Ive lost ALL confidence in CGC - UPDATE on page 221

2 2

Anybody who tells you different has skin in the game.

Anyone who says CGC's grades are looser now obviously has skin in the game. How else would you know they are looser? It's plain from your comments that you have been taking advantage of CGC's services. And if they are giving you looser grades there is obviously some shenanigans going on on your part. What have you done to grease the wheels and get looser grades?

 

(Isn't it amazing how all of that irrelevant wildly_fanciful_statement could be gleaned from one stupid post? )

 

Here is my counter overblown, hyperbolic, pompous windbag statement - Anyone who thinks that having "skin in the game" negates your comments obviously has either 1) more "skin in the game" than you, or 2) an inability to have a reasonable adult conversation. Yep, I just called the Telepath a bunch of mean names. But I have "skin in the game" so they shouldn't mean anything to him.

When dogmatism meets a rational argument, there is a tendency to try to delegitimize the argument. Ultimately, it is a pointless argument because dogmatic positions are inherently irrational and can't be changed by rational argument. Richard's approach won't work either.

COVER TRIMMED

 

CGC UNIVERSAL GRADE

 

 

Graded 2/10/2014. No Grader Notes available. Why would there not be Grader's notes ?

.... doesn't look trimmed to me..... maybe a clerical error..... why would someone trim THAT book.....? ..... cool book by the way. GOD BLESS.....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Much to shock and horror, it come back at 9.2 with a "Qualified" label: "cover detached from top staple". Needless to say I had a "WTF" moment as soon as I saw that, knowing darn good and well this book did not have a detached staple when I sent it in. I talked to CGC about it, trying to figure out what could have happened, but what can you do as they pretty much said "We just grade 'em as we see 'em". All I can figure is something happened when I packed the book, or something happened during shipping or maybe just handling the book one more time at CGC caused that staple to "pop".

I am sure when you called, they would assure you that everyone in the building looked at it when it was unpacked, and Rest Assured, knowing it was definitely your fault.

But in the 9.0+ grades, I see looseness and tightness, even within books of the same submission. It all comes down to what bothers the grader.

 

Absolutely correct.

Anybody who tells you different has skin in the game.

Anyone who says CGC's grades are looser now obviously has skin in the game. How else would you know they are looser? It's plain from your comments that you have been taking advantage of CGC's services. And if they are giving you looser grades there is obviously some shenanigans going on on your part. What have you done to grease the wheels and get looser grades?

 

(Isn't it amazing how all of that irrelevant wildly_fanciful_statement could be gleaned from one stupid post? )

 

Here is my counter overblown, hyperbolic, pompous windbag statement - Anyone who thinks that having "skin in the game" negates your comments obviously has either 1) more "skin in the game" than you, or 2) an inability to have a reasonable adult conversation. Yep, I just called the Telepath a bunch of mean names. But I have "skin in the game" so they shouldn't mean anything to him.

 

When dogmatism meets a rational argument, there is a tendency to try to delegitimize the argument. Ultimately, it is a pointless argument because dogmatic positions are inherently irrational and can't be changed by rational argument. Richard's approach won't work either.

I know. But it was a heck of a lot of fun typing it (thumbs u

"I would not trade for any amount of money the unlikely and wonderful relationships I've built up over the years in my pursuing the hobby, whenever and wherever and however."

Love this quote!

"I would not trade for any amount of money the unlikely and wonderful relationships I've built up over the years in my pursuing the hobby, whenever and wherever and however."

 

Love this quote!

 

I would trade two or three for some magic beans.

"I would not trade for any amount of money the unlikely and wonderful relationships I've built up over the years in my pursuing the hobby, whenever and wherever and however."

 

Love this quote!

 

I would trade two or three for some magic beans.

I would trade you for non-magic beans

"I would not trade for any amount of money the unlikely and wonderful relationships I've built up over the years in my pursuing the hobby, whenever and wherever and however."

 

Love this quote!

 

I would trade two or three for some magic beans.

 

I would trade you for non-magic beans

"I would not trade for any amount of money the unlikely and wonderful relationships I've built up over the years in my pursuing the hobby, whenever and wherever and however."

 

Love this quote!

 

I would trade two or three for some magic beans.

 

I would trade you for non-magic beans

You'd be getting your monies worth.

I don't think you will find anyone here who would argue that CGC isn't the best 3rd party grading service, I mean who is their competition?

 

This is exactly what I've been asking. This discussion between you and I hasn't been about who is better than CGC because there isn't.

 

If you don't use CGC (or any established, credible 3rd party service) then what are your options?

 

You are either relying on someone else or yourself. Those are your options.

 

In other words, unless you have someone spectacular in your back pocket (like Fishler) there are no other viable options.

 

 

How much would one have to (theoretically) pay Fishler per hour for resto detection on books he isn't selling you?

 

 

This sounds like a question for kav!

 

 

On a side note.... I'd like to hear what Zaid has to say about this particular incident. I don't see him post much anymore.

Someone did bring this thread to my attention and I immediately contacted CGC to ensure it was being timely addressed, which it was. CGC leadership posted a status update which, at least from what I could tell, negated any further need for me to do anything.

As always, best way to bring anything to my attention and follow-up is via PM or e-mail at Mark@MarkZaid.com.

I don't think you will find anyone here who would argue that CGC isn't the best 3rd party grading service, I mean who is their competition?

 

This is exactly what I've been asking. This discussion between you and I hasn't been about who is better than CGC because there isn't.

 

If you don't use CGC (or any established, credible 3rd party service) then what are your options?

 

You are either relying on someone else or yourself. Those are your options.

 

In other words, unless you have someone spectacular in your back pocket (like Fishler) there are no other viable options.

 

 

How much would one have to (theoretically) pay Fishler per hour for resto detection on books he isn't selling you?

 

 

This sounds like a question for kav!

 

 

On a side note.... I'd like to hear what Zaid has to say about this particular incident. I don't see him post much anymore.

 

Someone did bring this thread to my attention and I immediately contacted CGC to ensure it was being timely addressed, which it was. CGC leadership posted a status update which, at least from what I could tell, negated any further need for me to do anything.

 

As always, best way to bring anything to my attention and follow-up is via PM or e-mail at Mark@MarkZaid.com. [/quote

 

 

 

 

 

I dont know if I would call their post a response as more of just denial. My biggest problem with this whole thing is they called a universal book blue instead of taking 15 minutes to have a Grade really look at it without any bias they just said its not trimmed. Knowing CGC can just throw restorations wherever they want without proof is really sad and the fact they cant admit it is even worse as it wont be fixed by denial.

 

I dont know if I would call their post a response as more of just denial. My biggest problem with this whole thing is they called a universal book blue instead of taking 15 minutes to have a Grade really look at it without any bias they just said its not trimmed. Knowing CGC can just throw restorations wherever they want without proof is really sad and the fact they cant admit it is even worse as it wont be fixed by denial.

I'm trying to interpret what you are trying to say.

'My biggest problem with this whole thing is they called a universal book blue'

A universal book is always blue.

The reason they didn't require another look is Spider-Dan sent the book back for review when it was purple. At that time all their graders had a look at it and decided it was restored. They admitted a mistake with subsequently assigning a blue label.

Then why is the blue label still showing up on the certification verification website? If anything when one types in the number it should come up restored if a mistake was made.

The reason they didn't require another look is Spider-Dan sent the book back for review when it was purple. At that time all their graders had a look at it and decided it was restored. They admitted a mistake with subsequently assigning a blue label.

What's confusing is why a "Review" should carry more weight than the normal grading system? A "review" isn't blind, is it? They're knowingly reviewing their system's 'blind' opinion to determine if a mistake was made.

That's what I don't get. There's a lot of faith put in the grading system because it's blind, no fore-knowledge involved, grade 'only what's in front of you', and all that.

So why does a "Review" trump 2-out-of-3 regular (blind) system processings?

So why does a "Review" trump 2-out-of-3 regular (blind) system processings?

Why? Because REST ASSURED, "everyone in the building" looked at it, even the pizza delivery guy, and the plumber fixing the toilet in the back, and they all agree. Even guys who man CGC booths, and arent mods agree. It's 100% for-sure, super-duper, licky-sticky-stamped-it, double-dog guaranteed trimmed.

(now just let us buy it back and bury it in the back yard)

Wouldn't a "Review" only be valid for something verifiable, things that can be determined one way or the other?

For matters of "opinion", something that can't be proven, the best they could do is send it back through their system again, blind. See what conclusion comes out. The new owner did that.

i agree 100%, just being sarcastic about the BS story he was forced to swallow.

Imagine if they had to actually list who graded the book, full notes of all defects by which to award the grade, and the defect-for-a-grade criteria...........for each grader AND the finalizer, on every book.

Now that would be some high quality accountability, consistency, and verifiable results. But it would take a ton of time, cost a lot of money, lower their egregious margins, and create for some awkward.... accountability.

I've followed this thread from the very begining and the issue from the previous threads and it has definitely opened my naive eyes to the frailty and reality of the certification program. I used to consider cgc's certification as good as gold and for many it probably still is. But more and more I've begun to see an erosion in the quality and now the integrity of cgc's grading and restoration system. The doubt that has crept in has kept me from sending in any older comics for doubt of their whimsical trim detection and moderns due to their inconsistency. I'm sick of buying any HG 9.8 or higher issue and seeing the degrees of leniency granted. The last 15 slabs purchased from comiclink, comicconnect, pedigree and especially heritage have been an exercise in frustration. Color breaking spine ticks, ink rub, chipped corners, and/or ncb bends do not belong in those grades. And I don't think those are from scs. And from my own submissions of 75 moderns I've received a few 9.8's for something that should have been a 9.4 at best and a bunch that didn't pass that looked better than the ones that did.

I know and understand these inconsistencies generate a cottage industry for many on here and many more are beholden to this community, but my experiences with my purchases and this thread has exposed the reality that not only is the certification just an opinion but one that can vary depending on the human factor, the mood, the day, the level of staffing, the season, the lighting, is clearly not based upon any mathematically calculated system, and I challange that it is loosely based on any system let alone OSPG.

As such I will be taking some of the advice offered on here in that I will no longer be supporting cgc or those that profit from cgc services by removing myself from much of the marketplace that exists for cgc. While I may not be a major submitter and there are certainly higher rollers than me, I will no longer be spending six figures annually on acquisitions of HG CGC comics. While this won't really impact cgc, it will mean there will be one less high bidder to compete against in auctions, 1 less high bidder driving up prices, and one less buyer of any cgc comic on eBay or anywhere else. I'll also be reducing my modern purchases much to the dismay of my LCS. When I told them they acted like I was breaking up with them, it was painful and awkward. I will likely only purchase comics that I can see in hand both raw and slabbed so probably only at cons and LCS. But gone are the days of trusting in buying a comic remotely based on the cgc grade and high res scan that I can only see online. I will be buying the comic and not the grade. And as for those that I sell I will be considering liquidating the cgc comics at their raw prices or cracking them out and selling as raw but I no longer wish to contribute to the problem of poor quality and inconsistent grading. I wish cgc goodluck in improving their grading quality, consistency, and trim detection but not holding my breath.

The last 15 slabs purchased from comiclink, comicconnect, pedigree and especially heritage have been an exercise in frustration. Color breaking spine ticks, ink rub, chipped corners, and/or ncb bends do not belong in those grades. And I don't think those are from scs. And from my own submissions of 75 moderns I've received a few 9.8's for something that should have been a 9.4 at best and a bunch that didn't pass that looked better than the ones that did.

What do you base your opinions on?

I often get into in person discussions about a slabbed book and hear comments like "That's not a 9.4" or "That's not a 9.8" and invariable most people expect a 9.4 or a 9.8 book to be absolutely flawless but they are not and never have been from 1999 up until now.

I will agree that there are loose and tight examples of books that fall to either extreme (and you're going to have that with 3 MIL graded books) but for the most part, there is a reasoning or a rationale as to why a book is in a 9.4 or a 9.8 holder and it's extremely rare in my experience to see a 9.4 in a 9.8 holder.

9.6 'tweener' possibly, but not a dead 9.4.

Do you have any scans of books that you feel are over graded 9.8's?