Redhook exposes CGG's LIE!!!

[lighthouse]

Taken from the middle of the other thread, where it might have gone unnoticed by some, these two posts from Redhook:

 

Thanks Guys.....

 

Now, I just spent the last hour and a half re-reading 25 pages of the original thread.....great thread by the way! I didn't want to just jump in with some wiseass opinions about some scans that popped up. So I got all the background.

 

Here are Professor Redhook's findings.....working backwards

 

1. The CGG scan is suprisingly poor. Considering the issue is all about trimming, it's interesting that the bottom edge of the book is cropped in the scan. What is the purpose again of CGG taking these scans? They are so poor, they really serve no purpose. If it was as a visual record, then where is the scan of the MTU book? Very fishy.

 

2. In my opinion, the concerns Joanna has expressed in this thread are very valid. She has shown enough evidence to, at the very least, have us reject CGGs scan as proof of anything other than CGGs incompetence or even possible fraud. I happen to own a raw copy of ASM 68 and again, in my opinion, the additional art area along the bottom of the book in the CGG scan does not match up with the art at the bottom of my book. It "looks" as if someone decided to use photoshop to extend the art area, in an artistic way, without carefully examining what "should" have appeared.

 

Even before I saw Joanna's excellent presentation of the side by side scans, I noticed the missing black notch of the shadow of the fold in the woman's sleeve. I noticed the linework at the bottom of the green shirt seemed misaligned (the strokes of the artwork go off in a different direction). The hand of the guy holding the protest sign on the right of the book is all off too. The entire CGG scan is dodgy at best. Really bad. Even though it is blurry and of low quality, you "should" have been able to see the missing details Joanna called out in her demonstration. Pixel "spread" occurs alot in low quality scans, so you should have been able to see something of these details.

 

Now even though Joanna demonstrated this already, I will shortly post my own demo based on the CGG scan and my own raw copy. Super job, Joanna!

 

Finally, I believe in the theory that the simplest possiblity is the one to go with. I think CGG just missed the trimming, and tried to cover their butts with a bad (and very possibly doctored) scan. That is my opinion only, I could be wrong, but there it is.

 

And this follow-up:

 

Okay, here it is.......

 

Sorry for the wide scroll, but I needed to do it this way.

 

I think this nails it.

 

[Mr. Zipper]

I'll go on the record as saying I was hoping against hope that there was some other explanation for this other than deception by LR or CGG. I've used CGG and welcomed their alternative to the market.

 

Given what we've seen, I just can't understand why CGG wouldn't come clean, admit they missed resto, and the whole thing would have blown over by now. Doctoring a scan to cover up a forgivable mistake seems foolish and just made it worse.

 

That said, the schadenfreude demonstrated in one member's semi-literate posts makes me sick. I don't see anything to celebrate.

[kryptonitecomics]

Nice job of lining all 3 up

 

 

 

 

Something is definitely fishy here

[OldGuy]

That said, the schadenfreude demonstrated in one member's semi-literate posts makes me sick. I don't see anything to celebrate.

 

Oh come on, as long as we're pulling covers you might as well name names. Let's make it a blood bath!

[chromium]

[drice6900]

[lighthouse]

I have been one of the most critical members here of CGG from the beginning... but my criticisms to this point had been largely directed at their business model (or lack thereof), not at the actual goods and services they provide. I have raised a number of questions about their financial backing, corporate structure, transparency, marketing, etc... And I still believe those are valid concerns, not just for CGG, but for the standards they set for their own future competition to follow. Having met Daniel several times, I felt the flaws in his business model were not as disturbing for their reflections on CGG, but for the opportunities they opened for truly horrible firms to follow CGG into the marketplace.

 

Failure to detect restoration is either human error or a lack of competency. In either case, I felt CGG might still have an opportunity to salvage a successful business by shifting their focus to the products where they are a more legitimate competitor for CGC, namely the recent moderns. Restoration detection is virtually a non-issue on books like 1602, and their abilities in that area wouldn't be as significant a factor.

 

That said, the chain of events surrounding this ASM 68 has led me to seriously question whether the flaws in CGG go beyond the business model.

[drbanner]

That said, the schadenfreude demonstrated in one member's semi-literate posts makes me sick. I don't see anything to celebrate.

 

Oh come on, as long as we're pulling covers you might as well name names. Let's make it a blood bath!

 

Yeah, tell us who he is so we can get him!

[ArAich]

Phew...I finally read all relevant threads/posts on this subject ...I am left to quote the famous words of Frank Berone...HOLY KRAP!!!...

[Mr. Zipper]

Oh come on, as long as we're pulling covers you might as well name names. Let's make it a blood bath!

 

... just get out your Strunk and White and follow the bad grammar...

 

Someone else called certain members "CGG lapdogs." Funny, I though Gman, Smoking and others were trying to be FAIR and OBJECTIVE. Or are you automatically a CGG lapdog if you are NOT a CGC lapdog?

[OldGuy]

Or are you automatically a CGG lapdog if you are NOT a CGC lapdog?

 

Here puppypuppypuppypuppypuppy.

[deathlok]

Oh come on, as long as we're pulling covers you might as well name names. Let's make it a blood bath!

 

... just get out your Strunk and White and follow the bad grammar...

 

Someone else called certain members "CGG lapdogs." Funny, I though Gman, Smoking and others were trying to be FAIR and OBJECTIVE. Or are you automatically a CGG lapdog if you are NOT a CGC lapdog?

 

I called out those few users who continue to support in CGG despite the problems that continue to arise with them. If they want to continue to use CGG thats fine, but don't lecture us on how good of a service they provide. Some may choose to label us as CGC lapdogs, which is a valid opinion. I do support CGC, because they provide a reliable and honest service. Until a grading company can provide that I will continue to send my books to Sarasota.

[davidking623]

Oh come on, as long as we're pulling covers you might as well name names. Let's make it a blood bath!

 

... just get out your Strunk and White and follow the bad grammar...

 

Someone else called certain members "CGG lapdogs." Funny, I though Gman, Smoking and others were trying to be FAIR and OBJECTIVE. Or are you automatically a CGG lapdog if you are NOT a CGC lapdog?

 

Well I dont know but I just didnt know how to be fair to this CGG company out the gate.They seemed cheap at first and they seem even worse now! I would like to see a comic grading company that was great at the beggining and you could have faith in! Cgg never ever gave me that. Now it looks like they may have slit there own throat and are thru!

 

Davidking623

[OldGuy]

just get out your Strunk and White and follow the bad grammar...

 

Whell im learned at english weller than most pepol so i no you'r not talkin bout me. Must be Banner or Lighthouse.

[davidking623]

Oh come on, as long as we're pulling covers you might as well name names. Let's make it a blood bath!

 

... just get out your Strunk and White and follow the bad grammar...

 

Someone else called certain members "CGG lapdogs." Funny, I though Gman, Smoking and others were trying to be FAIR and OBJECTIVE. Or are you automatically a CGG lapdog if you are NOT a CGC lapdog?

 

I called out those few users who continue to support in CGG despite the problems that continue to arise with them. If they want to continue to use CGG thats fine, but don't lecture us on how good of a service they provide. Some may choose to label us as CGC lapdogs, which is a valid opinion. I do support CGC, because they provide a reliable and honest service. Until a grading company can provide that I will continue to send my books to Sarasota.

 

Well put!

 

Davidking623

[lighthouse]

just get out your Strunk and White and follow the bad grammar...

 

Whell im learned at english weller than most pepol so i no you'r not talkin bout me. Must be Banner or Lighthouse.

 

Its "weller then most pepol", stoopidhed!

[Red Hook]

I don't know if this means CGG is through, but they certainly have some serious damage-control to attend to.

 

And please don't let this thread dissolve into stone throwing at this point. The whole story is not out yet. But the ball is squarely in CGGs court right now. I also consider it a possiblity that the CGG slab was hacked after it left CGG and before Lord Rahl took possession of it. But CGG made matters much worse by submitting a lousy scan that just didn't jive.

 

And by the way, if I had been presented with suspect scans from CGC I certainly wouldn't have hesitated to analyze them too. I've already given CGC grief over several matters, and will continue to do so if I feel it is warranted. I will say this.....at this point I have the most confidence in CGC as a grading company, but that doesn't mean they can't improve the product and service. I never had a problem with CGG, and felt they had every right to set themselves up as a competitor. I think they were in too much of a rush to get to market, and they aren't delivering the goods. In this instance, cheaper and faster doesn't make up for quality.

 

Because of ebay and slabbing, this little hobby of ours has become a higher stakes game than it used to be. The temptation is there for bending the rules and even outright dishonesty. I'm not surprised at all.

 

I might be wrong, but I think we are in a critical period of re-evaluation in the area of just what a certified book means, and what the consumer expects. In one way CGC is a victim of their own success. There is also a conflict between maintaining the secrecy of your "trade-secret" methods of restoration detection and your grading perameters, and the needed transparency of your operation to maintain the confidence of the people who use your service.

 

CGC ignores the issues of pressing and resubbing at it's own risk. It may be that they can ignore it for now, but it will catch up with the market and have it's effect. When a really legitimate competitor arrives on the seen, they had better be ready to respond.

 

That said, I will continue to use CGCs services, as the best choice avaliable at the moment. I will do my best to not overpay for resubs.....and will do the research necessary to avoid doing so. A case in point, the Daredevil 18 9.6 on Heritage right now which was a resubbed 9.4 which I suspect of being pressed. It's up to you if you want to spend your money that way, but I don't.

[davidking623]

Hi guys. I'm the one that bet MW1 that CGG made the right call on the lack of restoration (trimming). First off, don't worry about it MW1. You can keep the $25. I do appreciate how you brought this concern to the forum and took the trouble to have your book shipped all around for verification. I have no problem with your actions as you were just looking for answers and opinions of board members and trained professionals. However, I DO have a problem with all the bad mouthing of CGG by so many OTHER board members that were 95% positive and absolutely sure that CGG was wrong and that not only was it TRIMMED, but that it was also OVERGRADED!!!!. So, now CGC comes back, agrees with CGG's assessment and even grades it HIGHER!!!! So, for all of you complainiong about how CGG overgraded the book, looks like CGC is the one with egg all over their faces now. You guys must REALLY think that CGC is out of whack. You must all have alot more respect for CGG now. Right? I certainly hope so. I keep trying to get many of you guys to open up your brand-loyalty to others. As I have said before, CGC to many is like your local sports team. You like them better just because you are familiar with them, and closer to them.

 

And please, don't accuse me of having ties with CGG. I use both companies equally and think they are both great. For all you out there bad mouthing CGG and tarnishing their reputation over this, I honestly believe that you owe them an apology as being a small company as they are, any bad press can really hurt the bottom line. And unfortunately the smear campaign going on here by some people may have hurt this company a bit.

 

OK, my lecture is over. Congrats MW1, now you can make a profit on your book although I think $1,500 is a tad high, but you can certainly try. With your profit it may serve you well to give CGG some business as I imagine they have now earned your respect. ---------Sid

 

 

Davidking623

[garthgantu]

I'll go on the record as saying I was hoping against hope that there was some other explanation for this other than deception by LR or CGG. I've used CGG and welcomed their alternative to the market.

 

Given what we've seen, I just can't understand why CGG wouldn't come clean, admit they missed resto, and the whole thing would have blown over by now. Doctoring a scan to cover up a forgivable mistake seems foolish and just made it worse.

 

That said, the schadenfreude demonstrated in one member's semi-literate posts makes me sick. I don't see anything to celebrate.

 

Zipper, are you just tryin' to rub it in, or what? Do you really think there's even a remote chance that the person in question is going to know the meaning of "schadenfreude" ?

 

Frankly, I'm pretty impressed that the "celebration" was so limited. I think that most board members, even those who stand firmly in CGC's corner, are circumspect enough to realize this isn't a positive development for the comic book collecting community.

 

I was never a CGG fan - I guess I couldn't be, since I've never owned a CGGed comic - but I will certainly admit to rooting for CGG in a general way. I for one consider competition - within reason - a good thing. 12 comic slabbing services would be a terrible state of affairs, but ONE slabbing service is not an ideal situation either (except perhaps, for the one service in question).

[Ze-man]

In response to davidking623's post

 

First off, I am still delving through all this past threads topics, and I have yet to make any clear assesment.

But I was under the impression this last 2 threads were about doctoring scans, and not under/overgrading?

 

 

And also I can say without a doubt that if and when a company really does seriously compete with what CGC has to offer, that the board members here no matter how loyal to CGC will look at both companies and weigh their options.

 

But as it stands now CGC is top dog for a reason, are they without fault? nope.Do they make mistakes>? YUP

 

Do I agree with CGC everytime? NOPE

 

But from what I have gleened from all my readings here, and buying /selling of CGC comics on my own, they are without a doubt .. HONEST , through and through.

And that seems to go along way with board members.

 

So true, a witch hunt to burn CGG at the stake might seem a bit rash..BUT

 

I have read countless past threads/ posts bashing CGC here on the boards and I didnt hear anyone crying for us to stop and apoligze to them becasue it might hurt their business.

 

Cmon, the truth normally always comes out here in the end, so for me personally the verdict on this is still out..

 

I hope to hear fromBOTH sides making their case about this issue.And see where the chips fall.

 

Zeman