Newton Rings
18 18

354 posts in this topic

1,085 posts
16 hours ago, s-dali said:

I'll play. I'd place money that the middle one is CGC. As for the other two, I'd guess PGX is first with Voldemort being last.

Well, I guess the odds are not too long, but I am impressed.  You've nailed it.

^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,085 posts
8 hours ago, namisgr said:

This is a Fantucchio pedigree book I won in that auction, and you can see the rings in the Comiclink scan, although they're even worse in person.  There's no sugarcoating it, this is an inferior product:

00166142394496110345566024.jpg

I mention the Fantucchio "pedigree" as CGC should have an idea of how recently these were all graded.  I did not submit them, so therefore I am out-of-luck at having them corrected?

Going back to look at the scans posted on CLink, I too see that the rings were apparent, but it's much worse in-hand.  Your 9.4 looks like a stained 3.0 (no offense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,771 posts
13 hours ago, Yorick said:

I mention the Fantucchio "pedigree" as CGC should have an idea of how recently these were all graded.  I did not submit them, so therefore I am out-of-luck at having them corrected?

The Fantucchio copy of JIM #2 was graded 7/12/2018.  As for reholdering it, I'm going to wait until they have the problem solved, and I expect them to pay for the fix, since it's a defective product.

Edited by namisgr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,334 posts
On 10/27/2018 at 4:33 AM, namisgr said:

The Fantucchio copy of JIM #2 was graded 7/12/2018.  As for reholdering it, I'm going to wait until they have the problem solved, and I expect them to pay for the fix, since it's a defective product.

If they don't solve the problem and/or offer to fix it on their own nickel, what options are left?  hm

Note: This is almost a rhetorical question as there may be other options, but I'm curious as to your thought process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,771 posts
14 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

If they don't solve the problem and/or offer to fix it on their own nickel, what options are left?  hm

Note: This is almost a rhetorical question as there may be other options, but I'm curious as to your thought process.

I guess sell it?

I think a word to the auction houses may be useful.  When big CGC clients like the Link and Heritage get enough complaints from their customers about the Rings problem, and how it causes them to bid less than they normally would, or not bid at all, they might spread the word to CGC in a more impactful way than if CGC were to hear from me directly.

 

Edited by namisgr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
419 posts
On 10/23/2018 at 8:05 PM, Ride the Tiger said:

You've already told everyone you don't care about the NRs. Thats fine. I am not going to try and change your opinion because it is exactly that and you are entitled to it. Now how about you give the people on the other side of the issue the same respect? No more of this. You are on ignore. 

I like the fact that right after you say you should give the other side some respect and you talk about having an opinion on both sides, you put someone with a differing opinion on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029 posts
1 hour ago, CCComics said:

I like the fact that right after you say you should give the other side some respect and you talk about having an opinion on both sides, you put someone with a differing opinion on ignore.

I know i'm a stinker aint I?  Hee hee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201 posts
2 hours ago, DingoDog said:

Wow. Found this on the bay.

s-l1600.jpg

C3F5DF5F-C405-4177-8561-C4BB0D3EE982.jpeg.b92975403cbf350e156152f7a15525e9.jpeg

But in all seriousness that is pretty bad. Guessing they didn’t opt to contact cgc for a reslab since a buyer will probably crack eventually for a oa piece. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136 posts

For a split second i thought it was a cool design by the artist until i clicked on teh listing. 

It would sell better as "Newton rings to eternity #1!" 9.8 :idea:  ^^ (:

Edited by DingoDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,334 posts

CGC "SOTA" holder's Newton Ring issue fixed by a holder from another state.

Here's a scan of the first holder again:

662c3a4a-2a37-48c7-9485-42310771e635_zps

Here's the reslabbed book sans the oily splotches...

3a981b80-aadc-419f-bfd3-b3e042ff394d_zps

Note: CGC seems to have missed amateur restoration in the earlier grading of this book (tear seals with glue).  The original owner was probably unaware of it, so I'm not holding the eBay seller responsible.

Subsequent grading caught the error (obviously this holder isn't one of CGC's NR prone "SOTA" slabs; you can surmise what you will from that). This is all I choose to say on the matter.

 

 

Edited by Cat-Man_America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,085 posts
18 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

CGC seems to have missed amateur restoration in the earlier grading of this book (tear seals with glue).

Maybe not.  Sometimes they let slight glue seals into blue labels...  but that's another conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,334 posts
17 minutes ago, Yorick said:

Maybe not.  Sometimes they let slight glue seals into blue labels...  but that's another conversation.

I'm aware of that, but usually they mention it on the label when that occurs.  This was undisclosed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,085 posts
1 minute ago, Cat-Man_America said:

I'm aware of that, but usually they mention it on the label when that occurs.  This was undisclosed.

I thought they were taking most notes off of the label so that we are forced to buy the grader notes.  I have a detached cover 3.0 with no notation.  It looks like a 6.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,738 posts
49 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

CGC "SOTA" holder's Newton Ring issue has been fixed by a reholder.

Here's a scan of the first holder again:

 

Here's the reslabbed book sans the oily splotches...

 

Note: CGC seems to have missed amateur restoration in the earlier grading of this book (tear seals with glue).  The original owner obviously was unaware of it, so I'm not holding the eBay seller responsible.

Subsequent grading caught the error (obviously this holder isn't one of CGC's NR prone "SOTA" slabs; you can surmise what you will from that). This is all I choose to say on the matter.

 

 

Sorry but I am confused. I thought you got the book reholdered and now you are saying it came back regraded and restored ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,334 posts
12 hours ago, Yorick said:

I thought they were taking most notes off of the label so that we are forced to buy the grader notes.  I have a detached cover 3.0 with no notation.  It looks like a 6.0.

CGC has never provided grader's notes on labels to my knowledge.  However, in some instances books with a very small amount of glue would receive a Universal Grade with a notation to that effect.  

Here's an example:

image.png.0ca198e40a80550fd244ecd137b9db6f.png  

Unless there's been a change in the CGC's policy along with the new labels/holders then they should've at least mentioned the tear seals or issued a Conserved Grade label.  I bought the HIT #18 thinking it was a Universal Grade.

 

12 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Sorry but I am confused. I thought you got the book reholdered and now you are saying it came back regraded and restored ?

C'mon Bob, I'm sure if you think about it a bit more you'll figure it out. Keep in mind that I don't have much confidence in the newer CGC holders.

CGC apparently missed the amateur restoration when they originally graded the book.  I bought HIT #18 (8.0) in the new style CGC holder from an eBay dealer and decided to have it re-holdered where I could be assured it wouldn't come back with splotchy NR.  I never expected the conserved grade, and I'm not faulting the folks who did the regrading.  I can't add much more than that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,738 posts
5 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

C'mon Bob, I'm sure if you think about it a bit more you'll figure it out. Keep in mind that I don't have much confidence in the newer CGC holders.

CGC apparently missed the amateur restoration when they originally graded the book.  I bought HIT #18 (8.0) in the new style CGC holder from an eBay dealer and decided to have it re-holdered where I could be assured it wouldn't come back with splotchy NR.  I never expected the conserved grade, and I'm not faulting the folks who did the regrading.  I can't add much more than that.

 

Yes, now I understand. Wow ! Kudos for taking this so well. Most would have come on here complaining. Of course you would have been vilified by the crowd that thinks CGC should be the only game in town. I am sincerely sad to hear this happened to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,323 posts
30 minutes ago, ERTO said:

C'mon Bob, you know he's still butthurt at CGC for making him remove a CBCS slab from his Sig Line.

C'mon Bob, you gotta know this is Stu!  :insane:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,943 posts
On ‎2018‎/‎10‎/‎31 at 3:49 AM, DingoDog said:

Wow. Found this on the bay.

s-l1600.jpg

"I kinda like that one Bob."

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
18 18