• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CGG just contacted me about the forum controversy

Started by Smokinghawk,

81 posts in this topic

BatFan-migration

BatFan-migration

Posted
Posted
Keep on walking, BachelorOfCowChips. You've just been bested and beaten to a bloody pulp and don't even realize it yet. 27_laughing.gif

Well if you say so then it MUST be true. If you're going say something that STUPID you could at least fake a stroke.

It's even funnier that you're not smart enough to actually "get it". 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

The 4 books that I have seen cleaned by Susan were inserted back without any effort to bend the prongs back into the original indent area. They have all been basically inserted back with the prongs straight.

 

Check out my first post in "how to spot restoration". I refer to that slight metallic stain there when I said "3) Get a good ground glass loupe. Examine the staple area. See if the depressions match the staples. See if slightly darker (aka metallic) stains match where the staples are now."

 

If new staples are used the prongs are going to be straight because they were never given that slight "bend" by the stapling process. However, if the staple prongs are properly bent just at their apex, the staples retain their inhereted "curve", so to speak. When the ORIGINAL staples are put back and re-bent, the original angles can be reproduced (it does take some skill and care). In fact, the original indents and that slight metallic stain can serve as a template to getting that "just printed" look! grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
The 4 books that I have seen cleaned by Susan were inserted back without any effort to bend the prongs back into the original indent area. They have all been basically inserted back with the prongs straight.

 

Check out my first post in "how to spot restoration". I refer to that slight metallic stain there when I said "3) Get a good ground glass loupe. Examine the staple area. See if the depressions match the staples. See if slightly darker (aka metallic) stains match where the staples are now."

 

If new staples are used the prongs are going to be straight because they were never given that slight "bend" by the stapling process. However, if the staple prongs are properly bent just at their apex, the staples retain their inhereted "curve", so to speak. When the ORIGINAL staples are put back and re-bent, the original angles can be reproduced (it does take some skill and care). In fact, the original indents and that slight metallic stain can serve as a template to getting that "just printed" look! grin.gif

Bah...why would Susan use new staples? Why weren't they noted as new by CGC? Answer that sucka! hi.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted
The 4 books that I have seen cleaned by Susan were inserted back without any effort to bend the prongs back into the original indent area. They have all been basically inserted back with the prongs straight.

 

Check out my first post in "how to spot restoration". I refer to that slight metallic stain there when I said "3) Get a good ground glass loupe. Examine the staple area. See if the depressions match the staples. See if slightly darker (aka metallic) stains match where the staples are now."

 

If new staples are used the prongs are going to be straight because they were never given that slight "bend" by the stapling process. However, if the staple prongs are properly bent just at their apex, the staples retain their inhereted "curve", so to speak. When the ORIGINAL staples are put back and re-bent, the original angles can be reproduced (it does take some skill and care). In fact, the original indents and that slight metallic stain can serve as a template to getting that "just printed" look! grin.gif

Bah...why would Susan use new staples? Why weren't they noted as new by CGC? Answer that sucka! hi.gif

 

If the original ones were problematic then new ones might be used. The prongs would not usually be "straight" but have at least SOME slight curve due to the pressure of stapling. Perhaps your desctiption was flawed. Now, what DID CGC say about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
The 4 books that I have seen cleaned by Susan were inserted back without any effort to bend the prongs back into the original indent area. They have all been basically inserted back with the prongs straight.

 

Check out my first post in "how to spot restoration". I refer to that slight metallic stain there when I said "3) Get a good ground glass loupe. Examine the staple area. See if the depressions match the staples. See if slightly darker (aka metallic) stains match where the staples are now."

 

If new staples are used the prongs are going to be straight because they were never given that slight "bend" by the stapling process. However, if the staple prongs are properly bent just at their apex, the staples retain their inhereted "curve", so to speak. When the ORIGINAL staples are put back and re-bent, the original angles can be reproduced (it does take some skill and care). In fact, the original indents and that slight metallic stain can serve as a template to getting that "just printed" look! grin.gif

Bah...why would Susan use new staples? Why weren't they noted as new by CGC? Answer that sucka! hi.gif

 

If the original ones were problematic then new ones might be used. The prongs would not usually be "straight" but have at least SOME slight curve due to the pressure of stapling. Perhaps your desctiption was flawed. Now, what DID CGC say about them?

tonofbricks.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted

Allow me to butcher this post up. I can't stand it any longer...

 

I am very confident that this book is not the same book as claimed by one of the members of the forum. I say this because at the time I put a good deal of concern into what some of the people on this forum had to say. I tracked this book back to the original owner, and spoke with him. He informed me that this book was from his original collection, and had owned the book since he had purchased it new. As I was familiar with this person's reputation I could believe him without hesitation.

 

I too am very confident that this book IS the same book.

How can this be disputed?

Either he is...

[*]Not familiar with it and is just making this up.

[*]Familiar with it, but forgot about the date stamp. (Which he conveniently didn't address)

The date stamp told the story. All the other features on the books matched up as well.

This is the most obvious case of someone getting their [!@#%^&^] busted I've ever seen.

 

 

I also know that the AMS #121 and #129 are not the same books as stated by the person who started this thread because these two books were graded on 9/5/03, and besides, it should be fairly obvious just looking at the books they are not the same books. I can see many differences just by looking at the books.

 

Yeah. I can see a few differences too.

They're called scanner dirt and a trim job.

Other than those, he needs to name off some differences because I don't see them.

Even the staples line up pixel for pixel.

(BTW, the top of the bottom staple on the 129 has a place where the *scan* was touched up. I find something new every time I look at these scans.)

 

 

On to the Iron Man #1 that came back a 9.4 from CGC. I don't disagree with the grade of 9.4 that they gave it because just by looking at the scan up close I can see several defects that were not on the book when it came through our offices. On a book that is a soft 9.6, meaning it was closer to a 9.5 than a 9.7, those few new defects should drop it to a 9.4.

 

How does he know the defects were not on the book when it came through?

Does he have a photographic memory?

Or could it be more scanner dirt?

I dunno, so I'll give him this one.

The problem here is not a .2 grading difference. The problem is much deeper.

 

 

One of the problems is people do not properly package their books for shipping. I have seen books that were a obvious 9.6 before shipping end up as a 8.0 because of damage that occured during shipping. Then the person is confused when they receive the book back.

 

So, you don't call or notify the submitter when his package arrives damaged?

Thanks for clearing everything up for me.

 

 

As far a the person selling these books I don't necessarly believe he pulled these books because someone on a forum was talking about his book.

 

Possibly not. I don't know, so I give you another one.

Still not the main problem, so it's a wash.

 

 

Most of the high-end books I have bought never reach the end of auction because the buyer accepts my offer and then ends the auction. Its the best way to guarantee you get the books you want.

 

Please tell me this is a typo.

You, a subjective third party grader, buy (and/or sell) comics?

Wouldn't this create a conflict of interest?

Big thumbs down if this is true.

 

 

I can say without hesitation that the majority of our customers have been happy with our service and our grading.

 

I would agree.

If someone cracks a restored slab and sends the book to CGG to get an unrestored grade.

Yeah. The folks that do this are probably happy.

 

 

Anyway, I just wanted to address these issues because I could no longer stomach some of these comments people are making.

 

Boo hoo.

 

 

I wouldn't mind people bringing up concerns, certainly legitimate when there are problems with scammers and dirtbags out there, but to simply throw a supposed misdeed or conspiracy theories (hypothesis) out in the ring and never bothering to find out the TRUTH is in my opinion irresponsible because it helps no one.

 

The TRUTH was noted in prior threads.

The fact that he dodges it, is not my problem.

Again...how can he sleep at night trying to defend the Avengers book?

 

 

I would venture as far to say that the people that do this sort of irresponsible bashing without backing it up with any kind of real facts, other than conspiracy developed in their own minds, are as harmful to the comic book industry as the scam artists out there in la la land.

 

Yeah. Here we sit harming the comic industry.

All the while people that claim legitimate service and never do any wrong, are victimized by us.

Sooo evil and powerful we are.

Give me a break.

 

 

Not once have we received a phone call asking if we could address any concern that has ever been brought up on these forums, seems kinda odd don't cha think. Are these guys that only like to bash scared of the truth because all their supposed theories and conspiracies would run and hide.

 

Yeah. Turn the tables.

Great defense you have there.

Most kids learn this in the second grade, and have it mastered before summer break.

 

 

Please understand I am not trying to bash everyone on these forums by any means, there are many of you that have many things to say that are helpful and insightful in many areas of the comic book industry.

 

Where is that fiddle graemlin?

 

 

Thank You for taking the time to read this, and I hope you will post this.

 

No...Thank YOU for taking time to type all this out.

You've really cleared things up.

Now let me get back to work...the comic industry still has some unharmed saviours left to rape and pillage.

A basher's job is never done. devil.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
We need to get your overlayed Photoshop images posted. 893applaud-thumb.gif

 

I'll have them finished by tomorrow night.

If anyone knows the html code for a mouseover, PM it to me and save me some time.

 

I won't have time to get the pics up tonight, so I'll finish tomorrow.

 

Also, if anyone still has the pics of the Avengers book, PM them to me as well.

I can do all three books.

My last hard drive crash took those from my computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
If anyone knows the html code for a mouseover, PM it to me and save me some time.

 

Replace the french braces with angle brackets:

 

{img src="http://myhost.com/myimage.jpg" onmouseover="this.src='http://myhost.com/my_mouseover_image.jpg'" onmouseout="this.src='http://myhost.com/myimage.jpg'"}

 

Example:

 

258266-thor.jpg" onmouseover="this.src=

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
If anyone knows the html code for a mouseover, PM it to me and save me some time.

 

Replace the french braces with angle brackets:

 

{img src="http://myhost.com/myimage.jpg" onmouseover="http://myhost.com/my_mouseover_image.jpg" onmouseout="http://myhost.com/myimage.jpg"}

 

Yup, that's it.

It's been years since I've done webpages.

But I can manage now that I have the code.

 

Thanks! flowerred.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DoubleCovaBrotha

DoubleCovaBrotha

Posted
Posted

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's even funnier that you're not smart enough to actually "get it".

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

talkingaboutbox.gif

 

This was so funny that I woke up my suitemates. Thanks a lot BOC. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

I read the letter from CGG with an open mind. I was convinced he was telling the truth until half way thru when he went on the attack. That soured me. It wasnt necessary. As th ehuge underdog in their chosen line of business, I thnk they ned to be making converts ti their product, not insulting potential customers...especially while defending themselves of possible spurious behavior.

 

Id like to see both scans to compare for myself, too, isnce Im at a loss about the merits of this "case".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing