Get Marwood & I

Snap!

I think @Ghostzapper deserves praise for bringing this example to the forum, and for conducting himself in a considered, non-combative, and dignified manner throughout. It was a stressful life event that prompted the submission in the first instance, and CGC have added to that stress by acting in an unprofessional, evasive way. Mistakes will happen in a high pressure, high volume, human-led environment. Whilst discarding a book in error is very unfortunate, as is allowing a book that is, say, upside down in a slab to pass QC, it is understandable and can be forgiven if the response to it is appropriate. I wish you well John, and hope that the recompense CGC offer - for the loss of value and associated stress - is appropriate and to your satisfaction.

That's nice. The panel top right looks much better without an inked outline.

I like this cover. It looks like they're dancing at a bug disco

Maybe it isn't, maybe it is. If they choose not to answer a simple procedural question in a public thread, and not respond to chasers, people will naturally speculate and then draw their own conclusions. Like I said earlier, Newshane, read into it what you will.

I'm sure all the packing suggestions are welcome, as are the suggestions being made to help CGC better investigate the contents of a box, but these are the salient points of Ghostzapper's position:

What is refusing to show the submitter the unboxing video called?

Indeed, but I suppose that amounts to the same thing to the OP - CGC lost it. I'm going to duck out of this now. It's Ghostzapper's thread, and I wouldn't want to jeopardise his negotiations with CGC by speculating. I was hoping just to add a supporting voice to his cause, which on the face of it, has a very simple path to resolution. I wish him well.

The Orstralians

That depends on their definition of 'vintage' I suppose. You could just as easily argue that a holder covered in Newton Rings isn't 'crystal clear'. This is the only reference I can find on their website: https://www.cgccomics.com/about/help-center-faqs/cgc-grading/cgc-labels-and-holders/ Is it necessary to get my CGC-certified books reholdered after a certain number of years? No. The CGC holder is designed for long-term preservation and provides superior protection for your books. A properly handled and stored CGC-certified book can last for generations. The CGC holder is made from high-quality materials and is entirely archival-safe. The inner well that holds books, for example, is comprised of PETG, a plastic that is well known to be archival-safe and extremely clear. This PETG well is placed inside of a durable outer case that is sonically welded to ensure a secure, tamper-evident seal. For added long-term preservation, CGC inserts *MicroChamber® paper into vintage books prior to encapsulation. This MicroChamber paper helps to neutralize the natural acidity of some books by using a specialized, proprietary "zeolite" that was designed to absorb and hold the molecules known to damage archival collections. That is why MicroChamber paper is used by many of the world's most respected museums and institutions, including the Smithsonian Institution, the Getty Conservation Institute, the Louvre, the British Museum and the Northeast Document Conservation Center. To further protect books from the natural off-gassing that releases acidic molecules over time, CGC has a secure sonic seal that is NOT airtight so that acidic molecules are not trapped inside the holder.

3p T&P

The only Miller one and six I've ever seen on a comic (but not on a magazine)

The only T&P I've ever seen on a Harvey

And just look at that: A positive enhancement!

I know I've posted it before, several times, but I just love this one: Knowing that most collectors would recoil in horror adds to the fun of having it

Indeed - all stamps fascinate me, even the non-UK ones. I love collecting the Milano ones that turn up every now and again, usually in bulk: Distribution marks add to a comic, I feel. When I was Spidey completisming, I used to pass T&Ps over for clean US copies. It would be the other way around now. A stamp-free comic hasn't lived!

Stop mucking about and post some proper Flys, KirbyJack! So is the plural form of fly supposed to be flys? The short answer is no—the plural noun form of fly, meaning a winged insect, is spelled flies. The word flys isn't a real word in modern English: it's just a common spelling error.

I mentioned earlier how prolific, or otherwise, some UK price stamps are and whether it is worth gathering and plotting them, to see what they might tell us. For me, there are only four stampers worth their weight in investigation: Thorpe & Porter L Miller Roberts & Vinter Goldstar These are the only ones that I have been able to gather enough examples of to prove something meaningful, and systematic, and each has a variety of types that makes for interesting gathering and assessment. There are other stamp types that crop up here and there, with various levels of interest attached, but those four above, which encompass the full stamping era, are the only UK distribution stamps worth writing about in my book. I put this table below together a while ago to show other stamps that exist in multiples - I could probably add quite a few extra ones now: I love finding new types of stamp, and file or buy them when I do, but none of them ever amount to anything and I don't expect to ever again find a type that has any significance attached. They're just a fun foot note in the overall UK distribution window.

Hopefully CGC Mike can influence things in the right direction. We rarely get to hear how these matters resolve themselves, which itself speaks volumes, but I wish you the best of luck.

I'm really confident of my R4 scores, Paq - I got this

Welcome to Fly Club, comicjack! Love it

You're right, mistakes do happen even in the most experienced, careful operations. Placing notes in the box is a good idea, and can only help. But submissions to CGC can include items valued in the tens of thousands. Is it too much to expect that a thorough investigation of each box is not standard? It likely is of course, and what we have here is just an example of human error. Missing a book in a box is no different to missing an upside down comic in QC. It will happen, as people are human, and they make mistakes in pressured, high volume environments. They end up missing the one thing that they are there to do. I think we can accept that. What the issue is for me - and it's a recurrent theme for me - is I'm reading about the way that CGC are handling the mistake and I am not liking it. They have the evidence, and are not sharing it. That is the issue, for me, not the mistake.

Here's a few: Do they still have Spars?

Frontline, Streamline - we'll all be snorting a line at this rate.

That's a good shout - I've got a few of those stickers in the comic files. I never knew who they were but, again, the volumes weren't prolific enough to warrant reporting anything. If the first S is Seymour, what could the B.S. stand for then? Actually, don't answer that