By the numbers comparison: CGC vs. CBCS (hint: CBCS wins HARD)14689
 Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by mediaslaveMy point is precisely what I said it was. The data that the OP above used is missing many factors and potential outcomes and cannot be used to determine a realistic trend........ Much like people who grab only sales examples that support their argument, or simply do not understand that to determine a result you have to compare apples to apples, in the SAME setting, or oranges to oranges again IN THE SAME SETTING. This was all explained to you at least twice, once by Iron man and the second time by myself previously. Konk also illustrated the problem with your argument quite well previously. Just emphatically claiming something isnt a factual basis for a result. For example in your chosen list of sales examples do you know for a fact ALL of your examples have the precise same page quality, ended at the same time of day, and were being sold up against the exact same other comics to keep the results factual? There is simply no way you could or will know that, meaning you are arguing from a chosen bias rather than being able to provide confirmable verifiable data. Consider your argument both refuted and also tossed into the logical fallacy trash can. A fact is something that is supported by verifiable, transparent evidence, rather than innuendo, allegation and bias. Attempting to argue in all cases at all times across all lines CGC clearly outsells CBCS is simply browbeating without supporting evidence. |
||
| Post 51 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by mediaslave Going from a VERIFIED signature to a WITNESSED signature is impossible. Previously, a book with ONLY witnessed signatures was on a yellow label. Any book with a verified signature was a red label, even if the book had a mixture of both verified and witnessed signatures, but the distinction between the two has always been made on the label. When CBCS introduced the current slab a few months ago (a year now?) they did away with the red labels and just had verified and witnessed signatures share the yellow label. If a book is re-holdered or reslabbed they get the most current labels. This means all red labels will get a new yellow label but witnessed/verified distinction is still made for each signature, just like it always has. Also, aren't bends typically pressable defects? |
||
| Post 52 • IP flag post | ||
 Masculinity takes a holiday.
|
EbayMafia private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Darkseid_of_town here's a tip I learned from playing Poker: When someone is convinced that Poker is best played irrationally, you don't make efforts to convince them otherwise. You complement them on their short-term wins, you encourage them...and eventually you gut them. They may be right in the short-term, they are never right in the long-term. Lose the battle, win the war. It doesn't really matter over the long-term if the market currently values a CGC 9.8 over a CBCS 9.8. And those who argue that it does matter create opportunity for those of us who know otherwise. Any desire that I feel to argue with them is purely emotional, not rational. | ||
| Post 53 • IP flag post | ||
 You can't get good wood on the ball every time.
|
HotKeyComics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Heres a comparison on 4 hot titles from the last few years, including one very hard to get in 9.8s (Canto) EDIT: forgot DOT %'s for CBCS: 9.8s = 92% / 9.6'S = 4% / 9.4'S = 2%   |
||
| Post 54 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by EbayMafiaI think thats perhaps the smartest thing I have ever seen you post Lebron, thanks . |
||
| Post 55 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by dielinfinite And yet, my book went from verified to witnessed. Which is my point. Bends CAN be pressable, but thats not what the notes said. They said fold. Folds aren't pressable typically. Spine stress is not fixable with a press. Magically, both those issues disappeared with a press, which isn't possible. My point is that both companies make mistakes. Obviously I was pumped when I got this back, but its an error book. Its a pretty big mistake too, tbh. Not "verifing a printed signature" big, but still decent.  But again this isn't a slam on CBCS, its just a reality check that both companies use human beings, and human beings make mistakes. Thats all there is to it. Aiming for perfection is of course always the goal, but a certain marging of error MUST be understood. |
||
| Post 56 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Sebastsk8 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @mediaslave does it actually say witnessed? Verified labels are also yellow now. | ||
| Post 57 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by EbayMafia This was before the red label was retired. My book went from verified to witnessed, which isn't supposed to be possible. Its a mistake. It shouldn't have happened. I sent it back hoping to get it back to 9.6. I had bought another copy raw and got it signed in baby blue, which looked amazing. Decided to try and recover my spend on the CBCS one, especially since the defects they graded weren't actually part of the book, but the design of the ad on the back lol. It was a very poor job by CBCS there all around, but THESE THINGS HAPPEN. Attached is the ad on the back of that book. What I THINK happened was they graded the weathered design of the ad as errors on the book. I couldn't find the defects they listed in the ntoes, so figured what the hell and resubmitted it. It worked out. Again though, the whole point is that every company makes mistakes. Its the rate of errors and how they deal with them that matter.  |
||
| Post 58 • IP flag post | ||
 I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers).Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by EbayMafia Spot on.... simply spot on is all I can say. Bravo! |
||
| Post 59 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town When I search for examples, I use eBay, I use only auctions, and try to have the sold range within two weeks. The hobby is WAY too volatile right now for any larger of a timeline. In two weeks random books can double lol That is, as far as I can see, the ONLY way to accurately determine a fair sample range. Same site, same sales style, small time window. No idea how you can possibly argue that's not fair. I can do that same search with literally thousands of books right now, and far more often than not the outcome with be higher pricing for CGC. I have no idea how you could possibly argue against that. As I said the only other way to do this is to take a relatively decent range of books and submit the same to both companies back to back in a tiny timeframe, which isn't really viable without somehow tipping the companies off to something going on. |
||
| Post 60 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
 |
||
| Post 61 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by mediaslaveBecause that isnt how intelligent science works honestly. You do not use one single platform for instance..what if the bias you are attempting to support ONLY occurrs on ebay for instance? To do factual , unbiased research you would need sales from multiple platforms, taken at multiple times of the day, using multiple books, each book having been sold at a time when the same precise other books were sold. As if that were not enough, each book sold would have to be compared to another book sold of the same page quality, against others that are all identical to the books in other comparisons. You are using only a platform you chose, and time periods you choose etc. A true experiment requires random factors to add another problem to your percieved unbiased comparison. Finally, you would need to factor in if books by other graders had factored, be it Halo, Pgx etc. Then you would need to determine how raw sales during the chosen window factors for that same book, vs perhaps raw graded...what about restored books vs unrestored, or signed vs unsketched vs those with a missing page, coupon or slightly different page quality? What about slab styles? New cbcs vs older vs the slabs wtih newton rings vs those with frankenslabs from CGC? are you factoring that in? What about slab damage, missing stickers that belong on the slabs or even books that have different serial numbers someone might have bid on higher because the number happened to be their cousins boyfriends birthdate ? If you really want to understand how to generate, then test a data stream ask to read a science paper written by someone with a Masters degree in some given discipline in science. You will begin to glean the utter silliness of how you are comparing things, using only factors you have chosen to support a conclusion you already have a bias for. That is why your efforts to suggest you have somehow gleaned some golden "lukey streetwalker" divining tool for somehow proving anything approaching solid data from the stream is riddled with problems. Lebron was right....play on player, raise or call? |
||
| Post 62 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town So let me get this straight. Your argument against the fact that I can readily prove CGC sellS for more is to introduce a whole bunch of variables that are functionally impossible to prove? That's your strategy here? Of course reducing the variables and evening out every factor is the most legitimate way of producing a final conclusion. At the same time the only way to really do it is to sell the same group of books over and over on different platforms with different grading and a very similar time frame with the same group of buyers. That reduces all the variables as much as possible. But it's not very practical is it? I chose eBay specifically because it's easy to get sold pricing off there. But if you want I can choose any platform you like including, comiclink, Heritage auction or anything else and it will easily show that for the majority of books, cbcs sells for Less. In the examples that I choose I also reduced the variables down to just auctions, in a similar time frame, for the exact same book. That reduces the variables as much as possible (within reason) , and that's assuming that I can even find a cbcs example for sale, which is sometimes very difficult. You bringing up a bunch of technical details that while correct, are nearly unloading to control is just pompous posturing, because you know full well but doing a proper Scientific Method here isn't really possible. But it's pretty easy to show looking through past sales and similar time frames and comparing the sales on the same platform for each that cbcs sells for less. I can pull up thousands of examples and show that right now, with enough regularity that a reasonable conclusion can be reached. You trying to argue the opposite by citing a lack of a proper full scientific method fully knowing that it's near impossible and entirely impractical? Just seems like rampant fanboyism. Things like error rates, strictness of grading, accuracy... those would be a lot harder to prove. The fact that there is a price difference on the majority of sales? That one's pretty obvious. Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your post (and if I am sorry about that) but I don't see how you could possibly argue against that. :/ |
||
| Post 63 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I did not "introduce a whole bunch of variables that are functionally impossible to prove? "..these variables and hundreds more already exist within the parameters of the comparison you are attempting to argue based on bias. That is the point, you are failing to allow for each possible variable while claiming you can readily prove something. Science does not claim to prove things, only to offer the best possible hypothesis to fit the evidence. In this case you are offering the hypothesis that fits your own bias, based entirely off the only evidence you have chosen to use. Of course reducing the variables and evening out every factor is the most legitimate way of producing a final conclusion. At the same time the only way to really do it is to sell the same group of books over and over on different platforms with different grading and a very similar time frame with the same group of buyers. That reduces all the variables as much as possible. But it's not very practical is it?................and yet that is what is needed if you wish to establish a working hypothesis based on anything other than your own beliefs. Evidence. Not guessing based on the examples you have chosen to support an already established conclusion. " I chose eBay specifically because it's easy to get sold pricing off there. But if you want I can choose any platform you like including, comiclink, Heritage auction or anything else and it will easily show that for the majority of books, cbcs sells for Less. In the examples that I choose I also reduced the variables down to just auctions, in a similar time frame, for the exact same book. That reduces the variables as much as possible (within reason) , and that's assuming that I can even find a cbcs example for sale, which is sometimes very difficult. Science isnt about choosing the easiest way ...and you also dont get to choose any other single venue, unles your goal is to establish data ONLY for that venue. In order for your assertion to resemble a conclusion you would require the data from all possible sales venues. You also do not get to choose only auctions, as you are again limiting the potential results based on your chosen bias, and altering data points that could misconstrue the final result. You cannot reliably state CGC outsells CBCS in all cases at all times unless you of course, use ALL CASES at all times , period. I did not bring up a bunch of "technical details"..they already existed within your botched attempt to misconstrue the results to fit your own bias. I am pointing out the contaminating factors in your data points that create potential margins of error that are large and would affect any hypothesis......" doing a proper Scientific Method here isn't really possible" Correct, and since you arent using anything approaching a scientific method we can then determine you are guessing using factors you chose to fit a result you wished to attain. That is not a valid comparison. You just stated as much yourself. Rampant fanboyism? How does that even begin to possibly apply ? what a perfectly odd thing to suggest, since I have spent the entire posting explaining why the data does not support an argument for or against CBCS or CGC for that matter. My point is and has remained that given your methods there is no valid method of factually determining which company offers the best result, regardless which company. That is not fanboyism, that is reality. Again you are projecting a result you wish on evidence you lack to make an argument that isnt subjective. I would prefer you not place me within that frame, I am not arguing for or against either company, and it is rude for you to attempt to place it within the discussion. Again my point remains, your methods of comparison are sloppy, the results mean nothing, and I as I originally asserted make the same mistakes the original OP did in his own posting. In fact that was precisely my point if you review my comments. You keep asserting you can prove this and readily establish that ...I await your data. However understand that from the begining , science never seeks to PROVE anything, it only offers the best possible hypothesis to support ALL of the existing evidence. Sadly, you are not using ALL of the evidence, you have reduced the comparison down to simplify it for yourself, and possibly have created a false narrative in doing so. |
||
| Post 64 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Reading your reply, I'm confused as to what you're actually measuring. The only thing that I have spoken about is the price Gap. I'm not talking about quality or grading Etc. Only the price Gap. I'm just making sure, but that is clear right? Cuz otherwise that explains why this conversation seems to be going in circles. The price Gap is just super easy to prove and it's pretty much bang on every time. Choose a book, choose a grade, choose the sales format, whether it's buy it now or auction, choose a website that it sells through, and then just compare the prices. That removes most of the variables that could account for a broad difference in pricing, and while it may not be perfect it gives you play more than believable view of the price Gap as a whole. This is of course under the assumption that you can find similar sales within a very short period of time, because as we both know everything is mental right now and pricing contains day today. Just following that process is more than enough to supply a believable conclusion that cbcs sells for less than cgc. I'm not saying anything about the grading, the consistency, how they smell, what flavour they are, which one can fly farther have the Frisbee, or anything else. Just the price Gap that exists. The gap is real, on most books anyways. |
||
| Post 65 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Again, you are begining by assuming a position that isnt supported. A price gap first has to be determined as a FACT. You lack any form of evidence to offer that.Period. Grading, quality, slab condition, competing sales, differing platforms, these are all elements that factually have an effect on the final outcome of any attempt to determine IF THERE IS a "price gap" A hypothesis has to consider ALL evidence, not just that which you wish to apply. if the supposed price gap is easy to prove, lets see PROOF. Proof would constitute a study over various months of the year, time of the day, and take into account silver age, golden age, moderns, and even sketch covers, variant covers and independents. You then would need data that considered every other copy of that particular comic brought to market at the same time as your own sample copy, or copies. Not just a single platform but ALL platforms. otherwise your alleged price gap could be a function of that venue or price platform. Comparing it to other copies that also sold while competing against those same other books removes any predisposition to alter bids, or buy a different book based on cometing sales. You again, lack this data in your bias conclusion. You should not be removing variables, they are part of the final result and need to be allowed to help make a final detemination, not dismissed at your own whim. Sorry, that is how evidence works. You do not get to choose what to let in or let out based on your own views...called bias. A study over time is needed to determine IF the supposed gap is a function of a weekly or even daily anomaly. A Study accounting for all generations of comics would be required to see if the supposed price gap is an anomaly based on age of the comic. Finally, your final paragraph is loaded with logical fallacy dancing with more logical fallacies. Just following that process is more than enough to supply a believable conclusion that cbcs sells for less than cgc. I'm not saying anything about the grading, the consistency, how they smell, what flavour they are, which one can fly farther have the Frisbee, or anything else. Just the price Gap that exists. The gap is real, on most books anyways. There was never any data given to follow, thus no conclusion. Randomly choosing a few sales and announcing you have found the missing chalice isnt getting it. You need factual data over a period of time, containing multiple examples and across a broad spectrum or you have proved nothing except that you like to amuse yourself. the idea is not to form a believable conclusion, that is a term for Jury work and defendants. If you wish to ascertain a factual basis to state that CGC sells consistently for more than CBCS you need data........finally, this. " I'm not saying anything about the grading, the consistency, how they smell, what flavour they are, which one can fly farther have the Frisbee, or anything else. Just the price Gap that exists." that is precisley why your argument is weak and unsupportable. You are NOT taking into account the needed variables and factors that shape the entire conclusion..and then claiming a "price gap" which may/may not exist, but at this point is only supported by your own....I watched the show and have a t shirt so it must be....style argument. |
||
| Post 66 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
| OK cool. You keep convincing yourself there's no price gap by hiding behind your absurd semantic details and BS circles, and I'll keep buying CBCS 9.8s for 20% less than CGC 9.8s, and sending them for CGC signings. | ||
| Post 67 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
50AE_DE private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Just curious, so if proving CGC 9.8 sells for more than CBCS 9.8 requires some kind of scientific experiment and that if that experiment isn't done exactly to a tee then such gap does not exisit? If so then does that mean CBCS does not sell for more than PGX graded books unless it can be proven through the same experiment? | ||
| Post 68 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| OK cool. You keep convincing yourself there's no price gap by hiding behind your absurd semantic details and BS circles, and I'll keep buying CBCS 9.8s for 20% less than CGC 9.8s, and sending them for CGC signings. OK cool. I don't need to keep convincing myself as there is no evidence to support the concept. I also feel no need to hide anything, and have discussed this in open public forum with you. Unlike yourself, I am not insecure and angry that my position was thoroughly destroyed, and have not labeled your argument "absurd, semantic or BS" Your insecurity is showing through, you might go ahead and tap out now. Buy what you like, it is a free market. Send what you like for signing as well, again, a free market. It might be a better use of your time than creating false and unsupportable narratives. Have a great day |
||
| Post 69 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Sometimes when playing poker, let the guy have his short term irrational wins | ||
| Post 70 • IP flag post | ||
 I've spent years perfecting my brand of assholery.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by 50AE_DE If you have what two people want, then CBCS slabs sell just as well as the cgc slabs, especially keys and in demand books. Put some obscure or oddball CBCS slab up for sale at auction and you'll get what you get. The same goes for the cgc slab unless two different people are wanting it to fill a hole in a Registry set. One other thing that people always seem to forget is that no two graded books are the same. They all have degrees of difference that turn some people on and some people off. |
||
| Post 71 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by 50AE_DENone of that was what I actually said though is it? I said the price gap may/may not exist but you cannot sit and state outright that CGC outsells CBCS in every forum, every venue , any book all the time, time after time. I debunked the concept that any evidence exists for such a conclusion and I offered some validity why it does not. Your entire assertion was not even made in the discussion. |
||
| Post 72 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111I think you are right ...I've made the case abundantly clear repeatedly. Time to have some supper! |
||
| Post 73 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DrWatson THIS !!! well taken Watson |
||
| Post 74 • IP flag post | ||
|
Masculinity takes a holiday.
|
EbayMafia private msg quote post Address this user | |
| The circle will not end until someone agrees not to have the last word. Everyone take a break before the thread gets locked. Lebron out |
||
| Post 75 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
mediaslave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town I can choose pretty much any book, and almost every time the same book, in the same grade, on the same platform, in the same sales style, will sell for less as a CBCS book. I didn't get destroyed. I just stopped trying to have a reasonable conversation over an easily provable conclusion thats well known by every collector out there with the type of person that says something at a party that makes everybody just stop and stare at them. |
||
| Post 76 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I get it...use insults. It isn't attractive and it doesn't rescue your argument but it makes you feel less threatened. Incidentally, if it is an "easily proveable" conclusion, lets see proof. Not cherry picked data, verifiable proof. I will await your research |
||
| Post 77 • IP flag post | ||
 I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DrWatson This is actually a great point. We all know Bigred won't touch even a slightly miswrapped book where for me, not really a big deal. Two books, same grade, I'd consider buying both but Bigred would likely only consider one...and there's so many more examples beside miswraps. |
||
| Post 78 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
50AE_DE private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Honestly I stopped reading what was being written after someone threw in "science" or "scientific method". If one book sells for more money if it's graded by CGC than CBCS and multiple sales data proves it then I go with that. It's not science, but common sense. Sure, there are some factors that impact the price, such as page quality and Direct/Newsstand, but I dont't care if one ended on a Sunday while the other ended on a Tuesday. If multiple CGC books sell for more than a similar graded CBCS book then to me, it's a fact for that particular book. You may not agree with it and that's fine. |
||
| Post 79 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Correct it is fine. Some require a burden of proof, actual facts while others accept things at face value. Incidentally while the scientific method does not claim to prove anything but instead offers the most accurate hypothesis based on evidence, the alternative then proves even less as it requires less burden of proof. Simple enough for me... I will continue requiring hard evidence and facts rather than innuendo and circumstantial bias. |
||
| Post 80 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.