Peter Excellent post. Is it a fair summary to say that we are being told that there is a problem we didn't cause and are not hardly affected by (over-grading and lying about the extent of restoration), and that the *ONLY *cure for this is to have *EVERYONE *spend staggering amounts of money on a "fix" that will greatly negatively impact everyone (those guilty of over-grading and those who are not at all guilty)?
Gee, that reminds me of something... wait, I remember. The past ten years a lot of people spent reckless amounts betting on ever-rising real estate prices, and when that bubble burst, they all lost zillions, so the only proper 'fix" is to take money from millions of people like me who never speculated on anything in real estate.and give it to those who gambled and lost. You know, I have purchased several items from Dave Rosen off of MoPo posts, and in *EVERY *case, the item has been *EXACTLY *as represented. But under the new guidelines, I should not trust him, and should demand that he send my next purchase to CGC first, so they can forward it on to me with their assurance that he is not lying. In return, I would pay enough money extra to turn many good deals into bad deals. Conversely, there are other nameless dealers who I have purchased from and would never buy from again, because their items were not as represented. Under the new guidelines, I can now buy from their with no fear, because *THEY *did not grade their items, but of course I now have to pay a lot more to cover the cost of grading. So excellent honest dealers like Dave Rosen will in essence be subsidizing bad dealers, and as the icing on the cake, they will lose the competitive advantage they built up over 20 years learning about movie posters. Any new dealer with a fistful of money will be on an exactly even basis with the long time honest dealers. I understand why those behind this scheme would love it, as would those who have a lot of high grade valuable items, but good luck in getting this off the ground. Bruce On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, peter contarino <[email protected]>wrote: > Grey-My facts came straight from CGC and are straight. Linear even. They > are exactly what you just posted with exception of the Modern category which > we didn’t speak about. > > > > Thank you for straightening me out! > > > > -Peter > > > > > > *Peter Contarino* > > > > *From:* MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Smith, > Grey - 1367 > *Sent:* Friday, July 02, 2010 6:13 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] CGC Slabbed Lobby cards > > > > Peter, > > You need to get your facts straight. > > Here is what I know the price tier to be: > > - *Modern (1970 +) FMV ($100 or less per card) Price Range: $6.50, or > $40 for 8 piece complete sets (John, this is where the Dirty Harry set > would fall!)* > - Economy FMV ($300 or less per card) Price Range: $10, or $65 for 8 > piece complete sets > - Standard FMV ($1000 or less per card) Price Range: $20, or $130 for 8 > piece complete sets > - Express FMV ($5000 or less per card) Price Range: $40 (or NO Express > Tier) or $250 for 8 piece complete sets > - Walk Thru FMV (over $5000 per card) Price Range (1% FMV) Min 80/Max > $1000 or min $480/Max $6000 for 8 piece sets > > > > > > Concerning the question Bruce has raised about who owns CGC, as I am sure > he knows something about the leading question he raises but none of the > particulars, and they are. > > Jim Halperin and Steve Ivy, of Heritage, own a non-voting minority equity > interest in CGC's parent (acquired strictly as a passive investment and > grandfathered in to the company based on previous CGC ownership) and are two > of a number of shareholders and have never had any involvement in the > management of the company. The company is operated and 100% controlled by > majority owner Mark Salzberg and minority owner Steve Eichenbaum, neither of > whom have any involvement in the movie poster business. > > > > As a matter of fact, I know that one of the major dissenting voices in this > group actively lobbied CGC to grade lobby cards for some time and to no > avail. > > > > I have not nor would I ever suggest that slabbing cards would be for > everyone. Nor would I ever tell a consignor that they must slab their cards > to be included in an auction, as anyone can plainly see by the current > catalog online. Only time will tell whether it will be a factor in the hobby > and I appreciate all the opinions as all are valid in their own way. > > > > > > *From:* MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kirby > McDaniel > *Sent:* Friday, July 02, 2010 4:39 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] CGC Slabbed Lobby cards > > > > 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 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. > > 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. > > 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.
