• 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.

There's a Restored 9.4 Tec 33 Blowing up on Ebay

895 posts in this topic

Why would they get rid of this thread?

 

I am fairly new to the boards so don't know what kind of things they thrown upon. Semms well worth keeping

 

Discussion is about a book graded by the rival company and has included some not always laudatory discussion of CGC. My guess is that they will at least prune it, if they don't delete it.

 

We'll see by Monday morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

 

I do agree that vertical integration is not needed. Indeed, it offers the potential for some serious damage to the market side of the hobby.

 

But I don't think knowledgeable collectors really need protection from grading. A knowledgeable collector should be able to grade literally as well as any grader from any TPG. Further, they will have cultivated relationships with dealers based on trust and understanding of what to expect from said dealers. When I was actively buying I could pretty well predict what to expect before even pulling it out of the mylar or taking it off the wall when buying from dealers like Harley, Outer Limits, NEC, Metro, Superworld, Bedrock etc. etc.

 

To me, the main problem is actually not knowing the grading criteria used by TPGs, especially considering we usually never ever ever see the inside of the book or even the inside of the covers. To really attempt to understand a TPG criteria one would have to buy and crack out a lot of books of not only different grades but of different eras and even publishers within that era as well as degree of "keyness" and do real analysis/comparisons.

 

To me the most important thing about TPG is their ability to successfully detect restoration, which even experienced collectors can have a hard time with.

 

The concept of not revealing grading criteria feels like a cousin to vertical integration.

 

Better a cousin to vertical integration than a vertical integration to a cousin, I suppose :baiting: GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

....sorry Pov,..... sometimes it's difficult to hide my buffoonery .....

 

Well considered buffoonery is the opposite of buffoonery, for to conceive buffoonery properly requires the ultimate in non-buffoonery. (thumbs u

 

Youse my main man dawg :headbang: GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they get rid of this thread?

 

I am fairly new to the boards so don't know what kind of things they thrown upon. Semms well worth keeping

 

Discussion is about a book graded by the rival company and has included some not always laudatory discussion of CGC. My guess is that they will at least prune it, if they don't delete it.

 

We'll see by Monday morning.

 

Yeah. I'm saving what I can now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self grading is a conflict of interest that allowed dealers to exploit collectors. That conflict led to the third party grading system. Silos, we need silos to protect collections. Vertical integration of the industry in not needed. Just like the comic publishers themselves should stick to making great comics and not "rare collectibles" with limited eds and variant covers. That nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s.

 

I do agree that vertical integration is not needed. Indeed, it offers the potential for some serious damage to the market side of the hobby.

 

But I don't think knowledgeable collectors really need protection from grading. A knowledgeable collector should be able to grade literally as well as any grader from any TPG. Further, they will have cultivated relationships with dealers based on trust and understanding of what to expect from said dealers. When I was actively buying I could pretty well predict what to expect before even pulling it out of the mylar or taking it off the wall when buying from dealers like Harley, Outer Limits, NEC, Metro, Superworld, Bedrock etc. etc.

 

To me, the main problem is actually not knowing the grading criteria used by TPGs, especially considering we usually never ever ever see the inside of the book or even the inside of the covers. To really attempt to understand a TPG criteria one would have to buy and crack out a lot of books of not only different grades but of different eras and even publishers within that era as well as degree of "keyness" and do real analysis/comparisons.

 

To me the most important thing about TPG is their ability to successfully detect restoration, which even experienced collectors can have a hard time with.

 

The concept of not revealing grading criteria feels like a cousin to vertical integration.

 

Better a cousin to vertical integration than a vertical integration to a cousin, I suppose :baiting: GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

....sorry Pov,..... sometimes it's difficult to hide my buffoonery .....

 

Well considered buffoonery is the opposite of buffoonery, for to conceive buffoonery properly requires the ultimate in non-buffoonery. (thumbs u

 

Youse my main man dawg :headbang: GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Buffoon! :P:hi:lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they get rid of this thread?

 

I am fairly new to the boards so don't know what kind of things they thrown upon. Semms well worth keeping

 

Discussion is about a book graded by the rival company and has included some not always laudatory discussion of CGC. My guess is that they will at least prune it, if they don't delete it.

 

We'll see by Monday morning.

 

Yeah. I'm saving what I can now.

 

.... another weekend ends.... and the tide comes in..... washing another sand castle out to sea..... (: GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they get rid of this thread?

 

I am fairly new to the boards so don't know what kind of things they thrown upon. Semms well worth keeping

 

Discussion is about a book graded by the rival company and has included some not always laudatory discussion of CGC. My guess is that they will at least prune it, if they don't delete it.

 

We'll see by Monday morning.

 

:gossip: It has already been modded a couple of times.

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they get rid of this thread?

 

I am fairly new to the boards so don't know what kind of things they thrown upon. Semms well worth keeping

 

Discussion is about a book graded by the rival company and has included some not always laudatory discussion of CGC. My guess is that they will at least prune it, if they don't delete it.

 

We'll see by Monday morning.

 

:gossip: It has already been modded a couple of times.

 

-J.

 

Tis a shame indeed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That conflict led to the third party grading system.

 

I believe the main reason for the 3rd party grading system was to facilitate commerce over the internet with a certain level of confidence. That's why it happened back in 1999, just as eBay and online auction houses exploded. As a side benefit, it leveled the playing field for all buyers and sellers.

 

And that brings is right back around to this thread.

 

The purpose of a certification company is to give an educated opinion on what is in the holder. Qualitatively, quantitatively. That evaluation is made so that a seller / buyer can apply a value to a book.

 

If you can't identify everything done to the book and quantify it you can't identify the value in the book.

 

And I believe that is where the problem lies with CGC. Just my 2c

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question for me is there an arbitrage that is starting between the two companies. Are people cracking books out of one companies slab and sending them to be regraded by the other company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGC 9.2 Extensive holder to 9.4 Moderate holder still has me thinking

 

 

Resto standards have changed but so have resto designation standards. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that old book graded under CGC's old grading standards and the new book under the updated resto designations?

 

Yes old label 9.2 E to new 9.4 M

 

It may be a difference in the perception of "conservation" vs "restoration". That is, techniques now deemed conservation were at one time included in restoration. So with those conservation techniques out of the restoration picture, that could account for a bump down as in Ext to Mod or Mod to Sl.

 

Great point. I might even think that makes sence. :golfclap:

 

It might make Sense ;)

 

Wow, it's simply amazing how we rationalize and try to look for reasons to give CGC the benefit of the doubt when we see inconsistencies or any questions in terms of their grading or restoration rating determinations. Yes indeed, it must be their "new and improved" techniques or more accurate re-definitions.

 

Yet, when we see any inconsistencies or questions with respect to grading or restoration rating issues from the other company, a large number of the board members here immediately accuse them of gross incompetency or what have you. And seemingly, almost to the point of total contempt and disdain, as though they had just committed a fraudulent act with heinous intent. :screwy:

 

I actually find this rather surprising, considering that many of these were the exact same board members who used to espouse the honesty, integrity, knowledge, and sheer competence of Steve and West when they were both still working with CGC. ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGC 9.2 Extensive holder to 9.4 Moderate holder still has me thinking

 

 

Resto standards have changed but so have resto designation standards. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that old book graded under CGC's old grading standards and the new book under the updated resto designations?

 

Yes old label 9.2 E to new 9.4 M

 

It may be a difference in the perception of "conservation" vs "restoration". That is, techniques now deemed conservation were at one time included in restoration. So with those conservation techniques out of the restoration picture, that could account for a bump down as in Ext to Mod or Mod to Sl.

 

Great point. I might even think that makes sence. :golfclap:

 

It might make Sense ;)

 

Wow, it's simply amazing how we rationalize and try to look for reasons to give CGC the benefit of the doubt when we see inconsistencies or any questions in terms of their grading or restoration rating determinations. Yes indeed, it must be their "new and improved" techniques or more accurate re-definitions.

 

Yet, when we see any inconsistencies or questions with respect to grading or restoration rating issues from the other company, a large number of the board members here immediately accuse them of gross incompetency or what have you. And seemingly, almost to the point of total contempt and disdain, as though they had just committed a fraudulent act with heinous intent. :screwy:

 

I actually find this rather surprising, considering that many of these were the exact same board members that used to espouse the honesty, integrity, knowledge, and sheer competence of Steve and West when they were both still working with CGC. ???

 

I've noticed the same thing and have been confused how easily people can turn on Steve and West.It kind of sickens me.

 

Now my post was in the core of your quote but it applied equally to CGC and CBCS. And I wasn't making excuses for them. I was stating what I strongly believe is happening. With different definitions of what is restoration vs conservation coming into play, the designations (Ext, Mod, Slight) could well change along with them. But ever since I started on these boards I have always maintained it makes no difference what you call it: restoration, conservation, whatever. A different term does not change what a book has been through. And a MUCH better understanding of what restoration is (including conservation) is sorely needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Won't get fooled again."

 

The Who

 

Or maybe definitely we will.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that by just being in this hobby, you are already being dragged into this game, whether willingly or not. :censored:

 

So, what's one more spin on the old merry-go-round since we can't get off anyways, even if we wanted to. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That conflict led to the third party grading system.

 

I believe the main reason for the 3rd party grading system was to facilitate commerce over the internet with a certain level of confidence. That's why it happened back in 1999, just as eBay and online auction houses exploded. As a side benefit, it leveled the playing field for all buyers and sellers.

 

And that brings is right back around to this thread.

 

The purpose of a certification company is to give an educated opinion on what is in the holder. Qualitatively, quantitatively. That evaluation is made so that a seller / buyer can apply a value to a book.

 

If you can't identify everything done to the book and quantify it you can't identify the value in the book.

 

And I believe that is where the problem lies with CGC. Just my 2c

 

 

 

It's clear in the last two paragraphs of the following letter that commerce was indeed the impetus for the creation of third-party grading. It's interesting that Bob says, "This cannot fail..." Clearly he was worried that there would be no consensus so his strong language was directed at guys like me who had a very difficult time accepting this paradigm change.

 

Bob%20Letter_zpspbbvtbl0.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That conflict led to the third party grading system.

 

I believe the main reason for the 3rd party grading system was to facilitate commerce over the internet with a certain level of confidence. That's why it happened back in 1999, just as eBay and online auction houses exploded. As a side benefit, it leveled the playing field for all buyers and sellers.

 

And that brings is right back around to this thread.

 

The purpose of a certification company is to give an educated opinion on what is in the holder. Qualitatively, quantitatively. That evaluation is made so that a seller / buyer can apply a value to a book.

 

If you can't identify everything done to the book and quantify it you can't identify the value in the book.

 

And I believe that is where the problem lies with CGC. Just my 2c

 

 

 

It's clear in the last two paragraphs of the following letter that commerce was indeed the impetus for the creation of third-party grading. It's interesting that Bob says, "This cannot fail..." Clearly he was worried that there would be no consensus so his strong language was directed at guys like me who had a very difficult time accepting this paradigm change.

 

Bob%20Letter_zpspbbvtbl0.jpg

 

 

Thanks for posting that letter. Learning the history of the hobby is fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites