wombat

@Qalyar This is your fault.

I sent him a note and said I think he included the wrong picture. I have not heard back.

What in the hell? https://www.ebay.com/itm/VAMPIRELLA-5-CGC-9-4-FRAZETTA-COVER-WARREN-1970-WHITE-PAGES-/354023363063?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276

I have now officially seen it all. Description says CGC 9.4. Listed at $273 starting bid.

There is no such thing as a bad copy of Eerie 23.

Not all mistakes are created equal. Even a very low error rate on something can erode confidence in a product depending on what that product is. Does anyone care if .2% of staplers have an issue? Probably not. You just get a replacement stapler. But for some of the things we are seeing they could have thousands of dollars of impact in a single instance. They could also have a big knock on impact where the mistake gets passed down from seller to buyer multiple times.

You literally just pulled some numbers out of your butt and then you want to have a discussion on how those numbers stack up. I guess that is one way to go.

Possibly another option, although I still say try here first.

The seller/submitters actions are completely separate from CGC incompetence. I don't think anyone is remotely considering "giving a pass" to people knowingly doing bad things. But we rely on CGC to catch these things weather intentional or not.

Random LCS pick up.

Try selling a few books on the boards. See how it works out. Not really any risk and minimal effort required to get started.

8 in this small example. I wouldn't bet a lot of money this isn't happening on a regular basis.

Do you believe this person selling these books really thinks they are indeed 1st print from 2011? No idea. Whoever they got them from could have incorrectly sold them as first prints. Or they could have been correctly identified as reprints in the forms and CGC just messed up. We have examples of that.

I curious to know if CGC would consider banning this submitter for fraudulent behavior such as this. There is a pretty big assumption being made here.

Is a mechanical error the same as incompetence?

What about the submitter? I’m willing to bet there’s an option for a facsimile variant when submitting books like this. I think that’s where the chain starts… To be perfectly honest I don't care at all about the submitter. I care about CGC's process and how people are supposed to have confidence in what they do. If they can't figure out they are grading a reprint and not an original comic no matter what the form says that is extremely concerning.

So would this be the fault of the grader or somewhere else in the process? @The Lions Den Any thoughts?

While I agree the mistake/intentional issue might have originated with the person submitting the book, this is literally what we pay CGC for. Its like submitting a book with obvious resto and CGC missing it. Once CGC slabs the book it is 100% on them. And let's face it, this isn't some elaborate scheme. Its a darn reprint.

That seems to be Blackstones theory. How’s that working out though? They need to hire competent people and have good processes in place. They don't need to only hire comic collectors.

See....I don’t think pedestrians get it. They may understand the book is fragile, but not in the same way a comic collector does. I don't know. This isn't rocket surgery. If your employer stresses how important something is and how fragile something is clearly enough anyone should be able to understand it.

I would still like a response if in fact every single book goes through quality control or just a sample.