Stuk

Remember the awesome anticipation and rush of not knowing your CGC grades, getting that CGC box in the mail, and then unboxing them for the big reveal(s)? What a rush! Now . . . it's more like dread anticipation. First, you'll see your grade and either be elated or disappointed or "whatever," and then immediately, the dread . . . as you inspect the spine side for stress and ticks and slowly turn the book on its side to see if it is bowed in the inner well. (Not to mention the added dread of going back and looking at all your earlier 43 and 44 books over the past two years. You already know the "grades"; but now you have to check the reality.)

I cannot tell from the search string, but those numbers, ideally, should exclude 1) vintage (for the most part), 2) books that are below 9.4 (maybe? because the look or grade is barely if at all affected?), 3) books that are "newly" slabbed but still before mid 2023 (?), and 4) any books, modern or otherwise, that simply are not bowed (there apparently are some). Not knocking the point, just suggesting a refinement.

This is great info to see. Thanks so much. Can anyone take a crack at explaining why almost every month there is either a massive (like 50k) dip or rise? The drop from 2/2024 to 3/2024 makes obvious sense (reholder-gate) but what explains 8/2023 to 9/2023 and 10/2023 to 11/2023 etc.? As for as the impact of bend-gate, I think we have to wait a month. Remember that this data doesn't track submissions, it tracks census addition, so the census data in any month is for submissions from a month or two earlier. The numbers for September to October 2024 -- showing submissions in July and August when bend-gate started to really become known-- should be interesting.

Well, they also admitted to changing the materials they were using, so you could try that argument--"I want the proper sized inner wells that don't cause the bowing." Of course, I am still waiting until we know for sure that this was in fact the problem and that it is now corrected by the larger wells.

I hate to say it, but precisely! If there is a change in materials then surely there was a problem (a reason for the change), and if there was a problem, then can I send back all my bowed ones, gratis, for the correct sized well (with a free press thrown in)? It's about 50 books for me. How many for you all?

Precisely. This is the inverse (or not?) of having one's cake and eating it, too.

Precisely.

Doesn't the view that "if it was human error then they would have fixed it" depend on CGC actually seeing it as something that needs fixing? (Or is that what you are saying?) DaveFSU just posted about getting back 40+ books from a bowing ME re-submission and said the books were returned unchanged because, per CS, the bowing was normal. CGC's only statement (?) didn't refer to this as a "problem," did it? But if they really don't (even privately) see this as a problem then that would be the ultimate hubris. And this is what brings me to Iconic1s 's post about all of this fitting snugly within CGC's new business model—the "CGC" label is what is valuable, not the book. This may be true, but could it really be intentional or has CGC just wound up here by happenstance, inertia, etc.? It's hard to believe, but if it is intentional then the idea that they don't see bowing as a problem would be consistent with it.

Two vintage (GA) back today--flat as they should be! I don't have any pending, but if -- IF -- the moderns start coming back like this, then half the problem would be solved (the other half being the thousands of books already slabbed with bowing).

I am just asking (or has this already been asked?), because, well, this is a discussion forum: If someone recently paid a few hundred $$ for a Premium or Elite Membership with the expectation of submitting enough books for grading to make those fees worthwhile, but now is holding off on submitting because the books are coming back bent and seemingly damaged by the CGC slab/process, well, then what? The easier answers seem to be: (i) you're out of luck, chump, and you just lost some money, or (ii) when CGC finally addresses this issue in a fair and forthright manner including, above all, fixing the problem (!), it will honorably give everyone a, say, 6-month or 9-month or 1-year membership add-on/benefits (as opposed to making us re-up with more cash for no fault of our own). Are there other possible answers? Is this issue too small to matter? I suppose in the grand scheme of things, getting all my already bent 43 and 44 slabs fixed would be more important than the membership issue, but the membership issue is a real thing, right? It is paid for with a certain reasonable expectation, which expectation is being denied shattered by no fault of the customer. Just asking.

I'm guessing that they will simply regrade it blind and give it whatever that grader thinks it should be as it is presented at that time (which is what they are supposed to do, by the way), and that means without regard to how or when those flaws came to be (including how or whether CGC's slabs are the cause). Minthunter did a video on resubmission grade drops and how common grade dops now are. I think he links at least partially to stricter grading after reholder-gate, but I cannot recall if he also links it to bend-gate (so many "gates" in so little time), but the timing cannot be ignored, can it? One thing you can consider is having CGC/CCS press it after the new signature. If the book is handled safely, then this might clean up the new bends (but not color breaks) and give the book its best chance at holding its original grade (at least until/if the new holder does it in, again).

Regarding COMICLINK (and maybe ComicConnect too?), unless I am mistaken, they have stopped showing back cover images (what the h--? So we are expected to bid $$$ without being able to see the back cover, but that's a different topic) and their zoom function has always been very substandard. So that combination coupled with a strict no returns policy is bad news given bend-gate. At least Heritage and MCS and even Ebay have useful zoom capabilities. For example, because of this, I recently passed on a modern 9.8 SigSeries on Ebay because, when I zoomed in, I clearly saw a bend worthy of a post in these pages. I do think MCS is generally quite reputable. I'd not be surprised to see them start to deal with this in one way or another.

A bit off topic, but it is true. "Recessed staples," according to CGC's own grading guidelines, max out at 9.6.

LOL. I just posted my person theory again, and then saw your post and yeah, you may be right. Except, maybe, maybe, it is multiple people, not one person, multiple people who are trained poorly and are haphazardly doing this? The tedium. Ever work on an assembly line or in a factor? "I worked there for a week once. I luckily got the boot." Of course, I agree that if CGC is aware of the problem -- whether person, process or product -- then why are books still coming back bowed? Either they (i) don't know the source of the problem, (ii) can't figure out how to fix it (this would be very bad, to keep taking money and providing broken results) or (iii) don't care to fix it for any reason (so short sighted and harmful to them, that I find this hard to believe).

Yes, I've been saying the same. I wrote earlier (a few times) that it may, may, be human error, some person who runs the machine who is not doing it right so most of the books slabbed when that person is working and not paying attention or doing it right are coming out poorly encased, while others are not. Might explain why there is no clear pattern.

As has been mentioned sporadically here, big sellers/auction houses will increasingly have to deal with unhappy customers seeking to return their fresh-from-CGC modern 9.8s (whose bowed inner well-caused flaws that were not detectible from sales photos). The auction houses are selling thousands of products that are really not merchantable or fit for their particular purpose. Ultimately, and perhaps more speedily, this should get CGCs attention compared to individual, larger volume submitters, no? That said, I am certain that CGC at least monthly (possibly quarterly) crunches its numbers to compare to the prior quarter or month and will start to see trends indicating not that there is problem -- they already know that-- but how big it is and how it may be affecting their $. (The CFO will get involved. Watch out.) And that is the rub and what is surely causing so much of the anger and frustration (beyond the actual bowing, of course). It's not that there is a problem (stuff happens), but that it is known, has been known for half a year and seemingly nothing is being done (not a process change, not a public statement or acknowledgement, etc.).

I'm in the same boat. This is like my 5th post ever ALL of them related to this issue because, as the man said, it has hit me rather hard and I want to raise my voice and I hope CGC fixes this. So many of my childhood books (and others) sent to CGC over the past year are sitting bowed in their holders. No one is shilling here, as far as a I can tell. CGC has a lot of pros as everyone knows, but none of it matters if (if) the case is harming the books.

They will not have to back out of it. There is no one to press them (multiple puns), no media outlet that would question them. They will not have to explain themselves. They can just quietly make the adjustment on a going forward basis and take their chances with those who have already been affected. I just hope that EITHER (i) they make the adjustment OR (ii) it becomes clear that the bend is "normal" or, and above all, that the bend doesn't in fact, short term or long, harm the book (this last bit is the hardest to accept as it seems utterly counter-intuitive).

The problem, such as it is, dates at least to mid 2023. Many (most) of my "modern" books slabbed by CGC in 2023 are not flat. Not all, and therefore, this is not definitive. What is definitive for me is that exactly 0 of my earlier slabbed books any such issues. From this forum, I don't think I'm alone. I don't think this is caused by a response to reholder scam. Maybe that accentuated what was already happening.

Not "any" business. If they lose enough--if enough people stop buying (and selling!) the affected slabs--then they'll have to act. But there is a middle ground, of course--they can quietly fix it without admission of there ever having been a problem. Not perfect, but probably manageable. (Then, CGC can go back to not addressing its other major issues other than the truly poor case, such as conflicts of interest, etc. All of that said, I also think CGC, if they correct these things, is super valuable. But it kind of all starts with the case not harming the books.)

I said the same thing and have been doing the same thing. I's now my norm, too. I simply pass over any book slabbed in the past year or so. I am focusing on raw books (from trusted sellers), stocking up on them for when grading stabilizes again (when CGC fixes its problems, PSA enters the conversation, etc.). I love CBCS slabs (but not the values), so I can still send purely PC books to them.

The "problem" exists on many pre 2024/pre reholder scam slabs, of this I am certain (and you can be, too, just look at your 2023 slabs). That would suggest that it is NOT the result of CGC trying to fix one problem (make slabs more secure) while causing another.

Has it been established that this problem is only post-reholder scam? I (and I think others) have numerous slabs from 2023 that have this "problem." Of course, trying to determine the cause is important but only if it helps solve the problem, in my view. If we're looking at heat sealing post reholder scam as the cause, then I think we (actually, it should be CGC) should be barking up a different, earlier tree. None of my 2022 and earlier slabs have this issue. Hm? (I still think the inconsistency of it suggests human error.)

"It's not science, Sonny, it's strictly business."

Is it just me? I find myself perusing various offerings and upcoming auctions (HA, ComicConnect, and so on), and CGC slabs I would typically Watch to potentially bid on, I am simply passing up if the Cert. begins 43... or 44...Who needs the hassle? (Not so with raw, CBCS and older CGC slabs.) And the odd part is -- I have no qualms, anxiety or second-guessing about this. It seems so obvious. It's surprisingly easy decision. Why buy what appears to be a broken product (is it not broken? somehow?); why submit books for grading and pay for a broken service (is it not broken?)? It turns out that I CAN wait until this is resolved. Maybe this will trickle.