-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
-
Posts
6,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
CGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Everything posted by newshane
-
CGC oops......
newshane replied to avidcollector80's topic in Comic Book Grading and Restoration Issues
Just another CGC up. -
Giving up on CGC Quality Control
newshane replied to dbcn's topic in Comic Book Grading and Restoration Issues
I visited their competitor's website for the first time today. That is an absolute hot mess of a slab. SCARY! Who on earth is working in encapsulation? Quality control? -
A car is considered vintage at 25 years. I know that a mechanical device is different than a book, so it may be comparing apples to oranges, but still... Almost any book published in the 20th century would be considered "vintage" if you went by that definition. Part of the problem is the "modern age" label attached to books which are up to 30 years old now. They need to use more precise language. Of course, they probably stick with the ambiguity of it to protect them in case people raise hades about it. Not a stand-up move, however. Very frustrating. The most infuriating thing is the company's silence on the matter. They've went out of their ways to cut corners. The bean counters are out in full force. First, it started with the lack of proper packing materials. Now it seems like they are saving coin by skipping the microchamber paper. They are practically a monopoly, so they can get away with it. I miss the old days when they cared about people's collectibles. Now it's all about the bottom line. A few cents here. A few cents there.
-
Isn't this false advertising? The CGC states on their website that all books receive microchamber paper, but they clearly do not. False advertising is an actionable civil claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Grounds for a lawsuit? 1. The ads of the opposing party were false or misleading. 2. The ads deceived, or had the capacity to deceive consumers. 3. The deception had a material effect on purchasing decisions.
-
Dang. Just now seeing this! I would have been there!