CGC needs to modify its stance on Color Touch 5 5

[kav]

I have suggested in the past rather than scraping off the dot of black color touch, covering it over with dot of silver sharpie and grading that defect.  Seems the best option to me.  CGC detects dot of color touch, offers the option of covering it with silver sharpie and blue labeling.  Dots of CT of any color can be addressed in this manner. larger areas of CT get the purple label.

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

Waaaaayyyy to classy for this place.

It is. It's like serving Pate' de Foie Gras at the Hobo's luncheon.  

 

 

[VintageComics]

5 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

Waaaaayyyy to classy for this place.

It is. It's like serving Pate' de Foie Gras at the Hobo's luncheon.  

I absolutely abhor when people use 'to' instead of 'too' and you just not only caught me doing it, you quoted me.

[Get Marwood & I]

1 minute ago, VintageComics said:

7 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

Waaaaayyyy to classy for this place.

It is. It's like serving Pate' de Foie Gras at the Hobo's luncheon.  

I absolutely abhor when people use 'to' instead of 'too' and you just not only caught me doing it, you quoted me. 

You spelt 'way' wrong as well Roy. 

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, VintageComics said:

I absolutely abhor when people use 'to' instead of 'too' and you just not only caught me doing it, you quoted me.

No, no... I commend you. We're all doing our part for future generations in trying to create a smaller carbon footprint when we can. And your efforts are noble, recognized, and appreciated. No telling how much positive impact the omission of a few extra o's here and there might go in preventing society's carbon collapse, ironically, and after all, from whence we came.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, LordRahl said:

While this may sound good i.n theory, it's completely impractical in real life. Besides the fact that it may reveal their grading standards, which I know they have been reticent to do, this would be a killer to TAT's and/or would necessitate a big jump in prices. Can you imagine having to digitally catalog every flaw on a book? This may sound easy for 9.4/9.6/9.8 books but what about every book between .5 and 9.0 they grade. The amount of flaws present on a VG would likely require 10+ minutes of just circling flaws on an image. It would be an immense jump in workload for their graders which would lead to much, much longer TAT's or them having to hire a LOT of new graders which would lead to MUCH higher prices. Not to mention that you would have to digitally image front and back covers of every book they grade (at a high enough resolution to allow what you are suggesting), which is just more time added on. I don't want to pay $100 per book to get my books graded, do you?

That said, it might be an add-on service that CGC might consider doing, for that much higher price. 

[THE_BEYONDER]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That said, it might be an add-on service that CGC might consider doing, for that much higher price. 

Aren’t turnarounds long enough?

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

Aren’t turnarounds long enough?

Additional services @ higher fees = more revenue = more staffing.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work...

[THE_BEYONDER]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Additional services @ higher fees = more revenue = more staffing.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work...

If you add more staff....wouldn’t it basically be a wash?

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think it would be awesome for books nm and up though....

[LordRahl]

16 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That said, it might be an add-on service that CGC might consider doing, for that much higher price. 

They would have to make it painful enough from a pricing standpoint to only be feasible for a very small percentage of books so that they can control it. You can't hire new graders for an add-on service which will likely fluctuate wildly in how much it's used and you also don't want to negatively impact your TAT's during the times when you do get a lot of these for one reason or another. But yeah, it could work as an optional add on at a premium price. 

[James J Johnson]

8 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

I think it would be awesome for books nm and up though....

Snob!  

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

1 minute ago, James J Johnson said:

Snob!  

 

[Hawkman]

On 4/29/2019 at 11:06 AM, Black_Adam said:

Six years ago CGC modified its stance on tape to treat it as a defect, not restoration, and grade the comic as if the tape was not present.

CGC-Modifies-Stance-on-Grading-Submissions-with-Tape

I think it's time the same approach was considered for color touch (and tear seals).

CGC currently has a restoration removal program allowing for the removal of both. But the removal technique is often simply to scrape off or cut away the offending area of the cover (I recently saw a CGC 6.0 JIM 83 that was butchered down to a 3.0) resulting in a lot of otherwise well-presenting covers being permanently defaced.

A simple color touch (often a tiny (less than 1/4") felt mark meant to mask a color-breaking crease) means a PLOD for a comic. But if this exact same felt mark appeared elsewhere on the comic, say a small black pen mark across a differently-colored logo, CGC would treat it as what it really is - a defect. With a blue label attached.

I would prefer in the case of color touch for CGC (as they do with tape) to simply grade the comics as if the defects were not present and slab each comic with a corresponding blue label noting "color touch on cover."

For instance: A "near mint" comic is sent in. Looks to all eyes like a 9.4 until the grader detects color touch masking a tiny color-breaking corner crease. The grader, now taking the crease into consideration, gives the comic a blue 8.0 grade with a 'color touch" notation. The colored felt on the cover is treated as a defect, not restoration. To me this seems a better option that giving this comic either a 9.4 PLOD or sending it for restoration removal and having the comic returned with a lesser grade and the corner cut off. The exact same consideration should be given to tear seals (just as tape is a tear seal). Grade the comic as if the tear seal was not present and slab it with an appropriate blue label.

PLODs should be reserved for comics that have been truly restored.

 

Anything you do to improve a book is restoration. CGC books would cease being trustworthy if they started overlooking color touch and tear seals. They aren't original to the book, hence restoration. The only people who want this are sellers who want to get away with charging more for a book than they can with a Restored label. It's greed, and it makes the hobby more vulturistic. This would just allow buyers to get taken advantage of more.

[kav]

On 5/1/2019 at 7:58 PM, VintageComics said:

Why is it insane?

Didn't you read that some old school dealers already used to use a 100 point system?

And how does it cause speculators to squeeze out more money?

It adds to speculators thinking they can squeeze out more money when they cant get the 9.8s they want and keep getting 9.6's and think 'gee-if I can get a 9.7, at least I could double my money from a 9.6!'  Which would not happen of course you would still see a huge price discrepancy between a 9.7 and a 9.8.   Then our speculator will think 'gee-if they could just give out 9.75's!!!  

It's a fool's game fueled by frustration over them 9.6's they keep getting.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, LordRahl said:

They would have to make it painful enough from a pricing standpoint to only be feasible for a very small percentage of books so that they can control it. You can't hire new graders for an add-on service which will likely fluctuate wildly in how much it's used and you also don't want to negatively impact your TAT's during the times when you do get a lot of these for one reason or another. But yeah, it could work as an optional add on at a premium price. 

You can't hire new graders just for an add-on service, but you can hire new graders just to grade, and have existing graders do the additional service. The thing about business is that virtually anything can be done...it's just a matter of price.

[VintageComics]

13 minutes ago, kav said:

On 5/1/2019 at 10:58 PM, VintageComics said:

Why is it insane?

Didn't you read that some old school dealers already used to use a 100 point system?

And how does it cause speculators to squeeze out more money?

It adds to speculators thinking they can squeeze out more money when they cant get the 9.8s they want and keep getting 9.6's and think 'gee-if I can get a 9.7, at least I could double my money from a 9.6!'  Which would not happen of course you would still see a huge price discrepancy between a 9.7 and a 9.8.   Then our speculator will think 'gee-if they could just give out 9.75's!!!  

It's a fool's game fueled by frustration over them 9.6's they keep getting.

So you don't have speculators trying to increase prices when the grades were just a 10 point scale?

Remember, the original OSPG had 3 grades and that increased over the years to the 25 point scale CGC uses now (and down from the 100 point scale that some used previously).

The grade increases are a necessity because of how valuable comics have become.

But you can't stop progress just to stop speculation.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

So you don't have speculators trying to increase prices when the grades were just a 10 point scale?

Remember, the original OSPG had 3 grades and that increased over the years to the 25 point scale CGC uses now (and down from the 100 point scale that some used previously).

The grade increases are a necessity because of how valuable comics have become.

But you can't stop progress just to stop speculation.

I'm just saying that the desire for more grades is fueled by frustration over getting 9.6s.  And, that it would not have the effect they hope for-more $$$.  Not to mention the lower number of 9.8s they would get, as the graders would go nah-9.7!

[James J Johnson]

 

5 hours ago, kav said:

I'm just saying that the desire for more grades is fueled by frustration over getting 9.6s.  And, that it would not have the effect they hope for-more $$$.  Not to mention the lower number of 9.8s they would get, as the graders would go nah-9.7!

But from a marketing standpoint, why bother with 9.7. On ebay, anytime a seller has a 9.6 listed, there's typically listing language about how under-graded a 9.6 it is, how it looks like every other 9.8, sometimes a sidebar of how CGC missed the boat on the grade and the book wuz' robbed, and how it should be pressed and resubbed for a 9.8, a sure thing. And sure enough, when a seller includes that type of puffing, which is almost always, the book finishes closer to the GP for 9.8 than for 9.6  It's like voodoo. All the seller has to do is include that language and even if the scan is clear enough to show a 9.6 that was a squeaker of a 9.6 at best, the bidders turn into 9.8 zombies. .

Edited June 22, 2019 by James J Johnson

[Abibliophobia]

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You can't hire new graders just for an add-on service, but you can hire new graders just to grade, and have existing graders do the additional service. The thing about business is that virtually anything can be done...it's just a matter of price.

Lots of good dialog here about what could be done.  I agree that full annotation of every book submitted is a situational service, and probably not  something easily done without a form of partial to full automation, or outsourcing to faster/cheaper labor.  It would take a lot of effort to do so.

I’d look at full annotation as something CGC can do to separate itself from the competition (but is there really any?).  When a modern comes in do they really spend much time on it?  Judging by the price—probably not.

I’d pay for a full detail service if I was grading a high value book (mid 4 figures and above).  I’d also consider that grading as part of the high value asset I’d want to sell (if I were into that), or buy especially if I was dropping that kind of money.

One could put digital right management on the notes, and monetize (like they do with current grader notes).  Annotate once, sell many, share never.

About revealing how they grade... Are their grading methods really that secret?  Has no senior grader ever left the company?  C’mon—this isn’t KFC.

CGC’s Crown Jewels aren’t their grading methods any more.  It’s the trust we put into the Authority because of the quality and consistency of the grading over many years.  We are living in a time where the foundations of trust are being questioned, and people want to see the evidence backing the claims.  Why not make some money while doing so?