• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CGC Issue Resolved

Started by Spider-Dan,

724 posts in this topic

mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted
I said it before and I'll say it again. To keep things honest CGC really should consider adding pictures of restoration detection with graders notes if purchased. This would really back them on what they are saying is resto when situations like this come up again. Keeps everyone in the loop better on both sides. I got a Ms. Marvel #1 back that said it had slight resto on the book, I'd love to know exactly where it was but I have no clue I just have to go by their word that they saw it. Not really sure I like the idea of having to just "take it" so to speak without having the proof of what they saw.

 

The graders notes should note the location of the CT

 

From my experience CT is rarely on one precise location. Even newer notes, where they have been keeping more detail, will state a broad scope for flaws. Ex: 'BC Lite wear all edges'. I suspect notes for CT would be similar.

 

Perhaps, but it can be quantified. Something like "three spots of color touch in black area on upper spine" or "dot of color touch at upper staple" would go a long way towards narrowing the focus down. I don't think anyone wants surface area of the CT down to the nanometer, but knowing the location and perhaps the number of instances would be very helpful.

 

EDIT: noting whether or not there is bleed through would also be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted
I said it before and I'll say it again. To keep things honest CGC really should consider adding pictures of restoration detection with graders notes if purchased. This would really back them on what they are saying is resto when situations like this come up again. Keeps everyone in the loop better on both sides. I got a Ms. Marvel #1 back that said it had slight resto on the book, I'd love to know exactly where it was but I have no clue I just have to go by their word that they saw it. Not really sure I like the idea of having to just "take it" so to speak without having the proof of what they saw.

 

The graders notes should note the location of the CT

 

From my experience CT is rarely on one precise location. Even newer notes, where they have been keeping more detail, will state a broad scope for flaws. Ex: 'BC Lite wear all edges'. I suspect notes for CT would be similar.

 

Perhaps, but it can be quantified. Something like "three spots of color touch in black area on upper spine" or "dot of color touch at upper staple" would go a long way towards narrowing the focus down. I don't think anyone wants surface area of the CT down to the nanometer, but knowing the location and perhaps the number of instances would be very helpful.

 

EDIT: noting whether or not there is bleed through would also be good.

 

Bleed through CT is the easiest of all resto to spot. If you get a submission back with bleed through it can only mean you didn't even open the book up. :tonofbricks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted
I said it before and I'll say it again. To keep things honest CGC really should consider adding pictures of restoration detection with graders notes if purchased. This would really back them on what they are saying is resto when situations like this come up again. Keeps everyone in the loop better on both sides. I got a Ms. Marvel #1 back that said it had slight resto on the book, I'd love to know exactly where it was but I have no clue I just have to go by their word that they saw it. Not really sure I like the idea of having to just "take it" so to speak without having the proof of what they saw.

 

The graders notes should note the location of the CT

 

From my experience CT is rarely on one precise location. Even newer notes, where they have been keeping more detail, will state a broad scope for flaws. Ex: 'BC Lite wear all edges'. I suspect notes for CT would be similar.

 

Perhaps, but it can be quantified. Something like "three spots of color touch in black area on upper spine" or "dot of color touch at upper staple" would go a long way towards narrowing the focus down. I don't think anyone wants surface area of the CT down to the nanometer, but knowing the location and perhaps the number of instances would be very helpful.

 

EDIT: noting whether or not there is bleed through would also be good.

 

Bleed through CT is the easiest of all resto to spot. If you get a submission back with bleed through it can only mean you didn't even open the book up. :tonofbricks:

 

Of course it is, you have a point there ( :boo: ), but if you're a future buyer purchasing pre-slabbed you may want to know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bropper

Bropper

Posted
Posted
Wow. This thread died a silent death. Guess squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

If you have a problem with CGC, just start a thread and everything is resolved with no details on how it was resolved.

 

Since two pages back is an awfully long way to look...

 

Just wanted to let everyone know, that both books were re-checked today, and both were restored. They were checked and checked again

 

While it doesn't say much for the grading a few years ago, it at least gives me confidence in the grading consistency today.

 

Harshen called me personally to give me the bad news. After a nice conversation, and many apologies, we came to a reasonable resolution.

 

Im not going to go into details, but I will say Harshen went above and beyond to take care of this.

It doesn't change the fact that there are books out there in blue labels that could have resto on them, but I feel much better about CGC's customer service

 

Yeah, those details are very revealing. :eyeroll:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
If you have a problem with CGC, just start a thread and everything is resolved with no details on how it was resolved.

 

Well that's that.

 

I actually do understands CGC's stance here, as their restoration detection is a moving target and it was a raw book submitted.

 

Then again, buyers should be very careful with their slabs, as that ultra-expensive Universal gem you bought a few years back might be holding a worthless PLOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
If you have a problem with CGC, just start a thread and everything is resolved with no details on how it was resolved.

 

Well that's that.

 

I actually do understands CGC's stance here, as their restoration detection is a moving target and it was a raw book submitted.

 

Then again, buyers should be very careful with their slabs, as that ultra-expensive Universal gem you bought a few years back might be holding a worthless PLOD.

 

Just a friendly though, I think it's fair to properly qualify that statement.

 

It 'might' but the chances are slim. As stated earlier, everyone makes mistakes and a small percentage of error is inevitable. Your post makes it sound like 1/2 of slabbed books are suspect which is likely not the case. more like a very small, fractional percentage could contain an error. The rest are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Sorry, but "might" is not construed as a 50% chance.

 

I figure you'd defend your post. I know - might can mean anything.

 

My point still stands.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I figure you'd defend your post. I know - might can mean anything.

 

No, it actually means an occurrence of low probability:

 

Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamlet

Hamlet

Posted
Posted

That's the challenge with something like this. Those of us that are casual consumers of CGC books have no way of knowing what the percentage is.

 

The people with the best knowledge of what the percentage is are likely to be high volume people doing the CPR game.

 

If someone is cracking hundreds of books and resubmitting them, they probably have a pretty good idea of how often CGC is missing restoration and finding it the second time around.

 

I would agree that it probably has to be a pretty low percentage, or the CPR folks would be either out of business or complaining about it frequently.

 

 

 

Just a friendly though, I think it's fair to properly qualify that statement.

 

It 'might' but the chances are slim. As stated earlier, everyone makes mistakes and a small percentage of error is inevitable. Your post makes it sound like 1/2 of slabbed books are suspect which is likely not the case. more like a very small, fractional percentage could contain an error. The rest are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mschmidt

mschmidt

Posted
Posted
so what is the lesson here? CPR failure ---> post public outcry ----> financial compensation -----> no risk in CPR failure?

 

I doubt it - I just don't see CGC compensating Dan fully for the difference in value between the blue & purple label books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
If I had to guess based on my personal experience I'd have to put the percentage at much less than 1%.

 

Maybe, but I bet a lot of the folks who've experienced the same and dealt with CGC off the boards are thinking they gave up a lot of their bargaining power by being nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
The people with the best knowledge of what the percentage is are likely to be high volume people doing the CPR game.

 

If someone is cracking hundreds of books and resubmitting them, they probably have a pretty good idea of how often CGC is missing restoration and finding it the second time around.

 

I would agree that it probably has to be a pretty low percentage, or the CPR folks would be either out of business or complaining about it frequently.

 

QFT

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
so what is the lesson here? CPR failure ---> post public outcry ----> financial compensation -----> no risk in CPR failure?

 

I think the initial outcry by the OP was that CGC was charging him tier-level for Blue label values, not PLOD values. Which, no matter how you look at it, seems a reasonable outcry to me.

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
I would agree that it probably has to be a pretty low percentage, or the CPR folks would be either out of business or complaining about it frequently.

 

That could be, but if you're making money from that house of cards, you're probably going to quickly realize complaining about the way one card is stacked might cause the whole house to fall. That includes the players you depend on to keep the machine well oiled.

 

So you cut your losses and self-muzzle, which gives an appearance it's a low percentage.

 

Separating hypothetical vs reality, a 2 for 2 count is a staggering statistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing