Ive lost ALL confidence in CGC - UPDATE on page 221

2 2

I was very disappointed in the lack of response by CGC in the Cole Shave

thread. I really felt that whole situation was left unresolved. I think it's apparent to CGC that these threads will eventually end anyway. That's a shame on us for letting it happen.

However, in this case, I feel some resolution. What more can they say ? If they get the book back the financials should be private anyway.

I was very disappointed in the lack of response by CGC in the Cole Shave

thread. I really felt that whole situation was left unresolved. I think it's apparent to CGC that these threads will eventually end anyway. That's a shame on us for letting it happen.

However, in this case, I feel some resolution. What more can they say ? If they get the book back the financials should be private anyway.

Wasn't it posted the owner has decided not to respond to CGC and keeping it for his collection?

Even so, how does CGC getting a 4th go at the book, acquiring and "retiring" it, resolve the reality it highlighted? At best that only pushes reality from view so assumed-pretenses can settle back in.

The book needs to be sent to PGX for final judgement, at this point CGC is just covering their . 3rd party certication is obviously the answer in this instance.

So trying to get caught up, I have read every page of this thread, I go on one little BlueJays home-opener trip away, and I am 10 plus pages behind.

I see namsir has joined mschmidt in continuing to try to attack anyone who keeps the thread on topic. Good works fella, cgc mod bonus checks are in the mail. Any other 10K+ CG posters, calling CGC employees by their first names, attacking innocent members, feel free to out your mod status as well.

Kudos to BlueHawaii and Dan for standing strong to the straw-man and ad-hominem and keeping CGC's feet to the fire on this completely unacceptable event.

I see namsir has joined mschmidt in continuing to try to attack anyone who keeps the thread on topic. Good works fella, cgc mod bonus checks are in the mail.

That namsir sounds like some CGC apologist.

As for 'keeping CGC's feet to the fire', I can't for the life of me figure out what your expectation is, especially after the founder and original chief grader of the company posted in the thread that subtle trimming has always been difficult to detect, and has never been flagged with complete accuracy.

you forgot " CGC apologist/mod"

oh, and Kudos to jbud73, all caught up now, I believe you were the one who wrote out the epic list of points the CGC attack dogs have no counter to (and mis-spelled worth, which doesnt matter, but is in the middle of a strong point).

you also deserve credit for fighting back against the propaganda machine. hat-tip sir!

you forgot " CGC apologist/mod"

You can be forgiven for being relatively new here.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3118704&fpart=1

you forgot " CGC apologist/mod"

 

You can be forgiven for being relatively new here.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3118704&fpart=1

I've been on these boards since 03, your assumptions are showing

there is nothing wrong with being a mod either, btw.

you forgot " CGC apologist/mod"

 

You can be forgiven for being relatively new here.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3118704&fpart=1

 

I've been on these boards since 03, your assumptions are showing

 

there is nothing wrong with being a mod either, btw.

Read the linked thread, then get back to me about being a mod and an apologist.

There are definitely folks on here who see this as no big deal, which surprises me.

But...they hearken back to the dark days of doctored books and rampant trimming, amateur color touch with sharpies, etc, and feel like CGC's mistakes are far outweighed by what they've brought to the collecting world--namely the ability to buy with confidence online and record sales.

I get all that.

I still like the idea of an external CGC audit to gauge what the variance is with resubs. I'm guessing it's in the 15%+ range, rather than the 1-2% range.

I don't think the frequent comment of, "If you're not happy with your grade, just resub it" would be so common if the variance was only 1-2%.

So who thinks that label color changes are no big deal?

And who thinks that the variance on CGC grades is 1-2%?

There are definitely folks on here who see this as no big deal, which surprises me.

 

But...they hearken back to the dark days of doctored books and rampant trimming, amateur color touch with sharpies, etc, and feel like CGC's mistakes are far outweighed by what they've brought to the collecting world--namely the ability to buy with confidence online and record sales.

 

I get all that.

 

I still like the idea of an external CGC audit to gauge what the variance is with resubs. I'm guessing it's in the 15%+ range, rather than the 1-2% range.

 

I don't think the frequent comment of, "If you're not happy with your grade, just resub it" would be so common if the variance was only 1-2%.

 

I don't think there's anyone in this thread who doesn't see this as a significant screw-up from CGC's side (aka "a big deal") ...

But, yes, I personally don't think a mistake like this somehow invalidates all the benefits that CGC have brought to this hobby :shrug:

As for the 15%+ range, I'd say you're way off there - look at the SS forum, for instance. That forum is basically comprised of people who crack & re-slab books over & over again and there's a new "how often do your SS books change grades"-thread every 6 months or so. None of those threads have ever displayed a level of variance anywhere near those 15% - nor have I experienced this myself with the 300-400 books I've personally cracked for SS. Roy's 1-2% variance seems spot on as far as I can tell.

Who here thinks Dan was treated unfairly, and possibly in a worst case scenario, fed a story because he has no possible recourse.

 

The frequency here is not as important as the overall concept. These statements are pretty easy to follow and extremely hard to refute IMO.

 

CGC missed trimming on the same book twice.

 

Trimming is a restoration tactic used to increase the technical grade of a book.

 

Submitters of trimmed books to CGC DO NOT disclose that a book has been trimmed when it is submitted.

 

Un-restored copies of books are worth more than restored copies in the same grade.

 

CGC has no way of determining how many trimmed books have been submitted using the technique that CGC missed on two occasions.

 

From these statements one could assert that CGC is not able to detect trimming (using the JIM 83 technique) unless it has prior information to know that trimming exists. The crux is that 99.99999% of the time CGC does not have the luxury of knowing that a book they have assigned a PLOD was previously in a Universal Blue label.

 

Another interesting piece of empirical evidence concerning the PLOD - Blue situation and really the only one that I can think of that demonstrates frequency (leading me to believe that there are more examples of this out there than I am comfortable with). Have a look at GPA for Marvel Keys (IMO it is not be accident that the subject of this book was a JIM 83) - look at how many restored copies there are in GPA and the Census compared to non-Key books of the same era - the % is staggering.

 

I would extrapolate this to mean that Marvel Keys are very susceptible to restoration tactics - this may not be new news to anyone. However, taken that in the context of the discussion in this thread, you could make a strong inference that there are significant numbers of Marvel keys in Blue Holders that are Trimmed.

 

I say this as someone who is currently shopping for a HG 9.0 or better DD1. Do I have pause, or reduced desire to plunk down the 7,000 + it will take to get a copy, I have to say the answer to that is yes I do.

different focus then my main point, but excellent points the company men should not achieve in burying.

 

But, yes, I personally don't think a mistake like this somehow invalidates all the benefits that CGC have brought to this hobby :shrug:

Please LINK or QUOTE where someone has made this claim.

There are definitely folks on here who see this as no big deal, which surprises me.

 

But...they hearken back to the dark days of doctored books and rampant trimming, amateur color touch with sharpies, etc, and feel like CGC's mistakes are far outweighed by what they've brought to the collecting world--namely the ability to buy with confidence online and record sales.

 

I get all that.

 

I still like the idea of an external CGC audit to gauge what the variance is with resubs. I'm guessing it's in the 15%+ range, rather than the 1-2% range.

 

I don't think the frequent comment of, "If you're not happy with your grade, just resub it" would be so common if the variance was only 1-2%.

 

 

I don't think there's anyone in this thread who doesn't see this as a significant screw-up from CGC's side (aka "a big deal") ...

 

But, yes, I personally don't think a mistake like this somehow invalidates all the benefits that CGC have brought to this hobby :shrug:

 

As for the 15%+ range, I'd say you're way off there - look at the SS forum, for instance. That forum is basically comprised of people who crack & re-slab books over & over again and there's a new "how often do your SS books change grades"-thread every 6 months or so. None of those threads have ever displayed a level of variance anywhere near those 15% - nor have I experienced this myself with the 300-400 books I've personally cracked for SS. Roy's 1-2% variance seems spot on as far as I can tell.

Most of the SS books in those threads are moderns, so the variance is pretty low.

Here's Matt Holly (RMI High Tech) submitting 6 older SS books and 4 of them took a hit.

The plural of anecdote isn't evidence, but I do think it's a whole different ball game with older books.

There are definitely folks on here who see this as no big deal, which surprises me.

 

But...they hearken back to the dark days of doctored books and rampant trimming, amateur color touch with sharpies, etc, and feel like CGC's mistakes are far outweighed by what they've brought to the collecting world--namely the ability to buy with confidence online and record sales.

 

I get all that.

 

I still like the idea of an external CGC audit to gauge what the variance is with resubs. I'm guessing it's in the 15%+ range, rather than the 1-2% range.

 

I don't think the frequent comment of, "If you're not happy with your grade, just resub it" would be so common if the variance was only 1-2%.

 

 

I don't think there's anyone in this thread who doesn't see this as a significant screw-up from CGC's side (aka "a big deal") ...

 

But, yes, I personally don't think a mistake like this somehow invalidates all the benefits that CGC have brought to this hobby :shrug:

 

As for the 15%+ range, I'd say you're way off there - look at the SS forum, for instance. That forum is basically comprised of people who crack & re-slab books over & over again and there's a new "how often do your SS books change grades"-thread every 6 months or so. None of those threads have ever displayed a level of variance anywhere near those 15% - nor have I experienced this myself with the 300-400 books I've personally cracked for SS. Roy's 1-2% variance seems spot on as far as I can tell.

 

Most of the SS books in those threads are moderns, so the variance is pretty low.

 

Here's Matt Holly (RMI High Tech) submitting 6 older SS books and 4 of them took a hit.

 

The plural of anecdote isn't evidence, but I do think it's a whole different ball game with older books.

 

 

Have you ever seen how Stan Lee handles books? I don't care if they are window bagged or not, I've heard horror stories of him handling and leaning on them roughly.

Just because a book is cracked out a 9.8 doesn't mean it will stay a 9.8. How the book is handled before, during, and after it is signed can knock it down.

There are definitely folks on here who see this as no big deal, which surprises me.

 

But...they hearken back to the dark days of doctored books and rampant trimming, amateur color touch with sharpies, etc, and feel like CGC's mistakes are far outweighed by what they've brought to the collecting world--namely the ability to buy with confidence online and record sales.

 

I get all that.

 

I still like the idea of an external CGC audit to gauge what the variance is with resubs. I'm guessing it's in the 15%+ range, rather than the 1-2% range.

 

I don't think the frequent comment of, "If you're not happy with your grade, just resub it" would be so common if the variance was only 1-2%.

 

 

I don't think there's anyone in this thread who doesn't see this as a significant screw-up from CGC's side (aka "a big deal") ...

 

But, yes, I personally don't think a mistake like this somehow invalidates all the benefits that CGC have brought to this hobby :shrug:

 

As for the 15%+ range, I'd say you're way off there - look at the SS forum, for instance. That forum is basically comprised of people who crack & re-slab books over & over again and there's a new "how often do your SS books change grades"-thread every 6 months or so. None of those threads have ever displayed a level of variance anywhere near those 15% - nor have I experienced this myself with the 300-400 books I've personally cracked for SS. Roy's 1-2% variance seems spot on as far as I can tell.

 

Most of the SS books in those threads are moderns, so the variance is pretty low.

 

Here's Matt Holly (RMI High Tech) submitting 6 older SS books and 4 of them took a hit.

 

The plural of anecdote isn't evidence, but I do think it's a whole different ball game with older books.

 

 

 

Have you ever seen how Stan Lee handles books? I don't care if they are window bagged or not, I've heard horror stories of him handling and leaning on them roughly.

 

Just because a book is cracked out a 9.8 doesn't mean it will stay a 9.8. How the book is handled before, during, and after it is signed can knock it down.

He sneezed on my AF 15 then wiped his nose with the pages. Does a Stan Lee sneeze increase the value?

I'll hang up and listen.

There are definitely folks on here who see this as no big deal, which surprises me.

 

But...they hearken back to the dark days of doctored books and rampant trimming, amateur color touch with sharpies, etc, and feel like CGC's mistakes are far outweighed by what they've brought to the collecting world--namely the ability to buy with confidence online and record sales.

 

I get all that.

 

I still like the idea of an external CGC audit to gauge what the variance is with resubs. I'm guessing it's in the 15%+ range, rather than the 1-2% range.

 

I don't think the frequent comment of, "If you're not happy with your grade, just resub it" would be so common if the variance was only 1-2%.

 

 

I don't think there's anyone in this thread who doesn't see this as a significant screw-up from CGC's side (aka "a big deal") ...

 

But, yes, I personally don't think a mistake like this somehow invalidates all the benefits that CGC have brought to this hobby :shrug:

 

As for the 15%+ range, I'd say you're way off there - look at the SS forum, for instance. That forum is basically comprised of people who crack & re-slab books over & over again and there's a new "how often do your SS books change grades"-thread every 6 months or so. None of those threads have ever displayed a level of variance anywhere near those 15% - nor have I experienced this myself with the 300-400 books I've personally cracked for SS. Roy's 1-2% variance seems spot on as far as I can tell.

I've done a fair number of CGC SS by cracking blue labels, certainly not as many books as some but a fair number. It would be easy enough to piece together my track record for grade changes from blue to yellow.

The problem with this is that adding a signature, no matter how carefully, can be said to potentially stress enough for a book to drop. However, if we could get some numbers on how many books have bumped after having signatures added (either blue to yellow or new sigs added to an existing yellow) with no pressing inbetween that would be of some use.