• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

current turn around rates at CGC
81 81

26,858 posts in this topic

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con:  

VALUE

  Stated turnaround times when submit:  CCS = 45 b days; CGC = 57 b days (Total 102 b days or 20+ weeks)

  Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018

  CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4)

  "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13)

  "Received" - 9/7/2018 (Bus. days since "at CCS" = 47)  This was +2 of TAT estimate (+15 if you start at Rec-CCS Req'd)

TOTAL BUSINESS DAYS ELAPSED SINCE CON DROP OFF AS OF THIS POST = 93 b days (or 18+ weeks)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

My Mag Mod (Marvel Graphic Novel 4) has been sitting on graded since 10/8.  That's 10 business days now.  This delay seems a bit excessive.

On Oct 8 you posted 'CGC took 16 business days (-29 under estimate)' . So, as of today, 10 business days later, they should be at  -19 under estimate.  (shrug)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2018 at 8:43 AM, sfcityduck said:

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con:

MAGAZINE MODERN

  Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 35 b days; CGC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks)

  Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018

  CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4)

  "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13)

  "Received" - 9/14/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 52 b days or +17 b bays or 3.5 weeks over estimate!)

  "Verified" - 9/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Received" = 2)

  "Scheduled for Grading" - 10/5/2018 (Bus. days since "Verified" = 13)

  "Graded" - 10/8/2018 (Bus. days since "Scheduled for Grading" = 1)

 TOTAL Business Days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 81

  CCS took 52 business days (+17 over estimate); CGC took 16 business days (-29 under estimate)

 

On October 8, I noted that CCS was +17 over estimate after "at CCS" and CGC was -29 under estimate after "Received."  But, collectively the time since "Rec-CCS Required" was 81 business days on an 80 day CCS/CGC TAT estimate.  We're now at 90 business days from "Rec-CCS Required" on an 80 day CCS/CGC TAT estimate and have not yet made it to shipped safe.  

That seems a bit excessive.

CCS and CGC are the same company.  If they are slow in one facet, I expect them to make it up in other facets.  

If you think I'm being unfair in how I calculate TAT, let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con:  

VALUE

  Stated turnaround times when submit:  CCS = 45 b days; CGC = 57 b days (Total 102 b days or 20+ weeks)

  Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018

  CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4)

  "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13)

  "Received" - 9/7/2018 (Bus. days since "at CCS" = 47)  This was +2 of TAT estimate (+15 if you start at Rec-CCS Req'd)

TOTAL BUSINESS DAYS ELAPSED SINCE CON DROP OFF AS OF THIS POST = 93 b days (or 18+ weeks)

 

I hope you realize that during Con season, especially with onsite grading, you lose business days for purposes of calculating TAT's. They just did onsite at Baltimore and then had NYC . The couple days before and after are considered Out of Office Days, not Business days.  Ditto for all the big summer cons. Also, you should not hold the days between submission and Received in the calculation. This is shipping time. I know you haven't seen your book since June and you are anxious but I don't think your business days calculations is acccurate. Sorry.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I hope you realize that during Con season, especially with onsite grading, you lose business days for purposes of calculating TAT's. They just did onsite at Baltimore and then had NYC . The couple days before and after are considered Out of Office Days, not Business days.  Ditto for all the big summer cons. Also, you should not hold the days between submission and Received in the calculation. This is shipping time. I know you haven't seen your book since June and you are anxious but I don't think your business days calculations is acccurate. Sorry.  

The TAT I am giving is that provided by CGC when the books were submitted.  CGC provides that TAT information knowing that customers will rely upon it.  Indeed, CGC expects and intend customers to rely upon it, otherwise it would not be provided.  CGC does note that TAT are "approximate and not guaranteed," which is fair enough.  But, I expect that the TAT estimate they gave me in June would reflect CGC's experience as to what they expected -- and CGC knows what cons they are going to.

The TAT that CGC provided is based on "business days," a term that is universally understood to mean Monday-Friday, excluding holidays.  CGC does not offer any definition which contradicts this universally understood definition. The holidays in this time period were the Fourth of July, and Memorial Day.  Nowhere has CGC ever claimed or disclosed that the days before and after cons are not "business days."  CGC does not close before and after cons to my knowledge.  Nowhere have I ever seen a disclosure that "on-site grading days" are not "business days."  And, again, CGC knows its staffing commitments for cons when it makes TAT estimates.  

You are wrong in asserting that I am including the days "between submission and Received in the calculation."  I am calculating TAT based on the day that CGC first officially received the books, not the day that I submitted the books to CGC at the con.  Thus, I am giving CGC the benefit of not including the shipping time from the date of my con drop off to the date the books arrived at CGC's facillities in my TAT calculation.   I do not see any disclosure by CGC of what it uses as the start day for its TAT calculation which would contradict my calculation.  If you can point me to something which contradicts my calculation, let me know as I want to be fair to CGC.  (I also stop my calculation on the day of "shipped safe" and do not factor in return shipping time.)

 

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The TAT I am giving is that provided by CGC when the books were submitted.  CGC provides that TAT information knowing that customers will rely upon it.  Indeed, CGC expects and intend customers to rely upon it, otherwise it would not be provided.  CGC does note that TAT are "approximate and not guaranteed," which is fair enough.  But, I expect that the TAT estimate they gave me in June would reflect CGC's experience as to what they expected -- and CGC knows what cons they are going to.

The TAT that CGC provided is based on "business days," a term that is universally understood to mean Monday-Friday, excluding holidays.  CGC does not offer any definition which contradicts this universally understood definition. The holidays in this time period were the Fourth of July, and Memorial Day.  Nowhere has CGC ever claimed or disclosed that the days before and after cons are not "business days."  CGC does not close before and after cons to my knowledge.  Nowhere have I ever seen a disclosure that "on-site grading days" are not "business days."  And, again, CGC knows its staffing commitments for cons when it makes TAT estimates.  

You are wrong in asserting that I am including the days "between submission and Received in the calculation."  I am calculating TAT based on the day that CGC first officially received the books, not the day that I submitted the books to CGC at the con.  Thus, I am giving CGC the benefit of not including the shipping time from the date of my con drop off to the date the books arrived at CGC's facillities in my TAT calculation.  I do not see any disclosure by CGC of what it uses as the start day for its TAT calculation which would contradict my calculation.  If you can point me to something which contradicts my calculation, let me know as I want to be fair to CGC.

 

First off, I am not the enemy here. I'm just trying to tell you the reality of TAT's in the CGC world. (shrug) The posted estimate of TAT's is generally based on where they are currently at, not a projection of the future. BTW, regarding my 'assertion' of you including the business days between submission and received was taken directly from your post. You specifically stated 'Bus. days since Con submission = 4)'. You mentioned it, how can you accuse me of making an assertion ? If you don't want to believe my comments about losing business days around cons, that's okay. Arguing with me, telling me I am wrong and making assertions, is not going to get your book to you any faster.Good luck.

 

Edited by Bomber-Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a book sitting at Shipped/Safe for the last week now but no Tracking # provided.  Realized that it was due to the fact that I listed FedEx as my preferred shipping method but that they no longer ship to California via FedEx.  Called up customer service and got it sorted out.

So PSA: if you listed FedEx as your shipping provider but live in a region where they no longer ship via FedEx, call them to avoid delays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bomber-Bob said:

First off, I am not the enemy here. I'm just trying to tell you the reality of TAT's in the CGC world. (shrug) The posted estimate of TAT's is generally based on where they are currently at, not a projection of the future. BTW, regarding my 'assertion' of you including the business days between submission and received was taken directly from your post. You specifically stated 'Bus. days since Con submission = 4)'. You mentioned it, how can you accuse me of making an assertion ? If you don't want to believe my comments about losing business days around cons, that's okay. Arguing with me, telling me I am wrong and making assertions, is not going to get your book to you any faster.Good luck.

 

I am posting my experience to provide guidance to folks wanting to know how long the process is actually taking.  Thus, I am disclosing the number of days from con submission to "Rec-CCS Required" so people know how long it takes for a book to get from a con to CGC.  BUT, as I disclose, I am not factoring those days into my TAT calculation.

No one is the enemy here.  What we've go here are customers and a business which is offering estimated TATs.  Customers are sharing information regarding the accuracy of the TAT estimates to other customers, and feedback to CGC, on these boards.  I assume that any good business wants to give accurate information to customers.  So think the posts on this board are helpful to customers and to the business.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Called CGC to make sure I wasn't designating FedEx, and was told that my Mag Mod is in the second stage of encapsulation, then will need to go grading quality control, before shipping.  So I think I'm looking at mid-next week.

Was also told my value submissions made on June 10 are likely looking at a mid-December completion.  That's a 6 month TAT for a normal Value press and grade submission.  

My takeaway?  CGC and CCS are under staffed.  They need to hire more employees and/or buy more equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I am posting my experience to provide guidance to folks wanting to know how long the process is actually taking.  Thus, I am disclosing the number of days from con submission to "Rec-CCS Required" so people know how long it takes for a book to get from a con to CGC.  BUT, as I disclose, I am not factoring those days into my TAT calculation.

No one is the enemy here.  What we've go here are customers and a business which is offering estimated TATs.  Customers are sharing information regarding the accuracy of the TAT estimates to other customers, and feedback to CGC, on these boards.  I assume that any good business wants to give accurate information to customers.  So think the posts on this board are helpful to customers and to the business.  

The posted TAT's are NOT estimated TAT's. They are current TAT's. You are using them as a projection, you are wrong. 

Your comment here.. 'CCS and CGC are the same company.  If they are slow in one facet, I expect them to make it up in other facets.'  Again, you are wrong. It just doesn't work that way.  

You posted 'If you think I'm being unfair in how I calculate TAT, let me know.' . So, I think you are being unfair and I let you know. :baiting:

Sharing TAT's status here is fine, I never said anything to the contrary. I am just pointing out you are probably not correct in your business day calculations. Just like you, I am sharing information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Was also told my value submissions made on June 10 are likely looking at a mid-December completion.  That's a 6 month TAT for a normal Value press and grade submission.  

 

Which is exactly in line with their current posted TAT's.  CCS states 62 business days, CGC 63 business days = 125 business days between them. Mathematically that equals 175 calendar days. Add in holiday and the estimate is spot on. I don't see a problem here other than you are anxious. If you wanted it faster you should have used Fast Track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Which is exactly in line with their current posted TAT's.  CCS states 62 business days, CGC 63 business days = 125 business days between them. Mathematically that equals 175 calendar days. Add in holiday and the estimate is spot on. I don't see a problem here other than you are anxious. If you wanted it faster you should have used Fast Track.

You protest too much.  

First, I have not complained once about my value submission.  All I have done is relayed the information communicated to me by CGC.  So, your comment that I am "anxious" is entirely unfounded.  

Second, I understood what I was doing when I submitted under Value.  I did four submissions at the SF Con.  Standard, Value, Fast Track Value, and Magazine Modern.  The Standard and Fast Track Value submissions are completed, and up thread I gave CGC "A" (exceeded TAT) and "B" (met TAT) grades on those.

Third, the stated turnaround times when I submitted back on June 10 where CCS = 45 business days and CGC = 57 business days.  That's significantly different that the TAT information that CGC is communicating to its customers today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

The posted TAT's are NOT estimated TAT's. They are current TAT's. You are using them as a projection, you are wrong. 

CGC states that the "Turnarounds are approximate and not guaranteed."  So I understand they are estimates which CGC does not guarantee will be met.  But providing them more than implies that they are to be used as guidance as to what to expect.  There are no disclaimers on the CGC website that CGC experiences a normal seasonal lengthening of TAT after the Baltimore and NYC Cons.  So if CGC normally expects that problem or if, as you assert, the TAT's are not intended to give customers a guide of what to expect in the future, then CGC needs to either (1) state that "current TAT bear no relationship to future TAT" or (2) post TAT that constitute CGC's best estimate of what they think the future TAT will be (something that should be easy for them to do).  If they don't do that, they risk causing customers to feel justifiably misled and annoyed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Third, the stated turnaround times when I submitted back on June 10 where CCS = 45 business days and CGC = 57 business days.  That's significantly different that the TAT information that CGC is communicating to its customers today.

Which backs my point that the posted TAT's are current, point in time. they are NOT projections.  I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrwoogieman said:

"I should've used Fast Track!" is an oft-heard lament.

 

 

I think FastTrack is great under some circumstances (like if you need to get a book back in time for an upcoming signing).  It's also fine if you have a small number of books and aren't going through CCS.  Otherwise, if you have a ton of books, you have to pay $10/book which can be a lot.  Not to mention if you are pressing those books, you have to FT through CCS as well which just adds additional (likely unnecessary) costs.  Unless you're selling these books and need to beat others to market, whether you get the book in one month vs six shouldn't matter all that much.

That all being said, the few times that I've used FT, I've loved it simply because I'm not worrying about where my book is.

Edited by ExNihilo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

First, I have not complained once about my value submission. 

(shrug) You may call them 'facts' but they sound like complaints to me. All your comments following......

- CCS and CGC are the same company.  If they are slow in one facet, I expect them to make it up in other facets.  

CGC and CCS are under staffed.  They need to hire more employees and/or buy more equipment.

-  We're now at 90 business days from "Rec-CCS Required" on an 80 day CCS/CGC TAT estimate and have not yet made it to shipped safe.  That seems a bit excessive.

- Was also told my value submissions made on June 10 are likely looking at a mid-December completion. That's a 6 month TAT for a normal Value press and grade submission.  

- The stated turnaround times when I submitted back on June 10 where CCS = 45 business days and CGC = 57 business days.  That's significantly different that the TAT information that CGC is communicating to its customers today.  I expect that the TAT estimate they gave me in June would reflect CGC's experience as to what they expected

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

(shrug) You may call them 'facts' but they sound like complaints to me. All your comments following......

 

Now you're crossing the line from poor reading comprehension to just plain dishonesty.  I AM complaining about my Mag Mod submission.  I am NOT complaining about my Value submission.  Citing my comments about the Mag Mod submission to try to evidence that I am complaining about the Value submission is just dishonest or dumb.  I don't think you are dumb.

You really do protest too much.  The facts I've relayed about my Value submission are limited to information actually conveyed to me by CGC.

I suspect that you don't work for CGC, because I think they are much more astute in how they handle customer feedback than the comments you are making.  But, if that's the case, then why are you spending so much time making up arguments to support CGC that I've never seen them float?

 

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
81 81