eddly

On 5/16/2023 at 4:35 PM, Lazyboy said:

The time for that was before some genius updated Amazing Spider-Man #252 with the incorrect "Ties with Marvel Team-Up #141 for" first black costume. Those notes used to be correct and now, for many years, they haven't been.

But they really shouldn't be making changes without research and correct information, so why would anyone want to stop them?

Some changes, such as an extreme situation of changing Wolverine's 1st appearance to #180, would have significant financial ramifications. I just want a bit of transparency in terms of what CGC will do with these requests for changes that they receive. Will they reject some?

Is there a process for requesting for requests for changes to not be implemented? Maybe a separate thread?

My modern drek slabs have increased in value now due to this price increase. Thank you CGC.

@NewWorldOrder

A local comic store (Alpha Comics) here in Calgary Alberta experienced the following on April 10.

Please keep an eye out for the following books (grades and CGC serial numbers below):

And now they are permanently closed. Nice guys, not sure what happened.

On 9/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, Calamerica said:

 

Why so few? Cal can’t find more?

On 8/26/2022 at 7:08 PM, Ares said:

Until someone cracks open a slab, finds nothing inside and sues CGC and Bad Idea for false advertising

I'm pretty sure CGC's QC team would make sure that the invisible comic got into the slab. There wouldn't be nothing inside.

On 8/25/2022 at 9:54 PM, wombat said:

You think CGC will learn something from this? Was this the same thing they were supposed to learn with the invisible comic blunder. 

Lesson learned: Easier to grade invisible comics. Less risk for unauthorized versions.

Thanks to a concerted effort to increase capacity and streamline workflow, Certified Guaranty Company® (CGC®) has improved its turnaround times significantly for Modern and Modern Fast Track submissions while never sacrificing our high standards.

What standards are they referring to? Asking for a friend.

On 8/16/2022 at 10:22 PM, Kripsys99 said:

 

"I'm Sorry"

A message to the comic community from CGC Boards user Kripsys99 regarding "Apology Gate":

"On behalf of both the CGC users who liked my original comment and myself, I would like to extend a sincere apology to the comic collecting community for my role in what has come to be termed 'Apology Gate.' To put it as simply as possible: I screwed up, and I'm sorry. When Matt Nelson rejected the possibility of CGC apologizing for encapsulating BF's limited release acetate cover variant of Ultimate Fallout #4, I saw an opportunity to bring something novel to CGC board members, while simultaneously cultivating some likes on my comment. However, I failed to think through the consequences of self producing a CGC apology as if it was a Matt Nelson produced apology, and the effect that would have on the CGC Boards community's confidence in this thread staying active. I should have thought it through, but I didn't. My apology, essentially being a "bootlegged" apology, should never have been posted to the CGC Boards in the first place, and certainly should not have been written in Matt Nelson's name without notations. In recognition of same, I will be removing the already submitted post from the boards, and offering likes to anyone who quotes the original comment with a personal insult included. I would also like to address the issue of my original comment receiving an inordinate number of likes. Most un-liked recent posts submitted to the CGC Boards are attributable to users showing support for CGC's bat-sheet insane decision to encapsulate a defaced comic in 9.9 and 10 Universal slabs. In the case of my fictional apology post, I both dumped on CGC, and pointed out their seeming PR incompetence. This resulted in a substantially higher number likes. I have never, and will never, log-in with alternate shill accounts to like my own comments - but under the circumstances, I can understand why some of you may have questioned same. I know that my handling of this matter has caused many on the CGC Boards - including many of my biggest supporters - to question my judgement, our posting model, and my integrity. I understand your concerns, and take them seriously. Please rest assured that I care as much about the integrity of protecting CGC's image in order to safeguard my investments in their products as you do, and that I will never allow something like this to happen again. In closing, I want to thank the CGC Boards community for caring enough about this issue, and me, to hold me to account for my role in this matter. I look forward to the opportunity to prove to all of you that I remain the preeminent poster on these boards, and that I remain worthy of being the gold standard for serious CGC boardies world-wide.

Sincerely,

Kripsys99"

A Canadian saying sorry.

On 8/16/2022 at 5:23 PM, bc said:

Black Flag may not have paid extra, but they paid.

It's mathematically impossible to get the grade distribution they did across 3 titles within one submission with out some kind of prior agreement.

-bc

Its possible if they did a prescreen. Ludicrous and suspicious, but not impossible. I just don't feel comfortable with the absolute accusation. I think it could get this thread locked, we have to keep this thread going!

On 8/16/2022 at 5:15 PM, jcjames said:

 

 

Right up there. 

 

Did they pay extra to get 9.9s and 10.0s? That is not clear.

On 8/16/2022 at 4:58 PM, jcjames said:

 

What is egregious and obvious is that the now-laughably "impartial and objective third-party grader" called CGC sold grades to the artist and retailer for these Frankebooks BEFOREHAND.

CGC was IN on the deal from the beginning and, in exchange for having final approval for the damage done to the book and probably for a load of cash too, CGC agreed to IGNORE the damage done to the book while grading it and give them an undeserved Blue-Label (as well as the obviously inflated store-bought grades on the books too) because... reasons. They even said so themselves. 

 

 

Where is the evidence? The absolute proof? Your point of view is much too absolute.

Or maybe you have some insider information?

does it have an acetate cover? if not, its likely incomplete.

Not my work.

The paper added should match the size of the comic and the text on it should be done by the original artist, who also is well established in the industry.

They fixed the spelling mistake!

On 8/12/2022 at 11:56 AM, Black_Adam said:

One positive side effect of this controversy has been how many new board members have recently appeared - most of them posting in this thread!

Some shills I bet. Some bolds statements coming from these new board members.

How do we determine whether an artist is established in the industry?

Also what if today they are not well established, but 5 years from now they are?

If the original artist does minor colour touch on a cover, years after the comic was published (for a single copy of the comic), is that still restoration?