Newton rings! 6 6

[Sqeggs]

2 minutes ago, walclark said:

22 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

Thanks very much for the clarification.  That they have 20 different holder sizes is surprising to me, as well.  I guess it's possible that the problem is they were using thinner slabs than they typically do for GA books, but I'm still a bit skeptical.  You also wonder why, if the fix were as easy as reslabbing in a slightly thicker slab, the problem wasn't caught and corrected at the QC stage.

They might do themselves some good if they made some sort of public announcement or, at least, allowed their CS people to provide this explanation.  I was talking with someone today who wouldn't admit there was a problem, although accommodating with my reholder requests.

It will be interesting to see if your reholdered books are an improvement.

I'll post the results to this thread.  They don't seem to be as zippy as they used to be when reholdering, so it may be a while. 

[Artboy99]

2 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

Thanks very much for the clarification.  That they have 20 different holder sizes is surprising to me, as well.  I guess it's possible that the problem is they were using thinner slabs than they typically do for GA books, but I'm still a bit skeptical.  You also wonder why, if the fix were as easy as reslabbing in a slightly thicker slab, the problem wasn't caught and corrected at the QC stage.

They might do themselves some good if they made some sort of public announcement or, at least, allowed their CS people to provide this explanation.  I was talking with someone today who wouldn't admit there was a problem, although accommodating with my reholder requests.

official company response so far is that all of their slabs have newton rings and that they are acceptable, so it doesn't surprise me that the guy was not willing to acknowledge.

[retrocomics]

If it all falls on a new employee then man that cat has been busy because they must have done a ton from all the rings I've seen lately.

[Black_Adam]

18 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

I'll post the results to this thread.  They don't seem to be as zippy as they used to be when reholdering, so it may be a while. 

I won't be sending any of mine in for reholdering until your replacements get the Sqeggs' Seal of Approval. 

[Sqeggs]

23 minutes ago, Black_Adam said:

I won't be sending any of mine in for reholdering until your replacements get the Sqeggs' Seal of Approval. 

A wise man! 

[Cat-Man_America]

23 hours ago, Black_Adam said:

I won't be sending any of mine in for reholdering until your replacements get the Sqeggs' Seal of Approval. 

That's a good approach, but reholdering is like changing a band-aid on an infected wound.  The recurring wound is the problem, not the band-aid, that's just a temporary fix.

Newton Rings shouldn't have returned after the all-hands-on-deck effort to correct this cluster fiasco when the new holders were introduced two years ago.  Reholdering may fix individual complaints, but it can't repair lost trust.  Throwing a "new grader" under the bus seems more like an excuse than an explanation.  Where was QC after these books were encased?  How could they miss the pervasive oil slick of Newtonian nastiness? Am I missing something here?

My fingers are crossed too.  I certainly hope Sqegg's books come back without the oily look and with the same grades (there's no guarantee of that provided in the reholdering policy). I'm confident that CGC will make every effort to get the replacements right if for no other reason than to save face. The question on most folk's minds Is can CGC fix this problem once and for all or is this going to be an ongoing issue?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/21/2018 at 9:20 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

I love the way the boards software selects a random picture from a thread when you embed it in another. This one's priceless  

[rjpb]

I have a dozen books I've purchased in what I presume are the newer slabs ( deeper recess, and the PQ under the number grade). All but a couple have some NR effect, though on most it is slight, and darker colors tend to limit casual visibility. But on one white covered book in particular, it is very noticeable, and a distraction on several others. I don't know that it should ever be considered "acceptable", but if it were merely an occasional flaw in the process, and minor, it wouldn't be generating the concern it is now.

 

[Sqeggs]

19 minutes ago, rjpb said:

I have a dozen books I've purchased in what I presume are the newer slabs ( deeper recess, and the PQ under the number grade). All but a couple have some NR effect, though on most it is slight, and darker colors tend to limit casual visibility. But on one white covered book in particular, it is very noticeable, and a distraction on several others. I don't know that it should ever be considered "acceptable", but if it were merely an occasional flaw in the process, and minor, it wouldn't be generating the concern it is now.

 

I think this is how it was until recently:  Most books that weren't in the thick slabs had at least some mild NRs ... but then it changed to most books having at least moderate NRs and some having pretty ghastly NRs that effectively ruined the look of the book. 

[Mr. Lady Luck]

I'm seeing more and more comics appearing in auctions with rings. As an example, check out this copy of Comedy Comics #4. In particular, check out the blotches on Millie's legs I'm assuming these are Newton Rings and not on the comic itself, but how do you know for sure? What about bidders who aren't so familiar with the rings? Will this impact bidding?

 

[Sqeggs]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Lady Luck said:

I'm seeing more and more comics appearing in auctions with rings. As an example, check out this copy of Comedy Comics #4. In particular, check out the blotches on Millie's legs I'm assuming these are Newton Rings and not on the comic itself, but how do you know for sure? What about bidders who aren't so familiar with the rings? Will this impact bidding?

 

Definitely Newton rings.  They're distinctive enough that after you've looked at enough of them -- which I've had to, unfortunately! -- they are pretty easy to distinguish from flaws on the comic itself.

You would think they would have to deter at least some bidders from bidding.  Which, I suppose, might be a good thing if you win a book cheap and then send it in for reholdering -- provided that reholdering actually cures the problem!

[Artboy99]

50 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

Definitely Newton rings.  They're distinctive enough that after you've looked at enough of them -- which I've had to, unfortunately! -- they are pretty easy to distinguish from flaws on the comic itself.

You would think they would have to deter at least some bidders from bidding.  Which, I suppose, might be a good thing if you win a book cheap and then send it in for reholdering -- provided that reholdering actually cures the problem!

deters me, I wouldn't buy it. I can't stand the look of the newton effect.

[Cat-Man_America]

OK folks, here's my almost unvarnished opinion (some waxing has been applied).  

This is mainly intended for GA collectors who are seeking encapsulated books or already have books in older design holders.  You have three distinct options: stick with older holders, buy raw or look elsewhere.  I'll leave that last one vague and open to interpretation, but I think you get the idea.  FTR, the only CGC holdered books I buy these days are older label because I don't like the new holder design that is prone to Newton Rings nor the exaggerated "dealer friendly" grade label, that's generally perceived as unattractive by many collectors. IOW, I still believe in the principle that encapsulation is about protecting and display of the book while insuring the accuracy of unbiased grading, not providing a billboard for near-sighted buyers.

As a collecting community, the consensus is that Newton Rings are undesirable. To be entirely fair, CGC's holders prior to the most recent redesign of holders & labels experienced some degree of moire pattern (Newton Rings) effect due to the random wavy soft inner case in the well making contact with the inside surface of the hard outer case.  Those moire patterns are essentially the same as the exaggerated Newton Ring effect we see on encapsulated books today.  

However, earlier examples were more sporadic and usually less offensive because they were confined to a smaller area.  Also, the moire effect could often be more clearly seen as plastic contact through the case. The new tighter fitting cases press books inside the well and the two plastic surfaces coming together usually produce a blotchy and/or oil slick pattern that visually presents itself as originating on the surface of the book.  This is not only unattractive, but obviously could inhibit sales in auctions where scans incentivize bidding or in when viewed in-hand after being removed from a dealer's wall.

Reholdering, if CGC is willing to accommodate customers complaints, may be a solution for some, but it's time consuming and no guarantee that it won't happen repeatedly or to the next batch of books.  I don't believe this to be the fault of one or more negligent graders, but rather a faulty product that needs to be fixed.  Just to put this in perfect perspective, I have turned down purchase of five figure books from fellow dealers just because I'm averse to the holder.  I also refuse to bid on books with the new holder.  It's nothing personal against CGC and the fine folks who Grade books for the company.  Furthermore, I have no bias against CGC's prior products.

Solutions:

1. Fix the recurring Newton Ring problem ASAP, without excuses.

2. Redesign the holders so that they work more like the earlier holders, without so much surface pressure on books.

3. Redesign the label again, this time with better aesthetics in mind, eliciting more input from collectors.  

Note: I hope we all can agree that it isn't about the size and viewability of the grade, but the book.  Old label graded books from when CGC first started (and you couldn't even see the grade from a distance) are still popular among collectors.  I'm not suggesting a return to the oldest labels, but the old holder's popularity does say something about what's desirable to collectors.

Of course, the usual caveats apply here: this is just my informed opinion, other's mileage may vary. This is a serious matter, but we should all endeavor to approach it constructively.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[MrBedrock]

57 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

OK folks, here's my almost unvarnished opinion (some waxing has been applied).  

This is mainly intended for GA collectors who are seeking encapsulated books or already have books in older design holders.  You have three distinct options: stick with older holders, buy raw or look elsewhere.  I'll leave that last one vague and open to interpretation, but I think you get the idea.  FTR, the only CGC holdered books I buy these days are older label because I don't like the new holder design that is prone to Newton Rings nor the exaggerated "dealer friendly" grade label, that's generally perceived as unattractive by many collectors. IOW, I still believe in the principle that encapsulation is about protecting and display of the book while insuring the accuracy of unbiased grading, not providing a billboard for near-sighted buyers.

As a collecting community, the consensus is that Newton Rings are undesirable. To be entirely fair, CGC's holders prior to the most recent redesign of holders & labels experienced some degree of moire pattern (Newton Rings) effect due to the random wavy soft inner case in the well making contact with the inside surface of the hard outer case.  Those moire patterns are essentially the same as the exaggerated Newton Ring effect we see on encapsulated books today.  

However, earlier examples were more sporadic and usually less offensive because they were confined to a smaller area.  Also, the moire effect could often be more clearly seen as plastic contact through the case. The new tighter fitting cases press books inside the well and the two plastic surfaces coming together usually produce a blotchy and/or oil slick pattern that visually presents itself as originating on the surface of the book.  This is not only unattractive, but obviously could inhibit sales in auctions where scans incentivize bidding or in when viewed in-hand after being removed from a dealer's wall.

Reholdering, if CGC is willing to accommodate customers complaints, may be a solution for some, but it's time consuming and no guarantee that it won't happen repeatedly or to the next batch of books.  I don't believe this to be the fault of one or more negligent graders, but rather a faulty product that needs to be fixed.  Just to put this in perfect perspective, I have turned down purchase of five figure books from fellow dealers just because I'm averse to the holder.  I also refuse to bid on books with the new holder.  It's nothing personal against CGC and the fine folks who Grade books for the company.  Furthermore, I have no bias against CGC's prior products.

Solutions:

1. Fix the recurring Newton Ring problem ASAP, without excuses.

2. Redesign the holders so that they work more like the earlier holders, without so much surface pressure on books.

3. Redesign the label again, this time with better aesthetics in mind, eliciting more input from collectors.  

Note: I hope we all can agree that it isn't about the size and viewability of the grade, but the book.  Old label graded books from when CGC first started (and you couldn't even see the grade from a distance) are still popular among collectors.  I'm not suggesting a return to the oldest labels, but the old holder's popularity does say something about what's desirable to collectors.

Of course, the usual caveats apply here: this is just my informed opinion, other's mileage may vary. This is a serious matter, but we should all endeavor to approach it constructively.

The new holder is world's better than any iteration of holder done before by CGC or any of those being used presently by other grading companies. Unfortunately there is a requirement of strict quality control to mitigate the prismatic effect. Obviously, for whatever reason, the Newton rings have become more pronounced in recent months and that has been brought to CGC's attention. But to say the new holders are unquestionably inferior to earlier models is really a viewpoint only you hold.

Just to tweak you some more...I say they need to make the grades on the labels even bigger.

Edited August 1, 2018 by MrBedrock

[Cat-Man_America]

20 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

The new holder is world's better than any iteration of holder done before by CGC or any of those being used presently by other grading companies. Unfortunately there is a requirement of strict quality control to mitigate the prismatic effect. Obviously, for whatever reason, the Newton rings have become more pronounced in recent months and that has been brought to CGC's attention. But to say the new holder are unquestionably inferior to earlier models is really a viewpoint only you hold.

Just to tweak you some more...I say they need to make the grades on the labels even bigger.

I'm sure Mr Magoo approves of your post.  

We just differ on this Richard, but I respect your opinion.   Certainly the older holders had issues, but not to the degree I've seen on the new bolder holder.  These holders make me uncomfortable about buying books.  I also differ with you that I'm the only one who feels this way.  Some folks may accept the current holder as the "new normal" as they've accepted disagreeable things in other aspects of life.  If that makes me an outlier, well, c'est le vie.

[MrBedrock]

33 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

I'm sure Mr Magoo approves of your post.  

We just differ on this Richard, but I respect your opinion.   Certainly the older holders had issues, but not to the degree I've seen on the new bolder holder.  These holders make me uncomfortable about buying books.  I also differ with you that I'm the only one who feels this way.  Some folks may accept the current holder as the "new normal" as they've accepted disagreeable things in other aspects of life.  If that makes me an outlier, well, c'est le vie.

Cat, I respect your opinion as well. But it is wrong. As one who has opened more CGC holders of any variation than most folks in the hobby, I can assure you that the new holders are far and away the least likely to cause damage to the books. I understand that you don't like the labels, and it is obvious that the Newton Rings can be an unsightly problem if not addressed correctly during quality control. But to say that these visual aspects cause you to fear for the safety of the comics is taking your aesthetics to an extreme. Believe me when I say that there are structural issues with older holders that are exponentially more likely to cause harm to your comics.

Edited August 1, 2018 by MrBedrock

[comicdonna]

I love the design and clarity of the new holders.  I hate newton rings.

[buttock]

1 hour ago, MrBedrock said:

The new holder is world's better than any iteration of holder done before by CGC or any of those being used presently by other grading companies. Unfortunately there is a requirement of strict quality control to mitigate the prismatic effect. Obviously, for whatever reason, the Newton rings have become more pronounced in recent months and that has been brought to CGC's attention. But to say the new holders are unquestionably inferior to earlier models is really a viewpoint only you hold.

Just to tweak you some more...I say they need to make the grades on the labels even bigger.

And to double tweak, it's not a moire pattern.  

[Artboy99]

16 minutes ago, comicdonna said:

I love the design and clarity of the new holders.  I hate newton rings.

I agree. I have several books in the new holders that do not have the newton effect and I think the books look fantastic in them.

The goal here is to eliminate the newton rings.

Label:

I would be ok with seeing a larger number as well ( from the perspective of a seller at shows with books on display for sale )

I would rather have the graders notes available on the labels perhaps on the back as to why the book received the grade it did. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Artboy99

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, MrBedrock said:

Cat, I respect your opinion as well. But it is wrong. As one who has opened more CGC holders of any variation than most folks in the hobby, I can assure you that the new holders are far and away the least likely to cause damage to the books. I understand that you don't like the labels, and it is obvious that the Newton Rings can be an unsightly problem if not addressed correctly during quality control. But to say that these visual aspects cause you to fear for the safety of the comics is taking your aesthetics to an extreme. Believe me when I say that there are structural issues with older holders that are exponentially more likely to cause harm to your comics.

Well, over time one of us will be proven to be on the right side of this issue.  Indeed, you're one of the most respected volume dealers in the hobby and I don't differ with your POV lightly.  

That said, when my Spidey sense is tingling, I can't ignore it.  So, I'll continue buying raw books, older label CGC or have newer labeled books cracked & regraded in a manner to which I'm more comfortable.

In response to buttock's comment, moire pattern was a poor choice, a better turn of phrase would be lesser Newton Ring pattern, because it's indeed different and lesser in effect, but that's a mouthful. 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Cat-Man_America