Get Marwood & I

I don't know is the honest answer. I think it's more likely that the scratches are a production flaw. Theorising, they would have to be all over the sleeve if they were designed to keep the surface from touching the outer well. Also, would CGC really engineer a new 'crystal clear' case, and then scratch the inner well to stop a problem with rings? Seems unlikely. More likely they are the result of an issue with the plastic producer. Maybe the scratches are made when they store / ship the product post production. Who knows. What's more interesting to me, as ever, is CGC's response to those who have complained about it: This is why I started this thread. I don't like how CGC deal with these issues. Newton rings, and now scratches, seem to be our fault. What has 14 days got to do with whether a book has scratches inside it? What if your books are delivered and you're away on business or holiday? It's not right and we should continue to say that wherevever and whenever we can. We should not accept an inferior product, and then inferior service when we try to address it with the company we've given our money to. If you return to the original three questions I posed in this poll, the majority agree that Newton rings are not normal and certainly not acceptable. There has been much speculation as to the cause. Maybe QC aren't spotting the problem because it manifests post shipping. Maybe it's the plastic. Maybe it's because the outer well is sealed. Maybe it's contamination during production. All very interesting, but who cares really why it's happening? I only care that it's fixed. Which brings me to the second question in the poll. Should they drop the new case if the new case is the problem? I'm still waiting for someone to post scans of a first or second generation book with rings. I've owned 200 of them with no rings. I can't make rings appear on the slabs I have remaining. The inner and outer wells clearly touch. No rings. Is the suggestion that Newton rings have always existed a red herring? Where are they all? So if it's the new case, or materials, stop using them. Over 85% of 195 voters agree with that. Correct me if I've got this wrong, but one suggestion was the old plastic (Barex?) is no longer used as it was withdrawn. Why was it withdrawn? If it works, someone will surely produce it for CGC? More likely is that, in the pursuit of 'crystal clear', we have a new plastic but, alas, one which creates the Newton Ring affect. So an obvious solution. Stop using it. The third poll question - are we satisfied with CGC's response to date? No, is the majority response. Those that are satisfied haven't explained why and I'm frankly at a loss to understand how they could be happy. We still have a scenario where we are being invited to 'put up with it' while they tinker and try to reduce a problem they should be eliminating. CGC determine severity. CGC determine the return window. CGC determine what eye wateringly awful visual obstructions are 'normal' and 'accepatble' on the 'crystal clear' slabs that you paid for and in some cases (heh heh) waited ages for. Can someone put me straight if I'm wrong please? Tell me why CGC shouldn't be held to the standards that you would expect from any other company offering a service? And where are all these first and second generation slabs with rings?

Seek! Locate! Maths debate!

And, on this occasion, an uncommonly lean derrière.

http://unpublishedxmen.blogspot.com/2012/10/uncanny-x-men-388.html

That's a cool new avatar

No he never. That's awful. The eyes are ridiculous. Ridiculous I say! And Neal Adams! Morticia Addams more like.

Must....resist. Not....post...obvious...reply. Must.....hold back.....

It's all round to Dranzers.

...of course not. 6 more votes until the fireworks are unleashed

Let's call the whole thing orf

Maths. There is only maths.

No, I haven't ft88. Not yet anyway. I like that kind of thing though so you never know. I mainly concentrate on pence variants but did post some 15 cent variants in my Charlton thread. All price variants are cool really.

Sam never returned, and the case went cold. Meanwhile, an anagram of Sam Baker-Salmon is "Slab maker moans". Coincidence? Yewww, deeciide

That's the spirit H. You tell em

Three 'posts' in this one Where do I collect my winners prize?

Is it a Ringray?    No Stingray fans in then?

And feet. And ears. Is that right earring stapled to the side of her head in the top right frame? I find McFarlane's style extremely ugly. And anatomically, he's no better than Liefield. Yet we slaughter him, and hero worship Mcthatsawfulane. I will never understand others admiration for the Todd. Never!

That's wo-man, man

Is it a Ringray?

That sounds like a Craig David record. Good luck.

The delay is because it's in a Q, C? That was a joke. And a bad one, apparently. If it turns up in 7 weeks time, still with rings, will you consider sending it back to CGC with a note inviting them to pop it up their ring?

God damn men and their menly ways. God damn them.

What a Frk'n emoji. I actually feel bad... That's just your conscience telling you that you were being a Richard, which you were. But he makes Richard comments like that to others, too, so it just looked like karma to me Indeed. God damn the man that tries, successfully or otherwise, to make people laugh. God damn him.