Disgusted with CGC at the moment... 4 4

[Number 6]

To play devil’s advocate:

The sticking point for the buyer seeking restitution from the seller or CGC is that he freely admits he intended to remove the centerfold from the book. And now it just so happens that the one part of the book that’s not disclosed as missing is the part he intended to remove. 
 

I would imagine that both the seller and CGC would pause to wonder if the buyer didn’t simply remove the centerfold as intended and now claim that CGC failed on page count to get a larger reimbursement than if he were to sell and incomplete book at a loss. 
 

To be clear: I am NOT stating or even insinuating that’s what the OP did.  I’m simply saying that I can easily see that thought crossing the minds of those the OP would seek restitution from. 
 

While the OP might have more success using eBay’s lopsided policies to cram a return down the seller’s throat, that doesn’t seem right to me. The seller acted in good faith. He sold a 3rd party graded and based on their “professional” assessment was accurately representing the book. 

It’s possible the seller isn’t the one who slabbed the book either and therefore has no more “standing” than the buyer.  Even if the seller is the one who submitted the book he wasn’t the one who cracked the book and discovered the problem.  What “standing” does the seller have with CGC if he admits that it was a buyer who discovered the problem while cracking the book to remove the very thing that’s missing?

This may be swerving into a discussion about ‘At what point does a buyer fully accept ownership of a book?’  Does that happen when you crack open a CGC graded book?

I would think if a buyer truly believes that CGC missed this then they would be the best ones to take this up with. At the very least, they’ll tell you whether you as a buyer have the necessary “standing” or if you’ll need to involve the seller. 

[D84]

From this point forward, I'm making a completely uncut video of cracking and inspecing every comic I take out of the slab.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

1 hour ago, vheflin said:

Is it possible they skip page checks for some brittle comics because the book would fall apart?

No.

[Qalyar]

1 hour ago, vheflin said:

Is it possible they skip page checks for some brittle comics because the book would fall apart?

CGC would generally decline to grade any comic that's so fragile as to render page checks unsafe.

[c_mkv]

13 hours ago, stock_rotation said:

I just bought a slabbed book, for which I (knowingly) overpaid. I needed the centerfold, so I planned on cracking it, removing the CF and selling it at a loss. I was willing to consider the loss in reselling it the price I paid for the centerfold.

I crack the book only to find out CGC missed the missing centerfold.

So now I get the loss and no centerfold. With no chance of a recovery, since I cannot return the book to the seller since I cracked it out. So all I can do is person_without_enough_empathy here on the boards.

I really hope you contacted them first before starting this thread - if so would love to hear the response...if not, then why not?

[bb8]

1 hour ago, Number 6 said:

To play devil’s advocate:

The sticking point for the buyer seeking restitution from the seller or CGC is that he freely admits he intended to remove the centerfold from the book. And now it just so happens that the one part of the book that’s not disclosed as missing is the part he intended to remove. 
 

I would imagine that both the seller and CGC would pause to wonder if the buyer didn’t simply remove the centerfold as intended and now claim that CGC failed on page count to get a larger reimbursement than if he were to sell and incomplete book at a loss. 
 

To be clear: I am NOT stating or even insinuating that’s what the OP did.  I’m simply saying that I can easily see that thought crossing the minds of those the OP would seek restitution from. 
 

While the OP might have more success using eBay’s lopsided policies to cram a return down the seller’s throat, that doesn’t seem right to me. The seller acted in good faith. He sold a 3rd party graded and based on their “professional” assessment was accurately representing the book. 

It’s possible the seller isn’t the one who slabbed the book either and therefore has no more “standing” than the buyer.  Even if the seller is the one who submitted the book he wasn’t the one who cracked the book and discovered the problem.  What “standing” does the seller have with CGC if he admits that it was a buyer who discovered the problem while cracking the book to remove the very thing that’s missing?

This may be swerving into a discussion about ‘At what point does a buyer fully accept ownership of a book?’  Does that happen when you crack open a CGC graded book?

I would think if a buyer truly believes that CGC missed this then they would be the best ones to take this up with. At the very least, they’ll tell you whether you as a buyer have the necessary “standing” or if you’ll need to involve the seller. 

Is this just a mental exercise? OP already stated "So now I get the loss and no centerfold. With no chance of a recovery, since I cannot return the book to the seller since I cracked it out." And likely for the very reasons you outlined. He's just here to commiserate. And it really does blow. If I buy a blue label book, I'd expect any missing parts to be outlined on the label, too.

[Number 6]

4 minutes ago, bb8 said:

Is this just a mental exercise?

I’m sorry. I thought there was a discussion that had spun out of the OP’s situation. 
 

I misunderstood. I’ll take my leave. 

[Jordysnordy]

3 hours ago, ThothAmon said:

Hmmmm.  I’d try to return it it as not as described. That coming from a seller of slabbed books with a great big “no returns on slabbed books” in all my listings. Not saying that the seller had a clue but it’s surely their problem if you are still within eBay s return window. The removal of the slab might be an issue in my solution... Raises the existential question- Are you buying a comic that happens to have third party grading or a slabbed comic)

Just to play devil’s advocate but want if the seller bought it already slabbed? Should he go back to the person whom he purchased from?

(I agree with what you are saying though)

[Get Marwood & I]

4 hours ago, Number 6 said:

I’m sorry. I thought there was a discussion that had spun out of the OP’s situation. 
 

I misunderstood. I’ll take my leave. 

It's a dangerous game, trying to contribute to a discussion about comics on a comic discussion forum Number 6. But don't let anyone push, file, stamp, index, brief, debrief or number you will you. Your comments are your own.

[Sensei Ryan]

6 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

I’m sorry. I thought there was a discussion that had spun out of the OP’s situation. 
 

I misunderstood. I’ll take my leave. 

You don't have to leave, I thought what you stated was apropos and almost exactly what I would have typed.  The current owner is just commiserating and I would feel the same way.  Unless the OP videoed the opening of the CGC case there is no definitive way to prove it was a mistake by CGC.

This situation sucks for sure (assuming what is claimed by the OP is accurate), not just for the OP but for any of us who own slabs because it a missing CF was not noted on the label, imagine the stress for all of us of potentially cracking open a key outside of CGC/CCS and discovering something like this on a major $$$ book.  It's horrible to think about...once again, assuming the validity of the OP's claim. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Sensei Ryan

[Crops068]

55 minutes ago, Sensei Ryan said:

You don't have to leave, I thought what you stated was apropos and almost exactly what I would have typed.  The current owner is just commiserating and I would feel the same way.  Unless the OP videoed the opening of the CGC case there is no definitive way to prove it was a mistake by CGC.

This situation sucks for sure (assuming what is claimed by the OP is accurate), not just for the OP but for any of us who own slabs because it a missing CF was not noted on the label, imagine the stress for all of us of potentially cracking open a key outside of CGC/CCS and discovering something like this on a major $$$ book.  It's horrible to think about...once again, assuming the validity of the OP's claim. 

I agree.  It is definitely a tough situation and unfortunately impossible to prove now.  I feel bad for the OP.

[jsilverjanet]

has anyone bothered to get the notes?

Can I see the book that got a 1.0 grade?

[lou_fine]

15 hours ago, stock_rotation said:

I crack the book only to find out CGC missed the missing centerfold.

 

 

5 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Can a 1.0 include something like a missing centerfold? I know it should be on the label, but I wonder what the grader notes include.

Not completely sure what the two of you are complaining about here since this defect is already "clearly" identified on the CGC label itself.  

After all, a centerfold is just made up of many multiple small pieces which was already identified on the label as being out of the whole book.  

I suggest you should probably check the rest of the book because there might just be many other multiple small pieces (i.e. missing pages) out of the book. 

Seriously though, sorry to hear about the predicament that you find yourself in now. 

 

[F For Fake]

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

It's a dangerous game, trying to contribute to a discussion on a comic discussion forum Number 6. But don't let anyone push, file, stamp, index, brief, debrief or number you will you. Your comments are your own.

Be seeing you!

[lou_fine]

4 hours ago, G G ® said:

I guess that would depend on the time period when it was slabbed. Once upon a time it may have received a GLOD but nowadays any missing pages should plummet it to a 0.5.

 

4 hours ago, Lurker89 said:

I assume from my limited and flawed knowledge it should have received a green "qualified" label, noting "Incomplete Missing Centerfold"  on the label.

The green Qualified (GLOD) label is definitely the correct way to go here, especially in the case of an otherwise HG copy of a book.  

I have seen auction for books graded in the 9's with a Green label due to a missing page or a missing coupon and this definitely tells me a whole lot more about the overall condition of the book then if it was simply in a Blue Universal label graded as either a 0.5 Poor copy or a NG copy.  

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, Number 6 said:

To play devil’s advocate:

The sticking point for the buyer seeking restitution from the seller or CGC is that he freely admits he intended to remove the centerfold from the book. And now it just so happens that the one part of the book that’s not disclosed as missing is the part he intended to remove. 
 

I would imagine that both the seller and CGC would pause to wonder if the buyer didn’t simply remove the centerfold as intended and now claim that CGC failed on page count to get a larger reimbursement than if he were to sell and incomplete book at a loss. 
 

To be clear: I am NOT stating or even insinuating that’s what the OP did.  I’m simply saying that I can easily see that thought crossing the minds of those the OP would seek restitution from. 

Not to insinuate anything at all about the OP, but this thought also crossed my mind and the reason why I think it might be harder to convince CGC in terms of seeking some form of restitution for the book.  

I think the OP should pursue this issue with CGC though because they usually tend to stand behind their product when it comes to blatent errors such as this.  

[William-James88]

13 hours ago, Lightning55 said:

That's awful.  I see no clear recourse, either. 

That's the worst part. It's not even them who sent it to CGC in the first place so I have no clue how CGC could make things right. 

Well, what I see is the original owner telling CGC they made a mistake, then CGC compensating them for the price of the slabbing and then the orginal owner passing on that compensation to the OP. But even then, while that's convoluted enough, your still stuck with the fact that anyone can say the book is not the same one CGC graded since it's been removed. 

Even us, how can we know for sure that the OP didn't remove the book from the slab, take the centerfold and then make this post? Not accusing anyone and not saying this is what happened at all, just that this can't even be verified, making recourse super hard.

And added to that is the notion on the label that pieces are missing.

Edited June 16, 2020 by William-James88

[rjpb]

That's a bummer, but I have to ask, was taking a centerfold from a brittle copy with pieces missing from every page a good choice for marrying to another copy?

[stock_rotation]

Thanks to all that commented. I am (and was always going to) just going to take this one on the chin.

I can't pursue the seller (who delivered exactly what I bought) because I can't return what I bought from him.

I'm not going to contact CGC; as many people have said upthread, I ultimately can't prove my side of the story. And since I didn't transact with CGC, they're not really going to put any effort into fixing this $150 mistake.

What this did do for me, though, is made me wary of slabs. I have bought and cracked a bunch of slabs, especially when I can't find a raw copy of what I'm looking for.

I've always felt that PGX books were not worth the risk, as I know they are sloppy and dishonest and there's a high chance I'd get burned. CGC was the gold standard, so I felt that if I cracked a $500 slab, I'd have a $500 book. It felt like a zero-risk thing to me. Of course, I'd be mildly annoyed if I cracked a book and found restoration or color touch, but ultimately, I want the book, so I could live with it. But page counting is such a basic part of grading it boggles my mind to think that they could get something that simple completely wrong. This is not rocket science. In the center of the book, the last panel of the left page says "The End", and the right lower page panel is numbered '3'. Someone looked at that page, because there was a slip of microchamber paper inserted where the centerfold should be. So now I'll view slabs as the equivalent of buying a raw from someone who offers no returns, because it comes with the same risk.

Someone asked for pics of the book; I'll post them later tonight. The 'pieces missing' on the label refers to the right side of the book, which is brittle from the right edge to about 3" in. Pieces have chipped away from the margin and are just starting to touch the art. I mean, the book is a 1.0, so I knew it was going to be rough!

[jcjames]

59 minutes ago, stock_rotation said:

Thanks to all that commented. I am (and was always going to) just going to take this one on the chin.

I can't pursue the seller (who delivered exactly what I bought) because I can't return what I bought from him.

I'm not going to contact CGC; as many people have said upthread, I ultimately can't prove my side of the story. {then why post it here!??} And since I didn't transact with CGC, they're not really going to put any effort into fixing this $150 mistake.

What this did do for me, though, is made me wary of slabs. I have bought and cracked a bunch of slabs {with no problems, right?}, especially when I can't find a raw copy of what I'm looking for.

I've always felt that PGX books were not worth the risk, as I know they are sloppy and dishonest and there's a high chance I'd get burned. CGC was the gold standard, so I felt that if I cracked a $500 slab, I'd have a $500 book. It felt like a zero-risk thing to me. Of course, I'd be mildly annoyed if I cracked a book and found restoration or color touch, but ultimately, I want the book, so I could live with it. But page counting is such a basic part of grading it boggles my mind to think that they could get something that simple completely wrong. This is not rocket science. In the center of the book, the last panel of the left page says "The End", and the right lower page panel is numbered '3'. Someone looked at that page, because there was a slip of microchamber paper inserted where the centerfold should be. So now I'll view slabs as the equivalent of buying a raw from someone who offers no returns, because it comes with the same risk. {!!?? see comment below}

Someone asked for pics of the book; I'll post them later tonight. The 'pieces missing' on the label refers to the right side of the book, which is brittle from the right edge to about 3" in. Pieces have chipped away from the margin and are just starting to touch the art. I mean, the book is a 1.0, so I knew it was going to be rough!

Clearly you don't understand "risk" and how CGC NEARLY eliminates risk - it can't reduce risk of human error to 0% - no human can do that. But to state that CGC is "equivalent" to buying raw and is "the same risk" is absurd.