Manufactured Gold

[THE_BEYONDER]

There ya go...getting in the way again.

[nearmint]

There ya go...getting in the way again.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

[Davenport]

 

On the disassembly pressing issue, I'm with you all the way. I consider all kinds of pressing to be restoration, but can at least understand that industry standards at this time may not require disclosure of NDP. But disassembly and reassembly with or without pressing is clearly restoration and I doubt that any but a very few in our hobby would view it differently, or hold a sincere belief that disassembly doesn't need to be disclosed. If prior disassembly is detected, the book should be labeled as restored. The reassembly is restoration regardless of whether the book was pressed. CGC should reconsider its stance on this issue because it really rubs the wrong way.

It gets even more confusing. In that proposed Label Modifications they did a breakdown:

"Restoration: Treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement.

 

Conservation treatments:

 

All of the following treatments must be archival safe to be considered "conserved."

 

Tear seal - Conservation

Spine split sealed - Conservation

Reinforcement - Conservation

Piece re-attachment - Conservation

Deacidification - Conservation."

 

That definition of restoration centers on adding "non-original material for aesthetic" purposes. But then the conservation treatments listed, except of deacidification, requires (archival) rice paper and wheat starch. It's confusing...piece re-attachment IS using original material, but some type of non-original adhesive is needed to hold it in place. BUT the catch is the treatments AREN'T for "aesthetic enhancement" and are meant to prolong the life of a book.

Of course, duh, "aesthetic enhancement" could still be a by-product if tears, splits, and pieces are mended.

Seems like word-play hairsplitting.

[shadroch]

If I'm reading this correctly,Mr B. is saying that even though they KNEW the books covers had been switched,not once but twice,because the person who did it did such a great job that they didn't consider the book restored?Even though they knew the covers were switched?

Hammer and JE must be smiling at this.

Is the only thing standing between Hammers "Eastern File" books and a blue label a fine-tuning of the staple placements?

 

I don't think Steve said that they knew it had been switched back. I think he said that they could tell the first time because of the fact that the ink transfer was out the outer cover instead of the inner cover, and once switched back, that visual clue was no longer present.

 

 

Yes,I can see how they might have confused THIS particular double covered Sensation with any of the hundreds of other double covered Sensations with ink transfer spots in the same places.Absolutely.

[FFB]

If I'm reading this correctly,Mr B. is saying that even though they KNEW the books covers had been switched,not once but twice,because the person who did it did such a great job that they didn't consider the book restored?Even though they knew the covers were switched?

Hammer and JE must be smiling at this.

Is the only thing standing between Hammers "Eastern File" books and a blue label a fine-tuning of the staple placements?

 

I don't think Steve said that they knew it had been switched back. I think he said that they could tell the first time because of the fact that the ink transfer was out the outer cover instead of the inner cover, and once switched back, that visual clue was no longer present.

 

 

Yes,I can see how they might have confused THIS particular double covered Sensation with any of the hundreds of other double covered Sensations with ink transfer spots in the same places.Absolutely.

 

The only thing here is your notion that CGC somehow remembers every book they graded before and have total recall of what the book looked like.

[drbanner]

Ahh...once again, the utility of Mr. Bell's invention astounds and amazes!!

 

 

What are you trying to do? Get branded as a "tiny brain"?

 

I may be a simple, tiny brained caveman poster, but even I can see the difference in how productive hundreds and hundreds of posts on a message board are...as compared to one phone call.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

[Red Hook]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

 

I agree. That's a lot of it. CGC doesn't seem to have a problem spreading the word when it's part of their marketing program......

 

Boardie A: Hey, I heard a rumor that CGC just designated a new pedigree, I think it's called Central Valley or something like that.

 

Boardie B: Yeah, I suggest you give CGC a call about it. Steve will be more than happy to give you some info about it.

 

I still find it odd that Chris F......supposedly one of the great restoration practitioners and detectors, is mentioned nowhere within CGC's website or promo material.

[drbanner]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

 

As the caveman says...you see the results of posting messages here, and you see the results of getting on the phone.

[Flaming_Telepath]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

 

As the caveman says...you see the results of posting messages here, and you see the results of getting on the phone.

 

I don't care what the results may have been...on this one occasion...I care about the methods.

 

This is no way to run a transparent company. PUBLISH! Or be damned.

 

Make your policies and decisions public knowledge...and do it yourself.

 

Or is this really a Secret Squirrel Club?

[THE_BEYONDER]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

 

As the caveman says...you see the results of posting messages here, and you see the results of getting on the phone.

 

Caveman also sees that a company should be able to make clear & concise public statements on their own message boards regarding policy.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Beat me to it.

[drbanner]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

 

As the caveman says...you see the results of posting messages here, and you see the results of getting on the phone.

 

I don't care what the results may have been...on this one occasion...I care about the methods.

 

This is no way to run a transparent company. PUBLISH! Or be damned.

 

Make your policies and decisions public knowledge...and do it yourself.

 

Or is this really a Secret Squirrel Club?

 

We certainly can (and many do) post here 24/7 complaining about CGC's lack of PR skills, lack of responding to questions posted on the boards, their methods of running their company, wondering what their policies are, etc.,. and what does it get us? Nothing. What does calling get us? Something. But like you, it appears many people just don't seem to care what the end results of the two approaches are, for some strange reason they'll stick with the 24/7 message board posting method regardless of how unproductive it is in getting anything out of CGC.

 

Meanhwile, I look forward to Mark's summary of his phone call to Steve...hopefully it will be informational like Filters call was regarding the Sensation (and Chris' F's role at CGC)...like Beyonder's call to CGC regarding "Is trimming considered restoration?" was, etc.,.

[Foolkiller]

In all seriousness, maybe some of us don't want to call because we're not interested in the conversation going to a personal level where the 'SHMOOZE FACTOR' inevitably comes into play.

 

As the caveman says...you see the results of posting messages here, and you see the results of getting on the phone.

 

I don't care what the results may have been...on this one occasion...I care about the methods.

 

This is no way to run a transparent company. PUBLISH! Or be damned.

 

Make your policies and decisions public knowledge...and do it yourself.

 

Or is this really a Secret Squirrel Club?

 

Nick --

 

let's be realistic for a moment -- do you really think this IS a transparent company? Or is going to be?

 

I think the answer is no. I think it's like a lot of other businesses that are run that are simply not transparent. Do you know all of the policies regarding a lot of companies including drug manufacturers, chemical processing plants, computer assembly factories and the list goes on and on and on... why would CGC be different?

 

People want CGC to be transparent, but at the end of the day my response is simply this: I am all for answers and CGC would be wiser if they did provide responses to certain outcries -- this whole thread being an example. I'm not suggesting they respond to every little poke or prod from board members, but there has to be some evaluation as to what may or may not be deserving of attention.

 

That said, I just feel there's no way that answers are going to be satisfactory unless you speak directly to them, because they have obviously determined that posting on the message boards provides diminshing returns.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Let's be realistic for a moment -- do you really think this IS a transparent company? Or is going to be?

 

I think the answer is no. I think it's like a lot of other businesses that are run that are simply not transparent. Do you know all of the policies regarding a lot of companies including drug manufacturers, chemical processing plants, computer assembly factories and the list goes on and on and on... why would CGC be different?

 

Brian,

 

This is the crux of the matter, to my mind. CGC should be totally transparent, given the nature of what they do and their placement as 'industry arbitors'.

 

The fact that they're not is completely frustrating and I keep wondering about 'what could have been' with this bunch. They had such an opportunity to drag this hobby out of the Dark Ages, but it seems that all they've been doing of late is going around switching the lights out.

 

Regarding the phone/boards argument...and this goes to you, too, Mike...what we are doing is settling. We're settling for one-on-one communication, when (I think) we would all prefer to have these things made public.

 

But because we don't get that, we settle.

 

And Mike? Of course I want the answers to the friggin' questions...I just don't think that, time in and time out, somebody's got to call to ask!

[drbanner]

I wish CGC would answer every question posted to them here as well Nick, but as Brian says, it's pretty obvious at this point that they have determined that posting answers/policies on this message board is not something they are going to do. I'm sure there are many reasons they choose not to, but the two primary ones would seem to be that they don't want this stuff "in writing", and when they do put responses here "in writing", those responses are scrutinized to the T and Steve/CGC is held to these responses literally, and verbatim.

 

You say that you "don't think that, time in and time out, somebody's got to call to ask!", but it appears that if you really want answers, you actually do have to call and ask.

[Red Hook]

Well, given that situation, then CGC obviously realizes (and should accept the fact) that speculations will continue to be fueled. There has to be some basic level of public dissemination of info or the company just ends up looking like they have something to hide.

 

I don't care what the grading team had for lunch, but I would like to know if individual A works for the damn company and if individual B provides services to clients outside of the CGC grading room. That's just basic stuff.

 

That said, again, if CGC doesn't want to go that route with their PR, then they have to realize that they will probably be subjected to continued scrutiny.

[mica]

I wish CGC would answer every question posted to them here as well

I have a hard time believing that. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, why should they answer any question here when three regular posters chime in with the Phone mantra.

 

You'll win all kinds of debate points when telling us how the Phone revolutionized communications in the last hundred years. But big deal.

In this day and age we are often redirected from using a phone. Many companies don't want us calling them.

They'd rather we go to their "FAQ" page on their website, or when we do call we end up dealing with a recording and several menu's and eventually get disconnected.

 

At some point in your life you've probably particpated in the game where one person whispers to the guy on the left and then they are supposed to repeat the same message over and over until it returns to you but when it gets back to you it's changed slightly (or dramatically).

 

Can you see where relying on a well intentioned poster to broadcast your message for you might not be reliable?

 

Hence the slight frustration in seeing some one give out that magic phone number.

We all agree that we want accurate findings and or intent.

So unless you record these wonderful (and bubbly) conversations and convert them into an MP3 file for all to hear you end up with numerous phone calls which may contradict each other slightly over the years. (This is not implying anything other than human error: for example I may relay a story to Ze-Man over the phone, but when I get around to telling Red Hook I forget a detail...then when they compare notes they get different impressions)

[nearmint]

Can you see where relying on a well intentioned poster to broadcast your message for you might not be reliable?

 

I can see that, and I'm sure that's why Mark is verifying all of Steve's quotes before he posts.

 

I think everyone would prefer that Steve, or someone from CGC, would just post this stuff on the boards, but given the fact that they won't, isn't this the best way?