Manufactured Gold

[mica]

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?

Sadly....probably. But I can't call it "best way" like you did in the quote.

Alternative way that produces limited results is probably more accurate.

[Ze-man]

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?

 

 

 

What exacty does " verifying Steve's Quotes" mean anyways?

 

He talked to STEVE B. about matters concerning CGC right?

 

What is he going to do, call STEVE B. back and ask him if what he discussed with him was indeed what he meant to say? Or is he going to call and ask for Chris F. to see if what Steve said was correct?

 

 

This is beyond a round about way to get information to the public. Not to mention very High School-ish.

 

Either they have things to say, or they do not.

 

I really hope Mark got all the answers he was loooking for, but it is all just talk. Until I see CGC sack up and tell everyone what THEY think is important enough for them to respond, I am taking all of this with that big ol' block of salt we have been passing around.

 

All this tiptoeing around, he said, she said chit is driving me batty.

 

 

 

 

Ze-

 

 

Chief, next round of books please.

 

 

[drbanner]

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

I have a hard time believing that.

 

Why?

[burntboy]

Wow - this thread has been one wild ride............

 

i guess my biggest takeaway from all of this is the "revelation" that disassembly and reassembly of books is (in and of itself) not restoration. and i have to agree with Davenport as to why we've ever had all of the discussions in the past over NDP, when apparently that was never the real issue - it was simply pressing - period.............

 

and as to Red's continual harping on the PR shortcomings, i, once again, must agree. most of the biggest "scandals" discussed on these boards blew over pretty quickly after the main party stepped forward and gave their side of the story. SO MUCH of that could be avoided if CGC simply responded to important issues quickly and head-on.........

[MutantKeys]

I need to catch-up on whats been going on in this thread but it seems like it will take a while..

[esquirecomics]

Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected.

 

Please please, I beg of all of you who actually agree with this statement to contact me if you have a gorgeous wife!

 

All things aside,

 

I Nominate this as THE most round about, read between the lines, guess what I am hinting at, off color obscure post............................................ of the decade.

 

Kudos Mark, You outdid yourself.

 

 

 

Ze-

 

[esquirecomics]

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?

 

I posted the contents of my conversation with Steve in the other thread.

 

Jeff, I'm simply using your post above to make a broader point. It is not directed at you per se.

 

From my perspective I was engaged in modifying CGC policy. Not a substantive policy, but a business policy. I know I could call and get answers. I don't think I need to do so every single time. I am not CGC's messenger or PR tool. When posting questions on a message board one must take the risk they won't get answered, perhaps because they become lost amidst a sea of other questions. But that wasn't the case with my thread and I knew that in advance. Just look at the thread. Within a short period of time West, a senior CGC employee, posted a response. And I personally made sure Steve B. was aware of it. I am not saying that CGC has to ever answer every question I pose. To be sure that is not true nor would I expect it. But to answer questions on the telephone yet refuse to do so in writing strikes me as and I prefer not to play that game.

[october]

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.

 

Hey guys, want a thread that CGC will repond to? Start one that features people who pledge to no longer use CGC's services because of their "lack of transparency". Lay out the questions that need to be answered and back up all this talk will a little action. Hit them where it hurts, and that's NOT with a bunch of hot air.

 

Otherwise you are just a couple of yahoos on a message board that CGC can laugh at and ignore....all while taking your new submission money. Why would they answer? It isn't costing them any business.

 

Then again, I have said this song and dance before. It's real easy to be outraged, but I guess it isn't so easy to forgo your monthly slab fixes. Never underestimate the power of addiction.

[drbanner]

Hey guys, want a thread that CGC will repond to? Start one that features people who pledge to no longer use CGC's services because of their "lack of transparency". Lay out the questions that need to be answered and back up all this talk will a little action. Hit them where it hurts, and that's NOT with a bunch of hot air.

 

Otherwise you are just a couple of yahoos on a message board that CGC can laugh at and ignore....all while taking your new submission money. Why would they answer? It isn't costing them any business.

Too funny...the bold part above rung a bell about a previous outrage here on the boards where people were trying to get answers about the latest controversy (the More CGC Grading Fun thread - over two and half years ago), with all the same arguments about calling CGC/not calling CGC, why should we have to call, why doesn't Steve post his answers on the board instead, etc.,. In the end, the answers came from our good man Garth:

 

Finally got a chance to call Steve B. and...

[namralos]

It was written:

"I still like my idea though for having a separate category for books that don't have restoration but have still been improved."

 

Any "improvement" in grade is restoration.

 

It was written:

"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."

 

Okay, now that's just .... Hmm... I'm not even sure what that is. Apparently, we're moving away from the definition "restoration we can catch easily is restoration; all other restoration is conservation." The new definition appears to be, "Amateur restoration is restoration; professional restoration is conservation." I agree with whoever said they won't have much to check for anymore. I HOPE these are unfounded rumors.

 

Please let's just keep records of what was done to a book. Heck, maybe we don't need to LABEL it anything. Let the buyers, collectors, investors, etc. decide what to label it. Just tell us ALL of what was done.

[infinite_comics-migration]

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.

 

Is there a phone number that people in England can use to call CGC toll-free?

[FFB]

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.

 

I think you guys may be overestimating the length of the leash that CGC will give to posters who continually rip into the company and complain about the same things over and over, and then denigrate the company and its employees simply because they don't do exactly what you want, exactly the way you want it done. My sense from reading recent posts about moderation is that there is going to be less tolerance for that.

 

On the other hand, I have an equally strong suspicion that most of those warnings are going to be akin to the parent who says to the child, "If you do that ONE MORE TIME, I'm going to blah blah blah...." and then never does anything.

[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.

 

Is there a phone number that people in England can use to call CGC toll-free?

 

I don't believe there is.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Hey guys, want a thread that CGC will repond to? Start one that features people who pledge to no longer use CGC's services because of their "lack of transparency". Lay out the questions that need to be answered and back up all this talk will a little action. Hit them where it hurts, and that's NOT with a bunch of hot air.

 

Otherwise you are just a couple of yahoos on a message board that CGC can laugh at and ignore....all while taking your new submission money. Why would they answer? It isn't costing them any business.

Too funny...the bold part above rung a bell about a previous outrage here on the boards where people were trying to get answers about the latest controversy (the More CGC Grading Fun thread - over two and half years ago), with all the same arguments about calling CGC/not calling CGC, why should we have to call, why doesn't Steve post his answers on the board instead, etc.,. In the end, the answers came from our good man Garth:

 

Finally got a chance to call Steve B. and...

 

Let's forget the questions, and remind ourselves that the precious few answers we have gotten so far have left most of us scratching our heads and wondering.

 

Frankly, I'm afraid to hear the answers anymore.

[kc120us]

 

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.

 

This is splitting hairs. Whether it is restoration or conservation, the work should be noted somewhere on the label.

[Red Hook]

 

On the other hand, I have an equally strong suspicion that most of those warnings are going to be akin to the parent who says to the child, "If you do that ONE MORE TIME, I'm going to blah blah blah...." and then never does anything.

 

I think that comparing CGC's relationship to their customers to that of a parent/child relationship is pretty silly. Maybe that's how you feel about CGC, but I don't.

[FFB]

 

On the other hand, I have an equally strong suspicion that most of those warnings are going to be akin to the parent who says to the child, "If you do that ONE MORE TIME, I'm going to blah blah blah...." and then never does anything.

 

I think that comparing CGC's relationship to their customers to that of a parent/child relationship is pretty silly. Maybe that's how you feel about CGC, but I don't.

 

You're taking the analogy too literally and thus missing the point. It's an analogy. Look for the real message.

[awe4one]

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?

 

Hell no it's not...I'd like to think a company looked at as one of the leader's in the hobby, whether warranted or not, would be able to speak for themselves. Not relying on their message getting out secondhand. This isn't the Romper Room game "Tell Your Neighbor"...

 

But of course we are talking comic books here... bet it wouldn't surprise Joe Public these tactics are used in a perceived kid's hobby...

 

Jim

[nearmint]

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?

 

Hell no it's not...I'd like to think a company looked at as one of the leader's in the hobby, whether warranted or not, would be able to speak for themselves. Not relying on their message getting out secondhand. This isn't the Romper Room game "Tell Your Neighbor"...

 

But of course we are talking comic books here... bet it wouldn't surprise Joe Public these tactics are used in a perceived kid's hobby...

 

Jim

 

But given the fact that they won't, what's our other option to extract the info and get it out there?

[awe4one]

But given the fact that they won't, what's our other option to extract the info and get it out there?

 

We don't...we just treat the company with the same respect they do their customers. We obviously aren't important enough to address directly...then why should we respect their views?

 

This deliberate, or inability, to address their customers, publicly, on issues is confounding to me. It's as if they know people are hooked on their product, with a customer base that's perceived to be less than mature due to the hobby they function in, and feel it's fine to string them along. They'll always come back in their eyes because they can't see, or aren't able due to not wanting to know, when they are being played...

 

Jim