Imperare

It seems that the video circulating shows that it’s theoretically possible to book swap well enough to fool someone, be it CGC or a potential buyer. Unless we’re suggesting that the scammer used another method?

I would also like to see a video of this, perhaps showing that it can’t be done.

Some would say the function of a CGC slab is to assist in the facilitation of a smoother transaction between aftermarket collectors. The above quoted statement essentially necessitates the impossible task of CGC’s participation in every aftermarket transaction that involves one of their slabs.

What’s the remedy? CGC can’t possibly afford to recall millions of slabs.

Perhaps the list of potentially compromised books should be the entire CGC census considering the recent YouTube video demonstrating how to open a slab, replace the book and convincingly reseal it, no reholdering necessary .

Now you're getting creepy. I refuse to discuss this with a stranger on the internet.

I think you should develop your own style. I said you would copy me and you did, here's my quote: You lost once you brought up masturbation and the cloud 9 emoji.

@RockMyAmadeus Here's the actual quote: But alas, you came back for more. I gave you more and you failed to address any of my points.

Wow! You really are a glutton for punishment. Watch again to see how my responses are short and concise. Yours are like throwing everything you have at the wall and hoping something sticks. Since you like to copy my style, take notes here. You previously call dictionaries "inaccurate", then rely on a dictionary definition to prove your point. 'Nuff said. Now you're an authority on the use of words. Read this and consider it addressed. By @kimik's own admission, only one of the grades came back as expected from latest group of submissions (whether the grades were more or less than expected is moot). Additionally, @kimik was one of the only responders with a useful reply to my question and for that I am very appreciative. The answer obviously wasn't there. @revat even called it a "special request", which was not addressed by the site. Haha, this speaks for itself. Previously you said "I would put money on it, that's how certain I am of it". You're chasing your own tail. Really? You really have to regurgitate my wording? Come on, you can do better than that. See three quips above ˆ Now, when you copy my wording and style in your next response, be sure to be concise and to the point, like this: I really don't want to know about your favorite kind of masturbation.

@RockMyAmadeus This is becoming too easy. To demonstrate, I will concisely shut down each of your points. YOU are the one who focused on a single word "probable", by bolding it. You are definitly a glutton for punishment. Definition of Certain: "known for sure; established beyond doubt" — use any dictionary you want, this is the accepted definition, not what you want it to be. Oh boy, now you're just regurgitating my use of the word "outsmarted". Be more original than that. Can you not see the hypocrisy here? You have still failed to admit that @revat's analogy conceded my position. Did you really just say "that's how certain I am of it", when immediately prior you asserted that "whenever someone says they are 'certain' about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain" This is a KO! At this point you've become my punching bag and that's not what I'm here for. I'm done, I refuse to further punish someone when they're down. Let's move on.

Interesting that you bolded "taken for granted." in the Assumption definition, but chose not to bold "b : considered probable or certain" in the Supposition definition, which reinforces my argument. So no, you are have definitely not outsmarted the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Who is or what is W-B? Are you referring to Merriam-Webster? That would be M-W, tsk tsk, there again is your lack of attention to detail. You make no sense at all. Reaching conclusions by admitting that a substantial portion of the information is "unknown", is ridiculous. If you don't have all of the information to conclude, refrain from concluding. @revat's analogy stated that my question and answer were not on the "menu" — his version of "the site". Thus, according to @revat, my question was not answered on the site. Are you really going to come back for more?

Haha. Do try again, that was quite weak.

@RockMyAmadeus First, allow me to give you the Merriam-Webster definition of suppose, the root of the word supposition that you felt needed highlighting. Definition of Suppose: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal. You didn't even bother to research the definition of the word you were relying on. I stuck around and it didn't take long for you to be incomprehensive . Next, you have yet to acknowledge that you were wrong and the answers were not on the site as conceded by @revat.

@RockMyAmadeus Too easy. Yes, no one knows, thus assumptions based on only a fraction of the information are unfounded. Funny how the tables have turned and it is actually you and @joecgcmaniac who have failed to do comprehensive research before posting. Furthermore, the answers were not on the site, as conceded by @revat. Hence, you either did not read the entire thread, or you are exposing your own lack of attention to detail.

@RockMyAmadeus Thanks! That's all it deserves

@ RockMyAmadeus Typo amended, thank you! How dare some on here call you a bitter old man!

@joecgcmaniac Unfounded nonsense.

@revat I DID call CGC and they are the ones who actually suggested posting on the boards, suggesting that other members may have some experience with making this work. Your original reply stated that the site "seems to answer the question in its entirety". Now you're conceding to the fact that the site doesn't answer it at all. You obviously don't mind losing. Your responses are irrelevant and truly useless.

@Bomber-Bob Wow! A genuine answer, one that cannot be found by just reading “their site”. Thank you, very much appreciated.

Most don't have NCB bends.

@Bomber-Bob Thanks for your help, but the CCS site states that it screens to "determine whether your comic is a suitable candidate for pressing"", not whether it will achieve a certain minimum grade (i.e. 9.8). What I am asking is whether I can have them screened for grade, not "press candidate", then sent to CCS, then sent to be slabbed (all while staying in CGC/CCS possession and not mailed back to me until final encapsulation). Nowhere is this answered, that is why I opted to post on the boards. I am not a newbie and I was reluctant to post on the board because over the years I have seen how people with low post counts are treated and alas it happened to me anyway on the first reply to my post.

Alright, looks like there are some of you sticking up for your sorority sisters and rightfully so. Let me address each one of you one by one. @Hey Kids, Comics! Thanks for the reply and the copy & paste. However, like I said, I read and re-read the site and I'm not asking whether these are suitable candidates for pressing, restoration or restoration removal. @revat The site doesn't answer my question at all, never mind "in its entirety"... As for your the rest of your comment, too political. @faster friends Yes, I asked for "opinions on whether to submit all or some to CCS beforehand" and @faster friends gave a normal answer and it's appreciated. @Martin Sinescu Too political.

I read their site and it didn’t answer my questions, hence I posted here. At your suggestion, I re-read the site and still it does not adresss my issue. Thanks for the useless answer and wasting my time. If you don’t know the answer, why even bother responding?

I’m submitting 12 issues of the same Copper Age key Issue for CGC grading. IMO, ten of them look to be 9.8 worthy and some of those have the tiniest of defects including extremely slight NCB bends. I’m looking for opinions on whether to submit all or some to CCS beforehand to press out these flaws and possible ones that I’ve missed. I’m concern about needlessly pressing books that will achieve 9.8’s on their own. On the other hand, I don’t want to miss something and be downgraded for a pressable defect. I’m guessing that CCS presses every book submitted whether it needs it or not. Is there a way to have them pre-screened and then pass the non-9.8s along for a press, then along to grading?

Never mind, figured it out.