Thought I would start this post out with the appropriate headline to join in 
with all the other pitchfork wielding MoPo members.

I've been hearing so much here about how CGC has destroyed the comic hobby and 
it is only the realm of "investors" now (side note - what exactly is an 
"investor"?  Some of my closest friends have spent thousands on posters - 
because they love them.  For some people spending $50 on a poster is a real 
"investment" relative to their financial means, and for others $5000 on a 
poster is a nice decoration for their entertainment room).

At any rate, I decided to do a quick search through eBay, as my observations 
have led me to believe that CGC just doesn't dominate the comic hobby like so 
many people think.  here is what I found:
The comic book categories on eBay are broken up into five main sections; Golden 
Age (30s-40s books and historically the most expensive), Silver Age (50s-60s), 
Bronze Age (70s), Copper (80s), and Moderns (90s up of course).  All total 
there were over 1.4 million comic items being offered right now.  How many of 
those were CGC graded?  under 35,000.  Yep.  out of 1.4 MILLION items for sale 
only 2.4% of them have actually been turned into "investments" by the evil 
minds at CGC.  And surprisingly the percentages were about what you would 
expect as seen by the following breakdowns.

Golden Age 62,716 items listed - 3.049 CGC items  (4.8%)
Silver Age 202,848 items - 6,017 CGC (2.9%)
Bronze Age 210,547 items - 8,099 CGC (3.8%)
Copper Age 103,984 items - 2634 CGC (2.5%)
Modern 848,379 items - 15,061 CGC (1.7%)

So even in the very oldest books, which are most likely to be restored and 
therefore sent to CGC for grading, we are still talking less than 5% of the 
market as a whole.  This is what all the fuss is about?  5% of comics have now 
been marketed towards people who either want high-grade books or would like to 
make sure they don't get stuck with undisclosed restoration. Unlike Peter, I 
don't feel every new collector should have to go through a learning period 
where they get ripped off from buying items with undisclosed restoration, or 
total fakes altogether.  I'm all for people learning, but they don't have to 
lose money to do it.

It kind of seems like a "so what?" issue.

Some people like the security they feel when buying something that has been 3rd 
party graded - good for them, and if it makes them more likely to pull the 
trigger on a $1000 lobby card - then great.

Some people don't like looking at their cards in "tombs" (I can only imagine 
these people never frame their items, as they would then be entombed in the 
frames) - that's ok too.  Don't buy the CGC graded ones, or if you do by 
accident, just cut it right out of the "tomb" and free it.  There are lots (and 
I do mean lots) of comic collectors who only buy CGC graded comics and then 
remove them from the slabs as soon as they purchase them.  On the CGC boards 
there are whole threads where these collectors enjoy sharing their new 
acquisitions with everyone, but they still desired the safety that CGC brought 
them when making their purchase.  I don't see anything wrong with that.

If 5% of the market decides they want to collect high-grade, high-end material, 
good for them.  it probably doesn't affect 99% of the MoPo membership, so why 
complain about it so much?

Am I the only person who has ever tried to upgrade any items in their 
collection?  Maybe so.  I still need a mint Rodan TC, but after buying 7 or 8 
of them over the years from various dealers, I've gotten tired of over grading 
and misdescribed cards, so I don't really worry about it anymore.  If I see a 
copy graded mint from CGC though I will probably take a chance once again.

         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.

Reply via email to