Originally Posted By: Moondog
 Originally Posted By: conditionfreak
Does CGC GUARANTEE their grading and restoration check (including trimming)?

Well, no.

Do they do their best deligence as any good company does? Yes.

As to micro-trimming, is it like the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The answer being yes. But, if a book is trimmed and no one can say for certain that it was or wasn't, does it matter?

Can a book be made at the factory that is not exactly the same as the book in front of it and behind it, on the assembly line. um, probably.

CGC does well, but they are humans. Sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. No one can tell me that they haven't bought a book that later turned out to not be what they thought they were buying. It is part of the hobby and part of life in general.

I think that CGC SHOULD be proactive in resolving this Ewert issue, more than they currently are. But, in the big scheme of things. Some of us are the fire hydrants on this one and that is that. Move on. If a book that you have is not easily detectable as having been trimmed, you ain't that bad off. If I buy a bar of gold and it weighs .09 less than the other guys bar of gold, am I going to be too upset if we paid the same for them? Nope.

Are not ya'll the ones who keep saying "buy what you like" and you will be happy with it, and not for investment? Or did I get that message wrong?

Just stirring the pot a little \:\)


cfreak:

Your post brings to the fore what worries me about this entire fiasco/scandal: because trimming (let's not call it micro-trimming please - trimming is trimming) may be too difficult to detect easily and quickly (read: cheaply enough) let's try to diminish its importance. Yes Gary, trimming is trimming but detecting micro trimming compared to whole edge trimming is apples and oranges. CGC might want to minimize their blunder, or their ability to detect it, but I dont see them minimizing trimming itself.

I believe that CGC is taking this approach to the problem. By saying that trimming is hard to detect, and that a book you have MAY be trimmed, they are in effect saying that trimming isn't as big a problem that many of us are making it out to be.
Well you are free to interpret it how you want to, I dont read that much into it.

They've already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it. Let's not add trimming to this list.
Do you think pressing isn't resto because CGC said so, or because like most here you formed your own opinion based on what you read? Can you detect pressing Gary? Would you label a book as pressed if you "thought it was"? Who would? Trimming is not pressing because you can point out aspects of a book that show a book to be trimmed, but there are a multitude of reasons why a book "might" appear to be trimmed or pressed but in actuality might not be either. And that to me is the rub,trimming can be isolated, where as detecting pressing is more speculative due to a variety of reasons.

In an earlier post Buttock said:

 Quote:
I have huge issues with this whole situation, primarily re: CGCs ability or inability to reliably detect trimming.

Most of the focus has been on whether or not they can detect it, and how hard it is to detect it. But what about mis-detection - i.e. calling a book trimmed when it isn't?

This push to have them all evaluated is operating on the assumption that it can (a) be detected with some degree of certainty, and (b) that this detection is valid.

Neither of those two points have been established, and I don't see them being established. Until they are, every Ewert book remains suspect regardless of what CGC says. Any "clearance" by CGC is a false security blanket.


Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

I agree, we do need more from CGC, but I would ask you who can detect all forms of manipulation 100% of the time? Nobody. Till then people can choose CGC if they want to, or Susan or Matt or whoever. But to throw out CGC with the bathwater does not make sense to me if you really do believe certification can be a good thing.



Sorry for all the blue type, I didnt know how else to address all you brought up.

You brought up a lot!




_________________________
Time you enjoyed wasting is not wasted time - John Lennon