The "Review Committee" discussion

[Foolkiller]

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

 

You are presuming of course that people once educated will believe that the books are harmed or damaged and that there are not a lot of collectors interested in aesthetic appeal first.

[Red Hook]

 

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?

 

 

 

 

Please go back and read my post. I was chiding MasterChief specifically because he was painting the situation in such dramatic strokes. I used the BOP reference because hewas blowing it up out of proportion. Check out this quote....

 

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.

 

I mean, you want hyperbole.....? There it is. Steve Borock is Al Capone? Earth toMaster Chief.....Earth to MasterChief.

 

My point was that the possible formation of this suggested committee was NOT an earth-shattering event. Go read my post again. You misunderstood.

 

Brad

[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?

 

 

 

 

Please go back and read my post. I was chiding MasterChief specifically because he was painting the situation in such dramatic strokes. I used the BOP reference because hewas blowing it up out of proportion. Check out this quote....

 

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.

 

I mean, you want hyperbole.....? There it is. Steve Borock is Al Capone? Earth toMaster Chief.....Earth to MasterChief.

 

My point was that the possible formation of this suggested committee was NOT an earth-shattering event. Go read my post again. You misunderstood.

 

Brad

 

I didn't misunderstand. I didn't read most of this thread. In order to misunderstand I'd have to have read this thread, right? Re-read what I stated in my first 2 sentences.

 

By the way I'm just teasing you, bro. Lighten up, francis! Again, I skimmed through this and basically saw you state you were over 30 (why just yesterday you told me about the Zep concert you went to in '71!) and then the Bay of Pigs reference.

 

Geesh..

[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

 

You are presuming of course that people once educated will believe that the books are harmed or damaged and that there are not a lot of collectors interested in aesthetic appeal first.

 

 

Not necessarily. I just think there will be plenty of people that want to know that the mucho bucks they are paying for a 9.6 are in fact getting laid down for a former 9.2 that was artificially enhanced. They may not be in quite the hurry to open their wallets....and that's what dealers are worried about.

 

See Brian.....look at it this way. If dealers agreed with you, and felt that the majority of buyers wouldn't care, then they would have no hesitiation about revealing all. But most go to great lengths to keep that info hidden. Their behavior tells all.

 

Certain dealers are resisting the call for disclosure because they know that if the practice gets dragged out into the sunlight....they might lose a few bucks, and it might do a number on the little cash cow they've been milking. This is all about money.

 

And I do think there are a lot of collectors interested in aesthetic appeal. But I think we're talking about different things. If collectors judged books purely by appearance, then PLODS would not be valued less than books in unrestored holders.

 

Not one in ten collectors is going to pay more for a restored book than an unrestored book of the same grade. Even if it looks nicer. The reason it looks nicer is important to most collectors.

 

See, when I begin to hear solid information that pressing does no long-term harm to books... from people who are not directly profiting from the practice... then I'll pay closer attention. But I'll still believe in the consumers right to the info, either way.

[Red Hook]

I didn't misunderstand. I didn't read most of this thread. In order to misunderstand I'd have to have read this thread, right? Re-read what I stated in my first 2 sentences.

 

By the way I'm just teasing you, bro. Lighten up, francis! Again, I skimmed through this and basically saw you state you were over 30 (why just yesterday you told me about the Zep concert you went to in '71!) and then the Bay of Pigs reference.

 

Geesh..

 

All I said was, you took my Bay of Pigs reference out of context. That's all. No biggie.

[sborock]

"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?"

 

YOU ARE CORRECT.

 

WE TRY AND CATCH EVERY PEDIGREE BOOK THAT COMES IN HERE. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VERY HAPPY WHEN THEY GET A CALL FROM US WHEN WE HAVE FOUND THAT THEIR BOOK IS FROM A PEDIGREE AND NOT ONE HAS ASKED US TO KEEP THE NOTATION OFF.

 

WE WILL NOT TAKE A PEDIGREE NOTATION OFF THE LABEL IF ASKED.

 

CERTAIN BOOKS (OAKLANDS, DON ROSA, NORTHLANDS, MANY CROWLEYS, DON AND MAGGIE, AMONG OTHERS) ARE NON-DESCRIPT AND IF CRACKED OUT, SOLD RAW (ESPECIALLY IF SOLD/TRADED MORE THAN ONCE), AND RE-SUBMITTED, THE OWNER MIGHT NOT EVEN KNOW IT IS A PEDIGREE AND THE NOTATION WOULD BE LOST.

[shadroch]

So,the "lost" Crowley pedigree,currently owned by the owner of CGC will have its Pedigree restored?This I will pay to see.

[nearmint]

So,the "lost" Crowley pedigree,currently owned by the owner of CGC will have its Pedigree restored?This I will pay to see.

 

Shouldn't it? I doubt it would make a monetary difference. I would think a non-pedigree Sensation #1 CGC 9.2 would sell for about the same as the Crowley copy. Crowleys are nice, but they're by no means spectacular.

 

If you're thinking he might not want the ped restored, you might be right. But, if he were that concerned about people being able to trace the book back to it's former 8.5 grade, I doubt he would have authorized Mark to post his letter stating that he had purchased the book from a dealer after that dealer had resubbed it and received the higher grade.

[OldGuy]

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.

 

I've been content to not comment in this thread because I don't think I have anything to add that hasn’t already been said.......until now.

 

You are seriously mistaken if you think that Brad or I either one will be "on the company's side". I'm doubtful that CGC will ask for my participation in this process, but on the off chance that they do, they will not be getting a lap dog, that's for sure.

 

The only "side" I've ever been on is mine. Others would say "the collectors" instead of "mine", but I think that "mine" is more accurate, and honest. The fact that I'm a collector is only coincidental in my opinion.

 

If I were asked to be on this proposed committee I would certainly accept, but if I ever had the feeling that I was doing more to serve CGC's interests then to serve mine (the collectors) then I'd be gone.

 

Right now I see this proposed committee as providing something that to this point has been absent, and that's a direct line of communication to CGC (Steve B.) about this area of concern. While the initial scope may be narrow, I can see the possibility of this committee leading to more oversight and influence over CGC by collectors, either through the expansion of this committee or the formation of others.

 

Even though I have been hard on CGC over the years, I have come to believe that Steve, and the others that work for CGC, honestly believe that that they are watching out for the best interest of collectors. Unfortunately, they are also responsible for towing the company line as well as protection the bottom line. Fortunately I am not hindered by any such responsibilities.

[MasterChief]

RH,

 

Positive suggestion: Continuing using the detection process currently in place. It's works, no need to formalize it. Your creating a bigger impact than you think!

 

--MC

[Red Hook]

RH,

 

Positive suggestion: Continuing using the detection process currently in place. It's works, no need to formalize it. Your creating a bigger impact than you think!

 

--MC

 

But the detection process currently in place will continue. Basically, what CGC has done is committed to giving us a formal answer on specific books. It's a start.

[esquirecomics]

WE WILL NOT TAKE A PEDIGREE NOTATION OFF THE LABEL IF ASKED.

 

Except, of course, if it was put there incorrectly in the first place.

 

Blue Ribbon #1 Larson Situation

[esquirecomics]

RH,

 

Positive suggestion: Continuing using the detection process currently in place. It's works, no need to formalize it. Your creating a bigger impact than you think!

 

--MC

 

MC, your well-written views would come across with greater strength, respect and perhaps persuasiveness if you identified yourself. Everyone else here knows exactly who is speaking, despite the forum ids, which is why we don't make an issue of it.

 

So, either you simply are not aware of this fact OR you are.

[Red Hook]

I've just communicated with MC.....he's not a shill. I guess he's just a guy who likes his privacy. But I've dealt with him before on other matters and he's sincere.

 

I repeat...not a shill.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

I am not sure why I am being singled out here, nor do I know what you think you know about my views of the "current nature and purpose behind the Newtwork of Disclosure." The NOD is not Mark Zaid, and Mark Zaid is not the NOD, though perhaps I appreciate the compliment that somehow I control more than I do.

 

Whatever views the NOD has have been adopted by the entire organization in a democratic fashion. While there may be some issues where differences arise between members, the NOD nevertheless reflects the will of the majority, which continues to grow every day.

 

I have no greater authority or voice for the NOD than any other member, except for those outlined responsibilities possessed by the Committee of which Brent Moeshlin (QualityComix), Jim Wilkerson (Awe4one) and Jeff Delaney (NearMint)(as an alternate) also serve.

[esquirecomics]

I've just communicated with MC.....he's not a shill. I guess he's just a guy who likes his privacy. But I've dealt with him before on other matters and he's sincere.

 

I repeat...not a shill.

 

Excellent!

 

Then welcome to the boards! We look forward to continuing substantive contributions like the one you made above.

[esquirecomics]

Additionally, anyone who thinks the NOD is all or only about pressing is either misinformed, not paying attention to what we have been saying or deliberately advocating misinformation.

 

As part of the continuing NOD education program, we will soon be issuing further guidance setting forth Q & As regarding the NOD reason for existence, purpose and objectives, among other things.

[esquirecomics]

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

 

You are presuming of course that people once educated will believe that the books are harmed or damaged and that there are not a lot of collectors interested in aesthetic appeal first.

 

I think most would see this as way too narrow a view, IMHO.

[divad]

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?

 

Brad,

A bit harsh, I think . . .

-D

[Davenport]

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.

Yes, it is funny how the written word can be viewed differently. My "pedigree notations are submitter's choice" conclusion was in the context of a "commitee effort". The bottomline, the end result, what would happen once a committee did their thing.

 

I misunderstood that the fix would be optional, submitters' choice. Sorry.

 

But, it's good to know. Here's a good candidate. Go get 'em.

http://www.vintagecollectables.net/comic_detail.php?issue_id=1753&PHPSESSID=cbe15052f6