Inaccuracies of GPA 2 2

[blazingbob]

13 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

agreed, it's best to have all the data in there so that people can draw their own conclusions. 

 

When I run into someone mis-using (intentionally or stupidly) gpa data I try to "show them the light". Like if someone was letting a dumb buyer who hit an overpriced BIN on a book, when there was plenty of data showing the actual value of the book was differet, I'd try to point that out (nicely). But some buyers and sellers only want to see things from their skew. 

So you are advocating that CBCS and PGX sales should also be reported.

Venue sold noted?

Reports that compare how books sell across those reporting seller platforms so that buyers/sellers can see who truly gets the "Best price".

Imagine the "value" that could be generated to the subscriber if GPA truly took a bigger/transparent look at the Graded market.  Spend some money to make some more money.   

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by blazingbob

[lou_fine]

18 hours ago, miraclemet said:

I still have CLINK auction results from 2014 because I bid on the book, but that only shows me the book, the grade, my highest bid, the final bid and when the auction closed. Is there any other way I would know what Spaceman #1 in CGC 9.0 sold for back in 2014 on their website? 

Sad to say, but I believe you are out of luck if you are hoping to find any kind of auction archives for CL, as mentioned here:

4 hours ago, miraclemet said:

If I didnt bid on it, but wanted to find the record at some point later, I dont see a way to discover those old auctions (in any wide or searchable way) on CLINK (unlike say Heritage). 

Yes, definitely unlike Heritage which has their auction archives open and available to you all the way back to 2001 when they first opened their doors. 

Probably the same with CC since I started to keep their auction emails in 2014 and you can still open up all of their individual auction links with no problems at all.  

[miraclemet]

42 minutes ago, blazingbob said:

So you are advocating that CBCS and PGX sales should also be reported.

Venue sold noted?

Reports that compare how books sell across those reporting seller platforms so that buyers/sellers can see who truly gets the "Best price".

Imagine the "value" that could be generated to the subscriber if GPA truly took a bigger/transparent look at the Graded market.  Spend some money to make some more money.   

 

well I think the question there is "does the market treat CGC, CBCS and PGX books the same" and the answer there is no. 
now you could take that argument and say "well the market doesnt treat CGC books with White pages the same as CGC books with brittle pages so...." 

I think the issue becomes what goes into the "average" and what doesnt. Cause the "average" is what gets used and abused right?

If there was no average, and just a list of data, with all of the current info people could use the data to make their point for pricing, and people could use the data to make their point for selling. The problem is when people just use the 90 day, 12 mo or annual average and there are outliers adversely affecting that average in comparison to the particular book. 

Example. You are selling a Rangers 26 CGC 4.0 brittle and are asking the current 12 mo GPA average (which is based on 2 sales of the book, a Cr-OW and an OW copy). But honestly your book because it is brittle, has a lower market value. So you should be using the average to inform your price, but not set your price. (Granted you can ask what ever you want, Im just talking about if you are trying to set your price to the "market"). 

Now a buyer can look at GPA too, and look at the two books that informed that average (since most havae PQ info or have link to CGC census so you can see PQ) and make an informed decision on the price they think is market. If you as a seller ague that the 12 mo average is "market" it's somewhat disingenuous because you are lumping your lesser book in with better books and saying they would all be seen as equal in the market, which they wouldnt. 

Right now, all the blue books in a grade, regardless of PQ go into the average. If they expanded the data set to include CBCS and PGX, and included that data in the "average" info, well it'd not be good in the sense that it wouldn't not be presenting useful market data. 

My ideal would be the ability to exclude BIN sales from the Auction "average" reporting.  (though that's still not perfect as not all auctions are "created" equally (keywords, good descriptions, good scans) but it would allow us to split out realized prices that resulted from auctions (potential for multiple bids, set time frames, some amount of shill protection, though not perfect) vs the BINs which are just 1 buyer at one point in time and are more likely to contain both high and low outliers (the dumb buyers who didnt know better that hit an inflated BIN, and the dumb sellers who dont know the real value of their book and list it for a way under market BIN and it gets snatched up). 

I think it'd be usefull to know the 90 day auction average for ASM252 in CGC 9.6 without the "noise" of the BINs. Just a simple toggle. 90day with BIN, 90 day w/oBIN. In some cases there'd be little to no change, but I bet with some books it'd would show enough difference that it'd reveal the real market value vs the market with the BIN noise. 

if we included in CBCs/PGX Id' want the same ability to include/exclude them in the market reports because the market definitely treats them differently. 

[blazingbob]

9 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

well I think the question there is "does the market treat CGC, CBCS and PGX books the same" and the answer there is no. 
now you could take that argument and say "well the market doesnt treat CGC books with White pages the same as CGC books with brittle pages so...." 

I think the issue becomes what goes into the "average" and what doesnt. Cause the "average" is what gets used and abused right?

If there was no average, and just a list of data, with all of the current info people could use the data to make their point for pricing, and people could use the data to make their point for selling. The problem is when people just use the 90 day, 12 mo or annual average and there are outliers adversely affecting that average in comparison to the particular book. 

Example. You are selling a Rangers 26 CGC 4.0 brittle and are asking the current 12 mo GPA average (which is based on 2 sales of the book, a Cr-OW and an OW copy). But honestly your book because it is brittle, has a lower market value. So you should be using the average to inform your price, but not set your price. (Granted you can ask what ever you want, Im just talking about if you are trying to set your price to the "market"). 

Now a buyer can look at GPA too, and look at the two books that informed that average (since most havae PQ info or have link to CGC census so you can see PQ) and make an informed decision on the price they think is market. If you as a seller ague that the 12 mo average is "market" it's somewhat disingenuous because you are lumping your lesser book in with better books and saying they would all be seen as equal in the market, which they wouldnt. 

Right now, all the blue books in a grade, regardless of PQ go into the average. If they expanded the data set to include CBCS and PGX, and included that data in the "average" info, well it'd not be good in the sense that it wouldn't not be presenting useful market data. 

My ideal would be the ability to exclude BIN sales from the Auction "average" reporting.  (though that's still not perfect as not all auctions are "created" equally (keywords, good descriptions, good scans) but it would allow us to split out realized prices that resulted from auctions (potential for multiple bids, set time frames, some amount of shill protection, though not perfect) vs the BINs which are just 1 buyer at one point in time and are more likely to contain both high and low outliers (the dumb buyers who didnt know better that hit an inflated BIN, and the dumb sellers who dont know the real value of their book and list it for a way under market BIN and it gets snatched up). 

I think it'd be usefull to know the 90 day auction average for ASM252 in CGC 9.6 without the "noise" of the BINs. Just a simple toggle. 90day with BIN, 90 day w/oBIN. In some cases there'd be little to no change, but I bet with some books it'd would show enough difference that it'd reveal the real market value vs the market with the BIN noise. 

if we included in CBCs/PGX Id' want the same ability to include/exclude them in the market reports because the market definitely treats them differently. 

Again a reporting tool should report on Graded comics.  The database engine should be dynamic enough for the user to filter out what numbers they want to see.  

Imagine a grading company numbers only discussion on what books sell for backed up with facts instead of selective pickings. 

Imagine a GPA tool that was dynamic enough to filter data based on things you are describing above?  Page quality for example?

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by blazingbob

[Topnotchman]

One of the challenges with recording Ebay sales is that Ebay does not verify that the money exchanged hands making it a real transaction.  There are outlier sales on the high side, I call them thrill bidding with no intent to pay.  Also stolen image scams that are too good to be true prices, often 10-20% below current value, just close enough to appear to be a real sale.  Book never changes hands and buyer fights with Ebay and Paypal to get there money back.  I have had my own books images stolen and sold on Ebay, I was the one who followed up and notified GPA to get them removed as real sales.  I've also been victim of buying books where the seller never shipped to good to be true prices, I got scammed.  I also was the one who notified GPA that the transaction was fake.  Silver to Modern books can absorb some of these outlier sales as books trade hands frequently enough to blend them in.  If one goes to Goldenage where books exchange hands infrequently, things could get dicy with false thrill bid sales showing up as legitimate transactions.    

 

[eddly]

A few months ago a sale of an ASM 300 9.8 showed up for ~$200 in the gpa database. This sale was actually for a reprint. Sent a message to George via the gpa website and it was fixed within 5 minutes.

[herc2000]

17 hours ago, lou_fine said:

So, what happens if some silly bidder pays too much for a book?  Does this mean that GPA should ignore this data since it would bring up the GPA average?  

Or are you suggesting that GPA should stop tracking all sales prices and implement Josh's request that they should only arbitrarily select and record high sales so that it will bring up the GPA average in order to show a continuing upwards price trend for all books. 

If so, then this is what I would definitely call bad and misleading information.  

What I was trying to say, yes it's a good tool, but it is not the be all and end all. Sometimes you have to make your own decision about what it's worth too you.

If I sell a book for over the odds, then that is what the person was willing to pay for it, just like in an auction, people sometimes get carried away and pay more than they originally intended, "so silly bidders quite often pay too much for a book" but if they really want it, then they pay what they want for it, so can't see how they're paying too much unless it's a blatant rip off of course.

If I sell a book for too cheap, e.g Hulk 181 9.0, say for 3K, then every dealer will just buy it and resell it. If something sells for over the usual going rate, it will most likely be a collector who really wants it that buys it.

[Prince Namor]

Correct. GPA is just a tool. Like a price guide. Those who try and live by it will be disappointed.

The DAY a first appearance character book gets announced for a movie, GPA isn't going to reflect that - but knowledgeable dealers WILL. Buyers may not be able to get it for the previous price again.

A bidding war for a book of little consequence between two people who just happen to need it will then possibly reflect an inaccurate price for that book in GPA. Dealers may not be able to sell it for that price again.

The market changes and flows based on information. There's no easy 'be all' magic book to give the amateur seller a quick answer. If there was CGC would've found a way to encapsulate it and every Tom, and Harry here on the forum would be selling it.

[Sweet Lou 14]

1 hour ago, Hieronymus Bosch said:

Correct. GPA is just a tool. Like a price guide. Those who try and live by it will be disappointed.

The DAY a first appearance character book gets announced for a movie, GPA isn't going to reflect that - but knowledgeable dealers WILL. Buyers may not be able to get it for the previous price again.

A bidding war for a book of little consequence between two people who just happen to need it will then possibly reflect an inaccurate price for that book in GPA. Dealers may not be able to sell it for that price again.

The market changes and flows based on information. There's no easy 'be all' magic book to give the amateur seller a quick answer. If there was CGC would've found a way to encapsulate it and every Tom, and Harry here on the forum would be selling it.

Well said.  As for the bolded, I have found myself in this situation more than once!

[blazingbob]

2 hours ago, Hieronymus Bosch said:

Correct. GPA is just a tool. Like a price guide. Those who try and live by it will be disappointed.

The DAY a first appearance character book gets announced for a movie, GPA isn't going to reflect that - but knowledgeable dealers WILL. Buyers may not be able to get it for the previous price again.

A bidding war for a book of little consequence between two people who just happen to need it will then possibly reflect an inaccurate price for that book in GPA. Dealers may not be able to sell it for that price again.

The market changes and flows based on information. There's no easy 'be all' magic book to give the amateur seller a quick answer. If there was CGC would've found a way to encapsulate it and every Tom, and Harry here on the forum would be selling it.

Frankly the issue that causes a bigger problem is the large price differential on a 9.8 versus 9.6.  Upgraders will then bid up potential 9.6 books looking for the upgrade.  With wider 9.8 versus 9.6 spreads you suddenly see what looks like a "outlier" price as they call it.   Imagine if GPA captured the scans of the book so that customers had more information when analyzing the data. 

Imagine a GPA service with tiered subscription rates that gave you the buyer/seller more information that helps you make or save money?  

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by blazingbob

[lou_fine]

23 hours ago, miraclemet said:

My ideal would be the ability to exclude BIN sales from the Auction "average" reporting.  (though that's still not perfect as not all auctions are "created" equally (keywords, good descriptions, good scans) but it would allow us to split out realized prices that resulted from auctions (potential for multiple bids, set time frames, some amount of shill protection, though not perfect) vs the BINs which are just 1 buyer at one point in time and are more likely to contain both high and low outliers (the dumb buyers who didnt know better that hit an inflated BIN, and the dumb sellers who dont know the real value of their book and list it for a way under market BIN and it gets snatched up). 

Definitely an interesting comment with respect to the usefulness of BIN prices as I personally think they would tend to skew the curve upwards and could possibly paint an misleading picture of ever increasing prices.  

Especially in the case where a book sits for months on end before actually selling and yet at the same time, there are countless other copies in the same grade which has not also been able to sell at that same price or possibly at an even slightly lower price point.  

[90sChild]

On 6/2/2020 at 4:03 PM, rjpb said:

GPA might be a great tool for copper and modern books, with multiple sales every year in higher grades, and perhaps fewer variables for eye-appeal for a given grade, but its use seems more limited for GA. It's a starting point, but the only time I check it is when there is a link to Heritage auctions, and I find Heritage's own database, and past ebay, comiclink, comicconnect and even board sales data more useful. particularly when scans are available. More than once I've noticed a bargain price sale listed in GPA, only to find the book in Heritage's archives, and then realized that some flaw that strongly impacts eye-appeal like heavy foxing, fading, or a piece out of the front cover is probably responsible for the lower sale price. Conversely an auction sale of a really nice looking copy for the grade might skew FMV impressions upward.

 

On 6/2/2020 at 5:30 PM, James J Johnson said:

Do they have to report it? The results of their auctions are all publicly displayed. All of them. You can see whatever you want to see as far as sales data/price just by logging in. It's really not much of a secret that those results, as legitimate as any on ebay, can be compiled and added to more realistically reflect the market. Case in point. Say you have a Hulk 3 in CGC 8.5 that you put on your site. GP has it at about $3650 with one sale in the past two years. Now we both know that you can't buy one anywhere on earth that even begins to approach that price, and as such, one sold for $7800 in the Link auction. $1200 more than the last 9.0 sale noted on GP.. So what do you price it. You go by GP and price it $3600, and then when you wnt to realistically replace it, it'll cost you $7000, because that's the real going rate? 

So what are we doing here? Is GP supposed to be? A compendium reflecting the market, or just a very small portion of the market and as such should be taken as just some general price guide and a look into the past like an old Overstreet guide with prices compiled yearly? 

Doesn't make much sense to have a sliver of the marketplace representing hobby market averages, IMO. What does it represent in this case? It's like having a national weather average and you pick one state on one day, note the temperature and call that the national average. 

Does this not just come down to the fact that GPA can't automate the data?  They could potentially solve this problem by paying a data entry person to manually copy paste over the book title and sale price to their database.  I'm sure it's more complicated than that but if they can create an automated price pulling database they can certainly add someone to do things manually.  People have been complaining about this for years and neither side seems willing to resolve the issue so the industry will continue to suffer a lack of transparency.

 

  

7 hours ago, Hieronymus Bosch said:

Correct. GPA is just a tool. Like a price guide. Those who try and live by it will be disappointed.

The DAY a first appearance character book gets announced for a movie, GPA isn't going to reflect that - but knowledgeable dealers WILL. Buyers may not be able to get it for the previous price again.

A bidding war for a book of little consequence between two people who just happen to need it will then possibly reflect an inaccurate price for that book in GPA. Dealers may not be able to sell it for that price again.

The market changes and flows based on information. There's no easy 'be all' magic book to give the amateur seller a quick answer. If there was CGC would've found a way to encapsulate it and every Tom, and Harry here on the forum would be selling it.

This is an entirely separate problem from GPA just collecting the data and making it available.  Buyers and sellers both need to use their own judgement in how to price a book that is stagnant, going cold, or going hot.  As buyers we can all relate to being priced out of a book just because one person paid a high price and now every dealer in the country points to that price and expects the same sale figure.  Of course it goes without saying that every seller wants to get more than the last seller.  GPA only needs to present all this sales data and hopefully reasonable minds can figure out a reasonable compromise.  This is partly why I put little value on "last sale" compared to 90 day or 1 year averages.  If a movie announcement is made overnight then of course that changes things.

Edited June 4, 2020 by 90sChild

[miraclemet]

2 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Definitely an interesting comment with respect to the usefulness of BIN prices as I personally think they would tend to skew the curve upwards and could possibly paint an misleading picture of ever increasing prices.  

Especially in the case where a book sits for months on end before actually selling and yet at the same time, there are countless other copies in the same grade which has not also been able to sell at that same price or possibly at an even slightly lower price point.  

This scenario is when I wonder about market manipulation. If people are treating GPA like gospel, and GPA cant exclude fradulent listings (though they do, but they dont have an easy way to do it. List a book with a BIN 25% over market, get the buddy to buy it, transaction gets recorded at the cost of listing fees/ebay's cut and then use the inflated GPA to sell your book to a GPA believer. 

Now I have seen fraudulent ebay sales get removed, or moved down to the section at the bottom of the books GPA history. 

[Prince Namor]

11 hours ago, blazingbob said:

Frankly the issue that causes a bigger problem is the large price differential on a 9.8 versus 9.6.  Upgraders will then bid up potential 9.6 books looking for the upgrade.  With wider 9.8 versus 9.6 spreads you suddenly see what looks like a "outlier" price as they call it.   Imagine if GPA captured the scans of the book so that customers had more information when analyzing the data. 

Imagine a GPA service with tiered subscription rates that gave you the buyer/seller more information that helps you make or save money?  

 

It'd be pretty amazing, but... man talk about a lot of work...

[lou_fine]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:40 PM, miraclemet said:

This scenario is when I wonder about market manipulation. If people are treating GPA like gospel, and GPA cant exclude fradulent listings (though they do, but they dont have an easy way to do it. List a book with a BIN 25% over market, get the buddy to buy it, transaction gets recorded at the cost of listing fees/ebay's cut and then use the inflated GPA to sell your book to a GPA believer. 

Now I have seen fraudulent ebay sales get removed, or moved down to the section at the bottom of the books GPA history. 

Was over on the CA Forum and just wondering if this would be an example of market manipulation here with respect to this supposed sale of TMNT for something almost $80K?  Hard for me to tell since I am not any kind of experts with scans and all that, but that back cover of the eBay copy that just sold sure looks exactly the same as the back cover for the $90K copy that Heritage had sold last year.    

 

On 6/10/2020 at 4:51 AM, GM8 said:

The 9.8 on Ebay apparently just sold for $79,950. I've contacted the seller to see if the buyer has paid and the sale went through. Wow.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-1-CGC-9-8-Mirage-1984-1st-Print-TMNT-2081174001-/202825006465?hash=item2f394ffd81%3Ag%3A3scAAOSwYoZd0eIk&nma=true&si=OuxN9zQit8aUnboiwM1IVxK2GPw%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

On 6/10/2020 at 5:10 AM, Wolverinex said:

BAM! and there we go! 100k next

 

12 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Seems rather strange that this appears to be the same copy with the EXACT same front cover scan, lighting, and serial number that CC currrently has for sale with a BIN price of $85K:  

https://www.comicconnect.com/item/873442

 

Of course, since the one on CC didn't come with a back cover scan (go figure that for a $85K book   ), their back cover scan looks exactly the same as the back cover of the TMNT #1 that sold on Heritage last year for $90K:    

BAM! BAM!! And there we go!!!  Maybe NOT $100K next?  

 

[GM8]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Was over on the CA Forum and just wondering if this would be an example of market manipulation here with respect to this supposed sale of TMNT for something almost $80K?  Hard for me to tell since I am not any kind of experts with scans and all that, but that back cover of the eBay copy that just sold sure looks exactly the same as the back cover for the $90K copy that Heritage had sold last year.    

 

 

 

 

Like I told you on the copper age forum, they are different copies: Ebay's copy for $79 K that just sold and the $90K version from last summer on Heritage. Different CGC numbers.

Why are you pushing this?

[lou_fine]

12 hours ago, GM8 said:

14 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Was over on the CA Forum and just wondering if this would be an example of market manipulation here with respect to this supposed sale of TMNT for something almost $80K?  Hard for me to tell since I am not any kind of experts with scans and all that, but that back cover of the eBay copy that just sold sure looks exactly the same as the back cover for the $90K copy that Heritage had sold last year.    

 

Like I told you on the copper age forum, they are different copies: Ebay's copy for $79 K that just sold and the $90K version from last summer on Heritage. Different CGC numbers.

Why are you pushing this?

Glad to see that you agree with me that the eBay copy supposedly "sold" for $79,950 is the same as the CC $85K BIN copy since their front cover scans indicate they both have the same serial number.  Also glad that you agree with me that the Heritage copy that sold for $90K is a completely different copy since it has a different CGC serial number.  

The part that I find rather confusing and highly suspicious then is why the back cover scan for the $79K eBay copy is clearly the same as the back cover scan for the $90K HA copy, as clearly evident by the matching tell tale minute details on both of the back cover scans?    

Only reason I am asking is this clearly appears to be the topic of this thread here in terms of possible GPA market manipulation through the use of potential fraudulent listings or so-called "completed" transactions that never ever even actually took place.   

Edited June 13, 2020 by lou_fine

[GM8]

5 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Glad to see that you agree with me that the eBay copy supposedly "sold" for $79,950 is the same as the CC $85K BIN copy since their front cover scans indicate they both have the same serial number.  Also glad that you agree with me that the Heritage copy that sold for $90K is a completely different copy since it has a different CGC serial number.  

The part that I find rather confusing and highly suspicious then is why the back cover scan for the $79K eBay copy is clearly the same as the back cover scan for the $90K HA copy, as clearly evident by the matching tell tale minute details on both of the back cover scans?    

Only reason I am asking is this clearly appears to be the topic of this thread here in terms of possible GPA market manipulation through the use of potential fraudulent listings or so-called "completed" transactions that never ever even actually took place.   

So you're saying that Heritage is being gamed? That's what has to be happening based on your theory. All because a picture appears similar to you. An eBay completed sale can be faked. But Heritage??? Lol, you are smoking some good stuff 

[alexgross.com]

50 minutes ago, GM8 said:

So you're saying that Heritage is being gamed? That's what has to be happening based on your theory. All because a picture appears similar to you. An eBay completed sale can be faked. But Heritage??? Lol, you are smoking some good stuff 

discussed many times in many forums here. heritage is legally allowed to shill bid their own stuff. 

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/2009/09/lifting_the_veil_at_heritage_a.html

[GM8]

1 hour ago, www.alexgross.com said:

discussed many times in many forums here. heritage is legally allowed to shill bid their own stuff. 

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/2009/09/lifting_the_veil_at_heritage_a.html

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that Heritage is fraudulently listing pictures of a comic book that isn't the book being sold. It's just not happening, sorry if you don't like the price appreciation of a rare comic book.

 

That site you link to is about shill bidding in non-reserve auctions, and after some checking, doesn't appear to even be a oft-cited claim.

Edited June 13, 2020 by GM8