• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Second Action 1 9.0 to hit the census

Started by Gotham Kid,

723 posts in this topic

miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted
My understanding is the book was graded last year and out on the census today to coincide with the ospg ad

 

The back cover has some issue which is what keeps the grade down a bit.

 

Am I the only who is bothered by the idea that grading dates might be manipulated in this way?

 

So the CGC records say it was graded in Feb, assuming that is when it happened all that has been "manipulated" is holding back on inclusion of the book on the CGC Census. The records are (assumedly) accurate. We just didnt see a census update at the time the book was graded.

 

Considering the amount of press this unveiling got, it's understandable both the request (so that the cat didnt get out of the bag before the ad was released to the public along with the press release), and CGC agreeing to hold back the census addition for the sake of a coordinated "release" effort.

 

I wonder if they would have held back the census inclusion if the other 9.0 or another high grade Action had been in auction between Feb and now. hm

 

Presence of another high grade Action 1 MIGHT have an effect on realized prices on the other 9.0 or even the 8.0/8.5 as they all move down a notch on the Action 1 hierarchy. (not that it matters since high grade Action 1 copies are so rare, and come to market so rarely, they almost act as unique occurences more based on what a buyer is willing to pay at that time than an influence by what past buyers were willing to pay).

 

that's about the only scenario where I could see this as any manipulating effect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyclops

Cyclops

Posted
Posted
My understanding is the book was graded last year and out on the census today to coincide with the ospg ad

 

The back cover has some issue which is what keeps the grade down a bit.

 

Am I the only who is bothered by the idea that grading dates might be manipulated in this way?

 

So the CGC records say it was graded in Feb, assuming that is when it happened all that has been "manipulated" is holding back on inclusion of the book on the CGC Census. The records are (assumedly) accurate. We just didnt see a census update at the time the book was graded.

 

Considering the amount of press this unveiling got, it's understandable both the request (so that the cat didnt get out of the bag before the ad was released to the public along with the press release), and CGC agreeing to hold back the census addition for the sake of a coordinated "release" effort.

 

I wonder if they would have held back the census inclusion if the other 9.0 or another high grade Action had been in auction between Feb and now. hm

 

Presence of another high grade Action 1 MIGHT have an effect on realized prices on the other 9.0 or even the 8.0/8.5 as they all move down a notch on the Action 1 hierarchy. (not that it matters since high grade Action 1 copies are so rare, and come to market so rarely, they almost act as unique occurences more based on what a buyer is willing to pay at that time than an influence by what past buyers were willing to pay).

 

that's about the only scenario where I could see this as any manipulating effect.

 

So date graded is actually date added to census? Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted
My understanding is the book was graded last year and out on the census today to coincide with the ospg ad

 

The back cover has some issue which is what keeps the grade down a bit.

 

Am I the only who is bothered by the idea that grading dates might be manipulated in this way?

 

So the CGC records say it was graded in Feb, assuming that is when it happened all that has been "manipulated" is holding back on inclusion of the book on the CGC Census. The records are (assumedly) accurate. We just didnt see a census update at the time the book was graded.

 

Considering the amount of press this unveiling got, it's understandable both the request (so that the cat didnt get out of the bag before the ad was released to the public along with the press release), and CGC agreeing to hold back the census addition for the sake of a coordinated "release" effort.

 

I wonder if they would have held back the census inclusion if the other 9.0 or another high grade Action had been in auction between Feb and now. hm

 

Presence of another high grade Action 1 MIGHT have an effect on realized prices on the other 9.0 or even the 8.0/8.5 as they all move down a notch on the Action 1 hierarchy. (not that it matters since high grade Action 1 copies are so rare, and come to market so rarely, they almost act as unique occurences more based on what a buyer is willing to pay at that time than an influence by what past buyers were willing to pay).

 

that's about the only scenario where I could see this as any manipulating effect.

 

So date graded is actually date added to census? Is that correct?

 

The date graded (based on the cert verification on CGC website) is 02/05/2014. Typically once a book is graded it also gets added to the census within a week (so if there was one 9.8 and you just got the second one graded it would be updated to show two 9.8s) .

 

In this case the book was graded back in Feb, but was held from the census addition until now.

 

date graded is date graded, it's just typically close to the time it also gets added to census, but in this case an exception was made, which I could understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sqeggs

Sqeggs

Posted
Posted
My understanding is the book was graded last year and out on the census today to coincide with the ospg ad

 

The back cover has some issue which is what keeps the grade down a bit.

 

Am I the only who is bothered by the idea that grading dates might be manipulated in this way?

 

So the CGC records say it was graded in Feb, assuming that is when it happened all that has been "manipulated" is holding back on inclusion of the book on the CGC Census. The records are (assumedly) accurate. We just didnt see a census update at the time the book was graded.

 

Considering the amount of press this unveiling got, it's understandable both the request (so that the cat didnt get out of the bag before the ad was released to the public along with the press release), and CGC agreeing to hold back the census addition for the sake of a coordinated "release" effort.

 

I wonder if they would have held back the census inclusion if the other 9.0 or another high grade Action had been in auction between Feb and now. hm

 

Presence of another high grade Action 1 MIGHT have an effect on realized prices on the other 9.0 or even the 8.0/8.5 as they all move down a notch on the Action 1 hierarchy. (not that it matters since high grade Action 1 copies are so rare, and come to market so rarely, they almost act as unique occurences more based on what a buyer is willing to pay at that time than an influence by what past buyers were willing to pay).

 

that's about the only scenario where I could see this as any manipulating effect.

 

I was reacting to G.A.tor's observation that the book may have been graded last year -- that is, more than seven months ago. I believe in the other thread, G.A.tor mentions that the book may in fact have been in the census briefly last year before being removed.

 

In any event, even a delay from February to July in adding the book to the census is troubling in my view. Why?

 

First ask yourself whether CGC would be likely to accede to such a request if you or I made it. I'm not one to ask for special treatment, so I don't know what the answer would be, but I can guess.

 

CGC has long been thought to favor big dealers over the average Joe. A case in point is the decision in the early days to allow GA books with color touch or glued spine splits to be given blue labels. The common explanation -- I have no idea whether it's accurate, but it's certainly widely believed -- is that the decision was necessary because the owners of Church and other pedigreed books on which some "work" had been done would not have submitted them if the books would have received purple labels.

 

To this day, there is significant uncertainty/unhappiness over where the line is drawn between blue and purple on GA books with ct and glue. The suspicion is that the line may move depending on the submitter. Once again, this may be unfair, but it's a perception that CGC faces.

 

Now people can argue that this is a once-in-a-lifetime book, literally the most important book in the hobby. So acceding to the owner's desire to orchestrate its unveiling is ok.

 

But given that this time they allowed a book to be added to the census only with a long delay after its having been graded, who knows whether they have allowed it other times?

 

It's pretty easy to think of ways in which delays could be used to manipulate the market.

 

In the end, companies are always better off being transparent and avoiding the appearance of favoritism. Particularly, I would think, when a new competitor has entered the market. My 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whomerjay

whomerjay

Posted
Posted
My understanding is the book was graded last year and out on the census today to coincide with the ospg ad

 

The back cover has some issue which is what keeps the grade down a bit.

 

Am I the only who is bothered by the idea that grading dates might be manipulated in this way?

 

So the CGC records say it was graded in Feb, assuming that is when it happened all that has been "manipulated" is holding back on inclusion of the book on the CGC Census. The records are (assumedly) accurate. We just didnt see a census update at the time the book was graded.

 

Considering the amount of press this unveiling got, it's understandable both the request (so that the cat didnt get out of the bag before the ad was released to the public along with the press release), and CGC agreeing to hold back the census addition for the sake of a coordinated "release" effort.

 

I wonder if they would have held back the census inclusion if the other 9.0 or another high grade Action had been in auction between Feb and now. hm

 

Presence of another high grade Action 1 MIGHT have an effect on realized prices on the other 9.0 or even the 8.0/8.5 as they all move down a notch on the Action 1 hierarchy. (not that it matters since high grade Action 1 copies are so rare, and come to market so rarely, they almost act as unique occurences more based on what a buyer is willing to pay at that time than an influence by what past buyers were willing to pay).

 

that's about the only scenario where I could see this as any manipulating effect.

 

I was reacting to G.A.tor's observation that the book may have been graded last year -- that is, more than seven months ago. I believe in the other thread, G.A.tor mentions that the book may in fact have been in the census briefly last year before being removed.

 

In any event, even a delay from February to July in adding the book to the census is troubling in my view. Why?

 

First ask yourself whether CGC would be likely to accede to such a request if you or I made it. I'm not one to ask for special treatment, so I don't know what the answer would be, but I can guess.

 

CGC has long been thought to favor big dealers over the average Joe. A case in point is the decision in the early days to allow GA books with color touch or glued spine splits to be given blue labels. The common explanation -- I have no idea whether it's accurate, but it's certainly widely believed -- is that the decision was necessary because the owners of Church and other pedigreed books on which some "work" had been done would not have submitted them if the books would have received purple labels.

 

To this day, there is significant uncertainty/unhappiness over where the line is drawn between blue and purple on GA books with ct and glue. The suspicion is that the line may move depending on the submitter. Once again, this may be unfair, but it's a perception that CGC faces.

 

Now people can argue that this is a once-in-a-lifetime book, literally the most important book in the hobby. So acceding to the owner's desire to orchestrate its unveiling is ok.

 

But given that this time they allowed a book to be added to the census only with a long delay after its having been graded, who knows whether they have allowed it other times?

 

It's pretty easy to think of ways in which delays could be used to manipulate the market.

In the end, companies are always better off being transparent and avoiding the appearance of favoritism. Particularly, I would think, when a new competitor has entered the market. My 2c

 

Agree. IMO things like the JIM 83 are nothing and unavoidable, but this is a really big deaI. CGC has some explaining to do and needs to clarify the policy re: census updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted

I agree I do think CGC needs to speak to the census update topic.

 

People do make purchasing decisions based on a books census count and the related market results.

 

I'd be upset if I was buying the "single highest graded" of something when it wasnt.

 

(and yes I know this can happen anyway because people hold back high grade raw comics all the time and they never hit the census...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
batman_fan

batman_fan

Posted
Posted
I agree I do think CGC needs to speak to the census update topic.

 

People do make purchasing decisions based on a books census count and the related market results.

 

I'd be upset if I was buying the "single highest graded" of something when it wasnt.

 

(and yes I know this can happen anyway because people hold back high grade raw comics all the time and they never hit the census...)

 

I have a slightly different view of the census data. It is a FREE service provided by CGC (why they don't charge for access still amazes me). Given it is free, folks can complain all they want, but it is free. Everyone should know that the census data is not 100% accurate and uses it with than in mind. If folks aren't aware it isn't 100% accurate, please take note now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

I assume the stain is very small and camouflaged by the ad.

 

I can understand the grade but it's also as pretty a 9.0 as we'll ever see. I can't see anyone really be too fired up if this was in a 9.2 slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing