Cleaned And Pressed By Matt Nelson

[drbanner]

Yep, if time and money and the technology were not an issue, it's a great idea. It's simply impractical...

[sfilosa]

Quick Hits:

 

1) If CGC did find a way to "mark / indentify" books, that would still mean the 400,000 book already graded would not be marked.

 

2) If CGC found a more precise way to identify "cleaned and pressed", wouldn't that INVALIDATE the 400,000 books already graded.

 

3) This is similar to why I say that CGC standards CAN NOT become MORE STRICT (or even start to downgrade books for manufacturing defects). BECAUSE, it would INVALIDATE the grades of all the book already graded.

 

 

 

[Ze-man]

Quick Hits:

 

1) If CGC did find a way to "mark / indentify" books, that would still mean the 400,000 book already graded would not be marked.

 

2) If CGC found a more precise way to identify "cleaned and pressed", wouldn't that INVALIDATE the 400,000 books already graded.

 

3) This is similar to why I say that CGC standards CAN NOT become MORE STRICT (or even start to downgrade books for manufacturing defects). BECAUSE, it would INVALIDATE the grades of all the book already graded.

 

 

 

kinda a catch 22 huh..

 

 

[Red Hook]

This is just an observation, but I find myself looking at books with the newer cgc labels a little differently......most of the resubs that have come to light have these labels (obviously).

[garthgantu]

Per your point directly below, this is exactly the sort of scenario in which the software would work - it sees a scan that's very similar, but not identical to, another scan already in the database - in fact, the more similar the better, because we're not talking about identifying the "standard characteristics" of a given cover (position of characters, position and color of title, etc.). We're talking about software that would essentially say "hmm - this ASM 1 looks almost exactly like this other ASM 1 in the database, except the pencilled arrival data in the "A" in "Amazing" is somewhat fainter in the book that just arrived at CGC - better flag this."

 

As for CGC's response, I totally understand it. They don't think the system is broken, so why spend money and time trying to fix it? In my opinion, this is a short-term perspective; something's got to be done to enable CGC to better spot restoration of various kinds. Think of it kinda like check-forging: if the law enforcement authorities never upgraded their ability to identify and evaluate and ultimately thwart various types of forgery, the problem would over time get worse and worse - you have to think preventatively or the bad guys will keep devising new methods of fraud that you never imagined. In the current situation, the trimmed Bats 11 is a good example...

 

I think if you trimmed and cleaned the book, the software wouldn't work.

 

I thought that Steve Borock said that it (the invisible UV ink code) was an interesting idea in a previous thread? Or did I dream that?

Since I proposed the idea originally, I doubt that it was warmly received by anyone at CGC

 

But here's another idea, akin to something proposed earlier in this thread ("comic book DNA" ?):

Modify some facial-recognition / optical character recognition software to work with comic book covers. There are far fewer comic book covers than individual faces, and comic book covers are much more distinctive, one from another, than human faces. I think you could create an application that would allow you to scan each book upon arrival, then cross-reference it with *just the other images matching the same comic book 'name' (title + issue #)*. If any really close matches came up, the original scan could be retrieved and compared to the 'new arrival.' (Along with the graders' notes, which would likely be invaluable in many cases.)

No need to alter the book in any way, as is the case in the "UV serial #" idea.

 

Whaddaya think?

[FFB]

I already addressed the "400,000 books already graded" issue in a prior discussion on the topic. The point is that if they start now with the invisible ink serial numbers, within seven years, all the books that have to get reholdered will be stamped. What's more, the problem will not continue to get worse, like it will if nothing is done about it.

 

It makes no sense to just continue to do nothing about the problem, simply because you've been doing nothing about the problem for the first three and a half years you've been around.

 

Also, the serial number wouldn't "invalidate" anything. The books that have already been graded don't change at all. They're still CGC certified books. The serial number is there to guarantee only that a book that is submitted can't be pressed and cleaned and then resubmitted later. It won't solve anything for raw books, but it'll keep the census from being wildly inaccurate from all of the resubs and it'll stop or greatly hinder the practice for those books that are CGC'ed after the invisible ink stamp is put on the book.

 

Quick Hits:

 

1) If CGC did find a way to "mark / indentify" books, that would still mean the 400,000 book already graded would not be marked.

 

2) If CGC found a more precise way to identify "cleaned and pressed", wouldn't that INVALIDATE the 400,000 books already graded.

 

3) This is similar to why I say that CGC standards CAN NOT become MORE STRICT (or even start to downgrade books for manufacturing defects). BECAUSE, it would INVALIDATE the grades of all the book already graded.

 

 

[AtomicPaul-migration]

...but it'll keep the census from being wildly inaccurate from all of the resubs...

 

 

The only problem right now is that unless all of the resubmitted comics were sent in with their original grade label, the census might already well be wildly inaccurate.

[sfilosa]

It makes no sense to just continue to do nothing about the problem, simply because you've been doing nothing about the problem for the first three and a half years you've been around.

 

The problems you are discussing are:

 

NOT A PROBLEM FOR CGC!!!!!

 

First-

You continue to believe that there is ANY CHANCE that CGC will identify a book with an invisible mark. THEY WILL NOT, as many collectors would not continue to use their service. Plus, they would NOT get RESUBMITS once a book had been marked.

 

Second-

Everyone is so concerned with the CENSUS not being entirely accurate? How many books does CGC grade ONLY because some wants the book included in the census (not because they want the grade certified)? ZERO!!!! The census is a bonus CGC does as a public service for the collecting community.

 

You need to understand that if CGC:

 

1) Put invisible marks they would LOSE BUSINESS.

 

2) CGC probably LOSES business by even having a census. How you ask? Don't you think that certain books collectors think they should get CGC'd, don't once they realize that there are already 100's of high-grade copies in the census.

 

While your concerns are vaild to the collecting community they are NOT practical business policies for CGC.

[garthgantu]

While your concerns are vaild to the collecting community they are NOT practical business policies for CGC.

 

I agree with some of your points, SFilosa... but this last comment requires further discussion... to me, it would seem that, unless you (i.e., CGC) are only in this business for the short term, the valid concerns of the collecting community should also be your concerns...if enough prospective CGC customers start to feel as though the "CGC premium" is waning, CGC could lose significant business, either to other grading/slabbing companies or by simply not having a compelling enough service that people want to take the time and money to use it.

 

I still think the "UV serial code" idea is valid - your comments about people not liking the idea of having a microscopic 9-digit number printed in their comics notwithstanding. But if you don't like that idea, what about the "visual recognition software" idea? CGC may say it's prohibitively expensive, but I wonder if they've even explored the idea sufficiently to know the costs involved. I would think that finding the maker of such software as it's used in police or other security work, and licensing a version that could be modified to scan and scrutinize/compare comic book covers, could perhaps be done for a not-outrageous sum.

[sfilosa]

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

 

 

While your concerns are vaild to the collecting community they are NOT practical business policies for CGC.

 

 

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

 

 

 

I agree with some of your points, SFilosa... but this last comment requires further discussion... to me, it would seem that, unless you (i.e., CGC) are only in this business for the short term, the valid concerns of the collecting community should also be your concerns...if enough prospective CGC customers start to feel as though the "CGC premium" is waning, CGC could lose significant business, either to other grading/slabbing companies or by simply not having a compelling enough service that people want to take the time and money to use it.

 

 

I just don't see any reason for CGC to be concerned (at this time) that there service is "waning" in the eyes of the collecting community.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are things that I wish CGC did differently, but honestly, trying to some how identify resubmit books is not high on my list.