#1036876 - 01/16/06 12:25 PM
What Evidence is Necessary to Prove Collusion Between CGC & Heritage?
|
PedigreeMan
The Post-man always rings twice. Uhm... ring ring?
Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 1857
Loc: Western Burbs of Chicago
|
First, some observations: Now that this quarter's scandal has broken and really taken root here, there seems to have been a few more defections to the Questioning CGC camp. Sadly, this movement appears to be solely one way; that is, once the questions take root, their removal becomes impossible. As Redhook so gleefully likes to point out, Mr. Schechter, et. al. appear to be asleep at the wheel of the ever growing CGC PR problem. It will be curious to see what the end result of this is. Along these same lines, can anyone think of any other message board that contains as many negative comments about the company hosting it? This is truly indicative of a major disconnect between said company and its clientele, and is quite pathetic.
All this being said, however, even amongst the most fervent of CGC acolytes there is the running theme of "I'm done with them if collusion is ever proven." Apparently all of the potential evidence that has come to light over the past few years illustrating this possible collusion has been dismissed by these individuals as "simple mistakes." "That Boy #17 was simply overgraded ... they mistakenly missed some (micro)trimming ... they simply blew that pedigree verification." (I welcome any and all contributions to this list.) Even with the well-respected Bob Storms (and others) repeatedly driving home the notion here on a public message board that there is something more sinister behind these "simple mistakes," there remains this group that requires further evidence. To them I pose this simple question:
WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO PROVE TO YOU THAT CGC ENGAGES IN COLLUSION WITH -- AT THE VERY LEAST -- HERITAGE, IF NOT OTHER DEALERS?
Do you need a firsthand account of such actions from a reliable source? Do you need to hear the phone calls or read the emails detailing these actions? Do you need to see actual money change hands? Or is it like hardcore pornography (or a pedigree designation) and "you'll know it when you see it?"
I know what it took to get me to believe. Now what about the rest of you?
Alan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1036878 - 01/16/06 12:51 PM
Re: On Collusion
[Re: PedigreeMan]
|
Foolkiller
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 16923
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
All I can say is this: I can never foreclose this as being a possibility, that collusion exists. I can only say that I hope that everyone is wrong who has stated that it does.
And thus, I would need to see more concrete evidence to demonstrate that it does exist.
If I learned that it did, I would still hope to change it from existing, not necessarily abandoning the idea of CGC altogether.
_________________________
Always looking to buy High Grade DC Ten Centers:
Including Actions, Adventures, Batmans, Supermans, Green Lanterns, Showcase, Flash etc.
also, any DC 12 centers 9.0 or better are also very desirable.
Always buying.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1036879 - 01/16/06 01:16 PM
Re: On Collusion
[Re: PedigreeMan]
|
Zonker
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 09/20/02
Posts: 7144
Loc: Free at Last!
|
I don't believe there is explicit collusion between CGC and Heritage, in the sense that the CGC grader knows the book is being auctioned through Heritage and therefore gives it a higher grade.
This is what I believe (from the first Heritage Boy 17 thread):
Quote:
I used to get amused at people thinking CGC was in business "for the good of the hobby." Instead I thought CGC was simply a profit-seeking enterprise like any other corporation, and could be expected to operate as such.
I now understand I was wrong!
I now think CGC is a loss-leading side-show for Heritage and whoever owns the other 75% (if Bob's percentages are accurate). Meaning: the fees for grading funny books are just incidental to the true purpose of CGC-- to create the market for the Heritage game to be played: that's where the real money is: selling books for multiples of NM (okay-- NM-) guide price because of the Big Numbers on the slabs (nevermind improving books to get even Bigger Numbers). When Halprin bemoaned the poor returns on his CGC "investment" he was certainly speaking the truth if you consider the "return" solely as a result of his stake in CGC-as-a-profit-seeking enterprise. But the "return" from CGC creating the sandbox he plays in? 
Likewise, Friesen's (low) fees confirm for me that PCS is not in business to make money in and of itself. PCS exists to facilitate the crack/improve/resub game.
Plus, as others have stated, I believe it likely that Heritage has for all intents and purposes reverse-engineered CGC grading and resto-noting standards, either because of the volume of books they have submitted, or simply because they were there at the inception of CGC.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1036880 - 01/16/06 01:25 PM
Re: On Collusion
[Re: PedigreeMan]
|
EffEffBee
At long last I feel regular.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 02/03/04
Posts: 18982
Loc: SF, CA
|
Quote:
WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO PROVE TO YOU THAT CGC ENGAGES IN COLLUSION WITH -- AT THE VERY LEAST -- HERITAGE, IF NOT OTHER DEALERS?
I think AdamStrange said it best a couple of weeks ago: "Never ascribe to malevolence what can easily be explained by incompetence." Aside from the fact that it rhymes (which I find always adds to the surface appeal of an aphorism), I have often found that this is good advice.
I would need to see clear evidence that the missed restoration was something other than a mistake.
To clarify, I am not talking about the pressing/crack-and-resub game here. I think that the pressing/crack-and-resub game is one that CGC/CCG is quite willing to participate in, primarily because it allows them to profit from the whole press-and-resub game (not just on grading fees, but now also by service fees from PCS), and partially because it also helps Heritage maintain a healthy stock of high grade books (its own and others'). CGC is owned by a bunch of coin guys. They are all too familiar with the crack out game and I am sure they planned things this way when they started CGC. But they make the rules and they decided ahead of time that pressing is ok, so even when a book has been proven to be pressed, they won't call it a restored book. And that is how the world works at this point because CGC makes the rules.
As someone who doesn't particularly care about pressing, I am watching this unfold with more curiosity than with the anger I am seeing from many of you. I am also very interested to see what will happen as the tide turns against CGC on the pressing issue, as I'm sure it inevitably will as more people learn about it. What I mean is, what happens when people decide en masse to stop letting CGC write the rule book for the hobby? Or will that ever happen, since it's easier to sit back, let someone else write the rules, and try to learn them and live with them as best one can?
Maybe what this hobby needs now is a real AACC with a renewed focus on creating and setting industry standards for what is or is not restored, what does or does not need to be disclosed, etc. Other industries have standards organizations. Why don't we? This could just be the answer to the question "Who watches the Watchmen?"
It would take a lot of work to prevent the organization from being just one more conference room at San Diego where a bunch of people sit around jawing and accomplishing nothing, but it can be done. More importantly, I think we are all seeing why it needs to be done.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1036883 - 01/16/06 01:34 PM
Re: On Collusion
[Re: PedigreeMan]
|
drbanner
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 05/20/02
Posts: 12455
Loc: 3rd rock from the sun
|
I'm not really sure what you consider collusion, but like Brian said, it would take something pretty concrete for me to believe that CGC gives preferential grades based on the submitter, that they purposely "missed" trimming on any book, or that they labeled books as a pedigree when in fact they knew it was not a pedigree.
CGC is somewhat inconsistent with their grade assignments, it has been demonstrated that they have missed restoration, and of course I recall the "San Francisco" pedigree assignment they messed up on. The good news is that CGC is much tighter on these things than 95% of the dealers out there, but they are not infallible. If you accept that they are not perfect, then it's not hard to view their "misses" to date as falling within the realm of fallability.
Having submitted dozens of Top Census copies (including several pedigreed books), I can unequivocally state that I have never had a conversation with anyone at CGC about taking it easy on my books, letting me slide by with shoddy documentation, etc.,.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1036884 - 01/16/06 01:36 PM
Re: On Collusion
[Re: Foolkiller]
|
Silver Surfer
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 03/12/04
Posts: 19635
|
Quote:
I like Scott's last idea, and think it's something perhaps should be looked into about who would head it etc. down the line.
If CGC doesn't see the importance or have the will to publish their own grading standards what hope do we have that they would participate (and you would want them onside) in helping set industry standards on this subject? Its blatant avoidance by CGC of key topics such as this that is the root cause of so much anger towards them on the boards.
I just posted this in the "Ask CGC" section:
"Is CGC even considering publishing their grading standards similar to how Overstreet does so we can all use this as a reference?"
Anyone want to bet me they will not respond to my inquiry.
Edited by Silver Surfer (01/16/06 01:39 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1036885 - 01/16/06 01:41 PM
Re: On Collusion
[Re: Silver Surfer]
|
EffEffBee
At long last I feel regular.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 02/03/04
Posts: 18982
Loc: SF, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I like Scott's last idea, and think it's something perhaps should be looked into about who would head it etc. down the line.
If CGC doesn't see the importance or have the will to publish their own grading standards what hope do we have that they would participate (and you would want them onside) in helping set industry standards on this subject? Its blatant avoidance by CGC of key topics such as this that is the root cause of so much anger towards them on the boards.
Why would we need CGC's input if they didn't want to participate? This would be more about setting standards by consensus (to the extent that a consensus could be reached) among collectors and dealers. If CGC decided to deviate from those policies, that's their right -- but at least then when they say "The hobby has always considered __________ to be ok," we'll be able to point to real, concrete consensus standards and call bullshitt.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Gemma, plitch, cgcmod3, cgcmod, cgcmod2, Harshen, scaffrey, cgcmod5, cgcmod4, cgcmod6, cgcmod7
|
|
