Hi All, Couldn't agree more with Peter's post. For years I've heard horror stories about slabbing from collectors in other fields. I commend Heritage on a good hardball business strategy (and whoever it is behind CGC). As we say in New Jersey, slab this! Have a good holiday weekend, Joe B.
Please visit our website: www.mpagallery.com 90 Oak St. E. Rutherford, NJ 07073 201-635-1444 ----- Original Message ----- From: peter contarino To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 4:31 PM Subject: [MOPO] CGC Slabbed Lobby cards 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 will hopefully 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.
