How CGC and grading companies revolutionized the comic book hobby. 0

[SteppinRazor]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Since everything material (and much that is immaterial) that is possessed by another has value by virtue of its possession, then that everything has a cost if someone else wishes to obtain it. 

You say "no TPG exists without a profit motive"...but motive for what kind of profit? The value of the TPG is that they have no direct interest in the exchange of the items in question. They are unattached, and therefore, unbiased. They are not in favor of the buyer, and they are not in favor of the seller. Because they have no direct interest, they can offer a fair, educated opinion on the condition of the item in question.

 

These aren't accurate.  Being unattached to the particular transaction does not mean they don't have their own bias, just that they don't care about a transaction.  They can have their own goals that may influence their grading.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, SteppinRazor said:

9 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

They are unattached, and therefore, unbiased. They are not in favor of the buyer, and they are not in favor of the seller. Because they have no direct interest, they can offer a fair, educated opinion on the condition of the item in question.

 

These aren't accurate.  Being unattached to the particular transaction does not mean they don't have their own bias, just that they don't care about a transaction.  They can have their own goals that may influence their grading.

But they are accurate. A third party grading service has no fealty to me, as either a buyer OR a seller. That's what makes them unbiased about that transaction. Nobody is totally unbiased...but in regards to a transaction between myself and another party, they have no...or, very little, to make a concession to you...interest, direct OR indirect.

Yes, we can get into the philosophical weeds about how they are indirectly biased because if a seller doesn't make a certain amount of money, they're not going to submit as much, so the TPG has to err on the side of the sellers. And I do not deny (though the TPGs certainly would) that that is certainly a factor to contend with. But you're missing the point: the goal is mitigation, not perfection.

And if a TPG is looking at a book, and a finalizer says "well, this could be a 9.4, or it could be a 9.6"...and a consideration is made in favor of the submitter, even unconsciously...the fact is, the situation is mitigated, and we're talking about MINISCULE differences in condition....not the massive differences that existed in the days before third party grading, where Seller X says "this book is in perfect Mint condition!" and there's an ad page torn out, or it's been slightly trimmed, or there's a coupon clipped, or the spine's been color touched, or the staples have been cleaned/replaced, or there's a 5 inch NCB crease that you can't see, etc etc etc.

Even more reason, by the way, for the inclusion of 9.7, 9.5, 9.3, etc.

[deadleg]

1 hour ago, SatanStoleMyLunchMoney said:

"How CGC revolutionized slabbing comics and how Coinees are ruining it, Part II"

https://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=6548

 

[musicmeta]

On 4/21/2018 at 7:23 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

In case anyone reading this wonders why CGC and other grading companies are not only important, but vitally necessary to the comics collecting hobby, here's a great example I thought I'd share with you all:

"<<AUTO REPLY>>

Ha! Ya gotta love it! Comic Geekdom at it's finest! Kudos. I see your point and I concur. As a professional musician who has toured the planet, I find it unsettling that terminal newsprint is given greater scrutiny than the flaws of the world. "

I got that answer from an eBay seller called "pop*culture*artifacts" when I wrote to them and said the "NM" Atom #17 wasn't quite as nice as he'd claimed. 

His answer...clearly meant to be a "stock" answer to all those "comic geeks" out there who are "concerned about condition" is nothing but an expression of contempt.

"Hey, nerd, there are far worse problems in the world than the condition of your precious comic."

Are there...?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a wackjob who thinks comics, in and of themselves, are all that high on the important in life scale. They're not. 

But what about principles...?

Isn't overstating the condition of an item you sell...and thus getting more money for it than you fairly deserve...just another form of stealing, of theft?

Of course it is. And isn't stealing one of the main "flaws" in the world?

You bet.

After all...this seller claimed the book was in "SPECTACULAR NEAR MINT CONDITION FROM MY PERSONAL COLLECTION." (His expression, not mine.)

And the book is certainly decent. It's probably an 8.0 to 9.0 as is. But "SPECTACULAR NEAR MINT"...? Not quite. And if I'm paying over 400 times cover price...I should think that earns me the right to get what is offered, no...? 

For those of you who weren't buying in the bad old days, things were so, so much worse before CGC. For all the complaining about CGC...and they need to have their feet held to the fire, too, so they stay honest...things are ten thousand times better than they were before. In fact, without CGC, it's certainly possible the hobby would have completely died, as it almost did in the late 90's. There would be no $500,000 X-Men #1s, no $3,000,000 Action #1s, no $15,000 New Mutants #98s. The hobby would have stagnated, limped along as it was, maybe even collapsed entirely, because so very, very few could be trusted. There are people...to this day, in 2018...that STILL haven't recovered the value of the "high grade" AF #15s they bought as unrestored in the mid to late 90's, that have color touch, or slight trimming, or other forms of restoration. And that's despite the massive runup in the market since 2008. 

If you wanted an accurately graded, premium quality book, you either had to offer literally ridiculous amounts of cash for one, or just completely luck out.

Back then...your choice really was to put up or shut up. Retailers controlled the market, and if you wanted your fix, you had to suck it up. For most of the time before CGC, there was no internet, so your local store...or expensive conventions...were your only choice. And not to say there wasn't choice...there was, and prices were a LOT cheaper than they are today. But the choices today are so far above and beyond what they were back then, it's really a whole different world. Now, you can scour eBay, Heritage, Comiclink, and the like, and get beautiful, premium quality books...and know that, 999 times out of 1,000, the book in the slab is not going to be a 7.5 masquerading as a 9.6, and you won't have to deal with smug, condescending sellers who tell you there are "more important things in life" while they gladly steal your money.

I am soooooo very thankful that I discovered pressing. That has been a lifesaver for me. In the past, I'd simply get angry and frustrated at these people stealing from collectors by lying about the condition of their items. Now, however, I can fix a lot of that, so it takes a lot of the sting out of it. The Atom #17 that "pop*culture*artifacts" sent me is fixable. I will do well with it, I think. It will eventually be graded, and hopefully will grade out to what the seller had advertised it as in the first place...but not without substantial effort put into it first.

Even still...I still fear leaving neutral (which is really a weak negative) or actual negative feedback. After all....there are people within this very CGC community...who understand perfectly well the value difference between conditions...who have turned on those of us who are not only seeking premium quality...but are willing to put our money where our mouths are, by actually paying for that premium quality. We're labeled "ultra picky" or "unpleasable" or worse, a fraud ourselves, who "extort" partial refunds from sellers, and then "crow about it" to others. We get harassed by sellers who either don't know what they're doing, or know precisely what they're doing, and the eBay feedback system is rendered useless by those who call in to have negative feedback removed. There are a TON of eBay sellers out there who have feedback profiles that are complete lies. And, of course, eBay itself will threaten buyers, not understanding the reality of the collectibles market, for "abusing the return system" (which, no doubt, does occur.)

And worse, there's retaliation, by sellers who were angered by honest feedback and use shill accounts to go after your own sales. So, most of the time, you end up saying nothing, out of very real fear.

And, lest I be accused elsewise, this does not come without some serious self-examination. "AM I being unreasonable? Am I grading these too harshly...? Am I being fair to this seller?" If I'm being honest, with myself and everyone else, I have to ask myself these questions. And, on occasion, that's been true, and I've had to deal with that. But, on the whole, the reason why CGC graded books in ultra high grade sell for the prices they do is because that's what people are willing to pay. They are WILLING to pay the $500, or $5,000, or $50,000 price for a $500, $5,000, or $50,000 QUALITY example. But they're not willing...and neither should they be....to pay $500 for a $50 quality copy, or $5,000 for a $100 quality copy.

I'm happy...thrilled...to pay you a 9.8 premium for a 9.8 quality book. I am NOT happy, nor should I be expected, to pay a 9.8 price for an 8.5 or 9.0 quality book. But the attitude of many, including some in the CGC community, is "shut up and take it. Don't create problems for us, or we'll create problems for YOU, capice...?" 

And that's exactly why CGC exists.

So stand strong, high grade enthusiasts. Hold sellers to the fire. If you pay a premium, demand a premium item. Examine yourself. Learn everything you can. And don't be afraid to say "no, I'm not going to accept your inferior quality item at an inflated price, thanks."

And be very, very grateful that we live in a world in which CGC exists.

Well stated.  

[SteppinRazor]

57 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But they are accurate. A third party grading service has no fealty to me, as either a buyer OR a seller. That's what makes them unbiased about that transaction. Nobody is totally unbiased...but in regards to a transaction between myself and another party, they have no...or, very little, to make a concession to you...interest, direct OR indirect.

Yes, we can get into the philosophical weeds about how they are indirectly biased because if a seller doesn't make a certain amount of money, they're not going to submit as much, so the TPG has to err on the side of the sellers. And I do not deny (though the TPGs certainly would) that that is certainly a factor to contend with. But you're missing the point: the goal is mitigation, not perfection.

And if a TPG is looking at a book, and a finalizer says "well, this could be a 9.4, or it could be a 9.6"...and a consideration is made in favor of the submitter, even unconsciously...the fact is, the situation is mitigated, and we're talking about MINISCULE differences in condition....not the massive differences that existed in the days before third party grading, where Seller X says "this book is in perfect Mint condition!" and there's an ad page torn out, or it's been slightly trimmed, or there's a coupon clipped, or the spine's been color touched, or the staples have been cleaned/replaced, or there's a 5 inch NCB crease that you can't see, etc etc etc.

Even more reason, by the way, for the inclusion of 9.7, 9.5, 9.3, etc.

They aren't grading the transaction, they grade independent of transactions even taking place.  But that's not what I meant about their bias.  What I mean is, if you ask yourself why PGX is so poorly thought of, the answer is their bias.  PGX's business model is vastly different than CGC's.  That leads PGX to grade very differently.  Different scoring by different companies shows that whether they have a dog in the fight in any one transaction isn't of consequence to the numerical value assigned. 

What is of consequence is how collectors respond to their service.  That is where CGC's value is.  Collectors want less risk.  To mitigate risk, they collectively agreed that an entity consolidating a score of condition is worthwhile.  They may not be able to tell why a comic is a CGC 9.4, but they know what it represents.  They don't have the same relationship with PGX because they often see PGX grade at a lower standard than CGC.  PGX could've and probably should've just gone with an entirely different scale, like SAE v metric and make everyone do a conversion.

[BeholdersEye]

The aspect of grading and encapsulation / slabbing that I do like is that, assuming the grading companies have equal expertise and professional integrity to eliminate or minimize any bias or variances so it's more objective than subjective, is that a solid reputable (and I think that's why companies like PGX are unrecognized as was GAI in the trading card grading industry for throwing out high grades to appease submitters with an "everything's a perfect 10" loose grading) company (CGC, and in cards it's PSA and BGS) to give guidance (we all know it's neither law nor rules in the world of grading), but most importantly to detect restoration as well as any other abnormalities.

I do like the archival cases both aesthetically and functionally.

With trading cards, grading is perfect since you see the front and back.  With comics, it's debatable since once it's entombed you get to see the comic but not read it.  However, there's so many TPB, collected editions, reprints, etc. that grading is typically reserved for investment books more so than random issues in a collection, so it's not that big of a deal breaker to most.

For selling online, CGC is recognized as a legitimate authority by the hobby, so unless the case cracks, the "it is what it is" and "what you see is what you get" makes for an easy transaction with less scammers or complainers buying trying to return, refund or get one over a seller.  The only issue is the fact that it costs about $30 to grade a book and $15 to ship a book so there's an overhead cost of nearly $50 vs a raw book.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

They aren't grading the transaction, they grade independent of transactions even taking place. 

Yes, and I don't think anyone thought otherwise.

3 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

But that's not what I meant about their bias.  What I mean is, if you ask yourself why PGX is so poorly thought of, the answer is their bias.

No. The answer is "because of a persistent and pervasive pattern of incompetence, collusion, and outright fraud." That's far, far beyond mere bias.

5 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

PGX's business model is vastly different than CGC's.  That leads PGX to grade very differently. 

No. The reason PGX grades very differently is because Daniel Patterson 1. doesn't really know how to grade, and 2. has no problem committing fraud. Sure, you can make a chicken or the egg argument...is he biased in favor of submitters so that he attracts business, or does he attract business because he is biased in favor of submitters? The point is, PGX isn't a legitimate third party grader, and never has been. It's not bias that is at work here, it is simple incompetence and criminal fraud. But even he (because Patterson and PGX are one and the same) can't grade a book that CGC would grade 5.5 as "10 Platinum Mint" (which, as an aside, is a ridiculous name.)

As fraudulent as PGX is, even he has to follow some market standards. And I have no problem accusing PGX of criminal fraud, and CGC has no problem with their "competitor" being accused of it on their board, either. There's a boatload of evidence, which is why Patterson wouldn't dare challenge it. 

PGX doesn't give random submitters "gift grades" (although it's hard not to call 92% of their grading a "gift")...he reserves that for the Terence Leders of the world.

23 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

Different scoring by different companies shows that whether they have a dog in the fight in any one transaction isn't of consequence to the numerical value assigned. 

Or, since grading is, after all, subjective, it stands to reason that perhaps there's different "scoring" simply because different people look at a book in different ways.

24 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

What is of consequence is how collectors respond to their service.  That is where CGC's value is.  Collectors want less risk.  To mitigate risk, they collectively agreed that an entity consolidating a score of condition is worthwhile.  They may not be able to tell why a comic is a CGC 9.4, but they know what it represents.  They don't have the same relationship with PGX because they often see PGX grade at a lower standard than CGC.  PGX could've and probably should've just gone with an entirely different scale, like SAE v metric and make everyone do a conversion.

That would not have prevented the incompetence, collusion, and fraud, however. 

The reason there is "marketplace acceptance" of what a CGC 9.4 represents is not because CGC can say "it's a 9.4, because we say so." There still are a LOT of people...hundreds, if not thousands...who know perfectly well how to grade. They won marketplace acceptance because they were competent enough, and consistent enough, to satisfy the market as a whole.

Again...999 times out of 1,000, I'm going to crack open that 9.4 slab and encounter a book that I will agree is a 9,4...or 9.6, or 9.2, depending on how harshly or softly it was graded...but it won't be a 6.5. That's the difference. I can show you...quite literally...thousands and thousands of books that I have bought over the last 29 years that were advertised as "Near Mint", but which would grade 6.5...7.0...7.5. And very, very, VERY rarely is it the other way around. VERY rarely.

Just human nature at work. 

In other words...the cart doesn't come before the horse. The market didn't just "confer" onto CGC "favored status" just because it felt like it. They had to earn it.

And if the market is smart, they will force the TPGs to KEEP earning it, forever.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, BeholdersEye said:

The aspect of grading and encapsulation / slabbing that I do like is that, assuming the grading companies have equal expertise and professional integrity to eliminate or minimize any bias or variances so it's more objective than subjective, is that a solid reputable (and I think that's why companies like PGX are unrecognized as was GAI in the trading card grading industry for throwing out high grades to appease submitters with an "everything's a perfect 10" loose grading) company (CGC, and in cards it's PSA and BGS) to give guidance (we all know it's neither law nor rules in the world of grading), but most importantly to detect restoration as well as any other abnormalities.

I do like the archival cases both aesthetically and functionally.

With trading cards, grading is perfect since you see the front and back.  With comics, it's debatable since once it's entombed you get to see the comic but not read it.  However, there's so many TPB, collected editions, reprints, etc. that grading is typically reserved for investment books more so than random issues in a collection, so it's not that big of a deal breaker to most.

For selling online, CGC is recognized as a legitimate authority by the hobby, so unless the case cracks, the "it is what it is" and "what you see is what you get" makes for an easy transaction with less scammers or complainers buying trying to return, refund or get one over a seller.  The only issue is the fact that it costs about $30 to grade a book and $15 to ship a book so there's an overhead cost of nearly $50 vs a raw book.

Good post.

To add to that, there's nothing whatsoever with cracking a book out of its case. Aside from SS, which is a whole different beast, there's nothing whatsoever (aside from perhaps the difficulty...the new cases are MUCCCCH harder the break than the old) preventing anyone from cracking out a book and storing it raw.

I encourage people who have no intention of selling them to do just that. The beauty of third party grading is...you know what you're getting, and you know what you've got, so there's no need to keep that book "entombed" if you want to touch it.

And, as a nearly totally unrelated side, if any of you have never touched, held, smelled, or thumbed through a high grade Silver or Golden Age book...especially a Marvel...it's a wonder to behold. Seeing these books as they were when brand new is a whole different experience than handling the typical G/VG copies you see filling bins at cons. Grab an Avengers #14 in 9.4 or 9.6...or even 9.8...and open it up. Take in the crispness of the book, the smell of the newsprint, the gloss.

It's otherworldly. Truly, one of the best experiences in comics. I understand why Chuck was so excited...and everyone else...about Edgar's collection.

[FlyingDonut]

9 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You have not explained what you mean by "4PG". I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by asking you what you meant by "4PG", because there is no such thing as "fourth party", despite the fact that some people think it exists. That is in contradiction to the understanding of what "first", "second", and "third" party means, as a concept and legal philosophy.

The "first party" is always you.

The "second party" is always the other person directly involved in an interaction with you.

The "third party" is everybody else in the entire world. There is no such thing as a "fourth" party, "fifth" party, "sixth" party, because that completely negates the meaning of "first, second, and third" parties.

You can see this clearly in grammar, where there are only THREE types of pronouns: 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person.

There is no such thing as a "fourth person", since three pronoun forms covers everyone in existence already.

That aside, you say "I pray that you are not of the opinion that a TPG/4PG does not exist to make a market"...you'll have to explain specifically what you mean by that. I have my idea about what you mean, but I don't want to presume, and would rather hear your explanation. As far as the mechanic and real estate appraisal goes, you say they fail "on multiple levels", but do not offer any explanations as to why. They are all third party opinions as to the condition of something. In the event of an appraisal, if you mean (since you do not explain) that there is a VALUE attached along with an appraisal of condition, ok, that's a fair point, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is an appraisal of CONDITION. The auto mechanic does not give opinion about value, only condition.

I'm not sure what our age difference has to do with anything, though. Are you sure we have an age difference...?

Hello, Grammar Nerd here.

"Fourth person" does in fact exist as a concept - it is used when the grammar treats the reference difference from an ordinary third person such as indirect or generic references. Something like "one should be prepared" would fall under this category. Carry on.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Hello, Grammar Nerd here.

"Fourth person" does in fact exist as a concept - it is used when the grammar treats the reference difference from an ordinary third person such as indirect or generic references. Something like "one should be prepared" would fall under this category. Carry on.

 

Welcome, fellow Grammar Nerd! And what is the pronoun for this fourth person...?

Agree to disagree...and, since it's a debated topic, I'll stand by my position. Language is, after all, also built on consensus. As I said before, several have tried to make it be...can't blame them for trying.

[FlyingDonut]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Welcome, fellow Grammar Nerd! And what is the pronoun for this fourth person...?

Agree to disagree...and, since it's a debated topic, I'll stand by my position. Language is, after all, also built on consensus. As I said before, several have tried to make it be...can't blame them for trying.

There isn't really a pronoun for it, because it is an indirect reference. "One" doesn't really work as a pronoun. Its like using the plural pronoun "them" for a singular person - the grammar doesn't work. It would be very clunky to try to write something with indirect references.

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by FlyingDonut

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

There isn't really a pronoun for it, because it is an indirect reference. "One" doesn't really work as a pronoun. Its like using the plural pronoun "them" for a singular person - the grammar doesn't work. It would be very clunky to try to write something with indirect references.

 

Is this where I say "exactly." ...?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 23/04/2018 at 4:31 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

On 23/04/2018 at 1:38 PM, comicwiz said:

@Architecht why are the boards auto-linking any mention of eBay?

...and providing additional background info when you type TPG ?

@Architecht

 

Hi @Architecht I haven't seen a response from you regarding the eBay and TPG scenarios?

[jsilverjanet]

 

10 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

 

Hi @Architecht I haven't seen a response from you regarding the eBay and TPG scenarios?

I’m surprised Arch hasn’t given you the direct number to his red phone for such emergencies

 

[Get Marwood & I]

1 minute ago, jsilverjanet said:

 

I’m surprised Arch hasn’t given you the direct number to his red phone for such emergencies

 

Me too. Service is terrible around here. 

Greggy! He's over here.

[jsilverjanet]

Just now, Get Marwood & I said:

Me too. Service is terrible around here. 

Greggy! He's over here.

He knows my scent, he’ll be here tonight when the moon is out 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

He knows my scent, he’ll be here tonight when the moon is out 

 

The moon's already out. Well, I can clearly see an arse, let's put it that way.