Peter, Have you tried a STANBACK powder? My grandmother used to swear by them. Excedren supposedly works on migraines, but I use ZOMIG. Though you have to get a prescription!
Kirby On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:31 PM, peter contarino wrote: > I learned some time back that Grey had met with CGC to “train” their comic > book graders on grading movie material, so I knew this was coming. I suppose > we all knew this would rear its ugly head eventually. I am encouraged by the > feedback I am hearing on MOPO with regards to the balloon that Heritage has > floated with the upcoming auction. The correct and salient questions are > being asked and, not surprisingly, are not being answered to anyone’s > satisfaction. Bruce has the firmest grasp of the reality of what CGC would > bring to the table, which is basically nothing. Nothing positive at least. > Since Ron Moore has evidently become the default spokesperson for Heritage, > let me address his post, non sequiturs and all: > > Ron starts by suggesting that given the Universal Haggard debacle, many > people on MOPO are in favor of a third party grading/authentication entity. I > haven’t spoken with even one collector or dealer who is in favor of this nor > have nearly any of the posts indicated this. The vast majority of collectors > can’t even afford Universal paper. > > In response to Bruce’s statement regarding the influx on investors who have > “overrun other hobbies”, Ron states: > > “Sorry, but I’ve never understood this argument. Are you saying that because > someone has money (or has access to more disposable income than you) that > they couldn’t possibly love the film as much as you do? Therefore, if they > buy a lobby and are willing to pay more than you, then they are investors and > not collectors? I truly don’t understand the logic here at all. To me, that’s > completely irrational. Here’s another take on the same argument (that’s also > just as irrational)- MAYBE they are more of a fan than you and are willing to > prove it by shelling out more money to buy the item than you’re willing to > pay. Therefore you couldn’t possibly love the lobby/film more than the > “investor”. – Hmmm… that doesn’t make much sense either. Maybe there’s > another reason people are willing to pay more for slabbed items…” > > No, that is not what Bruce is saying. He is merely pointing out a reality > that has overwhelming precedent from other hobbies. Comic book collecting, > for example, is no longer as much of a hobby as it is an investment vehicle. > More on that later. > > In answer to Bruce’s question #2, Ron states with respect to CGC: “this is > EXACTLY what we need”. He goes on to make the following statements: “I can > only hope that the people at CGC have enough experience in spotting fake > paper collectibles”… “They’ve been trained to look for problems so they > willhopefully spot problems”… “As long as the information is available to CGC > about reissues, etc., I’m sure they will get it right and certainly as well > as any other dealer. This is a learning curve that any collector or dealer > goes through when entering a new hobby”(emphasis all mine). > > Well. That is certainly a compelling and encouraging argument. They have had > a crash course in grading movie paper and are therefore as qualified as any > dealer in the world at grading and he is sure they will get it right. > Hopefully, that is. > > In response to Bruce’s succinct comment regarding whether a paid employee who > has looked at a piece for a minute is more trustworthy than a dealer with > 20-30 years of experience, Ron responds with: > “I certainly hope this isn’t a lack of faith in long-standing dealers”. Huh? > He continues: “However… just because someone’s been dealing for 20 to 30 > years (myself included here) doesn’t make them “in-line” with the current > grading standards… that don’t actually exist.” Say what Ron? > > Which leads me to what should be the headline of Ron’s post and the crux of > the matter: A new grading standard to be determined by CGC. CGC re-wrote the > rules of grading comic books and it is painfully obvious that they intend to > do the same with movie paper. And if they follow suit, the grading will be > based on their own set of furtive values. Inconsistent and unreliable, with > ambiguous explanations of how the grade was determined. Plan on your near > mint, gorgeous lobby card that has a small bit of brown tape on the reverse > coming back a 5.0. > > The other cheerleader for this singularly bad idea stated: > > “The point of slabbing is exactly as Bruce writes - its designed to assure > people new to the hobby that the cards are real and graded properly.” > > No, that’s not what Bruce said and it is disingenuous and naive to claim > that this is the purpose of slabbing. > > “These new collectors don't know Bruce or Rich, don't know how to grade lobby > cards and don't know who to trust. But they still are interested in > collecting and investing. CGC has been around long enough in enough different > hobbies to maintain credibility.” > > Uh huh. > > By the way, the cost involved in slabbing is not only the encapsulation, but > is based on a multi-tiered system, and with regards to the more expensive > material, the cost is calculated according to what CGC determines the > material is worth after grading. This is what’s known in the real world as > conflict of interest. I will address actual costs shortly. > > “These new collectors might be speculators and might drive up prices to > amazing levels - but I am having a hard time thinking that's a bad thing. So > slabbing will bring in more customers, some of who might actually become real > collectors, drive up prices on the better material and make the dealers more > money and the worth of collections higher. What's the objection? > If it works out like it did in comics - it actually DROPPED the prices of > lesser material. Only the very top pieces maintained the huge "overguide" > prices.” > > Excuse me for a second while I get a BC powder….Ok I’m back. > > So…slabbing will increase the worth of collections and at the same time drive > down the value of lesser material. Well that’s great if your collection > consists of nothing but high grade, high end material(evidently, high grade, > high-end material is the nucleus of all collections). > > The majority of comments being made by detractors of this plan(that being > pretty much everyone)have two recurring themes: the cost and hassle of > slabbing, and the net effect on the hobby. These are practical questions and > are also born out of a love and concern for the hobby. The above quotes > demonstrate the real motivation behind this effort to bring a third party > grading system into play: To drive prices. Plain and simple. > > This is a business decision by Heritage to interface with CGC and it is > certainly their right to do so. It may in fact be a smart business move on > their part. But let’s not fool ourselves or be fooled. This is not an > altruistic effort to help the hobby and new collectors who might(god > forbid)make mistakes initially while paying their dues learning the > hobby/market as we all have. Learning first hand, making mistakes, gaining > knowledge through experience is part of the process, the journey, as they say. > > Make no mistake, this is not for the benefit of the collector or the good of > the hobby(depending on your definition of good). This will benefit CGC and a > few interested parties. And yes, if successfully implemented, high end > material will sky-rocket and as Bruce has correctly pointed out, become the > intrinsic realm of investors, not collectors. > > With the constant barrage of the same titles being offered over and over and > over(and over) every week it has become painfully obvious how plentiful much > of the material is. The net effect of this unsustainable model is that the > market is in a state of decline. So when scarcity is no longer in play, > condition will rule the day. And that is the point of this exercise: To abate > the negative effects of ceaselessly flooding the market with material by > taking the market in a new direction and putting emphasis on condition. > > It has been suggested that all these pesky, gainsaying, uninformed, > contrarian philistines misunderstand this new and requisite need for a third > party grading system and are resistant to change. Their concerns are well > founded, however. I called CGC and spoke with them just now. Here is the way > the tiered fee structure works at CGC for lobby cards: > > A card with a maximum value of 300.00 is labeled “Economy” and costs $10 with > a 40 business day turnaround > A card with a maximum value of 1000.00 is labeled “Standard” and costs $20 > with a 15 business day turnaround. > A card with a maximum value of 5000.00 is labeled “Express” and costs $40 > with a 5 business day turnaround. > A card that is valued at more than 5000.00 is labeled “Walk through” and > costs 1% of fair market value. > > “Fair market value” by the way is ultimately determined by CGC. For example, > if I send a card in that I think is worth 2000.00 and CGC looks at it and > says “no, this will grade at such and such and is worth 8000.00”, my cost on > that card just went from $40.00 to 80.00 if I decide to proceed(in theory and > maybe practice, they contact you before proceeding). If they determine it is > worth $5,500.00, it’s still $80 because for anything valued greater than > $5000.00, there is an $80 minimum. On the upside there is a $1000.00 maximum > charge per card. > > How sweet is that! > > At the end of the day, the most persuasive argument presented so far in favor > of slabbing is that I could eat Fruit Loops and splash milk while enjoying my > Lobbies. > > -Peter > > > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > Send a message addressed to: [email protected] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
