seanfingh

Just completed a flawless transaction with Bruce, and he was even kind enough to include some freebies!! Forum legend and great human being. --S.

'Tis true, except with rare explainable exceptions to the norm that don't apply in this case... for example, I think what the link that I've attached below would suggest is that if the PQ isn't the best, CGC might not just automatically set the overall grade of the book equal to the grade of the highest graded cover... another example where the overall grade of the book assigned by CGC might be lower than the highest graded cover is if the interior pages are white / supple enough, but they have other defects that would cause the overall grade of the book to drop below that of the highest graded cover... of course neither of these examples would appear to apply in this case... http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=812&lotIdNo=3002 I would say that you are right on both accounts. Lt tan or worse PQ and the grade caps will apply (a la BUTM's multiple cover Hulk that got an 8.5). As it relates to interior defects, it is more accurate to say that CGC assigns a grade to the entire book as though each individual cover were the only cover, and the highest one goes on the label. Both good clarifying points.

Well, you would be wrong. Long standing CGC policy puts the numerical score of the highest graded cover on the slab. It is the same for double covers triple covers and Octuple covers. No shenanigans. Consistent application of existing policy.

Sorry this happened, Jake.

Indeed, I can see a new thread already: "Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Comic Verification Authority" bgraves (Insert your own snarky parody of the CGC/CI announcement replacing "CI" with "CVA", mention the former CGC employees associated with it, streamling the process, providing synergy across services, and how excited everyone is about this great new opportunity.) I am surprised, Mike, that they haven't already unveiled their "Star System" for comics just like they have for coins.

Why would one of the greatest military commanders we've had in the past 20 years ruin his reputation over a piece of p*ssy? The business and professional world is rife with companies who make incredibly poor decisions and it all starts over the idea that they can *get away with it*. I have no intention of "trusting" a company. I trust people. I trust myself. I don't "trust" a company to do the right thing. Ever. I engage in an equitable transaction that will mutually benefit both myself and the company. When that transaction becomes more in the favor of the company than myself, I start rethinking my financial choices. I can't even imagine trusting CGC (or any other business for that matter) to do the right thing merely because they have cultivated a positive reputation in the marketplace. It's an apples to oranges comparison. CGC's business model is already built up around trust - trust that they'll grade your books impartially, that they won't swap the books while they're in CGC's possession, that they won't intentionally damage your books, that they won't give preferential treatment to high-volume submitters, etc. You either trust CGC to run their business according to those tenets or you don't, but there's nothing in the purchase of CI by CGC's parent company that changes the CGC business model. So until CGC says otherwise, I'm going to assume that books will continue to enter the grading room in a mylar with a barcode and the CGC graders will continue to remain oblivious as to the owner of said books. Up until this point, CGC had no business interests in grading books impartially, as they had no means to upsell the customer a service that increased the value of the book. Preferential treatment to high volume submitters? Intentionally damaging books? These things have no reason to be done because there is nothing to gain from it. I send my book in, I pay the fee, I get the book back. It was very simple. Now, there is plenty to gain for CGC. Even $10 services multipled by thousands of customers increases the bottom line significantly enough that it could easily skew someone into doing the "wrong" thing, which is why it's not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to apples, because the ethical issues that have arisen. That's what I was pointing out. There will be plenty of people who chose to trust CGC because they don't think that a company will put dollars in front of customers given the choice. That's fine, people are entitled to think that way. As I've said before at the beginning of the thread - this decision is about perception, not whether or not it will actually do anything questionable to it's customer's books. Regardless of what transpires - whether you wear a tinfoil hat or not - the bottom line is that CGC's decision to do this has or will potentially create a negative public perception of the company to it's customers. It sounds like you are positing that CGC will (or could) excessively tighten up grading to effectively give books a lower grade than the book deserves on the theory that the recipient will then CPR the book, and they will get re-sub fees and now, pressing fees. How is that risk increased by the absorption of CI? If we were to believe that CGC was motivated by that type of "business model" wouldn't they be doing it already?

Want! +1

- What did it look like before pressing? - In my opinion, it shouldn't merit a 9.8 Most wouldn't. It was from the press, which I took directly from the presser and submitted to CGC. So in line with what you're saying, I have to wonder, is CGC going to see recessed staples across the entire range of comics, as NOT a defect, simply because pressing can cause it? Wouldn't that be the safe business model? Obviously it raises some questions but... Can you imagine them pressing a book, recessing the staples, and then downgrading for it? Disastrous. You still do not know what happened to the book from the time it left your hands to the time it was placed within the CGC holder. It would have gone through multiple hands, multiple procedures and travelled many miles. Not saying it didn't happen during pressing (I have had damage happen during a pressing job to books - comics are fragile and personally, if I was a presser I'd never guarantee that something can't happen) but it isn't conclusive unless you were the one that put the book in the press and removed it. Yeah, Chuck you big liar. You have no idea. Haven't you heard of staple fairies? They bang on comic staples with their tiny fairy tinker hammers until they become recessed. Plus it might be that Paul Litch rams his groin into staples until they recess. Unless you have seen him not do this, you can't be certain that it isn't Litch hump recess syndrome.

That might be Bree and, if so, he is a she.

:bats eyes:

Well then they are all dorks.

If you pointed them out what more needed done? I had to do it to Richie about 17 times before he finally started checking the Census.

Without diminishing the awesomeness of that book:

Don't get excited, Garglesmell, you'll pee your robe.

I saw your jib. I'm good at seeing through clothes. And smiles. It's hard to hide that large of a bulge. Pardon me while I blush. How did it get cut? *spoon* dentata

Modern tier cuts off at anything published less than 3 weeks ago. 2009- 3 weeks ago is Economy. Everything else requires walkthrough service. Booyah. Pay me.

I'd be in the market for the HoH #1

+1 Any recent info? I had an Economy invoice from 6/27 get graded on Tuesday.

You have Chaykin, Lee and Roy Thomas. Mine is just celebs. Yours is really nice!

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ? What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort' Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point. They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen? I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic. Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution. I think he should be taken off the list, but how many more times is this allowed to happen before it stops? What if he tried to make right a year from now..or two years from now? Should all be forgiven and forgotten? See bolded part above. There have been a number of situations where people have come back years later to try and get themselves shored up. One of them Joker-Fish, got taken off the PL and then HOS'd after recidivism reared its ugly head. I don't purport to have all the answers or a foolproof system. I just have a belief that, until the person gets HOS'd, that person should have the ability to get removed by making the aggrieved parties whole. Or trying to.

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ? What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort' Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point. They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen? I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic. Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution.

A couple I have never had pics of:

How much remorse is necessary? How repentant must the offender be? Where should the power of the aggrieved party end? If a reasonable attempt to make amends is made, what more can be asked of that person? Obviously the offending party f-ed up. Unless it is HOS time, there has to be a way to get off the PL. It is not fair to say, "I don't want your restitution, you must continue to wear the Scarlet Letter."

Where are the Goon 3rd Eye Variants??? Whargarrrrbbbllll!!!