Grading Companies3754
 Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer And here's another "ethical dilemma": if I get a grade I don't like...and I have...and I call up CGC and have them review it...and I have...and the book ends up in a higher grade slab than it was originally graded...am I now bound to disclose that it originally graded, say, 8.5, and I asked them to review it, and they changed the grade to a 9.0...? Shouldn't I have to disclose to any potential buyer that "CGC thought this book was an 8.5, but I convinced them to change their minds and make it a 9.0"...? After all, if the buyer cracked the book, and sent it back in to CGC, it could easily be graded the 8.5 they originally gave it, right...? Since that was their opinion in the first place...? Since, under the current standard, it probably won't grade the 9.0 it is now...? Obviously, the answer is no, it need not be disclosed. The book being discussed above was a RAW book. It was NOT in a slab. That carries with it the express idea that the grade it once received is no longer valid, and the book must be carefully examined by any potential buyer. And, to go down the rabbit hole even further, who's to say that that label belonged with that book...? Or, that the book didn't have some new hidden damage that wasn't obvious on sight, like an interior page torn...? By virtue of the fact that the buyer can SEE with his own eyes that the book is no longer in the slab, he'll have to inspect the book for himself, and form his OWN opinion. The old label serves only as it should have the entire time: a data point from which the buyer can make his own conclusion. "This is what CGC thought of this book at some point in its past. It's no longer a certified grade, but it gives you a starting point from which to form your own opinion." And that's what the buyer did, as I understand it: inspected the book, saw all its problems, considered the old label, and then bought the book at the price the seller accepted. The buyer could see the tanning with his own eyes (which, I will point out, isn't possible a lot of the time when a book is slabbed), and decided it wasn't a problem TO HIM. And that's how all transactions should work. |
||
| Post 251 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user | |
| A lot of y'all are going to look foolish when empty slabs start being bought and sold, for what they USED to hold. Ha Ha I mean, an empty slab, or just a label, with a label that states "CGC 6.5 Detective Comics #27 with off white pages" fets auctioned on Ebay and goes for $250.00 I say this over the top scenario, because I believe slabs do have an inherent value. I would pay more for the same book in a slab, as that book out of the slab. And cracked out books are sold quite often. Yes, I am paying for the grading companies opinion about the grade and the restoration check. But I am also paying more because the book is in a protective slab, and I don't have to go through the trouble of sending it in for that, and taking another chance on it being damaged during the two transits. And also, a pedigreed Church copy designated so in a slab, is more desired than a Church copy (insert whatever pedigree floats your boat) raw. Slabs have value, above and beyond the confidence you receive because they are slabbed. |
||
| Post 252 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Another moral dilemma: If I sell a book raw, that was previously graded by PGX as an 9.4 Do I need to disclose that information, if I advertise it as "raw 9.2/9.4"? I haven't done that yet (I have never cracked out a book from anyone's slab), but it has crossed my mind as something I might want to do, because of the stigma attached to PGX in this hobby. |
||
| Post 253 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer That's demonstrably not true. How? Because having an old 9.0 label doesn't imply anything about the book as it stands at that moment: the book is RAW. The book is NOT SLABBED. Therefore, anything could have happened to the book...both positively AND negatively...that would render any such implication moot. Such an implication, if it ever existed, went right out the door the minute that slab was cracked, and buyers generally understand that. Once the slab is opened, any "guaranty" as to the certification of that particular grade for that particular book, express OR implied, is gone. IN FACT...there's no such implication even while the book is still IN the slab. SCS, water damage, heat damage, light damage...many things can happen to a book while still in the slab that have a negative impact on its condition. Certification only means one thing: that was their opinion of the condition of that book on that day it was graded. There is no guarantee that any book will grade the same upon resubmission, regardless of why. Once it's cracked, the label merely becomes "this is what the grading company thought of this book at a specific time in the past." There is NO implication that it would grade the same now, because we're dealing with opinions. And every buyer of every slab should know and understand that before buying. If a buyer believes that the book COULD grade the same, that's their choice, and their right...but there is no guaranty, express OR implied, that covers that. If the buyer INFERS that it would grade the same upon resubmission, they don't understand how certification works, and are acting in ignorance. The back of the labels say (or said) this grade represents an OPINION. If it is only an opinion while ACTUALLY IN THE SLAB, how can anyone reasonably say that a label from an OPENED slab implies anything about how it would subsequently grade? |
||
| Post 254 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer It's really amazing to watch people jump through hoops to justify what most would consider unethical sales tactics. If the label is only an opinion and doesn't matter, why use it to aid in the sale of the book? If I were the buyer and I found out about its history I would be pretty upset and would never do business with that seller again. How far a jump is this from the people who crack out plod's and sell them as unrestored? |
||
| Post 255 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
steveinthecity private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510I don't see 'Hoop jumping'. To me it's akin to "4 out of 5 Doctors recommend" in a TV ad. It's just marketing. The buyer should consider the actual comic presented to them and not the grade anyhow. The jump to selling a restored book as unrestored is a different issue altogether, methinks. |
||
| Post 256 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by steveinthecity Hey dawg, what's up? If it's just "opinion" and "marketing", why not just say as the seller that the book is a 9.4? Using the 9.0 label as a marketing tool and not disclosing the other two times it received grades is disingenuous AT BEST. I refuse to believe that you as the buyer would be perfectly OK with that. |
||
| Post 257 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DocBrown sorry, there is no justification for fraud. Presenting a buyer with an opinion from CGC that you know is no longer true, is fraud. It's the same as cracking a book ripping out a page and presenting the buyer with the old label. | ||
| Post 258 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by steveinthecity Absolutely, though there are even exceptions there (the JIM #83 unrestored-restored-unrestored being perhaps the most famous one.) Grades are ALWAYS opinions. Restoration (almost) NEVER is. If I can point to the color touch, or glue, or trimming, or tear seal, that's the end of the discussion. See it? Right there. No opinion, it's right in front of your eyes. And being an opinion doesn't therefore mean that it doesn't matter, as some have said. It absolutely matters. It is a valuable data point. Being an opinion means that it isn't sacred law, sacrosanct, inviolate, from which there can be no deviation. That's a very important distinction. What's the difference in all of this? Acting in good faith (which is in stunningly short supply all over the comics world.) |
||
| Post 259 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Amazing how this is so difficult for some to understand, especially people who throw around terms like "acting in good faith". How is withholding information "acting in good faith"? It's madness |
||
| Post 260 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by conditionfreak Nope, we all know PGX is not very good at grading anyways. Even if you're talking CBCS, there's no need to disclose a previous grade especially if you disagree with it. |
||
| Post 261 • IP flag post | ||
 CBCS broke up with me over Facebook.
|
CFP_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 The more you know... |
||
| Post 262 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
steveinthecity private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510Of course I'd rather know everything about the history of the book(grading, provenance, etc.), but if I can see the book for myself I can make a decently informed decision for myself. Maybe I look at things differently. I don't buy because of value or to potentially resell, so if a comic is worth $10 or $500 to me to have in my collection, that's what I'm considering. Not any sort of "potential" grade. |
||
| Post 263 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer You're correct, there is no justification for fraud. No argument from me on that. We're not discussing fraud, however. You are a label slave, as you admitted. You say "an opinion from CGC that you know is no longer true." However, that is a statement that can never be made. An opinion is an opinion; it is neither true nor false. That's what makes it opinion, rather than fact. "2 + 2 = 4" is fact. "I think this is a 9.0" is an opinion. If it's an opinion, it therefore cannot be either "true" or "no longer true." It is only an opinion. An opinion can still have value, but it is neither "true" nor "false"...it is just opinion. And, the grading companies would say (and have said) the exact same thing: "this is our opinion." Specifically "the assigned grade represents our opinion, as grading is subjective." (emphasis added.) If something was TRUE, it could be guaranteed. Right...? But the grading companies DO NOT guaranty their grades, because...grading is subjective. In other words...opinion. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer No. Why? Because that would be material misrepresentation of the condition of the item as it exists. How to distinguish the difference? Easy: the scenario I am discussing is a good faith disagreement about the physical condition of the item. The seller, in good faith, believes that item is in the same general condition as CGC did at the time it was graded 9.0. The seller can REASONABLY demonstrate why he thinks this book is the 9.0 that CGC also did, at one time. In the scenario you are suggesting here, the seller can no longer claim to be acting in good faith. They would know that the item can no longer REASONABLY be claimed to be in 9.0 condition. When you become confident in your ability to grade, you'll see that there are all sorts of situations where you don't agree with the grade given, and you will be able, in good faith, be able to explain why you don't agree. |
||
| Post 264 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CFP_Comics No. One more time: Grading is subjective. That means it's an opinion. That means someone can DISAGREE with that opinion, and still be acting in good faith. Grades aren't laws. They aren't sacrosanct. They aren't inviolate. It is ok to DISAGREE with that opinion, and still be acting in good faith, no matter who or how many times people wish to claim otherwise. |
||
| Post 265 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by steveinthecity Lets assume this specific book was sold via eBay and lets assume the scans were very good. From personal experience, looking at even a high quality scan is night and day from looking at the book in person, can we agree on that? So the seller was using the 9.0 label as an aid to justify his "opinion" of the book.."hey, if you don't believe me, CGC says this book is a 9.0", except they changed their "opinion" two times and the seller didn't feel obligated to disclose that. |
||
| Post 266 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by steveinthecity And that's all that really matters. CGC said (past tense, since the book has been DESLABBED) this book was a 9.0 at one point. They said it was a 7.5, and then an 8.0, at another (during the same submission.) Which is "correct"? Answer: none of them, and all of them. They are opinions, any of which, or all of which, one may agree or disagree with, in good faith. One ought not be a slave to labels. |
||
| Post 267 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown I'm not sure why you just didn't tell your "client" to sell it as a raw 9.6, after all it's only an "opinion". |
||
| Post 268 • IP flag post | ||
|
CBCS broke up with me over Facebook.
|
CFP_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CFP_Comics Not only about the item being sold, but the seller as well. |
||
| Post 269 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CFP_Comics Most definitely. Names have been added to my personal "don't buy from list". |
||
| Post 270 • IP flag post | ||
|
CBCS broke up with me over Facebook.
|
CFP_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 Is that your opinion, or do you have proof they don't act in good faith? |
||
| Post 271 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown That justification doesnt work lol. You clearly stated that CGC revised their grading criteria after the 9.0. By showing only that label, it gives the buyer the impression that CGC could possibly grade it at 9.0 again if its subbed the next day; its plain fraud. Like I said, if the book was graded thrice under the same standard, yes, show the highest grade. But this isnt that. If CGC or CBCS grades a 9.0 book at 9.9, notifies the buyer of the mistake and asks to correct it, and he instead lists it on ebay as a 9.9, is that not fraud? This is the same thing. Shady shiite. |
||
| Post 272 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CFP_Comics Which is, of course, why the seller remains anonymous. It's irrational to judge someone as "unethical" because they make a good faith claim on the grade of an item...a grade that CGC, at one time, AGREED with...simply because they disagree with CGC's grade of 8.0 over 9.0. It NEVER LEFT THE DOOR of CGC as a 7.5, remember. We're talking about the difference, after all, between VF and VF/NM. Have YOU ever had a client (I'll do you the courtesy of not insulting you by putting that word in quotes) have you call CGC to review a grade...? And, if so, and the grade changed, did YOU tell your customer "well, now, you ought to disclose what CGC originally graded it, too!" Of course not. Such an idea is absurd. After all...following this "logic", isn't CGC being "unethical" because they allowed a customer to convince them to change the "true" grade of 7.5 to "8.0"...? If the grade "is what it is, and no one can disagree with it", then 7.5 is what it should have been (NEVERMIND that it was a 9.0, and was now structurally NICER than it was at that point), and allowing a customer to "influence" them to change it to "8.0" is deceiving the eventual buyer...right...? No, of course not, because grading is subjective. All you people, getting completely bent out of shape, because someone disagreed with CGC's grade in good faith. Can you be honest with your real motives...? THIS is the ACTUAL madness that the market, paying obscene differences in price for MINUTE differences in grade, that causes people to scream "UNETHICAL!!!" because someone doesn't disclose CGC's OPINION about a difference in grading from one event to the next. |
||
| Post 273 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer I've already explained why this isn't true, and I'll explain it again: the book has been deslabbed. There is NO "impression" that the book could "possibly grade it at 9.0 again", because the book has been deslabbed. When you are confident in your grading abilities, you will understand why this isn't a problem. Besides...you are STILL operating under the FALSE assumption that it COULDN'T grade 9.0 "if its subbed the next day." The book WAS graded 9.0 at one point...it then got graded 8.0. Have you not had enough experience by now to know that the difference between a weak 9.0 and a strong 8.0...or even 7.5...is real? How many times have you seen that? It is only "plain fraud" to those who think the label is the end-all, be-all, and don't understand that grading is subjective, and it's OK to DISAGREE with a grade in good faith. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer That's not AT ALL the same thing. Those two aren't analogous AT ALL. There wasn't a CLERICAL ERROR that happened in this case. Of COURSE your example would be fraud, because it would be someone taking advantage of a CLERICAL ERROR, not a genuine good faith disagreement about the grade. |
||
| Post 274 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Why even market the raw book with the 9.0 CGC label then? Apparently this IS rocket science. "good faith" my butt, more like "cha ching!" |
||
| Post 275 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510 When someone acts in good faith they are open about everything, act with good intentions, and acting in a manner that doesn't allow for another to be taken advantage of in the situation. How is withholding information you know, or to hide information acting in good faith? To do so is to be deceptive. That isn't acting in good faith. |
||
| Post 276 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater I don't see how anyone can honestly argue against that...unless their agenda is clouding their vision. It's madness |
||
| Post 277 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater Being "open about everything" is not the definition of good faith. When one is negotiating, one can withhold information, and still be acting in good faith. It happens diplomatically all the time. One can...in GOOD FAITH...disagree with an opinion. If one does...IN GOOD FAITH...disagree with that opinion, one is not BOUND to INCLUDE that opinion in his analysis of an item. This is SELF-EVIDENT. Nevertheless, one more time: grading is subjective. You are not "withholding information" to not include someone else's opinion about something, especially if you don't agree with it, and especially if the opinion of that SAME SOMEONE is DIFFERENT from one day to the next. Withholding information about restoration you know to be there? Acting in bad faith. Withholding information about hidden damage you know to be there? Acting in bad faith. Withholding a CONTRADICTORY OPINION that you don't IN GOOD FAITH agree with...? NOT acting in bad faith. No one was "being taken advantage of" in that scenario. They were allowed to inspect the book to their satisfaction, and they arrived at their own conclusion, based on the evidence in front of their own eyes. There was nothing hidden from them that was material to the book, and they had as much time to examine it as they thought necessary. That's the opposite of "being taken advantage of." The buyer, fully aware of the situation as it existed, was treated fairly and honorably. These arguments that not including an opinion, an opinion that is contradictory to a previous opinion by the same party, is tantamount to deception aren't legitimate. |
||
| Post 278 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Post 279 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
comic_book_man private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Wew! I'm still trying to catch up on all the text.  I think it is always in everyone's best interest to provide as much information as possible about a comic, the more we know, the better of a judgement we can all make as the buyer or the seller(pictures are information too) - but as the seller, if you knew something wasn't what you said and you tried to pass it off as that...well that's fraud by the definition of the law. Negligence isn't cool either, so it's important to do as much research as you can before you list a comic and if it isn't certified by any company than it's always hearsay. At least that's my take on it.   |
||
| Post 280 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.