Grading Companies3754
 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 | ||
|
Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown I disagree. |
||
| Post 281 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
| And for those of you making these claims of "bad faith! UNETHICAL!!!", you better be informing your customers, and telling everyone else to inform their customers, of all these instances of OPINION changes. "Well, CBCS graded this 9.2, but I called them up and asked them to review it, so they gave it a 9.4." "Well, CGC graded this a 6.5, but I don't think it's any better than a 5.0, so bid accordingly." "Well, CBCS graded this a 9.4, but I cracked and pressed it, and it came back a 9.2, so I'll crack it and offer it as a 9.4, since that's what it was." "Well, this was a CGC 8.5, but I had it pressed, and now it's a 9.2. I think it should have gone to 9.4." "Well, this was a CBCS 7.0, but I cracked it, had it pressed, and removed some significant pencil scribbles on the back cover, and now you can't even tell they were there, so it's a 9.2." "Well, I pressed this book, but I overhydrated it, so it has some substantial waves to it that it didn't have before...but CGC and CBCS didn't count off much for it, so bid accordingly." To be logically consistent, you would have to say all of this, you better be disclosing ALL of this, or you're "withholding information" and "being deceptive" and "hiding things." Because, after all, customers can't be relied upon to come to their own conclusions about grades...right? Choosing not to include someone else's APPRAISAL of the condition of an item that you don't agree with IS NOT DECEPTION. Only those who are label slaves, or have agendas, would say otherwise. |
||
| Post 282 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| WHY USE THE 9.0 LABEL TO MARKET THE BOOK? I know the answer to the question, but I've always enjoyed the circus. |
||
| Post 283 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
JWKyle private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Good Faith--Effort made, information given, or transaction done, honestly and without a deliberate intention to defraud the other party. However, good-faith does not necessarily mean 'without negligence.' Also called bona fides, it is implied by law into commercial contracts. Bona Fides--- Information or evidence that serves to guarantee a person's good faith, standing, and reputation; authentic credential And the words I haven't seen used but people are assuming what should have been done. Full Disclosure---The necessity of providing a complete disclosure of information that does not omit anything essential or important, the whole truth. Frequently used in securities law where publicly traded companies must provide full disclosure of information about a business in its financial statements and other releases that would likely and be reasonable for investors to rely upon. |
||
| Post 284 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown You are arguing against a point nobody is making. Its not "choosing NOT to include". The problem here is "choosing TO include" information that is deceptive. If you choose TO include a 9.0 label that you know cannot possibly be gotten again from them if subbed right after sale because standards changed... yeah. Balls. Ripping a page out and including that label is the same thing. |
||
| Post 285 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Jimmers private msg quote post Address this user | |
| what this thread needs is a boobs post.Okay,i'm outta here after I say hi to Marty. | ||
| Post 286 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer You're still laboring under the misperception that including the 9.0 label is "deceptive." It is not. It is an opinion. One can include OR EXCLUDE opinions that either support or disagree with their own opinion, because they are opinions...not laws. As informed an opinion as it is...and no one is arguing that it's not informed...it was, nevertheless, contradictory, not once, but TWICE: 9.0 to 7.5 to 8.0. How does your argument fall apart? Here's how: if the seller hadn't cracked out the book, it would be...in lower condition structurally...a "slabbed CGC 9.0." A buyer would, presumably, have accepted it as a 9.0...even though, by CGC's changed standards on that particular day for that particular book, the book was ALREADY "overgraded", as it sat in that slab. But no one would have had a problem with it...right? Of course not. Also...because grading is subjective, on another day, that book may, in fact, have graded a 9.0. That's because...watch me now...grading is subjective. Therefore, the argument that including the 9.0 label is "deceptive" fails. The reason it's used is because the seller...IN GOOD FAITH, with a REASONABLE CLAIM...AGREES with it. And, by the way, I did, too...and I'm not a beginner when it comes to grading. |
||
| Post 287 • IP flag post | ||
 I've spent years perfecting my brand of assholery.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Logan510  |
||
| Post 288 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Edit! That's where you are in error. No one can say "you know cannot possibly be gotten again from them"...because...watch me now...grading. is. subjective. You don't know that. I don't know that. Even CGC doesn't know that, until the book is in front of them again, and then, that opinion is only a reflection of THAT point in time. A slabbed book isn't forever and always that grade, just because it's in that slab. And it is OK to disagree with someone else's grade, whether it would actually get a 9.0 again or not. If I had spit on the book, sure. If I had torn the book in half, you'd be correct. If I crumpled it up into a ball, ok. But the book as it existed could reasonably be called a 9.0...remember: CGC called it an 8.0, and in the grand scheme of things, 8.0 and 9.0 aren't that far off...then it's perfectly legitimate to say "this is a 9.0" and say that, at some point in the past, CGC thought so, too. It is NOT an "exclusion of information material to the situation" to not include another opinion by CGC, folks. I know a lot of you want it to be, but saying it doesn't make it so. You know how? Because the book is right there. The buyer has all the information they need right there. There is no information material to the decision to be made that is excluded, or not divulged, or hidden, or otherwise withheld because the book. is. right. there. The buyer can examine the book, for him or herself, with nothing MATERIAL TO THE BOOK'S CONDITION excluded. There are some people arguing that the 9.0 label should be excluded...and there are people arguing that the 8.0 label should be included. You can't have it both ways. The seller, however, as the owner of the book, CAN, because those are opinions HE OWNS, by virtue of his ownership of the book. He can include whatever opinions he feels are appropriate...and EXCLUDE any opinions he doesn't...and he is not "hiding" anything, because these are only opinions. The presence of the book supersedes any claims of "material misrepresentation" by not including a CGC grade, because the book...the subject of the discussion...is right in front of the buyer, right there, for the buyer to come to their own informed conclusion about. If the book wasn't in front of the buyer, you still wouldn't have a point, despite your collective claims to the contrary: the buyer is not OWED that opinion. But that's not even the case. The book is literally right there, so knowing that CGC graded it an 8.0 at some other point doesn't affect the fact that the book is right there, and the buyer can see, with his own two eyes, anything he needs to see about the book. If you worship the number on the label above all else, you'll understandably feel otherwise...but that doesn't make it correct. "But...but...you're HIDING information from the buyer! You're WITHHOLDING information about the book! That's WRONG! How DARE YOU?!" To that, I say: 1. Buyers who know how to grade usually don't care what the grading company says. ("But that's not your call to make!!!"...fine, but that leads me to: ) 2. A seller is not bound...ethically or otherwise...to disclose other people's OPINIONS about his property with which he does not agree, and can make a reasonable claim for doing so. This really isn't that difficult to understand. An opinion about an item's condition is NOT material to the book. It doesn't "belong" to the book, like its pages, staples, or covers do. It certainly is information a buyer may WANT to know...but, ultimately, it's none of his business what some third party's opinion about the item may have been. Not a difficult concept. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer No. Ripping out a page and including that label aren't the same thing at all, for the reasons I stated above. Not even close. Sorry. |
||
| Post 289 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This discussion is the end result of placing farrrrr too much emphasis on the number on the label, rather than the book in the slab. | ||
| Post 290 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'd say that the discussion is the end result of several people having different opinions about something. It happens all the time. | ||
| Post 291 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater No doubt. And those different opinions are the result of people placing farrrr too much emphasis on the number on the label, rather than the book in the slab. Opinions, as has been shown throughout this discussion, aren't created equally. |
||
| Post 292 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
JWKyle private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I think this discussion happened because just because words like good are used doesn't necessarily mean it's all that good. | ||
| Post 293 • IP flag post | ||
 FORMER CBCS
|
Jake_Fleming private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This thread is getting locked till tomorrow till everyone can calm themselves. Everyone needs to just sit in the corner and think about what they did. And before you think of messaging the mods asking to release it, or if you start a new thread; Don't. | ||
| Post 294 • IP flag post | ||
|
FORMER CBCS
|
Jake_Fleming private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Thread is unlocked again. Keep it civil. Don't report each other over nothing, or who you hope to get B& will not be the one struck by the hammer. | ||
| Post 295 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
dpiercy private msg quote post Address this user | |
| FORM VOLTRON! | ||
| Post 296 • IP flag post | ||
 I bought a meat grinder on amazon for $60 and it's changed my life.
|
kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user | |
What if we report Jake? OF BEING AWESOME |
||
| Post 297 • IP flag post | ||
|
FORMER CBCS
|
Jake_Fleming private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by kaptainmyke I'll allow it. |
||
| Post 298 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Odvar private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Back to the subject of the post, I am satisfied with the information given on this thread. It clearly shows the differences between the three companies and which ones are best to do business with. CBCS definitely has a lot going for them and I trust their professional grading standards over CGC and PGX. Being a company of 3 years and a professional background, the company is definitely going somewhere and will continue to raise the bar. | ||
| Post 299 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Jake_Fleming  |
||
| Post 300 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater Unfortunately that's what happens when people don't know how to deal with other people directly. I didn't think the thread got too heated. I never thought a thread could get shut down because certain people couldn't help themselves from humping the report button. Madness |
||
| Post 301 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Mef private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Jake_Fleming  |
||
| Post 302 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Mef He might have meant...  or  |
||
| Post 303 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Mef private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Towmater OH myyy.... such good alternatives | ||
| Post 304 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
comic_book_man private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Odvar Glad to hear it, let us know if we can give any other input! |
||
| Post 305 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.