sfcityduck

That was FANTASTIC!

I remember that mine cost $2.95 minus my regular customer discount.

I'm pleased to say the early bidding is showing some respect for the high grade subscription variant! I'm not at all surprised, but I'm really pleased that the book is being recognized for what it is. https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/cartoon-character/walt-disney-s-comics-and-stories-137-dell-1952-cgc-nm-94-white-pages/a/7192-92221.s?ic2=myconsignmentspage-lotlinks-12202013&tab=MyConsignment-112816

That's a great cover I don't recall seeing before!

That is a beauty!

I'll raise your 328 (but, not for long, it's up at Heritage right now):

I'll see your 379:

I remember Bedrock's hurricane-caused troubles and how that led him to sell his MC 1. I don't know how folks live in Hurricane zones these days. But, I guess those folks might feel the same way about living in a city vulnerable to Earthquakes. I've only felt one in 30 years in SF, though. And it seems like powerful Hurricanes are an increasing risk (thanks climate change). I remember reading that Verzyl and some other dealers pulled up stakes and moved out of SoCal after there had been a riot which led to a neighbor shop being burned to the ground. They must have been worried about the risk. That seems a little precious now, as no one is worrying about riot caused arson any more in So Cal. So maybe you can overdo the reaction to store threatening risks. But, from where I sit, this hurricane thing seems like it will be a constant risk that you have to address one way or another.

The context that's missing for this post is that WPBooks is a huge EC fan and one of his prize possessions is a nice Thuunda 1. So I don't think he's poo pooing being a comic fan, being a Frazetta fan, or even getting signed material (I believe WP has paid extra for signed books, for example), but instead he is just reeling at the price bonus for a signed cover which is not even signed by the artist who did the cover. I think that's reasonable, but irrelevant. The only question is whether you're happy with your collecting goal. We all know that the bottom could always fall out for anything we buy. So if someday you end up having to take a loss, that's ok so long as the experience you had is worth the money you lose. The same equation we use anytime we go to a concert, play, or on a vacation: Is the experience worth it?

Fortunately, my initial investment is 60 cents.

My experience is that delays from estimated TAT are NOT the norm. But, this is my first Mag Mod submission. As far as I know, Hurricane Michael did not hit Sarasota. Certainly, CGC has not posted that its service was disrupted by Hurricane Michael. I have seen no indication that CGC has been impacted by hurricanes this year.

That info is not on their present website. You are linking to an article about 2012 fees. If that once was their position, it apparently is not any longer. And, again, why are you making arguments (they get to deduct two or three days off for each con) that CGC doesn't make? CGC is a business which is best served by being as straight as possible with its clients.

That's good information and I am happy to be corrected. As I've stated several times, I don't want to be unfair to CGC. Can you link to where that is on the website? I've not seen that before. That info is not on the page where they give the TAT estimates: https://www.cgccomics.com/submit/services-fees/ Any idea what cons qualify for Friday is not a business day status?

Now you're crossing the line from poor reading comprehension to just plain dishonesty. I AM complaining about my Mag Mod submission. I am NOT complaining about my Value submission. Citing my comments about the Mag Mod submission to try to evidence that I am complaining about the Value submission is just dishonest or dumb. I don't think you are dumb. You really do protest too much. The facts I've relayed about my Value submission are limited to information actually conveyed to me by CGC. I suspect that you don't work for CGC, because I think they are much more astute in how they handle customer feedback than the comments you are making. But, if that's the case, then why are you spending so much time making up arguments to support CGC that I've never seen them float?

I thought the same thing. To me, the 242 looks like a 9.8. The others don't. Those books also look pressed, whether naturally or unnaturally - they are not newstand fresh anymore. Perhaps that just because of the weight of the scanner lid. But, many of my books, even though bagged and boarded, still have that newsstand fresh quality to the spine and don't have the corner defects I see on that 244. Which begs the question: Do I need to press out the newsstand fresh spine to get a 9.8? I don't trust myself to accurately predict a 9.8, so I'm going to pre-screen. Will a CGC screen just tell me if its a 9.8 or will it tell me it can be pressed to a 9.8? And what does a CCS screen tell you? I think I want to know whether a book is a 9.8 before I slab, but I'd love to know whether a book can be pressed to a 9.8 if its not already.

CGC states that the "Turnarounds are approximate and not guaranteed." So I understand they are estimates which CGC does not guarantee will be met. But providing them more than implies that they are to be used as guidance as to what to expect. There are no disclaimers on the CGC website that CGC experiences a normal seasonal lengthening of TAT after the Baltimore and NYC Cons. So if CGC normally expects that problem or if, as you assert, the TAT's are not intended to give customers a guide of what to expect in the future, then CGC needs to either (1) state that "current TAT bear no relationship to future TAT" or (2) post TAT that constitute CGC's best estimate of what they think the future TAT will be (something that should be easy for them to do). If they don't do that, they risk causing customers to feel justifiably misled and annoyed.

You protest too much. First, I have not complained once about my value submission. All I have done is relayed the information communicated to me by CGC. So, your comment that I am "anxious" is entirely unfounded. Second, I understood what I was doing when I submitted under Value. I did four submissions at the SF Con. Standard, Value, Fast Track Value, and Magazine Modern. The Standard and Fast Track Value submissions are completed, and up thread I gave CGC "A" (exceeded TAT) and "B" (met TAT) grades on those. Third, the stated turnaround times when I submitted back on June 10 where CCS = 45 business days and CGC = 57 business days. That's significantly different that the TAT information that CGC is communicating to its customers today.

Called CGC to make sure I wasn't designating FedEx, and was told that my Mag Mod is in the second stage of encapsulation, then will need to go grading quality control, before shipping. So I think I'm looking at mid-next week. Was also told my value submissions made on June 10 are likely looking at a mid-December completion. That's a 6 month TAT for a normal Value press and grade submission. My takeaway? CGC and CCS are under staffed. They need to hire more employees and/or buy more equipment.

I am posting my experience to provide guidance to folks wanting to know how long the process is actually taking. Thus, I am disclosing the number of days from con submission to "Rec-CCS Required" so people know how long it takes for a book to get from a con to CGC. BUT, as I disclose, I am not factoring those days into my TAT calculation. No one is the enemy here. What we've go here are customers and a business which is offering estimated TATs. Customers are sharing information regarding the accuracy of the TAT estimates to other customers, and feedback to CGC, on these boards. I assume that any good business wants to give accurate information to customers. So think the posts on this board are helpful to customers and to the business.

To me, a reader is an easily replaceable book that is not worth slabbing. This would include the vast majority of Bronze to modern books in Fine and down. I would include the vast majority of Silver books in VG and down. It would include a whole heck of a lot of funny animal, Disney, classics illo., western, tv/movie, funny people, strip reprint, cartoon, etc. Golden books in VG down. But, there are certainly some books, especially in the GA, which are not a "reader" in any condition.

The TAT I am giving is that provided by CGC when the books were submitted. CGC provides that TAT information knowing that customers will rely upon it. Indeed, CGC expects and intend customers to rely upon it, otherwise it would not be provided. CGC does note that TAT are "approximate and not guaranteed," which is fair enough. But, I expect that the TAT estimate they gave me in June would reflect CGC's experience as to what they expected -- and CGC knows what cons they are going to. The TAT that CGC provided is based on "business days," a term that is universally understood to mean Monday-Friday, excluding holidays. CGC does not offer any definition which contradicts this universally understood definition. The holidays in this time period were the Fourth of July, and Memorial Day. Nowhere has CGC ever claimed or disclosed that the days before and after cons are not "business days." CGC does not close before and after cons to my knowledge. Nowhere have I ever seen a disclosure that "on-site grading days" are not "business days." And, again, CGC knows its staffing commitments for cons when it makes TAT estimates. You are wrong in asserting that I am including the days "between submission and Received in the calculation." I am calculating TAT based on the day that CGC first officially received the books, not the day that I submitted the books to CGC at the con. Thus, I am giving CGC the benefit of not including the shipping time from the date of my con drop off to the date the books arrived at CGC's facillities in my TAT calculation. I do not see any disclosure by CGC of what it uses as the start day for its TAT calculation which would contradict my calculation. If you can point me to something which contradicts my calculation, let me know as I want to be fair to CGC. (I also stop my calculation on the day of "shipped safe" and do not factor in return shipping time.)

On October 8, I noted that CCS was +17 over estimate after "at CCS" and CGC was -29 under estimate after "Received." But, collectively the time since "Rec-CCS Required" was 81 business days on an 80 day CCS/CGC TAT estimate. We're now at 90 business days from "Rec-CCS Required" on an 80 day CCS/CGC TAT estimate and have not yet made it to shipped safe. That seems a bit excessive. CCS and CGC are the same company. If they are slow in one facet, I expect them to make it up in other facets. If you think I'm being unfair in how I calculate TAT, let me know.

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit: CCS = 45 b days; CGC = 57 b days (Total 102 b days or 20+ weeks) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13) "Received" - 9/7/2018 (Bus. days since "at CCS" = 47) This was +2 of TAT estimate (+15 if you start at Rec-CCS Req'd) TOTAL BUSINESS DAYS ELAPSED SINCE CON DROP OFF AS OF THIS POST = 93 b days (or 18+ weeks)

My Mag Mod (Marvel Graphic Novel 4) has been sitting on graded since 10/8. That's 10 business days now. This delay seems a bit excessive.

A valid point, but we all know that Incredibles is a "Watchmening" of the FF. and the Iron Giant's moral center is encapsulated in this shot: Close up of comic: So I think both Iron Giant and Incredibles are comic book movies.