Get Marwood & I

I'm reading that in a Christian Bale Batman voice.

No wonder they smell.

Your grades smell.

Yes, yes you are. They don't call it the 'Lumberjack's Axe of Death' for nothing.

What emoji did you get from the former lumberjack? I got a 'bring out your dead' sign.

I've actually gone one better, and gone forward to the end. You actually win the whole contest, Jolly! That's the good news. The bad news? Time can be rewritten.

Here is just one example. Here is how I present an argument. CGC management refuse to address the integrity of my argument. Their position is their position - my choice, as someone who has spent years researching comics, is to like it, or lump it. They will not explain why their position is the correct one, and why the points I make are wrong: So who is the arrogant one really? Me, or them?

Starring the Doctor.

Indeed. What I try to do, when I think I have a clear idea of what is right, is to present my rationale to those who disagree and then invite them to 'prove me wrong', so to speak. I don't mind when people give a reasonable explanation for their position on something, including when they arrive at a different conclusion to mine. Some things are clear - two plus two is four - and some things can be argued and debated. And then there are opinions of course, which some happily state in direct contravention of established fact. For example, I know that some people disagree with the term "UK Price Variant". I can see how that term encroaches on the purity of the US Price Variants, for example. I don't mind that kind of challenge, and I can see the other point of view. In those situations it's just a case of agreeing on the best possible terminology when it's clear that there is no one size fits all, short definition. You won't please everyone, but as long as the definition is explainable, and reasonable, and intuitive, then that may be the best you can hope for. What I can't stand is when people refuse to acknowledge fact or a water tight explanation of something. They keep avoiding the salient points that you make because they know that if they addressed them, their argument would fall apart. Once I've tried a few times, I'll admit I too can get a little snarky and that's usually the point that you lose them. So my advice - which I don't always follow myself - is to keep everything civil and, when it's clear that you aren't going to get them to respond to the central thrust of your position, give up. Life's too short to argue with CGC, a company that is full of good things, and good people, but which also has a tendency to generate an air of world domination and arrogance. CGC will do what a handful at the top of CGC have decided is the way. Sometimes, you can clearly see the influences in their decision making that go beyond doing the right thing by the hobby. By that I mean money. If CGC want two plus two to be a cat, then it will be so no matter how many calculators you put in front of them. Let's be clear here. CGC arrived on the scene 20 or so years ago. Comics, and the hobby of collecting them, have been around quite a bit lot longer. Slowly but surely, the CGC juggernaut is taking ownership of everything to do with the hobby from terminology to grading scales to restoration definitions and so on. There are few areas that they have not taken over, and then proclaimed themselves to be the world or market leader of. If everything that they do is right - or supported by the majority - then maybe that is OK. But is everything that they do right? Do the majority support them? Is anyone ever consulted when they decide to deviate from historic precedent? I have a very clear understanding of what a variant is, and what a reprint is. I believe it is possible to put clear blue water between them. There are those that agree with me, and those that disagree with me. I have been accused of arrogance. Why should my definition trump CGC's or anyone else's? I have never said that it does. All I do, is present my case, and invite a response. I rarely, if ever, get one. So it will be interesting to see how CGC are going to define variants and reprints. I may agree broadly, or disagree wildly. But it will be what it will be, because CGC always do, in the end, what suits them.

I've had some experience of that I best keep out of it - I've already caused enough trouble battling CGC regarding their positions on variant classifications and 'foreigns'. They'll always do what they want I find, regardless of the merits of your case. That said, civilised challenge is always a good thing, so keep at it Doug

I know

Does that mean a set like Ultimate Fallout was allowed to have the second print or a facsimile from ten years later for Ultimate Fallout #4 qualify to fill the empty spot, but now it doesn't? I'm always interested in fighting over the definition of variants. Has that part been locked down yet or are we still awaiting the detail (I cat-scanned the other thread and CGC seemed to keep saying "wait for the final announcement")?

Sorry! I had to tag everyone, as I don't know who has and hasn't sent them in. I've just worked out a new way of bulk tagging though, which Mike may be able to use going forward so it will be very quick for him to tag only those whose grades are outstanding. And that's outstanding as in 'not in' by the way, not outstanding as in any good (mine were not outstanding. If Mikes emoji was anything to go by, they were a pile of golden horsesht )

That's how I dress......

If you've already submitted your grades, ignore this flag, if not, the deadline fast approaches! Help @CGC Mike by getting those grades in now @1Cool @2muchhorrorbusiness @AbsoluteCarnage @ADAMANTIUM @Ahsoka Tano Jedi Apprentice @AJD @apocalypse76 @ArcherC @Asianassassincomics @Axelrod @B3AST @batcollector @Batman Fett @bighairjer @boron @Brock @brumil190 @Cerebus3000 @ChrispyC66 @CJ Design @Cman429 @Cocomonkey @comicginger1789 @Comics4All @Crose87420 @Cushing Fan @davidtere @Deputy Dan @Doctor Dositheus @Dr. Ogie Porterhouse @EastEnd1 @ekaylor @Every Day A Story @F For Fake @FigaroToe @flashlites @frozentundraguy @GawkHawk @genrlzod @g-man @GradedGrails @Grendel72 @grendelbo @HighStakesComics @Howard Karpoff @Hudson @iXr184 @jas1vans @jbpez @jcjames @Jesse-Lee @Jfigs818 @John R @JohnH19 @JollyComics @JWKyle @Kramerica @Krismusic @KryptoMayor @Lninefingers @MatterEaterLad @mattn792 @Morganmi @Motor City Rob @Nearfall @ned @Nsschenks @Old Fashion PB and J @old_dano @Panda2 @paqart @pastandpresentcomics @Pickie @pmpknface @Point Five @Ride the Tiger @Ron C. @sagii @Sandflea @scburdet @silverseeker @skypinkblu @s-man @southern cross @spidermanbeyond @Stefan_W @Superman2006 @TC33 @TheApprentice @TheGeneral @thehumantorch @TheTallGuy @timfinz @Tom789 @topcat54 @topofthetotem @toro @trmoore54 @TTG @universal soldier @Warlord @WEBHEAD @WilliamLunt @Wipple @Withering Wind @Yorick @youfoundjake @zzutak

Don't overthink it

It's amazing what you can fit under those masks, isn't it Richmond. But that's not what this thread is about. And remember - oddly similar, is the order of the day...

Indeed. @CGC Mike what's taking so long Mike? People are paying for a service on the understanding that MicroChamber paper is always present. We're asking CGC to clarify what we're paying for, and MicroChamber paper is an important part of long term preservation. I would've thought an early response would be in order?

All superfluous Rich. It's all about the furniture.

Any follow up thoughts on the views that myself and others took the time to post Colin?

Like..........yeah... Could you do 8? You know me Richmond, I like a good, simple summing up graphic, one that sticks in the mind. Good fun was had today, kicking this around. I gave it my best shot, reading it all cold (you've been living it for 6 months) and you know what you'd have got if I hadn't, don't you. Your theory is now on the record! Night mate.