Gaard

I got skunked this month.

The sad part is that the person who did it is either blind or dishonest. They didn't say a word ... which is really par for the course for this kind of stuff that happens over there. Round of applause for our once beloved CGC condoning dishonesty in their employees. Prediction: CGC will contact you and offer some kind of bribe resolution, with the condition that you never speak of this again.

Originally posted in another thread: Just curious... We see stories like this many, many times. We've been told by CGC on many, many occasions (not to mention that official announcement) that this 'no redirects' rule is for our own good - I believe the exact wording is always something like "...to protect the security of your returning collectibles and they cannot be removed or amended." I was wondering ... before this rule went into effect, had any member had a problem (or know of someone who had a problem) with the security of their packages that this 'no redirects' rule would've prevented?

Does anyone have an idea what the purpose is for those "Inspected by..." stamps? Accountability? Ease people's minds? To better the QC process? They don't appear to be accomplishing any of those.

Choose your adjective: 1) inept 2) incompetent 3) indifferent 4) all of the above

@KaileeS CSNo idea how long you've been working at CGC, but in case you didn't know, this is a *very* common occurrence. CGC might want to reevaluate the process they use to use those credits.

The funny thing is the vast majority of these errors are so dang easy to prevent. All it would take is for the QC people to actually do their stinking job. It almost seems like CGC/Blackstone has determined that better QC would take too big of a bite out of their bottom line. But we all know that can't be.

Only ever used USPS Priority for sending books to CGC. Dozens of submissions. Never a problem.

<---- that's what CGC is doing when you try to send their screwups back to them. You think they're in any hurry to fix this 'problem'?

Just curious... We see stories like this many, many times. We've been told by CGC on many, many occasions (not to mention that official announcement) that this 'no redirects' rule is for our own good - I believe the exact wording is always something like "...to protect the security of your returning collectibles and they cannot be removed or amended." I was wondering ... before this rule went into effect, had any member had a problem (or know of someone who had a problem) with the security of their packages that this 'no redirects' rule would've prevented?

"Rest assured..."

Myself, I wouldn't say likely. It very well may be a slight variance between books. It also could be a variance between graders...no matter what CGC says, this is a distinct possibility.

I'm not really sure what sending it back will do. I would think sending them pictures would be sufficient They can't really fix that, all they can do is try to hide it ... which really wouldn't surprise me if they did. If they look at it/regrade it and still give it a 9.8 even with that tear, I'm sitting on a goldmine. Sorry this happened to you. Please keep us updated.

At least this tells us where CGC's priorities lie.

Let me guess, out of the kindness of their heart, they refunded the WT cost.

Auctions with reserves are gross.

Box came a few days ago. Opened it this morning.

"Remove side A. Insert side B" <------ I miss those days (kinda)

Could be. But what about the other 1,000s of slabs that come back with the same smudges?

Yep. Sadly, I don't have much confidence in the grades that CGC gives out.

looks disgusting

Apparently, he was successful, if it was a completed sale.

What makes you think that?

@Miketimus_Prime "One of my books has a hairline crack" @NickiO CS "These are considered normal and acceptable."