CGC VS CBCS12155

Originally Posted by CatmanAmerica
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
You seem to be summoning some dark, ghost in the machine highly secretive information to discredit the census, by stating trust you, you are well informed. I agree the census is likely as you use the term...imperfect...but then again so is gocollect and you defend it in the same breathe.
The degree of inaccuracy is always going to be somewhat open to discussion but the point is , it is still adequate to spot trends and determine how many of a given book are higher grade vs lower grade.
It feels like you are implying CGC only registers or reveals what books it chooses in what grades it chooses which would accomplish what deep Machivellian purpose? Simply reporting the grades and number of books.
If that census tells me ten thousand copies of New mutants grade above 9.6 then I can get a pretty good concept that paying premium prices for a book that common in high grade is pointless. If that figure they are reporting is ten comics or a hundred comics out of whack how does that alter the basic trend the information is demonstrating? It doesn't, and that is the value in a census.
Arguing that people break and resubmit books is a red herring...if they broke and resubmitted ten copies of Hulk 1 its probably a similar degree of resubmission with Daredevil 1 or JIM 83..it is imperfect..but then that's the acceptable standard for gocollect you have applied .

Again and no, regarding your four years comment....cbcs has only NOW offered a census and registry. You don't seem to be grasping that without that tool it would be pointless to report their sales prior to that event. Four years has zero bearing...now that they have taken the step to make their census and registry verifiable and transparent it makes sense.

Projecting your thoughts that a business must by your thinking include full one stop disclosure of information is faulty logic. Again they clearly state what they offer, who they are and what it is....demanding a caterpillar grow ten more legs to suit your idea of asthetics doesn't alter the basic evolution of the species. They don't choose to and haven't to this point for which I myself am glad...(see comments regarding census and registry)
If they do now alter their methods that might be an interesting and wise choice, I agree, but until now, no it would havge been a flawed choice
I think if you feel that passionate at this theme, it might be a valid choice and decision to form your own analysis company and offer only reporting for CBCS slabs, all things being equal. But end of the day you can bet you would defend your right to operate that business as you felt it best serves rather than how others might demand you do so.
You are trying to argue signed books are now...a separate hobby? Fair enough..perhaps golden agee comics should be a separate hobby and silver age, and people that collect newsstands, or foreign editions...lets just eliminate anyone that does it differently than I do...that would certainly make a valid excuse for then omitting that data from the service. We shove those damn variant collectors out of our hobby altogether.....and the collectors that collect treasuries and even the digest sized comics can go too...we can remove everyone that gocollect failed to provide data for and that should fix it.Anything that works at different dynamics and has values affected by anything but grade can just be removed...
Gocollect isn't missing data by accident, they simply have failed to get agreement to include data from anywhere except Ebay. They manually mine the information they supply from Hakes, HA, CConnect and comiclink, and mechanically harvest ebay sales. This means the differing methods themselves create issues...mechanical failures to remove sales that were later determined as shill sales etc, or feedback driving events that were not actual sales etc...wheres using the human method, there is always a certain degree of error by input....but the bottom line is that they have no reporting for a massive section of the market and have simply failed to get it done by negotiation, discussion or effort...failure to INCLUDE DATA, meaning MISSING DATA. I dodged nothing, that was precisely my point. You hold GPA massively responsible because they do not provide sales for CBCS slabs but then give gocollect free reign and endorsement for reporting what amounts to a tenth of the market at best and using those figures as stand alones to somehow determine they cover more sales and auctions (your own words) despite the fact they simply do not....because they cannot report sales from places like MCS and multiple other avenues that GPA did the legwork and negotiating to get the right to report.
I agree the data shouldn't be kept out of anyones reach but that's the system that exists now...until its fixed. Given that, it then is mercurial to use the service that most cross reports the given market rather than their own select portion they were ABLE TO ACCESS.....if you argue that GPA is missing lots of data then try to somehow argue that gocollect includes more simply because they report all companies slab sales, you aren't really understanding what gocollect is and is not reporting.

You made this statement above...."I've found work arounds for a lot of the GoCollect data I need."
This implies you were not able to find work arounds for the rest of the data you need....meaning at least some amount of time was spent both finding working, and also non working solutions for each issue, whether it falls into the resolved or unresolved category. Sounds like a lot of time to me, so if I exaggerated please forgive me but it does appear you are quite readily condemning GPA for choosing to be soley inclusive while defending and supporting another service that is why yes...unable or lacking needed data.....missing needed information.
Above you stated that signed books are driven by a whole separate set of factors aside from grade...ie desireability of the particular signer, his status among collectors, living or dead, where or perhaps when it was signed, etc.You took that as license to suggest it should be a separate hobby removed from ours based on differing factors aside from grade.
You then blanket argue that...in your words...."indeed our collecting ambitions probably differ, but in respect to analytical services there shouldn’t be distinctions between our respective interests."
No distinctions, except for the signed books apparently?

You collect high end golden age books for which a census is both unlikely to contain a high number and where a given quantity being off even two copies might profoundly impact the data....it makes a less than perfectly accurate census discardable for you
I collect multiple mid grade copies of various silver age titles for various reasons...but I can spot trends what is common based on sometimes as many as three -four thousand copies in the census, making a small error within census data while "imperfect" quite useful.....
You , from the books you have posted appear to key and lock In on books that might be the sole highest copy or one an existing handful in that grade for that book..it is amazing.
It is also entirely a different method of collecting than mine, wherein I am shopping multiple copies of my FF 25 in mid grades, that are easily obtainable. I believe there are enough distinctions that make your pursuit different than mine..if we are to remove signed books, to also remove golden age high grade collectors...so then what?
See the distinction emerging?
You can argue gocollect is a better service if you like and suggest GPA is failing expectations because they refuse to include other companies slabs but at the end of the day..GPA is including more sales data, across a broader spectrum to the standard collector as demonstrated above. Their data is "imperfect" inso asmuch as is gocollect...as far as raw data...so then you must examine the level of coverage....a service that covers four venues or one that covers 40...yes 40 venues. This quote from their homepage …."By tracking, recording, and averaging over 40 online venues, GPA does the work for you, saving you time and money."

The single issue you have evidenced is they do not and ignored your request to include CBCS slabs four years ago and that they appear to be a "tool" for reporting CGC sales. Science magazines and journals serve as "tools" for reporting science findings...so by this logic we would also question their integrity. Weather channels serve as "tools" for reporting meteorologists reports and information...non clandestine as well. The list goes for a good length...many companies serve as " tools" for reporting information from selected venues as well.
I don't think you have made a great case that Gocollect with their four sales venue reporting methods is hands down and twice on sundays a better service than GPA who reports from 40 venues. Sure your mileage may vary but end of the day I prefer to use a service with more sales data reported across a larger spectrum of the market, and inclusive of all areas of the hobby regarding slabs sales...signed, variants, etc.

I myself feel the census is valid for a qualifier to bring CBCS into contention and be considered for inclusion now, for the reasons I have offered...I can look to the future and at least hope that also sinks in for GPA..now their clock is running.
On the other hand I doubt you will see the market alter its standing for sales data, with most business contending it is proprietary and refusing gocollect similar access. Sadly many of those auction houses seem to only want the highest sales reported, and to limit who gets to report them.

I’m reluctant to respond here because the conversation has moved on and I’m not interested in pursuing a circular debate over this issue. Nevertheless, it behooves me to politely clarify challenges to my earlier response which I’ve either failed to enunciate properly or left open to misinterpretation.

1) There’s no “dark, ghost in the machine highly secretive information to discredit the census” going on here. I’m merely stating the obvious fact about any census based on information provided via an honor system. Unless the system can account for every grading resubmission there will be errors. The only question is the percentage of inaccuracy in the records.

2) The argument that an analytical service only provide data from sales of grading services with a census is ludicrous. Census numbers have nothing to do with recording the sales data of individual books of specific grades.

3) Discrediting all census data was never stated nor implied. Census data can be useful within a reasonable margin of error the caveats being that a) one must assume there are likely to be double entries from undisclosed resubmission grade bumps, and b) with two census those errors are likely to multiply.

4) My meager defense of GoCollect is simply based on their effort to cover all major sales from the two main competing comic grading services. GC may fall short in your estimation, but is more than adequate for my requirements. The time I spend searching for the information on Go Collect is negligible. GPA fails in catching the essential data in spite of a wider net.

5) What my informed opinions “feel like” to you are mistaken. I’m not ascribing a devious ploy by the CGC to cook their books on census data even if they’re in bed with GPA. While I can attest to known errors in the CGC census, I’m not suggesting any malfeasance on the part of the company. The flaws are systemic, not conspiratorial.

6) Census numbers matter most with scarce books, those existing in the tens, rather than the hundreds or thousands. Most of what I collect ...especially in high grade... falls into the former category. Your 9.6 analogy holds true when vast quantities are weighed against an individual book’s value. This is where different strokes apply dependent upon what you collect.

7) Four years hasn’t changed GPA’s approach to data provision or their rationale for omitting CBCS data. I don’t recall GPA ever using the lack of a census and registry to explain away their failure to provide CBCS sales data, but assuming that’s the case, a new explanation will likely be concocted to provide cover for bias if it exists as I believe it does.

8) Your caterpillar analogy makes no allusion to evolution of species or impact on nature. I’m less concerned with the number of legs a caterpillar possesses than whether the end result is a moth or a butterfly. Each has it’s own purpose in nature, but the latter tends to be more beneficial than the former.

9) Comic collecting covers a lot of ground, but it is indeed different than signature collection. Grade is generally more important to comic collectors, verification of authenticity is more important to autograph collectors. I’m not suggesting a total separation of the hobbies, just pointing out a division of interests that seems to be your deal breaker for data analysis.

10) You’re right that I don’t mind GoCollect efforts to mine data from so-called proprietary sales. All auction sale data should be available to the public, period, end of story. The slippery slope is allowing auction providers to charge for market sales data that should be publicly disclosed under the law.

11) Legwork and negotiating are two different processes. You’re assuming the legwork hasn’t been done because the end result doesn’t meet your criteria for accomplishment. However, you can’t know what efforts at negotiating were made nor what positions were held by those clutching their precious data. If we assume some data providers are taking a proprietary stance, they may have erected financial or exclusionary barriers that GoCollect can’t breach.

12) GPA’s advertising claims about tracking 40 sources and doing the work for you is meaningless if the information collection intentionally omits CBCS sales data across the board.

13) For my purposes, a data analysis service that covers the primary auction sales of both CGC and CBCS encapsulated books is critical information in respect to establishing market values. I’ll take the imperfect over cherry picked data every time.

14) If we assume that data collection is a tool for collectors, then both services have value to their subscribers. If GPA is a tool for CGC, then the word takes on a whole new meaning.

15) Are 40 herbs and spices better than four? Perhaps, but the ones adding very little flavor will never be as critical to the overall taste of the product as the big four.

16) We can agree that the proprietary nature of auction/sales data is fueling the contentious debate over data analysis service. This is one part of our collective hobby that would be better served by across the board openness.

Sorry about the length of this. Hopefully I’ve covered all the relevant points in a clear, concise and inoffensive manner.
.

Originally Posted by CatmanAmerica
When I bought this book it had been cracked out, but included the CGC label with misattributed cover art. It's worth noting that CGC still apparently misattributes the art to Claire Moe on MM#2 to this day...




When resubmitted it went to CBCS. Even though the restoration is arguably professional rather than amateur, I much prefer the CBCS label with correct cover art attribution...




It's been awhile, but given the differences in labels today, I prefer the cleaner design of CBCS labels over CGC's current billboard label even more.
.

Originally Posted by EbaySeller
Quote:

Originally Posted by 00slim
Over time, the skeptics will see that CBCS books do indeed demand the same prices as CGC books.

And when they finally do...we will own all of them!! (add evil laugh here).

Originally Posted by KatKomics
Very frustrating - just tried to lookup the grader notes on 2 CGC books I'm watching at auction and neither show in their data base. Like I say - very frustrating as 1 is a 8.0 but looks better than the 9.0's I've been looking at - scans/photos don't show cover dents etc. maybe this book has those issues but I'll never know since the notes don't exist!! a Jimmy Olsen 134 btw at Heritage

Originally Posted by SauceDog
CGC all around has a better infrastructure in place that brings more value and confidence to the product, specifically a more robust census, collecting registry system, and a much better forum experience (seriously, I just want to look at Golden Age books for sale here...can't do that easily. Tag system here is horrendous).

These however are all things CBCS can implement or even surpass if resources were allocated to them, however based on how they handle their own website (and my experience as a web developer) I don't get the feeling they are at all that interested in tackling these things right now. The negative side of not doing the online experience correctly is that each day is another day CBCS could have been closing the cap in search engine placement and overall social rankings, but as it stands they are just stuck. I literally do SEO for work and they are failing in many ways in this regard. They might offer a great service, but their ability to build & support the brand is lacking.

I also do prefer CGC labels, as CBCS are far too pale and do not utilize the empty space in a pleasing manner.

Originally Posted by HulkSmash
@KatKomics Chuck Norris?
clickable text