Mr.Mcknowitall

That "scam" has transformed the economic base of numismatics, empowered collectors...hobbyists and investors and dealers alike.......and neutralized any possible lackadaisical quality control tendencies. of TPGs. So there is that. Some don't like it. Insignificant to the collecting community it is not. At all.

PCGS thought it could do so,also. Fail......

I would dispute that. the underlying contamination is not known, nor is the effect upon the enclosed product, without examination.

It is not a matter of fairness. It is a matter of contamination, and known gassing, and known Copolymer extrusion grade thermoformed material, that can also exhibit the problem with heat application, sonic or not, and all the other aspects I have previously mentioned. The sealed product could also have developed a minute separation that allowed a contamination. Who knows. But, "normal" it is not. My opinion, of course. For an entity to then describe the problem as "normal" and not address the lack of customer confidence, is normal, these days in business, though.

Yes. The material. It is not "normal". There are many reasons. " Normal" is not one of them, unless you are referring to lack of manufacturing/assembly/contamination issues in quality control "normal". Then I would agree.

To make a 4PG coin comparison, if the comic is originally graded...using 9.8 as an example, a green would be an agreement that it is a 9.8. If it was "weak" (using your word) 9.8, it does not get a sticker. If it is better, in that it is superior to a 9.8 (under graded in the opinion of the 4PG), it gets a gold sticker. It certainly has not proved out to be a waste of money in the coin collecting hobby. The 4PG in that hobby has made a market that is here to stay.

4PGs are here to stay, and will eventually become prominent in every collecting venue. In the numismatic hobby, a green or gold sticker assures the majority of the coin community of the quality and originality of the piece. Any collector wants to feel his/her investment is protected. In the coin collecting community, the prominent 4PG has become the insurance agency and IRA adviser, to many. This 4PG has established a record and that record translates into higher returns at time of sale, and market preference. The 4PG simply made a market. It should be noted it does buy what it stickers....on a rolling need basis (I am oversimplifying....the point is it gives a person a bit more confidence in the 4PG). I am not anywhere near knowledgeable in the comics hobby. The one major difference I note, is that the comics 4PG is not examining the entire item. Yes, the "judgement"opinion is eye appeal, based on visible attributes. I get that. The coin 4PG has some advantage of accuracy, in that the coin does not have to be "opened" to render an eye appeal/quality opinion. Is that a big deal? I don't know. It seems to me that if the comic was bought in the holder, there was a level of reliance anyway by the buyer, without the buyer opening the comic. So, if it stays in the holder, then all things being equal, the comic 4PG is on equal ground with thr coin 4PG....they are both judging eye appeal and technical originality. An analogy (not perfect, I understand that: In a coin, was there a filler = was there a comic cover repair. In a coin, was there tooling = was the cover art enhanced. My conundrum is Newton Rings. I first thought a level of equality would be toning on coins. There is and are various levels and colors and shapes, etc. of toning, and there are lovers and haters, and some toned coins are highly desired. It is a market within a market. With Newton Rings, I see no such market enhancement. They should not be there. Period. Is the comics 4PG taking Newton Rings into account, when judging eye appeal? What if the comics 4PG grades the comic as deserving a gold sticker, and 1 month later there are Newton rings that are so hideous the cover could be used in a horror movie and win the Oscar? Will the 4PG say "Oh, newton Rings are natural". That is the hurdle i do not see being jumped at this time, until the comics community as a whole can solve the Newton Ring problem. To me, it is not solved, and it appears there is an effort to convince the collector it is solved, because, well, it is natural. That is a problem and is in need of attention, before any 4PG making a market in comics can become the preferred market. Just opinion, of course. I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I won't, for now. it would be boring.

If only it was that simple.

I think I have the vapors......I was OK until we left China. It is getting a bit difficult to follow. Now I know what my posts must look like to others. I am so sorry. Really.

I agree. 100%. Not a good business practice, at all. The client did not make the mistake. A TPG should be happy and enthusiastic to get a label error off the street.

Thank you.

I see. But, stating there is nothing more that can be done, does not sound like it is at no charge. Am I missing something, along the lines of which came firts, the chicken or the egg?

That would not be an acceptable solution, nor a fair one, nor a good public relations response, IMHO.

Could you clarify? What receipt would you send with the book, and why would they not have a record, or is this the book being sent back a second time, and in that case, would there not still be a record? Not that it matters, but there is a lot more that can be done. Quality Control improvement to the level that the problem no longer exists, and at that point re-holder at no cost for anything...shipping/new casket, etc.

Maybe the problem is a misunderstanding of guilty comic reading, vs. collector comic reading.

Either issue is possible, depends on moiture vapor transmission levels in teh original product, specific heat capacity, the Vicat softening point, the processing temperature, the sealing heat source property/timing, etc. Take for instance Barex 210. an Acerylonitrile-methyl Acrylate Copolymer. It is an extrusion grade, snd in simple terms, a Resin. It is subject to the same any/all conditions. Barex 218 is no different, basically. And, in finished thermoformed sheet (which BTW van be natural or blue tint), it is not the final step. It still has to go thru the heat seal process. So, who know. We also don't know what took the place of the Barex (I believe this is what was used originally), or the manufacturer. So there is that.....

To an extent. This phenomenon occurs in final coating/sealing of automobiles. They are almost perfect circles, a bluish/purple effect, becoming a red/orange spectrum, due to....you guessed it...curing time. It is well known in epoxy/terrazzo flooring. A solvent based maintenance coating will never ever work. Never. Chemical resistant urethanes are a whole other issue. The cause is the same though...the molecular (circular) structure of the coating. Then there is a separate issue of water based acrylics, acrylic/urethanes, etc. Not knowing the manufacturer's composition, speculation does not help, but, we do know that the blue/purplish-red/orange appearance is UV related and high light reflectivity intensifies the appearance. There are neutral wash/UV resistant cleaning methods for plasticized manufactured products, but without knowing content....percent of hardners/resins and raw product, etc., it is a chase your tail issue. The contamination could be mineral spirits, ethylene glycol (from SS piping in the cooling system in the factory)Toluene cleansing/wiping, isopropyl alcohol (98% or so cleaning regent) etc. We just don't know. I will stop for now, because I know I am getting boring.

This was an answer to Marwood, not skypink, to avoid confusion. Timing of post. Apologies.

I would agree, and it should be an "inform the customer" approach by the Entity. It is always a bit disappointing when that does not happen, and there is an appearance of nonchalance, on matter how unintentional.

They were very nice and courteous. I took an "....you might want to consider..."approach. They did not have an engineering contact within the organization, but left me with the impression that the comments would be passed on to the team working on this, and to the supplier. My impression was that the matter was being taken as serious.

I did. 3 months ago. CGC does not manufacture. It is the end user. I understood that when I called. I do know the source changed. I am still of the opinion hat the factory conditions of the new source is the issue, be it contamination/curing time and/or raw product blending/manufacturing. I would be very surprised if the end user has not already started the elimination process.

I have always enjoyed reading about the Newton Ring issue here. This is a Pretty good read, but: It doesn't, in my humble opinion. It is composition of the chemical makeup of the holder, the contamination of same, and the curing of same prior to use, and clean room control, via HVAC systems/filtration, and negative air pressure, all during manufacturing/final assembly and use. Ever paint an automobile, using various products, and coatings over underlying metals/sanded original coatings/body fillers? The effect appears, and one old timer method has been to let the combination of fillers/undercoats/final coats breathe, by moving the vehicle into the sunshine for a time everyday. The effect eventually reduces. So why does it occur on some and not others? I would think a little investigation, at the point of manufacture, would be helpful in determine air quality contamination via HVAC delivery systems, Cooling Tower interface with RTUs, negative air pressure conditions and moisture contaminants (water). If I want to soften an epoxy/pseudo epoxy/plasticized material, I am going to using MEK. I am not going to harden the material with it. I am not going to "clean" or limit impurities by moisture. Epoxies/plasticzed material continues to shed (cure). Another little known phenomena is that concrete floors continue to bleed up to 5 years. The surface has to be opened and allowed to breathe and a vapor barrier installed, before painting/epoxy coating or applying various sub-floor adhesives. The moisture content is easily determined. An oily type appearance is usually one of the first indications of contamination. This is a critical operation in factories involved in end use production of foods, window films/coatings/ epoxy/plasticized products. Just an opinion, of course. And yes, I understand a person is not going to expose to the sun a holder with a comic inside it. That is not the point. (Or should they) The various "reasons" I have read for the phenomenon may be contributing, but are not the reason. IMHO. Could the holders become contaminated after the fact, due to improper sealing? Sure. could sonic heat applications of the final product, that occurs after contamination has already taken place or curing has not occurred cause it? Sure. Wash your car. Rinse it. Let me know how many rainbow/oily colors you see. It will be a lot. if there is body filler, it will be prevalent, because there are impurities.

So, basically, you don't read certain comics, or have any interest in doing so. You are selective in what you like. You are not guilty.

I think that is a fairly accurate analysis of the original subject. There have been side steps, the main one being the definition of collector, and using the various opinions of what a collector is, in order to support a position one way or another that would lead to a synopsis similar to your post. That is still being worked out, though.