VintageComics

Absolutely. You're welcome.

You're stating this as a fact when in fact, it's entirely speculation at this point. Everyone is just guessing right now,

At least 3 separate boardies are ragging on CGC for how 'problematic' their QC is. It's completely natural for someone to ask "how problematic is too problematic?" If you don't like the discussion, just don't respond to it.

What is everyone's psychotic obsession with surgical control of every conversation? The discussion was a natural tangent from a relevant post in this thread so I'll ask the question here.

That's a great analogy and similar to the "sweet spots" analogy I've been giving. They hit the "sweet spots" of a solid food with the addictive, sugary taste that attracts the taste buds, but without offering the substance needed to nourish someone and eventually, the health of the patient suffers. You can only fake it for so long.

What facts do you base this belief on? Um. Tough bananas if you don't like people asking questions?

CGC will have records for every book they've graded and how many have needed to be returned for QC errors. How many people complain publicly on one forum is likely not representative of the ratio at all. That's all I meant. But the public question I posed to everyone still stands: What percentage of error is acceptable for a large volume business? It's a great question, it's a discussion we've had here before and one where many people involved in large volume businesses have discussed in the past. I just can't remember what conclusion of allowable percentage of errors we'd arrived at in the past.

I didn't take offense. I just didn't get the joke.

You stated this: I took that as you saying "they haven't made a lot of mistakes lately that we know of here" and I replied with this: My reply means "it doesn't matter whether the CGC forums complain a little or a lot, it's not representative of the actual numbers. Only CGC knows for sure." I'm not sure what you're disagreeing or taking objection with?

Apples and Oranges. The cost of QC perfection at NASA is astronomical but protects lives. The cost of QC perfection at CGC is managing some hourly wage employees properly. You've already been locked out of the movie forum for trolling and you keep trolling me to get a response from me. I'm going to point out why I don't respond, again: I stated that if even NASA, a company with the highest QC standards in any industry can't provide a perfect product then how can anyone expect CGC QC to provide a perfect product. So I asked how many QC problems are acceptable? You replied with something entirely irrelevant and illogical, explaining that NASA has tighter QC than CGC. Duh, no Shizzle Sherlock. Back to ignoring you.

In similar vein as the scammer from the NW who was printing CGC labels earlier this year, this is another good reason to only buy from a reputable seller.

Fair, but once I saw the top staple I just stopped looking.

What is established is that it wasn't just the custom label change loophole that some thought may have been the case as the NM #98 didn't get a custom label. The NM #98 is obviously chronological because it's in a Generation 2 label 1st and a Generation 3 label 2nd.

The spines are different. If you look at the top staple on the NM #98s, the artwork relative to the top staple is different. This is the smoking gun, not the right edge.

We're living in a time when 1+1 = 5. No wonder we can't have world peace. How can anyone say they're not the same books when they're TOTALLY DIFFERENT COPIES? I don't recall a consensus by anyone that one was more likley than the other. Where did you read that? A smashed corner on an outer case would almost certainly cause CGC to inspect the book for damage and notice the grade of the book didn't match the label. How many people complain about quality control on this forum is meaningless. The only people that know the percentages are CGC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone wants a perfect product but even in NASA a perfect product doesn't exist, so how many quality control problems per 1 million is considered OK?

CGC has graded over 10 MILLION comics. You can have 10,000 errors and it's still only a tiny percentage. That means with 10,000 mistakes you'd have an error margin of 0.001%

Not sure that you’re aware that the graders notes show that when the book was reslabbed the previous serial number was kept, the date of grade remained the same and Mark Jewelers was added to the label. Given the apparent grade of the book that’s now in the slab it’s obvious the reholdering/custom label process needs revamping. When I worked in his factory grandpa called it fast and sloppy. OK, now I understand. My use of the word "regraded" rather than reholdered was confusing, and I understand that. I used that word because I was conflating two separate things into one word. CGC obviously REHOLDERED the book (I've been aware that the serial number stayed the same from the 1st page), but every reholder IS SUPPOSED to have a grader inspect and eye the book for quality control before it leaves CGC, to make sure the grade on the label matches the book. At least that's how I understood the process in the past. That's why I used the word 'regraded' but in hindsight I shouldn't have. I should have just said reholdered and re-inspected. Apologies. I still maintain that keeping the same serial number shouldn't prevent the book from being inspected because books DO get damaged from shipping, handling, slabbing, etc and I believe that CGC still inspects outgoing books (even just reholders) to make sure they match the grade. -------------------------------- So it seems that for whatever reason, this inferior book was slipped through QC and the theories so far seem to be i) outer well may have been successfully opened in a way to avoid detection and not throw any flags upon reholder and either the book or label were swapped out ii) outer well may have been resealed in a way to avoid detection and not throw any flags upon reholder and either the book or label were swapped out iii) the resubmission for a new type of label with a swapped book or label managed to get around QC checks and balances because that specific process may be different than a straight reholder iii) inside job (highly unlikely in my books) Does that sum it up?

Ironically, I knew the comic book store owner that many if not MOST of the actors used to by their comics from to study their roles and he would have extensive conversations with them about their character's roles. That store is gone and around the same time the quality of Marvel movies dropped. Not sure if that old store owner influenced the movies, but it sure is a coincidence.

Sorry, what specifically didn't happen that I'm missing? I'm not following you.

EVERY industry has fraud. You make it sound like it's rampant when in fact, the majority of books are likely sound and this is a new loophole that someone has exploited. Let's wait and see how CGC responds rather than just throw the entire kindergarten class out with the bathwater.

So I was correct but a little late to the game and you two needed to pipe up anyway? I know my posts are like catnip to you but relax.

There either HAS to be a 3rd party resealing going on or CGC is not quality controlling their books before they go out (or both), which from what I understand they have always done. If the book was subbed for reholder with a damaged slab, that would pretty much GUARANTEE the book would be scrutinized for damage to make sure the grade still matched, because either a) the damaged holder would throw a red flag that the grade was tampered with or b) the damaged holder would throw a red flag that the book may have been damaged when the slab was damaged Either way, an inspection of the book should ensue based on what I know about the process.

I think the cost / time to add a feature like this would be prohibitive. Would you be ready to pay an extra $50-100 (or whatever it would cost) for each slab to add this process? I think a lot of people would complain.

My opinion is a scammer couldn’t risk trying to seal a raw MJ ASM 252 himself/herself before sliding into an inner well before replacing the original comic in the empty 9.8 holder. Using one that CGC HAD actually sealed into the inner well would look to even a discriminating eye to be untampered with when received back at CGC for reholdering and the custom label. You're saying that swapping out an inferior book, but still sealed in the inner well into a tampered outer well may reduce CGC's ability to catch the swapped out book because they would assume that since the inner well is not tampered with the book is sound, but I disagree. CGC has enough experience with outer wells being tampered with that they SHOULD double check the grade whether inner OR outer wells were tampered with. That's just an automatic flag in my books, and I've been involved in a few investigations of this nature where we found swapped books in wells. What is more likely is that either the seller has managed to fake the outer well or reseal the outer well significantly enough to avoid raising flags...but the REALLY confusing part is CGC regrading this book as a 9.8 with all that wear. That is inexplicable to me and I have a hard time chalking it up to CGC bad quality control. That's one fugly 9.8 in that new holder.

In my mind there is. We only know any facts about the CGC taken photo of the custom label book. Need to know more info about the original sale to state with any certainty. I didn’t read all the instagram comments to see if any more info about the original sale was provided. Now, If they aren’t the same book I’d agree something ain’t right. I watched the video closely to see all the information about the earlier photo. The two issues of #252 are totally different books.