolved into. A change away from color -- and toward more information and precise disclosure -- would be a good thing.

 

Nobody would be deprived of any information. In fact I think it would lead to more information.

 

That, I understand, is what this board thread is supposed to be about, hearing suggestions and asking questions.

 

What I see on these boards is that, while many people agree the purple label creates one problem or another-- either by stigmatizing books or by creating conflict over what should merit a purple label (and if it weren't a stigma, who would care whether a defect brought one on?)

 

The arguments I hear for suppiorting it are:

 

that it should be stigmatized (which means essentially that opinions should be reflected on a label) , or that it will inconvenience people who want to avoid them so much they need to be able to spot them from ten feet away,

 

I think the first argument goes counter to the notion of an objective grading system. As for the second argument, it's really not the kind of service that you'd expect, and as others have said it doesn't help to color code something as a "problem" when the people most likely to consider it a problem are the same ones most likely to consider certain defects a problem regadless of what color the label is.

[Red Hook]

Good discussion, gentlemen.

[chaos_ad-migration]

I think one of the problems that has compounded this debate is the existence of books with even just the slightest restoration in Blue Labeled holders. No matter how slight or whether a book has had nothing added or taken away there seems to be exceptions to the rules on what is and isn't restoration. Throw in books like MasterChief has shown us and you have a serious problem with just the rules and their application.

 

Leaving dollars and market talk out of the picture it is truly confusing to most people I know to see how the community can convince themselves that restoration has not happened when it clearly has. It becomes even more frustrating when someone who sells a raw book with just a minute bit of resto on an otherwise HG book has to flog it as restored when there are a number of pedigree books out there with the same degree of resto in snappy blue labeled holders.

 

When I look at the playing field it isn't level. That, imo, is a bigger problem than arguing over the label colours. The rules that everyone wants raw sellers to follow should also be followed by CGC.

 

That reminds me of a question. I've seen books graded Poor 0.5 but had the Purple label because of a small color touch (that didn't make the cover look any better or any worse). Wouldn't Poor be a low enough grade that color touch wouldn't affect the grade? I mean, if I buy a Poor raw off of Ebay and then discover there's some color touch, do I email the seller that I want a refund? Of course not. Shouldn't Poor 0.5 always be a Blue label?

[bluechip]

I don't see how Steve's comments are either positive or negative. Nor do I see how they smack of impartiality. He's simply commenting on the state of the market, and how it's reacted to the existence of a 3rd party grading company.

 

If I had lost any amount of money as a result of the devaluation of restored books, I'd be frustrated, but not at CGC, and not at Steve.

 

That's more of an effect of the internet as a whole and more specifically, ebay. When collectors realized that mid grade and below was really, really plentiful, prices dropped. Prior to the internet, stuff was a lot more difficult to come by. CGC only facilitated this, it wasn't the cause.

 

Very true, in regards to mid and low-grade comics. But, I do think that when it comes to values of restored vs. unrestored, CGC did have a significant affect. For the first time, people could look at a label and know whether a book had been worked on. They didn't have to know the dealer, they didn't have to know how to spot resto. It's no surprise to me that this caused unrestored books to spike, and restored books to take a hit.

 

In no way is that a slam against CGC. In fact, I think it was a positive step in the evolution of the hobby. Now it seems clear that we need to evolve once again towards a graduated scale of resto(1-10 please, not the 0-10 that CGC proposed). As has often been said recently, the PLOD no longer provides sufficient information to aid the buyer/seller/collector.

 

I am largely in agreement with you. I do think it was necessary for CGC to ID resto. I just wish it had been done with a real 1-10 scale in the first place, and I never saw a need for a special color. I always thought that disclosure was the way, and even before CGC I said there should be a mandated certificate not unlike what matt is doing now. It lays out the work done and includes "before resto" pics on the back.

 

What you suggest would make not all people more comfortable with resto but it would make people who don't mind resto less worried about paying whaty they feel a book is worth.

[tth2]

That reminds me of a question. I've seen books graded Poor 0.5 but had the Purple label because of a small color touch (that didn't make the cover look any better or any worse). Wouldn't Poor be a low enough grade that color touch wouldn't affect the grade? I mean, if I buy a Poor raw off of Ebay and then discover there's some color touch, do I email the seller that I want a refund? Of course not. Shouldn't Poor 0.5 always be a Blue label?

No, restored is restored, no matter what the grade, and should be indicated on the label as such. Whether such disclosure has an impact on the market price of a book is a separate matter, but without being told that there is restoration how can the market make an informed decision?

 

BTW, my own observation has been that a PLOD doesn't affect prices of lower grade books much, if at all.

[bluechip]

That reminds me of a question. I've seen books graded Poor 0.5 but had the Purple label because of a small color touch (that didn't make the cover look any better or any worse). Wouldn't Poor be a low enough grade that color touch wouldn't affect the grade? I mean, if I buy a Poor raw off of Ebay and then discover there's some color touch, do I email the seller that I want a refund? Of course not. Shouldn't Poor 0.5 always be a Blue label?

No, restored is restored, no matter what the grade, and should be indicated on the label as such. Whether such disclosure has an impact on the market price of a book is a separate matter, but without being told that there is restoration how can the market make an informed decision?

 

BTW, my own observation has been that a PLOD doesn't affect prices of lower grade books much, if at all.

 

By definition a book that is poor is not restored because there is no lower grade. Restored means brought back to a previous grade. What is lower than poor?

 

The first time I saw a book labelled "apparent poor" I jcouldn't help laughing. I thought it was just my reaction, but later on I was standing by when several other people watched as a guy pulled an "apparent poor" out of bag and they had the same reaction.

 

The whole idea behind restoration is help the buyer see that a book's actual grade is different from its apparent grade. I would suggest a book with minor color touch or glue is also not restored if it doesn't change the grade. I know some would disagree with that but I think when peiople see a book labelled "apparent poor:" they can't help feeling it's just... a little silly.

[Sid]

I think one of the problems that has compounded this debate is the existence of books with even just the slightest restoration in Blue Labeled holders. No matter how slight or whether a book has had nothing added or taken away there seems to be exceptions to the rules on what is and isn't restoration. Throw in books like MasterChief has shown us and you have a serious problem with just the rules and their application.

 

Leaving dollars and market talk out of the picture it is truly confusing to most people I know to see how the community can convince themselves that restoration has not happened when it clearly has. It becomes even more frustrating when someone who sells a raw book with just a minute bit of resto on an otherwise HG book has to flog it as restored when there are a number of pedigree books out there with the same degree of resto in snappy blue labeled holders.

 

When I look at the playing field it isn't level. That, imo, is a bigger problem than arguing over the label colours. The rules that everyone wants raw sellers to follow should also be followed by CGC.

 

Agreed

[tth2]

By definition a book that is poor is not restored because there is no lower grade. Restored means brought back to a previous grade. What is lower than poor?

"Poor" or "0.5" encompasses a pretty wide range of books. Some "0.5" books are better than other "0.5" books, and in the case of a big ticket book it might affect how much I'd be willing to pay (counter-intuitively, many books in GD and below command close to full Guide, whereas most books in VG to F tend to go at a discount to Guide).

 

Considering you're the supposed champion of more information on labels, why are you now presuming to judge for us that this information is not important enough to be disclosed to us?

 

The first time I saw a book labelled "apparent poor" I jcouldn't help laughing. I thought it was just my reaction, but later on I was standing by when several other people watched as a guy pulled an "apparent poor" out of bag and they had the same reaction.

Perhaps what they were laughing at was why someone would even bother to color touch a ragged out Poor book? That would be why I would laugh in that situation.

[FFB]

That reminds me of a question. I've seen books graded Poor 0.5 but had the Purple label because of a small color touch (that didn't make the cover look any better or any worse). Wouldn't Poor be a low enough grade that color touch wouldn't affect the grade? I mean, if I buy a Poor raw off of Ebay and then discover there's some color touch, do I email the seller that I want a refund? Of course not. Shouldn't Poor 0.5 always be a Blue label?

No, restored is restored, no matter what the grade, and should be indicated on the label as such. Whether such disclosure has an impact on the market price of a book is a separate matter, but without being told that there is restoration how can the market make an informed decision?

 

BTW, my own observation has been that a PLOD doesn't affect prices of lower grade books much, if at all.

 

By definition a book that is poor is not restored because there is no lower grade. Restored means brought back to a previous grade. What is lower than poor?

 

The first time I saw a book labelled "apparent poor" I jcouldn't help laughing. I thought it was just my reaction, but later on I was standing by when several other people watched as a guy pulled an "apparent poor" out of bag and they had the same reaction.

 

The whole idea behind restoration is help the buyer see that a book's actual grade is different from its apparent grade. I would suggest a book with minor color touch or glue is also not restored if it doesn't change the grade. I know some would disagree with that but I think when peiople see a book labelled "apparent poor:" they can't help feeling it's just... a little silly.

 

No, restored means that a defect is being hidden or removed. If you have a book that is an 8.0 and then you hit one spine nick with color touch, you've "restored" the book even though it still might be an 8.0. It is irrelevant whether the grade of the book actually increases.

[sterlingcomics]

Hey guys...nice conversation and all...but isn't this thread about bringing up questions and responding to community questions to CGC?

 

BTW, I hope the liason team saw my post buried in this otherwise interesting conversation.

[Red Hook]

I'm still unhappy with the resolution of SCS on CGC product. I am very happy with what was done for the Modern books...any book slabbed after the change has yet to exhhibit the signs but pre-Moderns are still an issue.

 

Other questions: what are planned site changes especially to Collector Society can we expect this year? Access to grader's notes are still high on most collector's lists.

 

Thanks!

 

Bump for ya, babe!

[Sid]

Are there plans to move the graders notes online? Since they write up the notes on a computer anyways, right? It shouldn't be too difficult to allow access to it.