CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[MrBedrock]

Actually I just remembered not that long ago someone contacted me on Facebook asking my opinion on leafcasting and this book. May not be everyone's definition of "ultra" high grade, but a 9.4 Tec 27 is pretty darn close:

 

Interesting. That is very high grade. It would be interesting to know how much leafcasting was done...small area or large.

 

I took "cover" to mean the entire wrap, and I can't deny the moderate designation was the first thing that stuck out to me when I saw it.

"Cover" just designates where (as opposed to interior wraps) but doesn't speak to quantity...size of a dime, full spine, large corner, etc. I seriously doubt it is more than 10% of the full cover area, but it may be a bet I would lose.

[batman_fan]

Actually I just remembered not that long ago someone contacted me on Facebook asking my opinion on leafcasting and this book. May not be everyone's definition of "ultra" high grade, but a 9.4 Tec 27 is pretty darn close:

 

Interesting. That is very high grade. It would be interesting to know how much leafcasting was done...small area or large.

 

I would guess smaller since it is moderate versus extensive. If the scan is off HA, may be possible to see how much was done.

[herc2000]

I don't understand why there would be such a big difference in grade of one company saying it's a 8.0 and the other 9.0.

 

I can see why there will sometimes be a half grade difference, but if all the graders know how to grade, it should be pretty much spot on and not a full grade in difference.

 

If the grader at the newer company worked for CGC, would it get the 8.0, or would it be a 9.0?

 

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

How is it decided when a comic gets a 9.9, 10.0 and not a 9.8?

[N/A]

Oooooh, conspiracy theories.

 

It's subjective. That's it. That's all.

[Tony S]

I don't understand why there would be such a big difference in grade of one company saying it's a 8.0 and the other 9.0.

 

I can see why there will sometimes be a half grade difference, but if all the graders know how to grade, it should be pretty much spot on and not a full grade in difference.

 

If the grader at the newer company worked for CGC, would it get the 8.0, or would it be a 9.0?

 

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

How is it decided when a comic gets a 9.9, 10.0 and not a 9.8?

 

Grade a long box of mixed comics. GA to Modern, beaters to beautiful. Write the grades down on a list and lock it away. Do not look at it again. A year later grade the same box of comics. NOW compare to your list. I think you'll be surprised. At how many you give a different grade.

 

Now add to that the fact there might be a dozen or more such individual human beings grading books at the grading companies.

 

I've resubmitted hundreds of books and cross graded dozens. Most of the time the grades are very close. When you think about it - what is amazing is the differences are not far greater.

 

No conspiracy. Just human beings. Evolving, changing, having slightly different impressions on different days.

 

BTW - I don't think anyone else has mentioned this but you would think that a company that specializes in restoring and selling comic books would have preferred Voldemort all along, given the fact they don't have a green or purple label that screams "something wrong here". Everything is blue label and you have to read the fine print, so to speak....

[bluehorseshoe]

Why is there not a barristers thread in the general forum?

 

How do I get copies of the transcripts from the inevitable depos in this case? Talk about a good weekend read.

[comicwiz]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

[Tony S]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a person successful in navigating uncharted waters, and seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

My simple response is grade and value are inseparably tied. There is no point to grading if it doesn't affect value. So a third party grading service also estimating value doesn't seem out of bounds. The grading companies will "bump" books that they feel are greatly undervalued upon submission. And such takes into account the grade(s)

[comicwiz]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a person successful in navigating uncharted waters, and seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

My simple response is grade and value are inseparably tied. There is no point to grading if it doesn't affect value. So a third party grading service also estimating value doesn't seem out of bounds. The grading companies will "bump" books that they feel are greatly undervalued upon submission. And such takes into account the grade(s)

 

Thanks Tony. I appreciate that values are commensurate to grade, however my question specifically relates to whether a grader should be offering valuation opinions.

 

A good measure to go by would be USPAP, whose ethics rules were the basis for one third of the examination I had to write to become an accredited appraiser. Specifically their ethics rules are what appraisers are bound by, and their conditions and outlined parameters are what allow an appraisers opinion to be certified. The two that stand out for me are the disclosure requirements to avoid any forseeable conflict of interest, and experience which is usually inferred by the experience an appraiser has buying/selling personal property.

 

Isn't one of the conditions to work as a CGC grader that you can't be selling comics? What experience would a grader have selling comics?

 

Based on what I know as an accredited appraiser, CGC/NGC offering valuations on Pawn Stars would be considered arms length purchasing and selling activity.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction.

 

If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace.

 

Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course.

[comicwiz]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction.

 

If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace.

 

Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

Thanks, this also seems reasonable on the surface. However, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues from arising, I still feel that what you are describing here would more suitably fit a comic dealer, auctioneer, consignment house rep, or someone involved with a print or online price guide. Not someone whose profession is restricted to grading comics.

 

I believe the way Rick coordinates to have a second person offering a value opinion whenever Mark Hall-Patton authenticates items is the correct procedure, but that's just my opinion.

 

Interested to hear what others think.

[Jimmy Linguini]

The lawsuit documents make ccs look really bad.

 

Will Cgc do anything about that? No.

[chrisco37]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a person successful in navigating uncharted waters, and seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

My simple response is grade and value are inseparably tied. There is no point to grading if it doesn't affect value. So a third party grading service also estimating value doesn't seem out of bounds. The grading companies will "bump" books that they feel are greatly undervalued upon submission. And such takes into account the grade(s)

 

Thanks Tony. I appreciate that values are commensurate to grade, however my question specifically relates to whether a grader should be offering valuation opinions.

 

A good measure to go by would be USPAP, whose ethics rules were the basis for one third of the examination I had to write to become an accredited appraiser. Specifically their ethics rules are what appraisers are bound by, and their conditions and outlined parameters are what allow an appraisers opinion to be certified. The two that stand out for me are the disclosure requirements to avoid any forseeable conflict of interest, and experience which is usually inferred by the experience an appraiser has buying/selling personal property.

 

Isn't one of the conditions to work as a CGC grader that you can't be selling comics? What experience would a grader have selling comics?

 

Based on what I know as an accredited appraiser, CGC/NGC offering valuations on Pawn Stars would be considered arms length purchasing and selling activity.

 

They could easily look up and quote a few GPA sales. I don't see the problem doing that. You could even make the argument that, as someone that is strictly prohibited from dealing comics, they might offer a more unbiased opinion than someone that makes a living doing it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction.

 

If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace.

 

Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

Thanks, this also seems reasonable on the surface. However, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues from arising, I still feel that what you are describing here would more suitably fit a comic dealer, auctioneer, consignment house rep, or someone involved with a print or online price guide. Not someone whose profession is to grade comics.

 

I believe the way Rick coordinates to have a second person offering a value opinion whenever Mark Hall-Patton authenticates items is the correct procedure, but that's just my opinion.

 

Interested to hear what others think.

 

Since you have given me another opportunity to share my opinion further, by stating you are interested in what others think (never never give me an opening), I will do so, on the subject of profession.

 

I have always, on these boards and ats (until ats came to the conclusion that criticism is a very bad thing), stated that any person working for a TPG in any collectible venue should undergo a testing procedure that requires in depth knowledge of the subject that is being evaluated. The person should also be required to have at the minimum a complete ophthalmology exam (by a licensed Ophthalmologist), at a minimum of once a year and preferably 2 times a year. The person should then be licensed by whatever independent professional organization exists for the particular endeavor the person is involved in, and issued an ID number that remains with the person, even if they change employment or start their own business as a TPG. This ID should be identified in some manner on anything the person grades. Over time, the grading can be tracked and the information can be evaluated by the marketplace. If more than one grader is involved, both....or if three then three.....should also be identified in the same manner. The ID is private and is certified and held by the independent professional organization, and the ID is to be surrendered if the person leaves the profession. The person should be required to take yearly CEU, as determined by the independent professional organization. The person is not to be engaged in personal grading for others outside the employment position.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The lawsuit documents make ccs look really bad.

 

Will Cgc do anything about that? No.

 

My opinion is the documents don't do that.

[comicwiz]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a person successful in navigating uncharted waters, and seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

My simple response is grade and value are inseparably tied. There is no point to grading if it doesn't affect value. So a third party grading service also estimating value doesn't seem out of bounds. The grading companies will "bump" books that they feel are greatly undervalued upon submission. And such takes into account the grade(s)

 

Thanks Tony. I appreciate that values are commensurate to grade, however my question specifically relates to whether a grader should be offering valuation opinions.

 

A good measure to go by would be USPAP, whose ethics rules were the basis for one third of the examination I had to write to become an accredited appraiser. Specifically their ethics rules are what appraisers are bound by, and their conditions and outlined parameters are what allow an appraisers opinion to be certified. The two that stand out for me are the disclosure requirements to avoid any forseeable conflict of interest, and experience which is usually inferred by the experience an appraiser has buying/selling personal property.

 

Isn't one of the conditions to work as a CGC grader that you can't be selling comics? What experience would a grader have selling comics?

 

Based on what I know as an accredited appraiser, CGC/NGC offering valuations on Pawn Stars would be considered arms length purchasing and selling activity.

 

They could easily look up and quote a few GPA sales. I don't see the problem doing that. You could even make the argument that, as someone that is strictly prohibited from dealing comics, they might offer a more unbiased opinion than someone that makes a living doing it.

 

Fair point, and just for clarification, GPA coud be seen as a suitable method of valuation, but the person would still need to disclose each time to parties seeking their opinion they don't have experience buying/selling comics, and it would be up to the interested party to accept or reject their opinion. That disclosure is fundamental to following a standard code of practice, and I realize it might not make for good TV, but could remedy the potential conflict of interest issues.

[chrisco37]

Crazy Ed or Richie (Munchin) would make for great TV.

[Silver Surfer]

I did a quick glance on Voldy's board to see if this was being discussed over there but I didn't see anything?

[Iceman399]

I did a quick glance on Voldy's board to see if this was being discussed over there but I didn't see anything?

 

It was for a day and then they more or less locked the thread saying its got nothing to do with us so we won't talk about CGC's issue

[comicwiz]

Are any of the graders purposely over grading, under grading to try to make their company more successful?

 

I don't have an answer to this, but I wanted to share a thought since you raised this point, and the issue of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of this discussion.

 

I recieved a PM yesterday, and maybe being on these boards as long as I have makes me feel like everything old is new again. Full disclosure, I read Mark's debate on restoration article a month before this whole situation broke. I always felt it anchored the culture at a certain point in the timeline where everything changed, but since then, we've regressed. More to the point, it seems the same cultural issues are constantly being brought up, but it's like a flashpoint version of the comic hobby because the main players are now either assuming different positions or are found in completely unexpected areas of the field.

 

A guilty pleasure of mine is watching Pawn Stars. I know this show gets it's fair share of criticism because "it's staged", but I just feel there's something this show does that captures the essence of negotiating in real world situations. The one aspect of the show that's always made me cringe however is the "bring in the expert" to help Rick and company make a fair offer. I'm sure some reading this will think my ethical compass is wound too tightly, but I feel strongly that our approach to the ethical dilemma's in every situation we confront is the true measure of a persons preparedness in navigating uncharted waters, and what truly seperates them from those constantly taking on water.

 

I should also mention that seeing some familiar faces of the comic hobby appear on the show is a close second to the thrill of being consulted on the valuation of the Toy Fair Fett when the owner made an appearance on the show around last Christmas. However, the one thing that just doesn't sit well is seeing CGC appearing on the show as both an expert on grading and appraising comic books. I realize NGC has also appeared on the show numerous times doing the same thing, but should TPG's be offering value opinions? This to me is as close as it gets to an actual conflict of interest being caught on camera, yet I'm not sure if we've seen such a radical cultural shift from the days Mark wrote that article, that it doesn't matter as much to the community as it once did.

 

But I think it's still a valid question to raise - is a grader is out of bounds when it starts involving itself in arms length purchasing and selling activities?

 

At first glance, the premise you are discussing seems reasonable. There is a little of a logic bust when it comes to the validity of the question, because the very act of any TPG opinion is a value opinion. To conclude that it is just a disinterested party opinion with no influence on value in the marketplace is somewhat...if not totally.... naive. Arms length purchasing and selling is again a function of the TPG opinion, whether the TPG is involved or not. If the arms length transaction (whether selling or purchasing) has as a starting point a TPG opinion that is recognized in the marketplace and the marketplace value ranges are public knowledge (which they are) and there is a willing buyer and willing seller, that is a capitalist transaction.

 

If there is a market for a conservation action (restoration/repair/etc.), and the TPG has a business relationship with the entity performing the conservation action....either at the request of a third party or not.....the TPG is still offering an opinion on the collectible when it is submitted for grading, and that opinion still has a value influence in the marketplace.

 

Now, if you are discussing a grading employee of the TPG that is personally involved in purchasing and selling that which he/she graded on behalf of the TPG and is involved in a self serving/benefitting activity, I do have an ethical conundrum. Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

Thanks, this also seems reasonable on the surface. However, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues from arising, I still feel that what you are describing here would more suitably fit a comic dealer, auctioneer, consignment house rep, or someone involved with a print or online price guide. Not someone whose profession is to grade comics.

 

I believe the way Rick coordinates to have a second person offering a value opinion whenever Mark Hall-Patton authenticates items is the correct procedure, but that's just my opinion.

 

Interested to hear what others think.

 

Since you have given me another opportunity to share my opinion further, by stating you are interested in what others think (never never give me an opening), I will do so, on the subject of profession.

 

I have always, on these boards and ats (until ats came to the conclusion that criticism is a very bad thing), stated that any person working for a TPG in any collectible venue should undergo a testing procedure that requires in depth knowledge of the subject that is being evaluated. The person should also be required to have at the minimum a complete ophthalmology exam (by a licensed Ophthalmologist), at a minimum of once a year and preferably 2 times a year. The person should then be licensed by whatever independent professional organization exists for the particular endeavor the person is involved in, and issued an ID number that remains with the person, even if they change employment or start their own business as a TPG. This ID should be identified in some manner on anything the person grades. Over time, the grading can be tracked and the information can be evaluated by the marketplace. If more than one grader is involved, both....or if three then three.....should also be identified in the same manner. The ID is private and is certified and held by the independent professional organization, and the ID is to be surrendered if the person leaves the profession. The person should be required to take yearly CEU, as determined by the independent professional organization. The person is not to be engaged in personal grading for others outside the employment position.

 

This is interesting. I believe an independent and authorized committee entrusted with the duty of reviewing indiscretions and missteps might help avert these types of situations from arising altogether. What do you think of E&O coverage requirements for the graders?