• 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.

Are Newton Rings 'normal and acceptable'?
6 6

Started by Get Marwood & I,

Are Newton Rings 'normal and acceptable' ?  

293 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Newton Rings 'normal and acceptable'?

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      250
    • Other (feel free to post any alternative views accordingly)
      14

  2. 2. Should CGC withdraw from service any holders which create / are prone to create Newton Rings?

    • Yes
      253
    • No
      33
    • Other (feel free to post any alternative views accordingly)
      8

  3. 3. Are you satisfied with CGC's response to date to this issue?

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      229
    • Other (feel free to post any alternative views accordingly)
      24

893 posts in this topic

porcupine48

porcupine48

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, I like pie said:

The most frustrating thing, for me, is that CGC has the ability to get these out without rings.

I submit multiple copies of the same book all the time. Two would come back Newton free but one will have them. 

Now if you email them to reholder that one, they will tell you, "Ok but we can't guarantee it will be any better!" ¬¬

 

 

Mad react

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexanderjk

alexanderjk

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, I like pie said:

The most frustrating thing, for me, is that CGC has the ability to get these out without rings.

I submit multiple copies of the same book all the time. Two would come back Newton free but one will have them. 

Now if you email them to reholder that one, they will tell you, "Ok but we can't guarantee it will be any better!" ¬¬

 

 

Submitted two G.I. Joe #1s at the same time and one came back in a pristine holder, and the other looked like it was dipped in oil. Thankfully, CGC re-slabbed the book for “free” (less the outgoing shipping cost and I had to wait three weeks to get it back), but 100% agree that there’s no way these defective slabs should get to the customer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
I like pie

I like pie

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, alexanderjk said:

Submitted two G.I. Joe #1s at the same time and one came back in a pristine holder, and the other looked like it was dipped in oil. Thankfully, CGC re-slabbed the book for “free” (less the outgoing shipping cost and I had to wait three weeks to get it back), but 100% agree that there’s no way these defective slabs should get to the customer. 

I'd call them about return shipping. I just email accounting my receipt and they credit my account. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gaard

Gaard

Posted
Posted

I've read messages by members stating that NRs don't bother them in the least. While it is extremely difficult for me to understand this, if I try really hard I can do it. One thing I'll never fathom, though, is how anyone can state that,given a choice between NRs and no NRs, they'd prefer to leave it as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Get Marwood & I

Get Marwood & I

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, Ride the Tiger said:

I can't believe there are 27 people satisfied with CGCs response. 26 people feel the current holders should be left as is. Do we have blind members or voldy trolls lurking about?

 

44 minutes ago, Gaard said:

I've read messages by members stating that NRs don't bother them in the least. While it is extremely difficult for me to understand this, if I try really hard I can do it. One thing I'll never fathom, though, is how anyone can state that,given a choice between NRs and no NRs, they'd prefer to leave it as is.

 

I used the phrase "Are Newton Rings 'normal and acceptable'?" for question #1 deliberately as that was the widely reported response that CGC were said to be giving out at the time. If you take the notion that two plastics touching produces the prism effect literally, then I can see why you would answer 'yes' to that question. Those people are just agreeing with CGC's stance and have the right to their opinion. I also indicated that members were free to state a different view if they had one that didn't fit the voting categories. Also, there will always be people that respond, shall we say, "against the grain", for a variety of reasons.

Maybe I could have phrased the opening question "are excessive Newton Rings....", but then you are into the debate about what is excessive and who determines that - company or customer?  

The questions overall, I feel, get to the nub of the matter: Are visual distortions acceptable, in any degree, on a product that exists to showcase a visual medium? 

The response percentages tell their own story. 

There's nothing more to say about it in my view. The ball is in CGC's court. As I said earlier, if you get your submission back ring free, you'll likely be delighted. They look great don't they! And you may well be in the vast majority. If you don't, you're gutted. If CGC dealt with the latter scenario adequately, and communicated more effectively, maybe these threads wouldn't exist. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
s-dali

s-dali

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Newton rings are one of the main reasons I do not submit comics to CGC.  When I buy a slab, if it has newton rings, it does factor into my buying. I have passed on comics where the rings were just too bad. They do make a difference on the desirability of the comic IMO.

I've held off saying anything because a lot of forum members dismiss what people say who haven't been active here for forever and a day. Regardless, I'm going to say what a lot of people are thinking. CGC will only address this issue when it hits them in the wallet. When submissions start to falter and Voldy slabs start selling at equal prices, then and only then will CGC do something about it. The rub of this is, by ignoring the issue, they are only helping that scenario become a reality. Unfortunate, but true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ADAMANTIUM

ADAMANTIUM

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, punksdropdirtysrh said:

Sucks so hear this is still an issue, I thought it had been mostly resolved. Would be interested in seeing some recent examples. 

Read to your hearts desire, this thread gets posted in more than the one we're in

 

Edited by ADAMANTIUM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naphtha

Naphtha

Posted
Posted
On 9/14/2019 at 5:26 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

 

I used the phrase "Are Newton Rings 'normal and acceptable'?" for question #1 deliberately as that was the widely reported response that CGC were said to be giving out at the time. If you take the notion that two plastics touching produces the prism effect literally, then I can see why you would answer 'yes' to that question. Those people are just agreeing with CGC's stance and have the right to their opinion. I also indicated that members were free to state a different view if they had one that didn't fit the voting categories. Also, there will always be people that respond, shall we say, "against the grain", for a variety of reasons.

Maybe I could have phrased the opening question "are excessive Newton Rings....", but then you are into the debate about what is excessive and who determines that - company or customer?  

The questions overall, I feel, get to the nub of the matter: Are visual distortions acceptable, in any degree, on a product that exists to showcase a visual medium? 

The response percentages tell their own story. 

There's nothing more to say about it in my view. The ball is in CGC's court. As I said earlier, if you get your submission back ring free, you'll likely be delighted. They look great don't they! And you may well be in the vast majority. If you don't, you're gutted. If CGC dealt with the latter scenario adequately, and communicated more effectively, maybe these threads wouldn't exist. 

 

I completely agree with you and I'm also waiting to submit books until holders are fixed for more reasons than just the NR.

It also might have to do with material ordering although I have no idea how many books are encapsulated in any given time. When the new engineered slabs were introduced, they likely purchased on contract large quantities of preform material that can't just be canceled or returned. As they likely tried alternative methods, they couldn't find a solution in time, thus we are in this endless cycle of no fix...maybe.

Although as I think about it, preform plastics can't possibly hit their margins that much considering how much we pay for slabbing.

Regardless, I just want the old slabs back. I could care less about optics and whether they use fancy plastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thewritestuff

thewritestuff

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, I like pie said:

Oh I get it. Experiment on the enemy so we can eliminate it forever? 

I’m not sure what you mean by that. I don’t consider cgc the enemy, but I do think it would be interesting to see if the inner sleeve can be manipulated to create Newton Rings without the presence of a book inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
I like pie

I like pie

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, thewritestuff said:

I’m not sure what you mean by that. I don’t consider cgc the enemy, but I do think it would be interesting to see if the inner sleeve can be manipulated to create Newton Rings without the presence of a book inside.

Not CGC, although it's pretty lame they haven't followed up in a long time, but the newton rings themselves. 

Link to comment
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
6 6
Go to topic listing