Newton rings! 6 6

[N e r V]

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen one of the early new problem cases but back in 2016 this was posted on BleedingCool with a side by side from BlazingBob (Highgradecomics) to compare.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/06/27/cgc-modifies-new-holder-to-address-concerns/

 

 

 

 

If I remember correctly the early problem cases had a floating appearance to the comic vs a clear inner well on the corrected versions.

[Cat-Man_America]

5 hours ago, buttock said:

Look and see if it's in a well.  If you're going to eliminate a product entirely, you should at least know what it is that you're eliminating.  

To be crystal clear on this, even without the potential damage from creep engine effect, the new holders had three strikes against them. Newton Rings are unacceptable, period. Secondly, the redesigned label is an eyesore that takes focus away from the encapsulated book.  Finally, the thicker holder presents storage and scanner imaging problems, both undesirable, unaddressed issues, but less relevant to the topic under discussion here.

If my observations aren't in sync with the prevailing viewpoint, that's perfectly fine with me.  For those who've come to accept what I perceive as a decline in service quality as the new normal, just let me add this: if there's a viable alternative to the current CGC product, that's where I'll be focusing my attention.

Should I have been aware that I might be buying a creep engine book? That's a fair question.  Probably, but since I couldn't see the Newton Rings clearly in the eBay scan then it seems unlikely that I would be capable of examining the holder seal or a wavy book edge in the image provided.  

On the plus side, at least this book and the one purchased at Chicago Wizard will receive proper attention now regardless of when they were holdered. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
Sin taxes. ;0)

[N e r V]

I thought the redesigned label was an improvement...

The original label when CGC was starting out is the one I find awful in appearance.

I understand why some chase after the original labels but it’s still an ugly label.

[Kevin76]

8 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

To be crystal clear on this, even without the potential damage from creep engine effect, the new holders had three strikes against them. Newton Rings are unacceptable, period. Secondly, the redesigned label is an eyesore that takes focus away from the encapsulated book.  Finally, the thicker holder presents storage and scanner imaging problems, both undesirable, unaddressed issues, but less relevant to the topic under discussion here.

If my observations aren't in sync with the prevailing viewpoint, that's perfectly fine with me.  For those who've come to accept what I perceive as a decline in service quality as the new normal, just let me add this: if there's a viable alternative to the current CGC product, that's where I'll be focusing my attention.

Should I have been aware that I might be buying a creep engine book? That's a fair question.  Probably, but since I couldn't see the Newton Rings clearly in the eBay scan then it seems unlikely that I would be capable of examining the holder seal or a wavy book edge in the image provided.  

On the plus side, at least this book and the one purchased at Chicago Wizard will receive proper attention now regardless of when they were holdered. 

If anyone has a better idea for a redesigned label, I'm sure CGC is all ears. Please, post it here first if anyone comes up with something better.  Second, I scan books all the time, I don't have scanner problems.  Third, What storage problems are you referring to?  Thicker case means you can't squeeze an extra book in the box?  Talk about having 1st world problems.  No case or label will ever be perfect.  

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, Kevin76 said:

If anyone has a better idea for a redesigned label, I'm sure CGC is all ears. Please, post it here first if anyone comes up with something better.  Second, I scan books all the time, I don't have scanner problems.  Third, What storage problems are you referring to?  Thicker case means you can't squeeze an extra book in the box?  Talk about having 1st world problems.  No case or label will ever be perfect.  

I like the new design but if they were to ever tinker with it again I would like to see the title font size with issue number increased so that it’s more dominant when viewing. Also the publisher font should be increased as well with the dates being written out (Mar 1966 instead of the current 3/66). Also they need to re-evaluate what they include of issue information. A lot of books should have more info. included on that label description. I see a lot of important things missing there at times. Finally I’d include the grade above the number (there’s room there). For example if it’s a 9.0 I’d have the VF/NM written above the number.

 

Not sure CGC is all ears but that’s my opinion on the design. 

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, Kevin76 said:

If anyone has a better idea for a redesigned label, I'm sure CGC is all ears. Please, post it here first if anyone comes up with something better.  Second, I scan books all the time, I don't have scanner problems.  Third, What storage problems are you referring to?  Thicker case means you can't squeeze an extra book in the box?  Talk about having 1st world problems.  No case or label will ever be perfect.  

I doubt CGC would be interested in my label suggestions as I liked the old label just fine.  Trust me, my scanner normally takes great images.   A couple of pages back I compared an old label/holder scan with a new label/holder scan (complete with Newton Rings), both imaged on my HP Scanjet 8300.

Kevin, my world doesn't revolve around comic boxes because neither my business nor my collecting involves setting up at a lot of shows.  However, as a high grade collector space is a first world concern.  Folks around here who know me and my method of storage can vouch for that.

 

5 hours ago, N e r V said:

I thought the redesigned label was an improvement...

The original label when CGC was starting out is the one I find awful in appearance.

I understand why some chase after the original labels but it’s still an ugly label.

The first version label has nostalgic value, but I do get your meaning.  The best CGC label ...from my perspective... was the version prior to the big change-up 2 1/2 years ago.  Besides the creep engine and Newtonian oil slicks things went south with the oversized glow in the dark grade box and solid black grade number which overshadows the encapsulated book.  Mr. Magoo could see the grade across a dealers room, but it so visually dwarfs the book that the comic seems like a perfunctory inclusion.

My concerns notwithstanding, most dealers seem to like the change and many collectors have apparently grown accustomed to it.

 

45 minutes ago, N e r V said:

I like the new design but if they were to ever tinker with it again I would like to see the title font size with issue number increased so that it’s more dominant when viewing. Also the publisher font should be increased as well with the dates being written out (Mar 1966 instead of the current 3/66). Also they need to re-evaluate what they include of issue information. A lot of books should have more info. included on that label description. I see a lot of important things missing there at times. Finally I’d include the grade above the number (there’s room there). For example if it’s a 9.0 I’d have the VF/NM written above the number.

 

Not sure CGC is all ears but that’s my opinion on the design. 

I agree about providing more information, but I think a smaller grade box and lighter grade tone would be more aesthetically pleasing.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[walclark]

Got to the office this morning and had a 10 book value submission from June waiting for me.  These were slabbed last week.  The Newton ring effect is present in most of the books (7 of 10), but is certainly reduced from previous submissions.  The effect is still most noticeable on lighter colored covers.

I believe Sharon mentioned an issue with scratches on the inside of the slab.  There are scratches on 8 of the 10 slabs in this submission.  Like the ring effect, the scratches can only be seen when viewing the slabs at an angle to catch the light.  I would add photos, but I don’t think any of these defects will photograph or scan well.

Overall, I would say that, at least with this batch, there seems to be some improvement in regards to the ring effect.

@Sqeggs Ameliorated!

[Sqeggs]

2 hours ago, walclark said:

Got to the office this morning and had a 10 book value submission from June waiting for me.  These were slabbed last week.  The Newton ring effect is present in most of the books (7 of 10), but is certainly reduced from previous submissions.  The effect is still most noticeable on lighter colored covers.

I believe Sharon mentioned an issue with scratches on the inside of the slab.  There are scratches on 8 of the 10 slabs in this submission.  Like the ring effect, the scratches can only be seen when viewing the slabs at an angle to catch the light.  I would add photos, but I don’t think any of these defects will photograph or scan well.

Overall, I would say that, at least with this batch, there seems to be some improvement in regards to the ring effect.

@Sqeggs Ameliorated!

Amelioration rulz! 

[Sqeggs]

6 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

I doubt CGC would be interested in my label suggestions as I liked the old label just fine.  Trust me, my scanner normally takes great images.   A couple of pages back I compared an old label/holder scan with a new label/holder scan (complete with Newton Rings), both imaged on my HP Scanjet 8300.

I have the same scanner.  The new slabs were scanning very dark on my previous settings -- probably because the slabs are deeper.  Someone in the CG scanner thread suggested new settings.  I've been using those (with some tweaks), but my scans are now a bit brighter than they should be.  I could probably continue fiddling with the settings, but I'm fairly content with how they look now.  

[Sqeggs]

20 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I dare you to change the thread title to 'The Amelioration of Newton Rings'. Go on Sqeggs......do it! 

[Point Five]

I submitted 13 books a few weeks ago, and received the first book back last week since it was an Express submission. There's a few small traces of Newton ring action on the front, but I'm relieved to say it looks dramatically better than the examples in this thread and is minimal enough that it doesn't bother me. So, waiting for the other 12 and am cautiously optimistic that maybe things are back on track. 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

11 hours ago, walclark said:

Got to the office this morning and had a 10 book value submission from June waiting for me.  These were slabbed last week.  The Newton ring effect is present in most of the books (7 of 10), but is certainly reduced from previous submissions.  The effect is still most noticeable on lighter colored covers.

I believe Sharon mentioned an issue with scratches on the inside of the slab.  There are scratches on 8 of the 10 slabs in this submission.  Like the ring effect, the scratches can only be seen when viewing the slabs at an angle to catch the light.  I would add photos, but I don’t think any of these defects will photograph or scan well.

Overall, I would say that, at least with this batch, there seems to be some improvement in regards to the ring effect.

@Sqeggs Ameliorated!

Wow. This is what I mean by "the new normal". Does ameliorated mean fixed if 7 of 10 books still have NR's that are reduced, but not eliminated? Scratches suggest either a new problem or a method employed to fix one problem that produces another. If "ameliorated" means settling then it sounds like some folks have reached a point of surrendering to the inevitable.  Truely sad scenario if you ask me.

Hopefully, walclark will post before and after scans so we can judge for ourselves what is happening.  

Edited September 10, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[Robot Man]

Mylars eliminate Newton Rings...

[Cat-Man_America]

9 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

I have the same scanner.  The new slabs were scanning very dark on my previous settings -- probably because the slabs are deeper.  Someone in the CG scanner thread suggested new settings.  I've been using those (with some tweaks), but my scans are now a bit brighter than they should be.  I could probably continue fiddling with the settings, but I'm fairly content with how they look now.  

This is the fault of the new holders, not our scanners.  Why should collectors have to switch scanner settings back and forth for different holders? That's just nuts.  

[walclark]

8 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Wow. This is what I mean by "the new normal". Does ameliorated mean fixed if 7 of 10 books still have NR's that are reduced, but not eliminated? Scratches suggest either a new problem or a method employed to fix one problem that produces another. If "ameliorated" means settling then it sounds like some folks have reached a point of surrendering to the inevitable.  Truely sad scenario if you ask me.

Hopefully, walclark will post before and after scans so we can judge for ourselves what is happening.  

Well, I'll give it a shot.  Here are a couple shots from a submission that came back in June...about the time that people were beginning to sit up and take notice.

Frankenstein #9 (with arrows pointing towards rings)

 

[walclark]

Now, let me see if I can take a photo that shows the rings at full effect.

[walclark]

Also, another Frankenstein from the summer submission:

[walclark]

By comparison, here are some of this month's books.  The effect is not gone, but is amerliorated.  It's there, but to a much lesser extent and, again, only visible at certain angles.

[walclark]

Maybe a more easily seen example:

Edited September 11, 2018 by walclark

[walclark]

The Bill Barnes also suffers from the scratches inside the slab.  There are about a dozen parallel scratches running horizontally across the logo area.  Only one is large enough to photograph.  The rest are smaller and faint, but certainly visible in the right lighting.