Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[comicdonna]

This post is not directed at any particular person. I see no evidence, that restoman is/was the only person allowed to place an ad for pressing/restoration. I see no reason to dwell on the subject until there is proof one way or another.

 

CGC has these ads on their website for one sole reason, extra revenue. The other alternative is higher grading fees. Furthermore, I can't see how any of these ads affect CGC's impartial grading. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Red Hook]

We're not discussing the placement of ads. We're discussing CGC's reference to Nelson as a service provider, within the general descriptive text of their site.

[comicdonna]

I realize that. Did you read my post? Was he the only restoration /pressing expert to have an ad on the site?

[Red Hook]

This post is not directed at any particular person. I see no evidence, that restoman is/was the only person allowed to place an ad for pressing/restoration. I see no reason to dwell on the subject until there is proof one way or another.

 

CGC has these ads on their website for one sole reason, extra revenue. The other alternative is higher grading fees. Furthermore, I can't see how any of these ads affect CGC's impartial grading. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

 

Unless I missed something, this isn't about Nelson's ad. And I'm not referring to the ads when I'm talking about impartiality in general. The New York Times may carry advertising for publishers whose books they review. I still expect impartial reviews.

[drice6900]

I realize that. Did you read my post? Was he the only restoration /pressing expert to have an ad on the site?

 

Umm, to repeat: we are not talking about ads.

 

Matt Nelson's company is directly recommended in CGC's FAQ for use as a restoration expert. No one else is recommended. That is what many are up in arms about (rightfully so, IMO).

[MutantKeys]

 

But when are all our answers from the first couple of pages going to be answered

[comicdonna]

I realize that. Did you read my post? Was he the only restoration /pressing expert to have an ad on the site?

 

Umm, to repeat: we are not talking about ads.

 

Matt Nelson's company is directly recommended in CGC's FAQ for use as a restoration expert. No one else is recommended. That is what many are up in arms about (rightfully so, IMO).

Well, I guess I have to agree with DeeDee's post. I just read pages 8 through 12, and many of the concerns were about the ads.

[drice6900]

I realize that. Did you read my post? Was he the only restoration /pressing expert to have an ad on the site?

 

Umm, to repeat: we are not talking about ads.

 

Matt Nelson's company is directly recommended in CGC's FAQ for use as a restoration expert. No one else is recommended. That is what many are up in arms about (rightfully so, IMO).

Well, I guess I have to agree with DeeDee's post. I just read pages 8 through 12, and many of the concerns were about the ads.

 

Yeah, there was some grumbling here and there, but I think most people accept there has to be some advertising. What people are having a hard time with is seeing a specific resto expert/dealer recommended in their FAQ, which many feel undermines their impartiality and hurts their reputation. Further, other people in the same field as Matt Nelson are less than happy to see this endorsement (see Tracey Heft's post).

[MasterChief]

The concepts of "third party" and impartiality sound great in a press release, but in the real world, it's not going to happen. If CGC were independently funded and had no monetary interest in catering to larger customers, then we could seriously discuss levels of impartiality.

 

As a professional in the construction industry for over 20 years (9 of those years serving as a Welding Inspector certified by the American Welding Society) I do know something about impartially and third-party independence with regard to examination and certification.

 

Based on my background, I have arrived at the conclusion that the "impartial third-party" language used throughout the company's corporate communications is buzz-word banter. It's touchy-feel-good stuff serving a simulation purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

IMHO,

 

--MC

[comicdonna]

I realize that. Did you read my post? Was he the only restoration /pressing expert to have an ad on the site?

 

Umm, to repeat: we are not talking about ads.

 

Matt Nelson's company is directly recommended in CGC's FAQ for use as a restoration expert. No one else is recommended. That is what many are up in arms about (rightfully so, IMO).

Well, I guess I have to agree with DeeDee's post. I just read pages 8 through 12, and many of the concerns were about the ads.

 

Yeah, there was some grumbling here and there, but I think most people accept there has to be some advertising. What people are having a hard time with is seeing a specific resto expert/dealer recommended in their FAQ, which many feel undermines their impartiality and hurts their reputation. Further, other people in the same field as Matt Nelson are less than happy to see this endorsement (see Tracey Heft's post).

I saw Tracey's post. I'm not sure that recommending one restro expert was smooth public relations, but certainly has no effect on CGC impartially grading comics. Maybe Tracey should place an ad with CGC.

[esquirecomics]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

 

And since when does the existance of a consensus dictate how public perception is perceived or impacts upon a company? The larger the consensus on a particular point the more likely a policy change would be made, to be sure, but a discussion of a "lack" of a consensus - and I don't believe any significant evidence exists one way or the other (sure as heck can't determine consensus simply by the number of posts made on the topic) - is nothing more than a disappointing diversion from the substantive debate.

 

And I say again where is Matt Nelson even advertising on the CGC boards? As far as I can tell I have looked through every page of the site and can find no evidence that Matt is an advertiser. The only reference I saw to his company was that he is one of 46 entities through which one can submit a book for CGC grading.

 

This debate concerns perceived corporate favoritism towards a particular dealer/person. I say "perceived corporate" because this is the view that is conveyed to the general public but I truly doubt this is CGC's corporate position. Instead it reflects - and I know this to be true by first hand knowledge - the personal feelings of certain CGC employees. That personal feeling should be expressed privately in e-mails or phone conversations but not on the CGC website.

[FFB]

I realize that. Did you read my post? Was he the only restoration /pressing expert to have an ad on the site?

 

Umm, to repeat: we are not talking about ads.

 

Matt Nelson's company is directly recommended in CGC's FAQ for use as a restoration expert. No one else is recommended. That is what many are up in arms about (rightfully so, IMO).

Well, I guess I have to agree with DeeDee's post. I just read pages 8 through 12, and many of the concerns were about the ads.

 

Yeah, there was some grumbling here and there, but I think most people accept there has to be some advertising. What people are having a hard time with is seeing a specific resto expert/dealer recommended in their FAQ, which many feel undermines their impartiality and hurts their reputation. Further, other people in the same field as Matt Nelson are less than happy to see this endorsement (see Tracey Heft's post).

 

Steve Borock said almost three years ago that CGC won't work with Tracey Heft because of a dispute that arose back in 2001. Susan Cicconi no longer does pressing. Who does that leave? Matt Wilson? Wasn't there a recent thread in Comics General stating that Matt Wilson is having some issues lately with books submitted to him for work?

 

This is why I asked my question -- who else is CGC supposed to list among recommended providers? Assuming no objection to listing them at all, that is.

[Aman619]

the issue started over the ads, yes. I pointed out that it was surprising that nobody had commented on Matt advertising pressing here after pressing has been the topic du jour for so many months last year and before. I found it surprising noone commented om it.

 

In the ensuing posts, someone pointed out that in addition to the ads (which 99% of us agree is solely CGCs business) there was editorial content in the FAQs touting Matt's services. THAT is what the discussion centers on now. All the rest, the ads, their grading, etc etc is being added in but is NOT the issue at hand.

 

I feel CGC should list all services that request to be included in a list of such business equally and then the merits and demerits can be discussed in a thread here perhaps so that a collector can choose who to use. Similar to a comprehensive list of all comic dealers perhaps, as a service to CGC Boards members and collectors at large. Matt might get all the business anyway. Maybe he is the best after all. But the one voicing concern are speaking specifically to CGCs non-impartial thumbs up recommendation of ONE particular pressing company.

 

why is this so hard to understand? Its a minor thing! Pressing has won! There are ads ight in our face here now. So does it now follow that CGC officially chooses Matt as the Official Unofficial Pressing Company? Oh the humanity!

 

think as in a courtroom scene:

"Objection!

"OVERRULED."

"Exception!"

"NOTED."

 

case closed. IM JUST WAITING FOR CGC TO GIVE US OR THE LAISSON COMMITTEE AN ANSWER to this query... or get it on the agenda for the next phone call. . and then we will move onward together into the future.

 

caps lock problems...

[FFB]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

 

And since when does the existance of a consensus dictate how public perception is perceived or impacts upon a company? The larger the consensus on a particular point the more likely a policy change would be made, to be sure, but a discussion of a "lack" of a consensus - and I don't believe any significant evidence exists one way or the other (sure as heck can't determine consensus simply by the number of posts made on the topic) - is nothing more than a disappointing diversion from the substantive debate.

 

And I say again where is Matt Nelson even advertising on the CGC boards? As far as I can tell I have looked through every page of the site and can find no evidence that Matt is an advertiser. The only reference I saw to his company was that he is one of 46 entities through which one can submit a book for CGC grading.

 

This debate concerns perceived corporate favoritism towards a particular dealer/person. I say "perceived corporate" because this is the view that is conveyed to the general public but I truly doubt this is CGC's corporate position. Instead it reflects - and I know this to be true by first hand knowledge - the personal feelings of certain CGC employees. That personal feeling should be expressed privately in e-mails or phone conversations but not on the CGC website.

 

So, even if CGC believes that Matt Nelson is the only restoration professional in the field who is known to be using "safe" pressing techniques, CGC still can't recommend him? Says who? It's their site and they can do what they want. If part of their advertising deal with Matt is that he be listed on the FAQ page where CGC states that it does not perform pressing, what difference does that make? He's already listed as a Featured Sponsor for pressing services all over the site and on these boards (there is one of his ads, which states "The Best in Pressing," at the top of this screen as I type this, in fact). I have to think that any person who reads that FAQ (except you, apparently) will have seen Matt's pressing ads all over CGC's site long before they get to the FAQ page. Whether or not CGC wants to endorse him as a "safe" provider is up to them. Does this mean that they are not impartial toward restoration service providers? Of course it does. But if they are being partial toward someone because they believe that he is the only person doing things the right way, isn't that a good thing?

[mica]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

[esquirecomics]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

 

And since when does the existance of a consensus dictate how public perception is perceived or impacts upon a company? The larger the consensus on a particular point the more likely a policy change would be made, to be sure, but a discussion of a "lack" of a consensus - and I don't believe any significant evidence exists one way or the other (sure as heck can't determine consensus simply by the number of posts made on the topic) - is nothing more than a disappointing diversion from the substantive debate.

 

And I say again where is Matt Nelson even advertising on the CGC boards? As far as I can tell I have looked through every page of the site and can find no evidence that Matt is an advertiser. The only reference I saw to his company was that he is one of 46 entities through which one can submit a book for CGC grading.

 

This debate concerns perceived corporate favoritism towards a particular dealer/person. I say "perceived corporate" because this is the view that is conveyed to the general public but I truly doubt this is CGC's corporate position. Instead it reflects - and I know this to be true by first hand knowledge - the personal feelings of certain CGC employees. That personal feeling should be expressed privately in e-mails or phone conversations but not on the CGC website.

 

So, even if CGC believes that Matt Nelson is the only restoration professional in the field who is known to be using "safe" pressing techniques, CGC still can't recommend him? Says who? It's their site and they can do what they want. If part of their advertising deal with Matt is that he be listed on the FAQ page where CGC states that it does not perform pressing, what difference does that make? He's already listed as a Featured Sponsor for pressing services all over the site and on these boards (there is one of his ads, which states "The Best in Pressing," at the top of this screen as I type this, in fact). I have to think that any person who reads that FAQ (except you, apparently) will have seen Matt's pressing ads all over CGC's site long before they get to the FAQ page. Whether or not CGC wants to endorse him as a "safe" provider is up to them. Does this mean that they are not impartial toward restoration service providers? Of course it does. But if they are being partial toward someone because they believe that he is the only person doing things the right way, isn't that a good thing?

 

I've asked several times where he has an ad. No one has responded. I've looked repeatedly through the site. I still see none. Where is it?

 

There are many dealers who have been debated on these boards as having high prices or sloppy grading, and conversely the opposite. Is CGC highlighting any of those people in non-ad testimonials? No they are not.

 

Did CGC personally assess the quality of anyone else's restoration or pressing work? No they did not. Certain CGC staff have personal opinions that are being expressed through a corporate structure. I find it inappropriate under the circumstances. If you or others don't, so be it.

 

But quite a few number of people do have an issue with it, and this goes directly to perception and I personally do not understand why CGC as a corporation, and not based on the personal feelings of a limited number of its staff, would want a negative perception to exist. If CGC wants to disregard the expressed opinion, so be it as well. Time will tell if it ever has any impact. I know it won't get my advertising regardless of whether I feel it is beneficial to me because I don't agree with its expressed perceived biased policies and positions. So right there CGC just ensured it lost several thousand dollars worth of potential advertising business, which is what it costs to take out banner ads (I was sent the information for my consideration).

[nearmint]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

 

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception. Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus. That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

[nearmint]

And I say again where is Matt Nelson even advertising on the CGC boards? As far as I can tell I have looked through every page of the site and can find no evidence that Matt is an advertiser. The only reference I saw to his company was that he is one of 46 entities through which one can submit a book for CGC grading.

 

I can't escape Matt's ads. They seem to be on the top of every page of the boards. Where are you looking?

[drbanner]

I've asked several times where he has an ad. No one has responded. I've looked repeatedly through the site. I still see none. Where is it?

 

It's not on CGC's site (although maybe it will eventually be there as I think there's a placeholder for Featured Partners), it's right here at the top of the boards. Look at the banner ad at the top - it rotates between several "Featured Partners", including Matt's.

[OldGuy]

Maybe their business model is moving away from impartiality and towards building lasting mutually beneficial partnerships that drive revenue sources. Not a bad idea, most companies do that. Successful ones anyway.

 

From the CGC web site:

 

"CGC is the only expert, impartial, third-party certification service."

 

Either they are impartial or they are not and according to them they are.

 

Not to be rude Old Guy, but quoting that tenet of theirs is a preposterous argument against advertising deals!!

 

So, they can't impartially grade because they allow only Matt to be a featured partner for restoration advertising? The very line you quoted states "impartial GRADING service", plain and simple. They can impartially grade AND sell featured ad space for Pete's sake.

 

The Henny Penny drama gets tiresome.

 

WTF are you talking about? You're the one that said "Maybe their business model is moving away from impartiality". Did you not say that? Now read what I posted again. Get it?

 

You sure did read a lot into my post that wasn't there. You seeing things that aren't there is what is getting tiresome. Stop creating drama where there isn't any.