• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Thor 165 v FF 67
0

Started by Mishmashman,

65 posts in this topic

Shoomanfoo

Shoomanfoo

Posted
Posted

At the end of the day CGC determines his cameos and 1st appearance. What you think or I think or how we define is personal. 

How CGC labels is universal and the authority whether we accept that reality or not.

I try not to break my brain on all this by buying the books I like but at the end of the day if I want “1st full” or “first cameo of 3rd appearance of Adams aunt” then I go by the label.

i cannot sell a FF4 67 as a 1st full or any other designation that the label simply does not state. 

That would be intentionally false information that conflicts with the actual item in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KirbyJack

KirbyJack

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Shoomanfoo said:

At the end of the day CGC determines his cameos and 1st appearance. What you think or I think or how we define is personal. 

How CGC labels is universal and the authority whether we accept that reality or not.

I try not to break my brain on all this by buying the books I like but at the end of the day if I want “1st full” or “first cameo of 3rd appearance of Adams aunt” then I go by the label.

i cannot sell a FF4 67 as a 1st full or any other designation that the label simply does not state. 

That would be intentionally false information that conflicts with the actual item in hand.

All due respect, I disagree.

I don't always take CGC as gospel, and to their credit, they keep an open mind on such matters. Notations have been known to change. Some copies get a notation, some don't. I will feel free to continue using my own standards, especially since I only own about a dozen CGC books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shoomanfoo

Shoomanfoo

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, KirbyJack said:

All due respect, I disagree.

I don't always take CGC as gospel, and to their credit, they keep an open mind on such matters. Notations have been known to change. Some copies get a notation, some don't. I will feel free to continue using my own standards, especially since I only own about a dozen CGC books. 

Exactly. “Notations are known to change” do to popular opinion based on more accuracy or more market movement.

At the end of the day it’s CGC that changes or approves. 

Of course you are free to believe as you choose...that does not make your books what you say they are. Just nope

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unca Ben

Unca Ben

Posted
Posted
On 8/19/2019 at 5:17 AM, Shoomanfoo said:

At the end of the day CGC determines his cameos and 1st appearance. What you think or I think or how we define is personal. 

How CGC labels is universal and the authority whether we accept that reality or not.

I try not to break my brain on all this by buying the books I like but at the end of the day if I want “1st full” or “first cameo of 3rd appearance of Adams aunt” then I go by the label.

i cannot sell a FF4 67 as a 1st full or any other designation that the label simply does not state. 

That would be intentionally false information that conflicts with the actual item in hand.

I suppose it's whether you view CGC's label notes as prescriptive or descriptive.

Your post seems to indicate the former while others may consider label notes as the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shoomanfoo

Shoomanfoo

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

I suppose it's whether you view CGC's label notes as prescriptive or descriptive.

Your post seems to indicate the former while others may consider label notes as the latter.

Doesn’t matter what you consider. It’s not complicated sir. If you are buying or selling you are paying for what CGC states. 

Theres no way around it though your comment “sounds smart”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr bla bla

Mr bla bla

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

I suppose it's whether you view CGC's label notes as prescriptive or descriptive.

Your post seems to indicate the former while others may consider label notes as the latter.

Cgc is a private company. they are perfectly in their right to have an opinion. But since they dont own the graded content (the creative property) they are not in a position to prescribe anything regarding the lore of the universes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unca Ben

Unca Ben

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Shoomanfoo said:

Doesn’t matter what you consider. It’s not complicated sir. If you are buying or selling you are paying for what CGC states. 

Theres no way around it though your comment “sounds smart”

Wasn't trying to sound smart; merely describing the circumstances.   CGC is an authority on grading comic books and detecting restoration, and even that comes with caveats.  Nowhere do they claim authority on the book's content.   You may see it otherwise as is your right, and others may disagree as is their right.  
When CGC notes first appearances, cameos, classic covers, etc., in many cases they are describing a popular consensus.  

What CGC "determines" is an opinion, as it says on the back of their label. When I buy or sell a slabbed book, I am using CGC's expertise on grading and resto detection as an expert opinion. 
What CGC "states" is not irrevocable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Sinescu

Martin Sinescu

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2019 at 2:10 PM, Mr bla bla said:

Cgc is a private company. they are perfectly in their right to have an opinion. But since they dont own the graded content (the creative property) they are not in a position to prescribe anything regarding the lore of the universes.

Furthermore, CGC is a GRADING service, they are not primarily historians of the hobby. If anyone is paying for their editorial label information, you're doing it wrong.

Edited by Martin Sinescu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shoomanfoo

Shoomanfoo

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Furthermore, CGC is a GRADING service, they are not primarily historians of the hobby. If anyone is paying for their editorial label information, you're doing it wrong.

So why does first full wolverine sell for what it does? And why can you sell it for what you can sell it for?

because CGC has determined and labeled it so. 

Do I agree? No do you? 

You see it doesn’t matter..it was the designation that determined the ultimate value but you can be in denial all you please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Sinescu

Martin Sinescu

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Shoomanfoo said:

So why does first full wolverine sell for what it does? And why can you sell it for what you can sell it for?

because CGC has determined and labeled it so. 

Do I agree? No do you? 

You see it doesn’t matter..it was the designation that determined the ultimate value but you can be in denial all you please.

Completely wrong, 181 had broken away from 180 well before CGC came around. It was the hobby's determination, not CGC's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
On 8/22/2019 at 4:35 PM, Shoomanfoo said:

So why does first full wolverine sell for what it does? And why can you sell it for what you can sell it for?

because CGC has determined and labeled it so. 

Do I agree? No do you? 

You see it doesn’t matter..it was the designation that determined the ultimate value but you can be in denial all you please.

39rwtu.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
On 8/22/2019 at 4:35 PM, Shoomanfoo said:

So why does first full wolverine sell for what it does? And why can you sell it for what you can sell it for?

because CGC has determined and labeled it so. 

It's because the hobby determined it so.  And the hobby is influenced by opinions of hobbyists, of the Overstreet guide, and of CGC.  It's the same for determining whether collections deserve pedigree designations.  Key issues and pedigrees existed for a long time before CGC went into business, which pretty much cinches it that it's the hobby and not the grading company that is the arbiter of issues relating to the hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shoomanfoo

Shoomanfoo

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2019 at 1:57 PM, namisgr said:

It's because the hobby determined it so.  And the hobby is influenced by opinions of hobbyists, of the Overstreet guide, and of CGC.  It's the same for determining whether collections deserve pedigree designations.  Key issues and pedigrees existed for a long time before CGC went into business, which pretty much cinches it that it's the hobby and not the grading company that is the arbiter of issues relating to the hobby.

Exactly. Someone who gets it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing