Bluechip joins Deathlok, TJ, Thing...

[djpinkpanther67]

Basically he repeated his familiar refrain that CGC intentionally created the PLOD to stigmatize restored books

 

By giving him a strike is CGC saying this isn't true?

 

What a coy old fellow you are, OldGuy

 

You know perfectly well that CGC simply...isn't...saying

 

Why disclose anything about anything when the market doesn't dictate that you must? I think we should be grateful they provide an address to which to submit the books...

I don't wanna go there...

[DeeDee-migration]

when's deathlok coming back?

[lizards2]

when's deathlok coming back?

 

After he establishes another shill account, or right before his next strike.

[towards2112]

when's deathlok coming back?

 

After he establishes another shill account, or right before his next strike.

 

[ciorac]

I had no meltdown....not even a cross word.

 

In a thread about somebody's first submission, somebody passed a comment that it would be a 'laugh' to see a 7.5 book in a 9.4 slab.

 

I posted a link to Heritage, with the comment, 'You should find quite a few here' labelled across it.

 

It was sarcasm, dry humour, cheap-shot....call it what you will...but it was NOT antagonistic towards CGC, nor another boarder, nor was it any meltdown.

 

1) The fact that a principal at Heritage is a minority stakeholder in CGC didn't seem to you like this might be crossing the line? That someone high on the food chain might not take offense/umbrage?

 

 

I'd like to be a minority stakeholder in CGC. Think they would sell me a piece?

[awe4one]

I'd like to be a minority stakeholder in CGC. Think they would sell me a piece?

 

A piece of your soul maybe...

 

Jim

[ciorac]

I'd like to be a minority stakeholder in CGC. Think they would sell me a piece?

 

A piece of your soul maybe...

 

Jim

 

I'm open to discussion...

[drice6900]

I'd like to be a minority stakeholder in CGC. Think they would sell me a piece?

 

A piece of your soul maybe...

 

Jim

 

I'm open to discussion...

 

My wife and kids sucked mine away years ago...

 

 

 

 

 

j/k

[tth2]

I had no meltdown....not even a cross word.

 

In a thread about somebody's first submission, somebody passed a comment that it would be a 'laugh' to see a 7.5 book in a 9.4 slab.

 

I posted a link to Heritage, with the comment, 'You should find quite a few here' labelled across it.

 

It was sarcasm, dry humour, cheap-shot....call it what you will...but it was NOT antagonistic towards CGC, nor another boarder, nor was it any meltdown.

 

1) The fact that a principal at Heritage is a minority stakeholder in CGC didn't seem to you like this might be crossing the line? That someone high on the food chain might not take offense/umbrage?

 

 

I'd like to be a minority stakeholder in CGC. Think they would sell me a piece?

With all your slab cracking, I assumed you already were.

[bluechip]

man, that sucks that you can't just libel CGC on their own message boards. what the kind of censorship is that *spoon*

 

Yeah....what a world.

 

I was not going to post again but a couple of people asked me to.

 

For the record, the conclusions people got from my posts were their own conclusions, drawn from facts I l laid out. I tried to make clear then and will make even more clear now that I do not know what went on or goes in the head of anyone, let alone a person at CGC. And in talking about what has occured with purple labelling of books, I have drawn conclusions far less than I've simply laid out facts or quoted other people drawing their conclusions. And while in fact I never said it specifically, this, I think, pretty much illustrates the intent, or desire, or whatever you want to call it.

 

Steve has indicated that CGC has kept prices of lower to mid grade books "stabilized and even lowered" while the very high grade "shot through the roof."

 

That alone doesn't mean much. But when you consider that Steve specialized in high grade books and avoided lower grade books, that means CGC brought down the value of books he'd tended not to collect or sell, and raised the value of books he had collected and sold.

 

Yet even that doesn't necessarily mean there was any intent or desire to drive prices up or down.

 

But there's still one more thing to factor in. Did he characterize it as good or "fair" that prices of low grade and restored books were stagnated or even lowered?

 

The thing close to a real opinion I will add to this is to opine that it may be "fair" to say that in this case the terms "low grade books" and "restored books" may be considered equivalent to "other people's books." Books whose drop in value didn't affect anyone who didn't own -- or recently sell -- them.

 

I think it's a fact (and one Steve would agree with) that if you have a job which by its nature creates an effect on a market, then objectivity is very important. And it's important to get as close as you can to a near total lack of any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Any opinions offered on the rise or fall of values can blur the perception of objectivity, even if the intentions are crystal pure and even if you don't have and never had an interest in one or the other. .

 

Ultmately, IMO it's better for CGC and the hobby for concerns such as these to be addressed here as opposed to some other venue. But in the end that is up to the CGC and the forum members.

 

 

 

[Sal]

man, that sucks that you can't just libel CGC on their own message boards. what the kind of censorship is that *spoon*

 

Yeah....what a world.

 

I was not going to post again but a couple of people asked me to.

 

For the record, the conclusions people got from my posts were their own conclusions, drawn from facts I l laid out. I tried to make clear then and will make even more clear now that I do not know what went on or goes in the head of anyone, let alone a person at CGC. And in talking about what has occured with purple labelling of books, I have drawn conclusions far less than I've simply laid out facts or quoted other people drawing their conclusions. And while in fact I never said it specifically, this, I think, pretty much illustrates the intent, or desire, or whatever you want to call it.

 

Steve has indicated that CGC has kept prices of lower to mid grade books "stabilized and even lowered" while the very high grade "shot through the roof."

 

That alone doesn't mean much. But when you consider that Steve specialized in high grade books and avoided lower grade books, that means CGC brought down the value of books he'd tended not to collect or sell, and raised the value of books he had collected and sold.

 

Yet even that doesn't necessarily mean there was any intent or desire to drive prices up or down.

 

But there's still one more thing to factor in. Did he characterize it as good or "fair" that prices of low grade and restored books were stagnated or even lowered?

 

The thing close to a real opinion I will add to this is to opine that it may be "fair" to say that in this case the terms "low grade books" and "restored books" may be considered equivalent to "other people's books." Books whose drop in value didn't affect anyone who didn't own -- or recently sell -- them.

 

I think it's a fact (and one Steve would agree with) that if you have a job which by its nature creates an effect on a market, then objectivity is very important. And it's important to get as close as you can to a near total lack of any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Any opinions offered on the rise or fall of values can blur the perception of objectivity, even if the intentions are crystal pure and even if you don't have and never had an interest in one or the other. .

 

Now for an opinion. I think addressing these concerns here is better for CGC than addressing them in another venue. But in the end I'll leave that to CGC and its members.

 

 

 

 

 

Was it considered "fair" that other people saw their property devalued?

 

the problem as i see - or saw, can't decide which tense to use - it is not so much the observation of things that arose in the market due to CGC, but rather the implication of intent at acheiving those same things.

 

we can posit all we like about what affect CGC had on the price of books, both low and high grade, but to make a logical leap that Steve or anyone intended to create CGC for the express purpose - or even incidental purpose - of increasing the value of his books either specifically or obliquely is a statement that borders on the defamatory

[piper]

man, that sucks that you can't just libel CGC on their own message boards. what the kind of censorship is that *spoon*

 

Yeah....what a world.

 

I was not going to post again but a couple of people asked me to.

 

For the record, the conclusions people got from my posts were their own conclusions, drawn from facts I l laid out. I tried to make clear then and will make even more clear now that I do not know what went on or goes in the head of anyone, let alone a person at CGC. And in talking about what has occured with purple labelling of books, I have drawn conclusions far less than I've simply laid out facts or quoted other people drawing their conclusions. And while in fact I never said it specifically, this, I think, pretty much illustrates the intent, or desire, or whatever you want to call it.

 

Steve has indicated that CGC has kept prices of lower to mid grade books "stabilized and even lowered" while the very high grade "shot through the roof."

 

That alone doesn't mean much. But when you consider that Steve specialized in high grade books and avoided lower grade books, that means CGC brought down the value of books he'd tended not to collect or sell, and raised the value of books he had collected and sold.

 

Yet even that doesn't necessarily mean there was any intent or desire to drive prices up or down.

 

But there's still one more thing to factor in. Did he characterize it as good or "fair" that prices of low grade and restored books were stagnated or even lowered?

 

The thing close to a real opinion I will add to this is to opine that it may be "fair" to say that in this case the terms "low grade books" and "restored books" may be considered equivalent to "other people's books." Books whose drop in value didn't affect anyone who didn't own -- or recently sell -- them.

 

I think it's a fact (and one Steve would agree with) that if you have a job which by its nature creates an effect on a market, then objectivity is very important. And it's important to get as close as you can to a near total lack of any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Any opinions offered on the rise or fall of values can blur the perception of objectivity, even if the intentions are crystal pure and even if you don't have and never had an interest in one or the other. .

 

Now for an opinion. I think addressing these concerns here is better for CGC than addressing them in another venue. But in the end I'll leave that to CGC and its members.

 

 

 

 

 

Was it considered "fair" that other people saw their property devalued?

 

the problem as i see - or saw, can't decide which tense to use - it is not so much the observation of things that arose in the market due to CGC, but rather the implication of intent at acheiving those same things.

 

we can posit all we like about what affect CGC had on the price of books, both low and high grade, but to make a logical leap that Steve or anyone intended to create CGC for the express purpose - or even incidental purpose - of increasing the value of his books either specifically or obliquely is a statement that borders on the defamatory

 

Isn't this the kind of crazy talk that could get him banned (again)?

[tth2]

Isn't this the kind of crazy talk that could get him banned (again)?

[bluechip]

Isn't this the kind of crazy talk that could get him banned (again)?

 

 

If that is the case, then so be it.

 

Here are the quotes from article I referred to

 

"Another thing CGC has done is keep prices at a fair level for most lower and mid grade comics. When we first opened, the war cry from the self proclaimed "true collector" is that we are making prices so high the "real Collector" can't afford them". What really happened, is that lower and mid grade prices, except on rare material, has stabilized and even lowered while the very high grade has shot through the roof. Like in any hobby, if someone wants the best, they will pay for it. If someone wants a reading copy, unless it's a real highly coveted book, like a Suspense #3 or All-American #16, collector's can now afford it."

 

 

 

Those are not my words but Steve's. I simply paraphrased what he said.

 

I was called crazy fotr suggesting CGC brought down prices instead of the "market" yet it's clearly Steve himself who says here the change in prices is (his words) "another thing CGC has done." And it is Steve himself who refers to the lower prices as "fair prices" which "collectors can now afford."

 

If the words are actually Steve's, then it can't be "crazy" because it's incorrect.

Why "crazy" then?

[deathlok]

Isn't this the kind of crazy talk that could get him banned (again)?

 

 

If that is the case, then so be it.

 

Here are the quotes from article I referred to

 

"Another thing CGC has done is keep prices at a fair level for most lower and mid grade comics. When we first opened, the war cry from the self proclaimed "true collector" is that we are making prices so high the "real Collector" can't afford them". What really happened, is that lower and mid grade prices, except on rare material, has stabilized and even lowered while the very high grade has shot through the roof. Like in any hobby, if someone wants the best, they will pay for it. If someone wants a reading copy, unless it's a real highly coveted book, like a Suspense #3 or All-American #16, collector's can now afford it."

 

 

 

Those are not my words but Steve's. I simply paraphrased what he said.

 

I was called crazy fotr suggesting CGC brought down prices instead of the "market" yet it's clearly Steve himself who says here the change in prices is (his words) "another thing CGC has done." And it is Steve himself who refers to the lower prices as "fair prices" which "collectors can now afford."

 

If the words are actually Steve's, then it can't be "crazy" because it's incorrect.

Why "crazy" then?

 

[bluechip]

FYI, my awareness of these boards came from emails out of the blue from people who informed me that posters had mentioned either my name or a book I was selling. In both cases misinformation posed a potential problem, so I emailed the piosters to correct it. Since then I've satched the board a bit more and seen many many instances of people being called "crooks" or worse.

 

I've also seen a lot of good stuff, and gotten helpful hints from people.

 

As for CGC itself, there is much that is good about what they do. It's potentially a great way to certify that a book came from a particular owner or collection.

 

And it makes it safer to deal in books on the internet or even at shows because you don't have to worry about whether somebody will danage it by looking at it, or that you'll offer a refund and get back a book that is damaged -- or not even the same book,

 

Where it has not succeeded as much is in lower grade or restored books, or in protecting the novice, who may be less likely to buy an overpriced estored book but is much more likely to buy an overpriced high grade common book.

 

I have heard seen people opine on these boards as to whether any or all of those effects on the market were intentional, or desired. But I have not heard anyone from CGC say anything which clearly indicates they thought CGC caused that effect, or whether they think it's a good thing.

 

The remarks about low grade and restored books, however, do indicate a potential lack of objectivity. It doesn't really matter whether you think they do. Or even whether I think they do. But whatever you feel, I kow enough about the way people interpret things to asssure you that's how the average person will interpret it. The choice of words like "fair price" may be accidental, but regardless of the intention, it's worth an effort on CGC's behalf to consider whether it sounds like there is a prejudice or a predisposition, or even just a preference, for a certain outcome.

 

And, as I said, I think it's better for CGC and everyone to consider it here as opposed to somewhere else. I don't want CGC to go away, and I don't expect it to mirror my ooinions or my wants. But I know manhy in the hobby who approached CGC'd books like a temporary market force that would drive some things willdly up and down and that they would take advantage of the differentials on both ends until the market imploded as it did briefly in the 90s. I don't want that to happen. I think it would be better for CGC to remain a permanet part of collecting, but I thinkin order to do so there will need to be an ongoing evoluition in standards and practices. Some have suggested that changes should be avoided because they create the impression mistakes were made in the past. I believe it is better to make corrections so unintented consequences don't conitinue and accumulate. And I believe the more CGC can stress cold hard facts and the more it can forego indulging in or catering to opinions and feelings, the better it -- and efverybody will be.

[lou_fine]

Steve has indicated that CGC has kept prices of lower to mid grade books "stabilized and even lowered" while the very high grade "shot through the roof."

 

That alone doesn't mean much. But when you consider that Steve specialized in high grade books and avoided lower grade books, that means CGC brought down the value of books he'd tended not to collect or sell, and raised the value of books he had collected and sold.

 

Bluechip;

 

Steve has gone on record right from the start that he had sold off his entire collection prior to coming on board with CGC. This was done for the express purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest situation. Apparently, he no longer purchases collectible books except for new books off the newsstand for reading purposes only.

 

Hence, no real incentive or personal gain for Steve if one side of the market goes up as opposed to the other side.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Steve has indicated that CGC has kept prices of lower to mid grade books "stabilized and even lowered" while the very high grade "shot through the roof."

 

That alone doesn't mean much. But when you consider that Steve specialized in high grade books and avoided lower grade books, that means CGC brought down the value of books he'd tended not to collect or sell, and raised the value of books he had collected and sold.

 

Bluechip;

 

Steve has gone on record right from the start that he had sold off his entire collection prior to coming on board with CGC. This was done for the express purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest situation. Apparently, he no longer purchases collectible books except for new books off the newsstand for reading purposes only.

 

Hence, no real incentive or personal gain for Steve if one side of the market goes up as opposed to the other side.

 

And additionally....CGC has not 'kept prices of lower to mid grade books stabilized and even lowered'. That's what the market did. CGC graded and encased them, but they neither bought nor sold the books, so the ability to set prices was beyond them.

[langur88]

 

Steve has gone on record right from the start that he had sold off his entire collection prior to coming on board with CGC. This was done for the express purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest situation.

 

I can vouch for this. What may have been his last show with books prior to CGC was one of our Boston conventions. He was selling out. Ted from Superworld was set up next to him and can also vouch for this.