|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Jul 17, 2017 21:17:11 GMT -8
Did he really? Well...good for him. It must have been for all of those incredibly useful posts he made in the forum delay thread. The thing that really gets under my skin, the real bottom line of all of this, is that it's possible that I care about CGC more than just about anyone else on the board, including the administration. I believe in graded comics, and have for 27+ years. I believe in the concept, I believe in the principle of third-party grading. Not just for my benefit, though there's obviously that, but because I believe, despite all the shenanigans, that it's BETTER than what there was before. Yes, there are a lot of problems, and yes, those problems are treated like Marvel and DC talking to Sergio Aragones about Groo (see Pacific Groo #1), but things ARE better than they used to be, by a lot. I want CGC...and CBCS...to succeed. The company that runs their message board is opposed to their success, though they certainly don't understand why. The problem has been, and continues to be, a lack of competition with rock solid integrity, who won't cut corners, who won't participate in conflicts of interest, who believe in transparency and honesty over corporate image. Nearly impossible, but not impossible. Like I always say...the hobby had decades...literally decades to firm up a solid, uniformly understood grading scale. It's not rocket science, it's just agreement. And it failed. I'm surprised grading companies didn't form sooner. I think it's sad but not entirely unpredictable that a fairly corrupt organization with tentacles in auction houses and restoration services filled the void. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything with integrity and a moral compass to emerge at this point...that ship sailed a long time ago. Anyway...just my two cents.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 23:18:43 GMT -8
The thing that really gets under my skin, the real bottom line of all of this, is that it's possible that I care about CGC more than just about anyone else on the board, including the administration. I believe in graded comics, and have for 27+ years. I believe in the concept, I believe in the principle of third-party grading. Not just for my benefit, though there's obviously that, but because I believe, despite all the shenanigans, that it's BETTER than what there was before. Yes, there are a lot of problems, and yes, those problems are treated like Marvel and DC talking to Sergio Aragones about Groo (see Pacific Groo #1), but things ARE better than they used to be, by a lot. I want CGC...and CBCS...to succeed. The company that runs their message board is opposed to their success, though they certainly don't understand why. The problem has been, and continues to be, a lack of competition with rock solid integrity, who won't cut corners, who won't participate in conflicts of interest, who believe in transparency and honesty over corporate image. Nearly impossible, but not impossible. Like I always say...the hobby had decades...literally decades to firm up a solid, uniformly understood grading scale. It's not rocket science, it's just agreement. And it failed. I'm surprised grading companies didn't form sooner. I think it's sad but not entirely unpredictable that a fairly corrupt organization with tentacles in auction houses and restoration services filled the void. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything with integrity and a moral compass to emerge at this point...that ship sailed a long time ago. Anyway...just my two cents. Well...to be fair, collecting wasn't a big enough deal until the 90's. In the 80's, people were ooohing and ahhhing over a $25k sale for Action #1, Fantasy #15 was a $1,000 at best, and Hulk #181 was $35...and that was at a time when the million dollar mark in coins was getting close. It just wasn't that organized. Also, the technology for encapsulation just didn't exist. I do agree with you that it's sad that CGC specifically came to fill the void. NGC, their forebear and "older sibling" company, is very well respected, and doesn't deal with all of this shadiness, as I understand it. But, I do hold out hope that competition being the great equalizer that it is will force positive change, as it has already to a small extent. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Jul 18, 2017 6:21:51 GMT -8
Like I always say...the hobby had decades...literally decades to firm up a solid, uniformly understood grading scale. It's not rocket science, it's just agreement. And it failed. I'm surprised grading companies didn't form sooner. I think it's sad but not entirely unpredictable that a fairly corrupt organization with tentacles in auction houses and restoration services filled the void. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything with integrity and a moral compass to emerge at this point...that ship sailed a long time ago. Anyway...just my two cents. Well...to be fair, collecting wasn't a big enough deal until the 90's. In the 80's, people were ooohing and ahhhing over a $25k sale for Action #1, Fantasy #15 was a $1,000 at best, and Hulk #181 was $35...and that was at a time when the million dollar mark in coins was getting close. It just wasn't that organized. Also, the technology for encapsulation just didn't exist. I do agree with you that it's sad that CGC specifically came to fill the void. NGC, their forebear and "older sibling" company, is very well respected, and doesn't deal with all of this shadiness, as I understand it. But, I do hold out hope that competition being the great equalizer that it is will force positive change, as it has already to a small extent. There was a need for a grading standard as soon as collectors started collecting and the first guy said to the second one, "My copy of Action #1 looks better than yours does." Granted, big money would have further divided the scale as competition and greed took hold. The technology necessary to encapsulate existed, it just hadn't been applied. I would argue that there's never been a 'need' for encapsulation. That was a CGC quirk that became a standard. I would further argue that the current encapsulation technology damages many books by allowing them to bang around inside, smashing and tearing corners and edges, and ripping covers off. And, recently, we've all seen the direct damage encapsulation can do even without any movement - inappropriate pressure damaging the book by causing creep waves, and crushing the book against itself. It would be nice to see real competition force change, but what we have here is a pretty classic example of an oligopoly. By definition, oligopolies aren't driven by consumer requirements because they have the power to ignore them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 7:14:45 GMT -8
Well...to be fair, collecting wasn't a big enough deal until the 90's. In the 80's, people were ooohing and ahhhing over a $25k sale for Action #1, Fantasy #15 was a $1,000 at best, and Hulk #181 was $35...and that was at a time when the million dollar mark in coins was getting close. It just wasn't that organized. Also, the technology for encapsulation just didn't exist. I do agree with you that it's sad that CGC specifically came to fill the void. NGC, their forebear and "older sibling" company, is very well respected, and doesn't deal with all of this shadiness, as I understand it. But, I do hold out hope that competition being the great equalizer that it is will force positive change, as it has already to a small extent. There was a need for a grading standard as soon as collectors started collecting and the first guy said to the second one, "My copy of Action #1 looks better than yours does." Granted, big money would have further divided the scale as competition and greed took hold. The technology necessary to encapsulate existed, it just hadn't been applied. I would argue that there's never been a 'need' for encapsulation. That was a CGC quirk that became a standard. I would further argue that the current encapsulation technology damages many books by allowing them to bang around inside, smashing and tearing corners and edges, and ripping covers off. And, recently, we've all seen the direct damage encapsulation can do even without any movement - inappropriate pressure damaging the book by causing creep waves, and crushing the book against itself. It would be nice to see real competition force change, but what we have here is a pretty classic example of an oligopoly. By definition, oligopolies aren't driven by consumer requirements because they have the power to ignore them. That's my point: it's 2017, and they STILL have not perfected encapsulation. The technology to do even the mediocre job they do did not didn't exist in the 90's. It had to be invented, or, to be more precise, engineered specifically for comics. In fact, when coin encapsulation came along in the mid-80's, it was a fairly innovative idea. Contarino had been publicly discussing doing the same in comics since at least 1990, if not earlier, but even with the big market of the early 90's, and the air of legitimacy that comics got when Sothebys and Christies entered the picture, it still wasn't a possibility. You get no argument from me about the state of the market. CBCS hired Borock. Borock is a good deal why CGC has the "we can ignore the customers and get away with it" mentality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What is most interesting about this incestuous market is that there are billions of dollars floating around in it, yet no one can make a slabbing model that is profitable, for all sorts of reasons (such as the ability of a select few to exercise massive influence over it.) |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Jul 18, 2017 7:32:22 GMT -8
That's my point: it's 2017, and they STILL have not perfected encapsulation.  I see what you're saying. Yes...so true. To be fair to mankind...we haven't exactly had the greatest minds available working on this problem. It's been amateur hour at the drafting table...or more likely, scribbles on the back of the bar napkin...or maybe they just made an outline with beer nuts and pretzels. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 7:38:23 GMT -8
Well...to be fair, collecting wasn't a big enough deal until the 90's. In the 80's, people were ooohing and ahhhing over a $25k sale for Action #1, Fantasy #15 was a $1,000 at best, and Hulk #181 was $35...and that was at a time when the million dollar mark in coins was getting close. It just wasn't that organized. Also, the technology for encapsulation just didn't exist. I do agree with you that it's sad that CGC specifically came to fill the void. NGC, their forebear and "older sibling" company, is very well respected, and doesn't deal with all of this shadiness, as I understand it. But, I do hold out hope that competition being the great equalizer that it is will force positive change, as it has already to a small extent. There was a need for a grading standard as soon as collectors started collecting and the first guy said to the second one, "My copy of Action #1 looks better than yours does." Granted, big money would have further divided the scale as competition and greed took hold. Of course. That's been true since the 60's, when comic collecting began. But that need, as evidenced by the continual evolution of finer distinction over the ensuing decades, didn't manifest itself into a grading COMPANY until 1999. The need was there, had been there since the beginning, and had even been noted and discussed for many years, but the need wasn't great enough to inspire anyone to actually make a grading company happen until the late 90's. There wasn't the will, or the money, to make it happen earlier, and the growth of the idea of "grading" had to happen organically. Even in coins, which was a far older hobby, there was little attempt at standardized grading until the 50's, and the ultra fine distinctions we have today weren't standardized...and market accepted...until the 80's. There were coin grading companies as far back as the 70's (and think about how little a span of time that is...coins have been collected for centuries), but it wasn't until PCGS in 1986 and NGC in 1987 that a uniform code of grading became "official"....just a little over a decade before CGC. As far as "competition and greed" taking over, true, but with the understanding that those are opposing factors. After all, what is greed, especially in a market that trades items which are completely unnecessary to sustain life? Competition opens the door; greed tries to force it closed. It was to the benefit of dealers to control the flow of information, collude with each other, and limit competition, so they could get the most money they could for the items they sold, and the least amount paid for what they bought. Anyone suggesting that Bob Overstreet didn't use his position to help himself personally is naive. Competition forced them to work much harder than they were used to. eBay and the internet was a vastly equalizing force, and drove many of these lazy asswipes out of business, and rightfully so. Now, you must offer something that is special to attract and keep customers, whether that's unique or hard-to-find items, or stellar service, or some combination thereof, to remain competitive. The more money spent, the pickier customers became...except for the greatly mitigating "this is my addiction, and I don't want to cut off my supply" factor mentioned above. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 7:40:11 GMT -8
That's my point: it's 2017, and they STILL have not perfected encapsulation. I see what you're saying. Yes...so true. To be fair to mankind...we haven't exactly had the greatest minds available working on this problem. It's been amateur hour at the drafting table...or more likely, scribbles on the back of the bar napkin...or maybe they just made an outline with beer nuts and pretzels. No doubt, no doubt at all! But what is baffling is that there are those billions of dollars floating around, and STILL there haven't been "the finest minds" attempting to solve the issues. There are, quite obviously, many competing factors and interests involved that are carefully hidden from the public (as those reading this forum are aware.) |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Jul 18, 2017 8:09:57 GMT -8
There was a need for a grading standard as soon as collectors started collecting and the first guy said to the second one, "My copy of Action #1 looks better than yours does." Granted, big money would have further divided the scale as competition and greed took hold. Of course. That's been true since the 60's, when comic collecting began. But that need, as evidenced by the continual evolution of finer distinction over the ensuing decades, didn't manifest itself into a grading COMPANY until 1999. The need was there, had been there since the beginning, and had even been noted and discussed for many years, but the need wasn't great enough to inspire anyone to actually make a grading company happen until the late 90's. There wasn't the will, or the money, to make it happen earlier, and the growth of the idea of "grading" had to happen organically. Even in coins, which was a far older hobby, there was little attempt at standardized grading until the 50's, and the ultra fine distinctions we have today weren't standardized...and market accepted...until the 80's. There were coin grading companies as far back as the 70's (and think about how little a span of time that is...coins have been collected for centuries), but it wasn't until PCGS in 1986 and NGC in 1987 that a uniform code of grading became "official"....just a little over a decade before CGC. As far as "competition and greed" taking over, true, but with the understanding that those are opposing factors. After all, what is greed, especially in a market that trades items which are completely unnecessary to sustain life? Competition opens the door; greed tries to force it closed. It was to the benefit of dealers to control the flow of information, collude with each other, and limit competition, so they could get the most money they could for the items they sold, and the least amount paid for what they bought. Anyone suggesting that Bob Overstreet didn't use his position to help himself personally is naive. Competition forced them to work much harder than they were used to. eBay and the internet was a vastly equalizing force, and drove many of these lazy asswipes out of business, and rightfully so. Now, you must offer something that is special to attract and keep customers, whether that's unique or hard-to-find items, or stellar service, or some combination thereof, to remain competitive. The more money spent, the pickier customers became...except for the greatly mitigating "this is my addiction, and I don't want to cut off my supply" factor mentioned above. I should have been more clear. I meant competition between collectors - specifically collectors who equate self image with possessions. In this case, possessions with a convenient numeric quality identifier; which, of course, is yet another artificial penis for the unwashed masses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 11:10:31 GMT -8
Yes, the "I'm a better human being than you because my possessions are better than yours."
And now, with certification. "Look! My ASM #50 is a 9.6...yours is only a 9.2...? Awww....sorry about that, champ. Better luck next time."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Jul 18, 2017 13:27:14 GMT -8
lol I see what you're saying. Yes...so true. To be fair to mankind...we haven't exactly had the greatest minds available working on this problem. It's been amateur hour at the drafting table...or more likely, scribbles on the back of the bar napkin...or maybe they just made an outline with beer nuts and pretzels. No doubt, no doubt at all! But what is baffling is that there are those billions of dollars floating around, and STILL there haven't been "the finest minds" attempting to solve the issues. There are, quite obviously, many competing factors and interests involved that are carefully hidden from the public (as those reading this forum are aware.) Florida. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Aug 19, 2017 7:57:29 GMT -8
Tony Starks can open up the CGC cases no problem. "I have mixed feelings about posting these pictures up. I have no interest in creating doubt about ANY professional third party grading and encapsulation company's product. Not their grading, not their slabs nor their integrity. When it comes to comic books, I'm Switzerland. As some of you know, I clean and press comics as a retail service. I send my clients books where ever they want. Something the poster of the case swap video on YouTube can't say. I send my own books to both CBCS and CGC. When I choose between the two, the choice has NOTHING to do with the slabs. Because the slabs are all more or less equivalent. Different choices were made and different attributes were favored by one design or the other. But NONE are absolutely tamper proof. NONE. You want tamper proof? Two stainless steel sheets welded together. Too bad you won't be able to SEE the book inside. But hey - ain't no one tampering with it! Obviously that isn't the answer. We want the slabs to also display our books. We want them to be safe to open if we want them out. We want them to be archival - preserving the book inside And yes, we want some level of tamper resistance/evidence from our slabs. But there may never be a perfect slab that does all those things perfectly. Perfect isn't necessary to the hobby and perfect shouldn't be allowed to be the enemy of good. Tampering is a potential threat to all slabbed comics. But not a common or likely threat. I also WILL NOT post up pictures showing HOW this is done. It's done with a couple common...things... you probably have in your house. The aspect of the case swap video I take the greatest exception with is the author showed HOW. Who possibly benefits from such knowledge? Would be thieves and scammers. No matter how much fuss, I will not show the tools or describe how it is done. The only information along those lines I will offer is you only "work" on the area around the label. Not pulling apart the entire slab. CGC doesn't encapsulate the label inside the inner holder. But it can be done. Easily done. Couple of minutes tops."  |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Oct 20, 2017 18:28:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 2, 2017 7:29:28 GMT -8
11/2/17 Email
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmers Nice Guy on Nov 2, 2017 11:52:19 GMT -8
why not if folks'll go for it?But like always..how are you going to READ it?
|
|
|
|
Post by 50 Fiddy on Nov 19, 2017 17:03:56 GMT -8
Is there a market for old magazines like Time, Newsweek, etc?
|
|
I see what you're saying. Yes...so true.
