Why Are My Comics Coming Back with Bad Newton Rings?
2 2

74 posts in this topic

52,431 posts
On 10/11/2018 at 3:41 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

The irony of "be fair" should not be missed, but if we're truly trying to "be fair", it must be noted that CGC's official statement about their "Crystal-clear display" is a reference to the clarity of the new holder...not the presence or absence of Newton rings.

The clarity of the new holder is, in fact, a substantial and evident improvement over the old holder, immediately obvious when holding the two in hand and comparing. The Newton rings will certainly affect the presentation of the book, but the clarity of the plastic is not hindered by them.

In the interest of fairness, if that's really the goal....

That is fair. However, that clarity is often canceled out or severely inhibited by the Newton Rings and that's the rub. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 posts

Again, there are multiple solutions and there is and obvious problem. Science, facts, creativity (solutions) were accepted. I noted I understood the issue, and noted some solutions like creating extrusions by .5 mm, and what do you know...cgc made an announcement 4 days ago, noting the problem, people are not happy about it, and that they are working towards a solution. And their solution is basically the first suggestion I made. Hearing about the problem and creating a solution, this  is what good businesses do. So thinking that 85% (made up stat) of people are fine with it, no need for solution, science/facts denies a solution, were all wrong. Also, trying to convince the community that they should live with it hinders the company from hearing about the problem. Bring on the crappy memes while cgc makes improvements! 

Edited by MTG_comiccollector
iPhone spell check issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,431 posts
1 hour ago, TwoPiece said:
On 10/14/2018 at 9:13 AM, Jerkfro said:

No, no. Low Energy is the new Dranzer

No. Nothing precedes nor succeeds Dranzer.

That's low energy thinking right there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,265 posts
19 hours ago, MTG_comiccollector said:

Again, there are multiple solutions and there is and obvious problem. Science, facts, creativity (solutions) were accepted. I noted I understood the issue, and noted some solutions like creating extrusions by .5 mm, and what do you know...cgc made an announcement 4 days ago, noting the problem, people are not happy about it, and that they are working towards a solution. And their solution is basically the first suggestion I made. Hearing about the problem and creating a solution, this  is what good businesses do. So thinking that 85% (made up stat) of people are fine with it, no need for solution, science/facts denies a solution, were all wrong. Also, trying to convince the community that they should live with it hinders the company from hearing about the problem. Bring on the crappy memes while cgc makes improvements! 

Actually, you were a ranting, insulting tool - a characteristic consistently displayed throughout all of your communication.  My mind was changed fairly easily, in light of CGC touting the clarity of its cases in its marketing materials.  Newton rings obscure the clarity of the cases.  That is a quantifiable deviation from what they are purporting to put into the marketplace.  I was not aware of this marketing material. Marwood brought it to my attention, civilly.  This entire situation is a microcosm of the widening gulf in civility in discourse. People can't disagree without marginalizing, name calling and abuse.  It's sad.  And you are a tool.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,600 posts
7 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

Actually, you were a ranting, insulting tool - a characteristic consistently displayed throughout all of your communication.  My mind was changed fairly easily, in light of CGC touting the clarity of its cases in its marketing materials.  Newton rings obscure the clarity of the cases.  That is a quantifiable deviation from what they are purporting to put into the marketplace.  I was not aware of this marketing material. Marwood brought it to my attention, civilly.  This entire situation is a microcosm of the widening gulf in civility in discourse. People can't disagree without marginalizing, name calling and abuse.  It's sad.  And you are a tool.     

Newton Rings do not obscure the clarity of the plastic material. In fact, Newton Rings are an undesired result of the co-material transparency.

Edited by TwoPiece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,265 posts
4 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Newton Rings do not obscure the clarity of the plastic material. In fact, Newton Rings are an undesired result of the material transparency.

That certainly may be correct, but I am not talking about the clarity of the plastic, rather the clarity of the case - the ability of the comic to be clearly seen through the case.  The Newton rings obscure that clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,600 posts
Just now, seanfingh said:

That certainly may be correct, but I am not talking about the clarity of the plastic, rather the clarity of the case - the ability of the comic to be clearly seen through the case.  The Newton rings obscure that clarity.

I won't dispute that.

When discussing CGC's promotion of the case clarity, though, I think that the production intent has to be considered. They green-lit better and "more clear" materials. So their cases are more clear, but the material mating causes light interference that we don't want. I'm not sure what kind of verification they did, if any at all (IMO they should have), but most places with composite material production has some sort of Materials/Quality Engineer on-staff to oversee these types of operations. It's possible that all they did was verify the outer case and its' clarity from the source (typical protocol). After that, though, they should have gone through an assembly run. Maybe this process yielded no Newton Ring results. I find that unlikely. Maybe the results were minimal and within subjective visual tolerance. Idk. We may never know. I don't think they're being purposefully misleading with the clarity of their cases, though.

Another rantrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,265 posts
7 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

I won't dispute that.

When discussing CGC's promotion of the case clarity, though, I think that the production intent has to be considered. They green-lit better and "more clear" materials. So their cases are more clear, but the material mating causes light interference that we don't want. I'm not sure what kind of verification they did, if any at all (IMO they should have), but most places with composite material production has some sort of Materials/Quality Engineer on-staff to oversee these types of operations. It's possible that all they did was verify the outer case and its' clarity from the source (typical protocol). After that, though, they should have gone through an assembly run. Maybe this process yielded no Newton Ring results. I find that unlikely. Maybe the results were minimal and within subjective visual tolerance. Idk. We may never know. I don't think they're being purposefully misleading with the clarity of their cases, though.

Another rantrant.

I agree with you - I don't think there is anything purposeful about it. The new cases with no newton rings are just beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,930 posts
On 10/11/2018 at 4:09 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

One.

Marwood ,... tell Steve to think of a cool avatar to replace the generic silhouette ..... !!!

Share this post


Link to post
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
2 2