• 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.

Twin Cities Pedigree Census Integrity

Started by Bomber-Bob,

31 posts in this topic

  • Member
plitch

plitch

Posted
  • Member
Posted

No one is "cleaning this up as we speak." Nothing to clean up.

 

1010423 001 is the Twin Cities book - it is deleted from our system. It was a 9.2 Off white to white graded on 6/20/11

 

1203501 017 is the same book, same grade, same PQ. It IS on our census. It was graded 02/09/15

 

It has not affected the census. One off, One on.

 

 

I'm confused.

1059691 001 is an Avengers #12 9.4 white pages we graded on 10/12/11. It is still in our system and it is NOT the Twin Cities copy.

1107022 001 is in our system and it IS the Twin Cities copy, also a 9.4 white pages that we graded on 06/14/13

 

Looking through my system, the other Avengers #12 Twin Cities was 0914684 003 and was graded on 02/23/11 (also a 9.4 white pages) and was deleted from the census.

 

Looking at the census, there are 19 copies of Avengers#12 in 9.4 (+1 restored copy).

 

1059691 001 & 1107022 001 are not the same copy. There are 17 other copies out there in 9.4. (shrug)

 

Plitch, first off thanks for responding. Maybe somebody is cleaning them up as we speak. Here's another example....Avengers 11 ....

In Sufunks's registry

Comic Description: Avengers 11 Universal

Grade: 9.2

Page Quality: OFF-WHITE TO WHITE

Pedigree: Twin Cities

Certification #: 1010423001

Owner: sufunk15

 

The book is on Pedigree as 1203501017

 

Certification #: 1203501017

Title: Avengers

Issue: 11

Issue Date: 12/64

Issue Year: 1964

Publisher: Marvel Comics

Grade: 9.2

Pedigree: Twin Cities

Page Quality: OFF-WHITE TO WHITE

Grade Date: 02/09/2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimjum12

jimjum12

Posted
Posted

....I think one of your problems here, Bob, is using a Registry set as an element of the CGC controlled census..... it isn't. It is updated and maintained by the individual user and is not typically subject to CGC oversight. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
plitch

plitch

Posted
  • Member
Posted

Have you ever used the CGC verification tool?

It's on the bottom of our home page www.cgccomics.com

 

I type in that cert number you just posted - 0914365020

 

It comes up No Match Found - because it has been deleted from our system.

 

Another example....

Comic Description: Avengers 5 Universal

Grade: 8.5

Page Quality: OFF-WHITE TO WHITE

Pedigree: Twin Cities

Certification #: 0914365020

Owner: sufunk15

 

Now on the Pedigree site as 1203501015

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
....I think one of your problems here, Bob, is using a Registry set as an element of the CGC controlled census..... it isn't. It is updated and maintained by the individual user and is not typically subject to CGC oversight.

 

Yea, looks like a slight issue with the CGC Registry, not the CGC Census. Apparently registry books with deleted numbers still stay in people's sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
plitch

plitch

Posted
  • Member
Posted
....I think one of your problems here, Bob, is using a Registry set as an element of the CGC controlled census..... it isn't. It is updated and maintained by the individual user and is not typically subject to CGC oversight.

 

Yea, looks like a slight issue with the CGC Registry, not the CGC Census. Apparently registry books with deleted numbers still stay in people's sets.

 

It is up to the users to maintain their sets. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Many of those new numbers are from a few weeks ago.

 

It looks like Doug resubbed a bunch of books looking for bumps and they haven't deleted the old numbers yet. (shrug)

 

I guess you are correct, in this case the registry and the census do not match. I thought I validated a few of these before posting but apparently I am going crazy. Sorry Plitch, I was WRONG.

BTW, I did ask for someone else to verify if I was seeing this correctly ? From the responses, I thought everyone concurred.

 

Both are in the census as Twin Cities. Can someone else verify I am seeing all this correctly ? If so, I think CGC should be alerted. Also, how does this happen ? Even if the old label is not submitted with the resub, I thought CGC checks their own database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimjum12

jimjum12

Posted
Posted
....I think one of your problems here, Bob, is using a Registry set as an element of the CGC controlled census..... it isn't. It is updated and maintained by the individual user and is not typically subject to CGC oversight.

 

Yea, looks like a slight issue with the CGC Registry, not the CGC Census. Apparently registry books with deleted numbers still stay in people's sets.

 

....and updating his registry is probably a few notches down his list in the grand scheme of things.... at this point. Knowing him.... he could have regraded just to secure new Serials, so that he WOULDN'T be duty bound or forced to delete.... it may be all that will remain, after the dust settles...of his impressive feat.... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
plitch

plitch

Posted
  • Member
Posted

No worries. I was confused at the beginning, until I saw where you were pulling info from. Then it all made sense. Glad I could help. :)

 

Many of those new numbers are from a few weeks ago.

 

It looks like Doug resubbed a bunch of books looking for bumps and they haven't deleted the old numbers yet. (shrug)

 

I guess you are correct, in this case the registry and the census do not match. I thought I validated a few of these before posting but apparently I am going crazy. Sorry Plitch, I was WRONG.

BTW, I did ask for someone else to verify if I was seeing this correctly ? From the responses, I thought everyone concurred.

 

Both are in the census as Twin Cities. Can someone else verify I am seeing all this correctly ? If so, I think CGC should be alerted. Also, how does this happen ? Even if the old label is not submitted with the resub, I thought CGC checks their own database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WesW

WesW

Posted
Posted
They definitely don't check the census data base. They may respond in some fashion if you contact them.... but I would imagine they are VERY procedure oriented and without a label returned, will not become proactive for something like this. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

....I miss Sufunk......

 

So, in other words, the census is fast becoming worthless. Sad. I always viewed it as a powerful tool when assessing value.

 

Just another opening for a census tracking company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing