Attrition rate for re-slabs

[THE_BEYONDER]

[tth2]

Comicwhiz, you raise some very good points, and I agree with your analysis.

[fantastic_four]

The graders notes coupled with the photo/scan are enough to prompt someone to make the connection between a previously graded book, and a hunch.

 

I still don't see how they'd come up with a procedure to get it done. As has been previously pointed out, whenever a new book comes in, they'd have to compare that book to every other scan and set of grader's notes they've ever created for that title and issue. For popular issues like Hulk 181, not to mention Ultimate Spidey #1, the comparisons could take 1 to 10 times longer than the grading itself. It's just not a viable solution, except for unique books like pedigrees.

[lou_fine]

I too have struggled with the issue of dry/clean and pressed books. I was one of the first to see this happen, in early 2001! I thought it was wrong then, but I am on the fence now, here's why.

 

First of all it would be unfair for CGC to grade some books as new submits and others based on past grades. Specifically, if CGC went back and saw a MH was previously graded 8.5 and now it looks 9.4 they obviously know it was altered in some way. I think the mentality is, "Don't ask, don't tell." All they can do is grade what they see in front of them, a 9.4 is a 9.4! It would be unfair for CGC to pick on pedigree books alone just becasue they CAN pick on them due to their distinguishing marks.

 

Keep in mind Lou, I personally know of 4 BSD that are doing the clean/press/resub, and I suspect I only know a fraction of them. I caught Metropolis bidding on TWO different dry/press machines last year on ebay, what can ya do?

 

If you bought a CGC 6.5 for $400 and knew it could be enhanced would you do it? What if the book came back as a 9.4 and it' an easy sell at $3,000 would you do it? Every dealer I know of would!

 

Timely

 

Timely;

 

You do seem to bring up some very valid points, especially with respect to picking on the pedigrees. I just have serious concerns that the current market envirnoment appears to be encouraging dealers to sell books with undisclosed and undetectable restoration as unrestored books. To me, this still seems totally dishonest, fraudulent, and unethical. It seems that we have moved from the frying pan right into the fire with respect to what Danny D. was doing to simply more advanced and more widespread undisclosed restoration work being done on the classic books.

 

With respect to CGC scans, I always thought that a scan image was always one of the first steps within the CGC process. When did they eliminate this step in their process? So now if additional work was done to remove prior restoration work along with a nice cleaning and pressing on books such as the MH Adventure 40 or Cap #1, CGC would seriously grade this as an unseen book and give them for example as unrestored 9.4's. This appears to be what they are doing with all of the MH's which are being resubmitted and going up four whole increments from 8.5 all the way to 9.6.

 

The market seems to absolutely paranoid with the PLOD's. Based upon what is actually going on in the marketplace, maybe our concern should be more towards the expensive high end blue label books. After a period of time, will the blue labels simply be masking books with undisclosed and short-term undetectable restoration which will reappear after a few years.

 

My concern also lies in the fact that if this becomes common knowledge, collectors and investors will be gone from this market faster than light. Imagine having your MH's or Hulk 181's selling for pennies on the dollar as JC's prediction of the pending comic market crash finally comes true. If this is the reason for the crash, the comic market will NOT recover because it is not part of the normal boom bust cycle. This particular crash would have been caused by unscruplous dealers and collectors which would most likely be a permanent death blow to the hobby. IMHO

[fantastic_four]

With respect to CGC scans, I always thought that a scan image was always one of the first steps within the CGC process. When did they eliminate this step in their process?

 

I doubt they have eliminated that step, but that doesn't mean they keep the scans indefinitely. I asked them about this in early 2001 and Haspel said they keep some scans, but most eventually get deleted.

 

 

My concern also lies in the fact that if this becomes common knowledge, collectors and investors will be gone from this market faster than light. Imagine having your MH's or Hulk 181's selling for pennies on the dollar as JC's prediction of the pending comic market crash finally comes true. If this is the reason for the crash, the comic market will NOT recover because it is not part of the normal boom bust cycle. This particular crash would have been caused by unscruplous dealers and collectors which would most likely be a permanent death blow to the hobby. IMHO

 

Some will exit, but I would expect it would be less than did before CGC was around to detect most of the more serious types of work. Still a big enough problem to beg for a solution to be found...

[Rip]

To me, this still seems totally dishonest, fraudulent, and unethical.

I agree, how would you feel if you had the highest graded 9.6 copy of a book, and the guy across the street pressing out a half a dozen 9.6's.

[sfilosa]

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

 

To me, this still seems totally dishonest, fraudulent, and unethical.

 

 

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

 

 

I agree, how would you feel if you had the highest graded 9.6 copy of a book, and the guy across the street pressing out a half a dozen 9.6's.

 

 

Everyone is getting RESTORATION paraniod.

 

Question:

Why is Restoration / Preservation so bad?

 

Answer:

Because in the past, you were sold a book with undisclosed restoration and eventually found out it had restoration. Therefore, your investment was not worth as much. PERIOD!!!!!

 

Did you have the book for years and look at it and say nice book? Of course. Then someone (maybe CGC) comes along and says it has restoration. Is the book ANY DIFFERENT? No. But your investment is.

 

I would be much more concerned that books get damaged (especially high and super high-grade books ) while in the CGC case. In other words, haven't you ever looked at a high-grade book and wondered how it got such a high grade, yet the top has a lot of creases. And didn't you at least wonder if that happened AFTER it was CGC'd. I have.

 

 

 

 

[Rip]

To an degree, yes. I do see more collectors (especially golden age) getting upset at CGC. When someone is able to manufacture a high grade copy at will, (without disclosure) it can't help but diminish the rarity of the others. As a collector I'm not too happy about that. Somehow I'd feel a little cheated of my prize if I recieved a restored book. I'm not sure the viewpoint of "Is the book ANY DIFFERENT?" one that makes me feel much better. The book IS different. While it may not look much different, it is certainly not viewed as the same book.

Imagine if the book turned out to be a total fake? Its still the same book before you knew right?

[lou_fine]

I would be much more concerned that books get damaged (especially high and super high-grade books ) while in the CGC case. In other words, haven't you ever looked at a high-grade book and wondered how it got such a high grade, yet the top has a lot of creases. And didn't you at least wonder if that happened AFTER it was CGC'd. I have.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that restoration does not matter to you. So, if you paid top dollar for an unrestored 9.6 GA book in 2004, left it untouched in your collection, had the book reversed it's pressing and become warped in the CGC holder, sent it in for reholdering in 2010 and received a PLOD 7.5 due to advanced restoration detection techniques, watched it's value plummet to <10% of what you had paid for it, this would not bother you at all.

 

I don't think you will have to worry about a line-up for membership in this club.

 

[Rip]

I think a good thread would be discussion of pressing and cleaning detection.

Things to possibly look for; Staple hole line up, staples looking discolored while book looks very bright, bright book with little ink reflectivity, staple hole stress (slight widening of staple holes) bright cover yet low paper quality on the inside, etc etc...

[sfilosa]

I would be much more concerned that books get damaged (especially high and super high-grade books ) while in the CGC case. In other words, haven't you ever looked at a high-grade book and wondered how it got such a high grade, yet the top has a lot of creases. And didn't you at least wonder if that happened AFTER it was CGC'd. I have.

 

 

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

 

 

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that restoration does not matter to you. So, if you paid top dollar for an unrestored 9.6 GA book in 2004, left it untouched in your collection, had the book reversed it's pressing and become warped in the CGC holder, sent it in for reholdering in 2010 and received a PLOD 7.5 due to advanced restoration detection techniques, watched it's value plummet to <10% of what you had paid for it, this would not bother you at all.

 

I don't think you will have to worry about a line-up for membership in this club.

 

ANY LOSS IN MY INVESTMENT WOULD BE A BAD THING.

 

Remember that grading in itself is an inexact science. I have pointed out many times that a 9.2 might sell for $1,000 and a 9.4 would sell for $2,500. What is the difference in those two books? Three people's opinions at an exact moment in time. Nothing more. Their opinion could be different 10 minutes later.

 

I would be much more worried that ten years from now, I send in a 9.4 to be reholder and after ten years, the book has been slightly damaged in the CGC case (from being shipped and flipped twenty times) and the book is no longer a 9.4.

 

Is restoration a concern to me. Yes. But 99% of that because it causes a BAD INVESTMENT.

 

No one will ever convince me that a TRUE VF book with a tear seal is a lesser book than a TRUE FN book with no tear seal.

 

The VF is closer to it's state at manufacturing than the FN book.

 

Why should a DEFECT (and that is all Restoration is, a DEFECT) that has happened intentionally (i.e. tear seal, color touch, etc.) be considered signifcantly worse (a sin in some people's eyes) than an UNINTENTIONAL DEFECT?

 

The simple reason is that it wasn't DISCLOSED at the time and therefore it was ASSUMED that there was NO DEFECT at all.

 

 

 

[garthgantu]

I do a lot of work with insurance companies, so I would imagine the response of CGC's insurance company would be: "WTF do you mean you don't KEEP a scan of EVERY book you grade?"

 

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I noted this previously, in this or another post... CGC charges $3 to scan a book upon submission. That service could be conducted for 12 cents, period. That additional expense should be factored into the slabbing fee, and passed on to the customer. I for one would be happy to pay 12 cents to know that there's some visual record of each book submitted.

 

Would this, in-and-of-itself, curtail the resubs we're seeing of pressed/cleaned books? Absolutely. The fear of getting a book back in a PLOD would be enough to keep many people from doing this, even if the chances of being caught were considerably less than 100%.

[garthgantu]

I would be much more concerned that books get damaged (especially high and super high-grade books ) while in the CGC case. In other words, haven't you ever looked at a high-grade book and wondered how it got such a high grade, yet the top has a lot of creases. And didn't you at least wonder if that happened AFTER it was CGC'd. I have.

 

I've actually posted questions about this issue (damage within the CGC case and how that might be regarded if a cracked slab is resubmitted, for slab-swapping work only), as well as the issue of how long it CGC considers it safe to keep a book in a holder without getting the micro-chamber paper replaced...those posts (to the "Ask CGC" board) were summarily removed from the threads in question.

Oddly, my screen name can still be seen as the 'last poster' to a couple of the threads in question, but my posts are nowhere to be found.

 

I also recently 'submitted' a question for the Ask CGC boards re: how CGC makes its determinations re: Blue vs. PLOD labels for GA books with minor color touch and glue - i.e., which books get the PLOD in that case, and which get the Blue Universal. In that same post I asked why CGC would allow some color touch and glue with GA books, but never with SA books. That never made it onto the board at all. I sent this same inquiry to Steve B. via PM, but am not expecting a response at this point.

[sborock]

"I sent this same inquiry to Steve B. via PM, but am not expecting a response at this point. "

 

Garth-

I don't have time to TYPE answers to many questions on this chatboard (I am not a fast typer and need to grade), but I do show up at EVERY major con and show up at chat board dinners where I answer EVERY question asked of me. I (or other CGC employees) also pick up the phone when people call with questions. I have also answered these questions on this board and in trade publications before. Are you related to Mister Naiman? You remind me of him (please don't take offense).

 

About the 12 cents a scan..... I will ASSUME you don't/haven't run your own business or you would have factored in the cost of paying an employee and the cost of health care for that employee among other expenses.

 

Just a side question: Do you even use CGC for certification? It seems with the amount of questions you ask, you must be a submitter, otherwise, why ask?

 

[drbanner]

Hmmm...from almost two years on these boards I've seen all these questions before and since I started this thread let's see if I can help you out Garth:

 

I've actually posted questions about this issue (damage within the CGC case and how that might be regarded if a cracked slab is resubmitted, for slab-swapping work only)

 

The books gets re-graded if it's been damaged in the case, even if it's sent in for slab-swapping only...posters here have relayed such experiences.

 

as well as the issue of how long it CGC considers it safe to keep a book in a holder without getting the micro-chamber paper replaced

 

CGC recommends you change the holder/paper every 7 years...

 

I also recently 'submitted' a question for the Ask CGC boards re: how CGC makes its determinations re: Blue vs. PLOD labels for GA books with minor color touch and glue - i.e., which books get the PLOD in that case, and which get the Blue Universal. In that same post I asked why CGC would allow some color touch and glue with GA books, but never with SA books.

 

At CGC's discretion GA books with minor CT or glue can get a blue label, and this is explained on the label. Steve has clarified here that the date "cut off is around 1950."

 

Ok, that's my take on it but please definitely let us know if these answers are correct after you call CGC and talk to them as Steve has suggested you do, in so many words...

[greggy]

[sborock]

 

Trouble maker

[greggy]

 

Trouble maker

I would stay longer to argue but I can't!

[BachelorOfComix]

Cut it out. Everyone knows that I'm the lean, mean popcorn-eating machine.

[OldGuy]

I've actually posted questions about this issue (damage within the CGC case and how that might be regarded if a cracked slab is resubmitted, for slab-swapping work only)

 

That question has been answered by CGC on several ocasions in several places on these boards.

 

as well as the issue of how long it CGC considers it safe to keep a book in a holder without getting the micro-chamber paper replaced

 

That question has been answered. There isn't a "safety" issue with the paper. The belief is that after 5-7 years the paper loses it's effectiveness, but doesn't become a "danger".

 

I also recently 'submitted' a question for the Ask CGC boards re: how CGC makes its determinations re: Blue vs. PLOD labels for GA books with minor color touch and glue - i.e., which books get the PLOD in that case, and which get the Blue Universal.

 

This question has been addressed by CGC on these boards and in trade publications, but I don't remember what the response was and don't want to miss quote, sorry.

 

In that same post I asked why CGC would allow some color touch and glue with GA books, but never with SA books.

 

This question has been answered and the answer was "Because it's been an industry standard that minor restoration on GA books is OK and it's not OK on SA books." (I'm paraphrasing, but that's close).

 

NEXT!