sfcityduck

Here's a link to the earlier discussion. One page earlier Buttock made it clear he had the inside scoop, so you could ask him.

DA has the Allentown, right?

There was discussion of the Action 1, but I don't recall if it was identified as the Larson. May have been.

There was discussion of this on a thread a couple of weeks to a month ago. I was speculating this D27 was the Church copy, but that was based on the info on your site. So it's possible that speculation is now being passed on as something more.

I would not expect an old school collector to get a book graded unless they plan to sell it. And the old school guys I know aren't selling yet, even though they are in the late 60s or 70s. It is a passion.

Thanks for posting. It does not appear that Seifort and BC are getting paid by Heritage for this article (or they are not acknowledging it) as with that prior Promise piece that broke the story, but it still is just a puff piece without substance or accurate facts on the back story. If you want to know the info that matters here it is: The Promise Collection includes Batman 1-3, Detective 33, 38, 39, 43-46, New York World's Fair 1, Special Edition 1, and Whiz 2, 3, 7 and 9. Disclosed page quality ranges from cream to off-white and grades range from 4.0 to 7.0 (although we know that there is also a Batman 9 3.0).

Same here with Value and Mag Moderns.

It is directly related. If I pay Fast Track, and the book gets bumped up to Standard because CGC thinks the value is higher than I do, then I pay more for slower service. Do you really think that is the way it should be? I don't.

CGC's policy applies to all eras.

Begging the question: Should it be given the statements made by CGC about tier priority. The reality appears at odds with the goal.

The value of the book does not come from the encapsulation, it comes from the professional confirmation of the grade. DA's Mile High Action 1 gets higher offers than the CGC graded Action 1s because the highly respected graders who have seen it say it grades out as the best copy. If DA puts it in a fortress or other form of encapsulation that is not going to change its value. If CGC says the graders who have seen it are right, that is not going to change its value - it will merely confirm it. Unfortunately, most of us lack the credibility of the folks who have seen DA's Action 1 and so we use CGC to confirm the grades on our books. What gives the book value is the confidence in the grade, not the encapsulation and there are many instances where that confidence is achieved without CGC acting as the intermediary. Insurance companies do not establish value by grading services, but by expert appraisals of the grade and the market value in that grade.

Wrong. The value you place on the book is for both replacement value AND tier pricing. As to replacement value, it is for replacement value while at CGC and while being shipped BACK to you. So using the value of the comic once CGC grades it out is not only intellectually honest (e.g. it is a 9.8 before it is put into the holder and after if it was graded a 9.8) but conforms to the reality of the value of the comic when CGC is holding it during grading, encapsulation, quality control, and shipment.

Thanks for the info. I don't see that anywhere else on their site. But here's the question: If Standard is the more "time sensitive tier," is it right that Modern Fast Track with a value limit of $400 and a price of $37 (93 days) a faster service than Standard at value limit of $1,000 and a price of $75 (101 days)?

Value - went to Grading/Encapsulation/Imaging as soon as they created the category around 7/8, still there. Magazine Modern - went to Grading/Encapsulation/Imaging also when created on or about 7/8, still there. 12 days at least. So, for me, Grading/Encapsulation/Imaging is just another parking lot.

Heritage once indicated to me that they get preferential rates from CGC, and they sure seem like they have gotten some incredibly promising results out of CGC, so I've wondered if CGC actually states in writing that submissions are treated anonymously. Can you point me to the statement by CGC on that? Thanks!

Is that an actual promise CGC has made?

Now that is a cool button format!

A swing and a miss!

Back again! LoL! I like your persistence. Can I hire you to deal with my mole/vole problem out back?

The problem could be that CGC is still using old ideas from the guy who is the competition. New leadership might bring new ideas.

I do understand how queues work. CGC has explained it clearly. The question is whether the queues are working they way they have explained or whether a fixable problem has caused them to become broken. The answer is pretty obvious when you match up what CGC has said about how they should work with what CGC says about how they actually are working. Standard is now slower than Modern fast track, for example, despite being twice the price. So if you've got a 9.8 Usagi Yojimbo 1 you can expect to pay more to wait longer than if you have a 9.4. That is not how they say it should work.

I agree with you that a grading company should strive to be consistent (although they will fail on occassion). That is what they are selling. But that a grading company should strive to be consistent with its own grading standards does not mean that grading is objective, especially when there are other grading companies and dealers and collectors etc. who adhere to different standards. As I noted above, no one has sent grading standards down from the heavens on stone tablets. Heck, CGC hasn't even published a comprehensive and detailed stone tablet. I hope that they have an internal publication they use for training. I suspect that CGC might find itself getting some management consultation under the new ownership that will help iron out some of the internal problems that CGC has been having in keeping up with demand.

No, I'm not. They state:

I don't disagree with some of your practical points, and of course ensuring quality training would be paramount. But, CGC is on a hiring binge, so they must think they can PROPERLY train people to adhere to their house standards. I assume they are right, as that happens in many industries.

CGC does not state that submission volume is a factor in the "first-in, first-out" policy. Submission volume should not matter if they have adequate balancing of their staffng.