The "Review Committee" discussion

[Red Hook]

[Foolkiller]

y'know, as a sidenote, I was talking with Gary Platt today at the local Philly show, and he seemed to think that there are few collectors who are informed about pressing, and that the overwhelming majority of his customers would like it disclosed -- i.e. that's why you have high grade so that it's naturally preserved, not pressed into something it's not -- takes away from the scarcity.

 

While I'm not moved either way by pressing... if that's what the people want... at any rate, I applaud anyone willing to take their own time to lend a hand to this project, it's really a worthwhile effort.

[esquirecomics]

I've already stated that any role I played on a committee as suggested would not stop me from continued involvement in other areas of examination.

 

Tim, your point about the formalization of a line of communication is dead on. See my long, characteristically verbose post in the "I hate when this happens" thread.

 

Bottom line is that the level of utility of the committee will quickly be shown......if it tanks, it tanks. I'm willing to risk a little time on it.

 

Brad

 

As I said, this is why I still support the effort. Similar to the NOD, there is nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by trying.

[esquirecomics]

I almost get the impression from your and Frank Daniel's posts that people think the creation of the committee means everyone else has to stop being a detective and publicly ID-ing lost pedigree books. I don't think that's the case at all, and I would not want to place that kind of burden on the committee. The committee would look for books, but everyone else would still be an "eye" too. It's just that now there would be a committee that would function as a conduit to filter/confirm identified books and convey that information to CGC to react accordingly.

 

I can't speak for Frank, but that is not what I think, though I could see that possibly happening on a small scale as an unintended consequence. I think my concern is more akin to this being your sentence instead:

 

I almost get the impression from your and Frank Daniel's posts that CGC thinks the creation of the committee means everyone else has to stop being a detective and publicly ID-ing lost pedigree books.

[esquirecomics]

Interesting sidenote...... the coinees seem to have their own version of the "pressing" debate going....except it's about "artificial toning".

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Number=1360017

 

No one has ever satisfactorily answered this question that I’ve asked many times: “Why does it matter whether toning occurred over a period of 80 years in a 2x2 envelope or overnight in a petri dish if the end results are indistinguishable?” In each case the purchaser is buying exactly what he wants: a coin with pretty color.

 

 

Calling a process “coin doctoring” is a conclusion that plays on emotions without providing an answer. And it’s pointless to talk about disclosure to prospective buyers unless there’s a legitimate distinction between artificial and natural toning. Someone please tell me what it is.

 

I pointed out a while ago that paper money collectors are also dealing with a similar debate of their form of pressing.

 

Paper Money Message Board Discussion

[esquirecomics]

y'know, as a sidenote, I was talking with Gary Platt today at the local Philly show, and he seemed to think that there are few collectors who are informed about pressing, and that the overwhelming majority of his customers would like it disclosed -- i.e. that's why you have high grade so that it's naturally preserved, not pressed into something it's not -- takes away from the scarcity.

 

While I'm not moved either way by pressing... if that's what the people want... at any rate, I applaud anyone willing to take their own time to lend a hand to this project, it's really a worthwhile effort.

 

I do believe that this is exactly what many of us have been saying for quite awhile and the reason for the NOD being created.

 

Would you not agree Brad?

[tth2]

y'know, as a sidenote, I was talking with Gary Platt today at the local Philly show, and he seemed to think that there are few collectors who are informed about pressing, and that the overwhelming majority of his customers would like it disclosed -- i.e. that's why you have high grade so that it's naturally preserved, not pressed into something it's not -- takes away from the scarcity.

This is what we've been saying all along!

[Foolkiller]

It's just a side note guys, not any evidence of anything --

 

but... I thought it'd make you guys smile nevertheless...

[esquirecomics]

It's just a side note guys, not any evidence of anything --

 

but... I thought it'd make you guys smile nevertheless...

 

A smile is always a nice thing.

 

One step at a time. No rush.

[tth2]

It's just a side note guys, not any evidence of anything --

I prefer to think that it's anecdotal evidence that what I've been saying isn't the rantings of some lunatic fringe nut case.

[MasterChief]

For The Good of the Company

 

Why was CGC so quick to embrace this particular proposal and not others? Think about it. One way to simply put it is: it benefits the company's bottom line. Don't kid yourself. This is about money and not about protecting pedigrees. It has everything to do with defending revenue streams, not appeasing individual hobbyists. CGC is complacent with the current manner in which they identify and label pedigrees. Why wouldn't they be. They have created their own de jure designation standard which the hobby, as a whole, has embraced. They are accountable to no one in that regard. For them, change is not needed. Not unless driven by market demand.

 

Keep Your Business Friends Close and Your Business Enemies Closer

 

It's by no surprise that CGC will have the ultimate say as to the makeup of their "committee". They need to. Control is key. Individual selection will be from the same pool that led previous detection efforts. The same folks who are creating such an industry fuss for retailers currently engaging in foul treatment practices. Getting the best manipulation detection players on the company's side will ensure assimilation of minds under the corporate umbrella. It's about preservation of business health, not about defending hobby history. And how better to do that then to forge an amicable alliance with those who combat you. One rooted in a perception of friendship and trust. Where the feel good mantra is of the day is: you watch my back and I'll watch yours. Don't kid yourself, this has absolutely nothing to do friendships and everything to do with business permanence. If you think for one minute that friendships are more important then maintaining business and employee livelihood, you got another thing coming. Friends are the first to be thrown under the bus when the chips fall, no matter how much quality time was spent together.

 

Protect the Cash Flow – The 30-day Proviso

 

This conditional requirement is very troubling. It's akin to a mole giving Al Capone a heads-up that the Feds are hot on his tail. An early warning system does not change illicit behavior, it safeguards it. The vocal minority is creating ripples within the industry. Loudmouth troublemakers are problematic to retailers and the CGC business model. They must be brought under control. Just look what these radical hobbyists have already done. They have put certain individuals out of business, reduced the market demand for books that have been identified as cracked and resubmitted, and have created what amounts to a consumer advocacy group. All the while chipping away at the company's top line. Does anyone know if CGC's re-labeled products are even selling? If so, to whom. Anyone tracking that? My deduction, with just a cursory research check, is no...they are not selling. And if they are, it's at a significant discount to their un-manipulated fair market value, and to consumers who are too lazy to conduct any due diligence on their own part. Sure CGC wholeheartedly endorses the creation of a "feel good committee". The opportunity too enlist company propionates is too good to pass up. That comment may offend some, but keep in mind, the "committee" will be governed by corporate oversight and mandated with conditional requirements, not independent thought.

 

For What it's Worth, This is Where the New Guy Stands

 

I cannot endorse a committee which is sponsored by the very organization for which independent oversight is needed. Like some, I have come to find the CGC business model suspect. I have deep rooted concerns regarding current business practices and polices. To me, everything is not as it seems. I do not say that lightly without some inference grounded in research and study. There is more here than meets the eye. That Wall Street Journal Story, as premised in another thread, may yet find print.

.

[shadroch]

MC,

You make some valid points. Its a real shame you haven't shared your thoughts with us over the 20 months you have belonged to the forum.

What is it about this particular idea that has brought you out of lurker status?

[Red Hook]

For The Good of the Company

 

Why was CGC so quick to embrace this particular proposal and not others? Think about it. One way to simply put it is: it benefits the company's bottom line. Don't kid yourself. This is about money and not about protecting pedigrees. It has everything to do with defending revenue streams, not appeasing individual hobbyists. CGC is complacent with the current manner in which they identify and label pedigrees. Why wouldn't they be. They have created their own de jure designation standard which the hobby, as a whole, has embraced. They are accountable to no one in that regard. For them, change is not needed. Not unless driven by market demand.

 

Keep Your Business Friends Close and Your Business Enemies Closer

 

It's by no surprise that CGC will have the ultimate say as to the makeup of their "committee". They need to. Control is key. Individual selection will be from the same pool that led previous detection efforts. The same folks who are creating such an industry fuss for retailers currently engaging in foul treatment practices. Getting the best manipulation detection players on the company's side will ensure assimilation of minds under the corporate umbrella. It's about preservation of business health, not about defending hobby history. And how better to do that then to forge an amicable alliance with those who combat you. One rooted in a perception of friendship and trust. Where the feel good mantra is of the day is: you watch my back and I'll watch yours. Don't kid yourself, this has absolutely nothing to do friendships and everything to do with business permanence. If you think for one minute that friendships are more important then maintaining business and employee livelihood, you got another thing coming. Friends are the first to be thrown under the bus when the chips fall, no matter how much quality time was spent together.

 

Protect the Cash Flow – The 30-day Proviso

 

This conditional requirement is very troubling. It's akin to a mole giving Al Capone a heads-up that the Feds are hot on his tail. An early warning system does not change illicit behavior, it safeguards it. The vocal minority is creating ripples within the industry. Loudmouth troublemakers are problematic to retailers and the CGC business model. They must be brought under control. Just look what these radical hobbyists have already done. They have put certain individuals out of business, reduced the market demand for books that have been identified as cracked and resubmitted, and have created what amounts to a consumer advocacy group. All the while chipping away at the company's top line. Does anyone know if CGC's re-labeled products are even selling? If so, to whom. Anyone tracking that? My deduction, with just a cursory research check, is no...they are not selling. And if they are, it's at a significant discount to their un-manipulated fair market value, and to consumers who are too lazy to conduct any due diligence on their own part. Sure CGC wholeheartedly endorses the creation of a "feel good committee". The opportunity too enlist company propionates is too good to pass up. That comment may offend some, but keep in mind, the "committee" will be governed by corporate oversight and mandated with conditional requirements, not independent thought.

 

For What it's Worth, This is Where the New Guy Stands

 

I cannot endorse a committee which is sponsored by the very organization for which independent oversight is needed. Like some, I have come to find the CGC business model suspect. I have deep rooted concerns regarding current business practices and polices. To me, everything is not as it seems. I do not say that lightly without some inference grounded in research and study. There is more here than meets the eye. That Wall Street Journal Story, as premised in another thread, may yet find print.

.

 

 

I love the way you've taken a simple suggestion and have turned it into the comic book equivalent of The Bay of Pigs. I hate to tell you but there isn't a single thought in your post that hasn't already been presented, chewed and digested at least two years ago. Nothing you wrote is exactly news here.

 

Things are not as they seem?

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

Now, do you have any postive suggestions?

[Red Hook]

y'know, as a sidenote, I was talking with Gary Platt today at the local Philly show, and he seemed to think that there are few collectors who are informed about pressing, and that the overwhelming majority of his customers would like it disclosed -- i.e. that's why you have high grade so that it's naturally preserved, not pressed into something it's not -- takes away from the scarcity.

 

While I'm not moved either way by pressing... if that's what the people want... at any rate, I applaud anyone willing to take their own time to lend a hand to this project, it's really a worthwhile effort.

 

I do believe that this is exactly what many of us have been saying for quite awhile and the reason for the NOD being created.

 

Would you not agree Brad?

 

Well, I know Brian has gone on record as saying that the disclosure of pressing is something that shouldn't be required unless it affects the market value of the book. He's also said that he would leave that determination up to the dealer. So I'm confused.

[AussieRuss]

Hello Guys.

 

Just wanted to chime in as I have noticed my name mentioned a few times within this thread.

 

I am willing & would love to help out wherever possible in regard to providing scans of any Pedigree book in question.

 

While it must be noted that I am quite the "novice" compared with many of you it would be a pleasure to do the right thing by the hobby if & when possible.

 

Now its back to searching & saving Pedigree'd comic cover scans.

 

Regards,

 

Russ...

[Red Hook]

[Ze-man]

Uh, sorry. But no F'n way.

 

First, I think the bottomline results of any "commitee" effort has already been clearly posted:

 

SB: "This is not to say that the pedigree designation could not be left off because a submitter does not want it to be known that the book was a re-submit, it is just that we would like to believe most people are honest and we (and we hope the boards) do not want them unfairly blamed for mistakes."

 

So I read those "conditions" as (1) Pedigree notations are submitter's choice, not manditory, and (2) if an honest mistake has been made it's an opportunity to correct it out of public view.

 

 

 

It is funny how the written word can be viewed differently. I took what Steve was saying as him admitting to the fact that it is probable there are people out there who are not honest, and resub books on purpose without the previous CGC label, or COA. I did not read that line as him saying it was optional for a customer to request anything be left off the label, other then "from the collection of"

 

Steve, is this correct? Once and for all will you go on the record and spell it out, again. Can ANYONE, I mean ANYONE ask CGC to slab a known Pedigree book and leave the Pedigree notation OFF the label? If you know for a fact at the time of slabbing it IS a known Ped?

 

 

Ze-

 

 

 

Now regarding how to best handle future "Lost Pedigree" discoveries. I agree it needs "tweaking". But to say, No effing way!!! and throw out the baby with the bathwater is not taking advantage of the situation presented to us. If anything, stick your nose in there, make sure how you feel is being represented loud and clear.

[Foolkiller]

y'know, as a sidenote, I was talking with Gary Platt today at the local Philly show, and he seemed to think that there are few collectors who are informed about pressing, and that the overwhelming majority of his customers would like it disclosed -- i.e. that's why you have high grade so that it's naturally preserved, not pressed into something it's not -- takes away from the scarcity.

 

While I'm not moved either way by pressing... if that's what the people want... at any rate, I applaud anyone willing to take their own time to lend a hand to this project, it's really a worthwhile effort.

 

I do believe that this is exactly what many of us have been saying for quite awhile and the reason for the NOD being created.

 

Would you not agree Brad?

 

Well, I know Brian has gone on record as saying that the disclosure of pressing is something that shouldn't be required unless it affects the market value of the book. He's also said that he would leave that determination up to the dealer. So I'm confused.

 

No change in position for me personally. But another thing I've also maintained was that if this was something the majority of people wanted, I would never vocally oppose because it is first and foremost a hobby that belongs to collectors, not dealers. I don't believe the dealer has an obligation to disclose this because pressin is not currently under the same stigma that say, trimming or color touch is. But as Richard Evans pointed out in San Diego, those were decisions that eventually the community as a whole arrove at.

 

In fairness to the discussion, I thought I'd just share what I learned in a discussion with a sort of grass roots dealers -- someone who is knowledgable but asks the questions of his collectors and does disclose everything voluntarily.

 

So I guess what I'm indicating to you Brad is that in our little debate I'm going to be fair about what I learn from our informal polls (which I still think we ought to take). I'm interested in what the community as a whole wants, and I'm not convinced it really wants disclosure on the pressing issue or cares. On the other hand -- if it does and simply is uneducated about it, I would be all in favor of a board that used education first. I would still disagree with Mark about the current nature and purpose behind the Network of Disclosure, and would work with the dealers in order to achieve that.

[Shield]

 

All I remember from this thread is Red Hook saying he's way over 30 and most recently some sort of parallel to the Bay of Pigs scandal.

 

A. Duh. Way, way over I'm afraid.

 

B. I would say that's quite a mouthful "The comic book equivalent to the Bay of Pigs Scandal". Come on now Brad. That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? You think the entire comic book community is watching and reading this thread with baited breath to see how this plays out?

 

You're by far my favorite poster here (well you, OldGuy, Darthdiesel and all those guys from the golden age forum) but sometimes you exaggerate things a bit, don't you think? You remind me of someone I knew; a girl's mother's boyfriend from back in high school. He overused words to add emphasis and drama, but I thought he was hilarious. I remember one time after Thanksgiving dinner with her family he was sitting on the couch in their low income home, complete with a toothpick in his mouth and his pants unbuttoned. He said "I'm contemplating going in the kitchen and getting some pie". I thought to myself, 17 years old at the time "No, you contemplate on whether or not to buy a house, start a family, finish college, etc.". You think about getting up for desert.

 

So in closing, I'm all for your effort Brad. I'll buy into the Bay of Pigs thing if you can identify who is the comic book forum equivalent to Kennedy, Kruschev, Nixon, Bobby Kennedy, Castro, the Soviets, and the American Public.

 

P.S. That speak 'n' spell thing is hilarious - where can I find that online? Please don't tell me you have a layer of "Robot 1983 font" text that you merge into a background picture and export to .jpg every time do you?

 

 

[Red Hook]

Hi Bri....

 

I am totally convinced that the general collecting population, if made aware of the practice of pressing, would overwhelmingly choose to be informed if a book they were purchasing had undergone pressing. Let me repeat that...I'm totally convinced of it.

 

Why would they not? Comic collectors, especially those of high grade books, are among the most fastidious and obsessively compulsive types around. I can't think of more than one or two serious collectors on these boards who have said they don't care.

 

Btw.....before I take Richard Evans word as unbiased observation, I want to hear him clarify his possible involvement in the Matt Nelson/Arseman alleged shilling of ebay auctions. I'm not particularly interested in dealer's assessments of the situation anyway. They're the ones who profit most by holding back information about books. And I believe your position is 100% anti-consumer, anti-buyer and anti-collector. (Nothing personal).

 

 

Brad