CGG: Dawn of the Dead

[sterlingcomics]

NOT to go off topic but Dawn of the Dead was awesome- I loved the original but the new also scared the bajezzuz out of me- wow!!!!fun fun fun fun! I was screaming like a frightened little girl!

 

I want to go see it....I haven't yet....

[deathlok]

NOT to go off topic but Dawn of the Dead was awesome- I loved the original but the new also scared the bajezzuz out of me- wow!!!!fun fun fun fun! I was screaming like a frightened little girl!

 

I want to go see it....I haven't yet....

 

don't wait.....go right now......hurry......run

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....are you still here?....go

[sterlingcomics]

NOT to go off topic but Dawn of the Dead was awesome- I loved the original but the new also scared the bajezzuz out of me- wow!!!!fun fun fun fun! I was screaming like a frightened little girl!

 

I want to go see it....I haven't yet....

 

don't wait.....go right now......hurry......run

....are you still here?....go

 

I just have to take out the garbage...now come along...

[Kevin Boyd]

Have you ever held a CGG slab and look at it?

CGG case is better the CGC they improved on CGC case, just like Lexus and BMW.

 

I have - just last weekend at the Wizard show in LA.

 

The case is of a harder material than CGC's, other than that it is identical. I will agree that it doesn't LOOK bad. Unfortunately, to use your car analogy, it may look like a Lexus, but it's one made out of non-rust-proofed tin.

 

Do you have any idea what that material is? I do, and it sure isn't archival quality - it's some kind of regular plastic, not a mylar derivative which CGC and apparantly 3PG report they use. You leave your books in that for any length of time and you will see the difference.

 

Kev

 

BTW I saw Dawn of the Dead on Thursday. Great movie!

[Arty]

Do you have any idea what that material is? I do, and it sure isn't archival quality - it's some kind of regular plastic, not a mylar derivative which CGC and apparantly 3PG report they use.

 

so what it is?

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

so what it is?

 

I would like to know as well...neither grading company gives specifics...

 

CGC:

The CGC holder is designed to securely hold your comic book and provide years of protection from many environmental hazards. All of the materials used in the CGC holder are tested and proven to be archivally safe, and the holder is designed to be the first line of defense in a prudent plan for storage. Our research and design team created a holder that is truly unique and unrivaled in the comics industry for its protection and preservation of comic books.

 

CGG:

The CGGroup Comic Book Holder was designed and engineered to provide the absolute best protection for comic books. Designed and engineered from the latest state of the art equipment, and made from 100% virgin materials, the CGGroup Holder provides crystal clear clarity, allowing the viewing of the book from all sides. Security features are built into the CGGroup Holder to make any tampering with the holder evident, protecting against any possible fraud. The CGGroup Holder consist of a interior holder that the book is sealed inside of, along with 2 sheets of our special paper designed to absorb the gases the paper of the book puts off, and the label containing all pertinent information about the book, along with the books reference number, and date graded, sealed in the top portion of the holder above the book itself. That all sets in side our hard outer holder which offers excellent protection for the book.

 

CGG uses virgin materials, but makes no claims about using archivally safe products, so who knows. Maybe that is one of the reasons why it is able to offer such competitive prices?

[RS]

Hey RS, what do you think of the bogus scan CGG sent?

 

Joanna

 

 

I think they should have not sent a scan if they can't post here. With something so important I would not let anyone post it for me. Not saying someone did something to the CGG scan. I would have to do the posting myself. But the way people are posting here that this one scan will kill CGG is a little overboard. I think tdcomixncardz is the real cause of CGG troubles. Ever time there is a problem it points right back to tdcomixncardz.

 

RS

[BachelorOfComix]

I think they should have not sent a scan if they can't post here. With something so important I would not let anyone post it for me. Not saying someone did something to the CGG scan.

Ridiculous. If that's not what you're impying then don't fricking say it. Quit getting drunk off the CGG kool-aid. I think you're going a little overboard trying to defend them.

[Kevin Boyd]

I have been told the name of the plastic that CGC uses, but I'm afraid I don't know the designation, except that for some reason I think it sounds like Borock. I know from talking with CGC customer service staff who were involved with r&d that they did spend a great deal of time of time finding a plastic for the holder that was archivally sound.

 

CGG on the other hand doesn't claim to use archival materials but 100% virgin materials = what does that mean? I don't know specifically what kind of plastic it is, but those people that I know who have experience with plastics feel that it is a standard type of cheap, non-archival grade plastic similar to what might be used for pamphlet holders, magazine racks, etc. A solid, short term plastic that will be more resistant to dropping than the current CGC holder but likely to cause long-term reaction to less durable papers like newsprint and other paper products used for comics.

 

Kev

[RS]

I think they should have not sent a scan if they can't post here. With something so important I would not let anyone post it for me. Not saying someone did something to the CGG scan.

Ridiculous. If that's not what you're impying then don't fricking say it. Quit getting drunk off the CGG kool-aid. I think you're going a little overboard trying to defend them.

 

[sterlingcomics]

 

 

OHHHH YEEEAAAAHHH!

[Joanna]

Hey RS, what do you think of the bogus scan CGG sent?

 

Joanna

 

 

I think they should have not sent a scan if they can't post here. With something so important I would not let anyone post it for me. Not saying someone did something to the CGG scan. I would have to do the posting myself.

 

 

You appear to be pretty hooked into them. Perhaps you could ask for the scan and post it.

 

I've never said a word about the whole CGG vs. CGC thing before, but a doctored scan is serious. This isn't about who grades better, costs less, takes more time, has a better holder, spots restoration, etc. This is about fraud. I don't like to think of either company being fraudulent, so it would be great if CGG could clear up the mess their doctored scan has caused. And although td does seem to be at the root of things, it's my understanding that the doctored scan came from CGG, not td. That looks very, very bad for them. If you know them, please let them know that without an explanation for the subterfuge, it is impossible to see them as an honest company at this time.

 

-- Joanna

[Smokinghawk]

Bingo.

[Clark Khaos-migration]

I think they should have not sent a scan if they can't post here. With something so important I would not let anyone post it for me. Not saying someone did something to the CGG scan.

Ridiculous. If that's not what you're impying then don't fricking say it. Quit getting drunk off the CGG kool-aid. I think you're going a little overboard trying to defend them.

 

[FFB]

 

Yeah... quick show of hands...

 

Who thinks it was a bad idea for Daniel Patterson to start CGG as a sole proprietorship (putting all of his personal assets at risk) rather than setting up an LLC or S-Corp?

[FFB]

Hey Kev,

 

I think I asked this before, but didn't see that you had answered -- is CGC's holder patented?

 

Also, whether it is or not, why hasn't CGC sued CGG for either patent infringement or trade dress infringement? The CGG holder AND label are both blatant knockoffs, and the CGG name is so close that I have seen literally hundreds of times when people have confused CGC for CGG and vice versa. What are these assclowns still doing in business with their ripoff business model?

 

 

Geez, you guys are too funny. Whether they have done anything unethical, or have done anything of less than high quality I don't know. But either way, I am hoping that they make whatever improvements necessary and expand their name and services within the comics community. I realize that it is hard for new small companies to come in to the marketplace and compete with the Giant Gorilla that CGC has become but NO ONE will come out Big and Perfect from the start.

 

The only way for CGG to make improvements would be to shut down their operations for at least 3-6 months so that they can completely re-write and re-design their website, come up with new and original designations for their grading tiers and labels, and come up with a new holder design that isn't a rip of CGC's.

 

Then they would have to hire a person with some experience and respect in the field when it came to restoration, and hire a "face" for the company - perhaps a respected big-name dealer.

 

Good luck CGG, you'll need it. As long as you are still around you and CGC BOTH will be grading my books. If CGC was faster they would grade all of my books. But CGG is a nice alternative to the 3-months plus wait for some books.-------Sid

 

CGG doesn't need luck, they've had plenty of luck to survive this long.

 

What CGG needs is money, lots of money.

 

They saved a ton of it by simply copying CGC's research and design to launch their service, but if they are serious about continuing operations they should step back and use whatever money they have earned from people like yourself who are desperate for a cheaper and faster alternative to CGC and reinvest it in coming up a with a service that is uniquely their own.

 

The essential problem with CGG isn't that they exist, it's that they came into existance by copying CGC to the very letter.

 

Offering a service at a lower price with a faster turnaround could be a strong selling point - but it's currently undermined by the fact that they have stolen everything from CGC in order to get to this point, and that they have had some very visible public snafus (true or not) when it has come to the issues of grading restored books.

 

Kev

[FFB]

Thanks Kev, this answers my questions.

 

It certainly sounds like you have some inside information. Can't wait to see how this turns out.

 

I do know that as of last weekend's show, CGC now has examples of CGG holders and evidence that their patents have been violated... all the proof that they need to initiate something legally against CGG.

 

I don't know when, where or how they do so.

 

Kev

[Red Hook]

Hi RS,

 

Now you know me a bit, and I don't think you've known me to go teeing off on CGG.....in fact I consider myself usually more of an annoyance to CGC with all my whining about resubs, time lags, etc. I think you are a funny guy, veering towards loopiness when it comes to CGG. I don't think you are helping their credibility by sticking your head in the sand on this one.

 

I have not said the scan proves ANYTHING 100%, just that it doesn't look good. I assume it did come from CGG. But even on an issue this important (at least within our small collecting universe), there is no point in rushing to judgement. All I did was compare the scans of the books I had before me and offer my opinion. Is there a possiblity that I'm wrong? Sure! But not a probability. That is all I am saying. I have no insight into CGGs methods, motivations, operations, etc. so I won't offer an opinion on that. Do I have my theorys? Yep, but until I learn more about what the hell is going on here I won't throw them out half-baked. I think CGG should either very quickly offer an explanation, fess up or just proclaim "we panicked and we blew it".

 

Again, I don't have an agenda. I like the challenge of examining visual material, measuring, and using what skills I have. I would have done the same thing with a scan that CGC had submittted. So I don't think there are going to be any free CGC grading coupons in my mailbox anytime soon. I think the only time I have ever communicated in any manner with anyone from CGC is when I couldn't get one of my books registered in my set, and I sent CGC an email about it.

 

What I am interested in is some workable level of corporate transparency, and honesty. There really is no third party policing Ebay, Paypal, dealers or the grading companies, so I feel we have a resonsibility to be savvy consumers. I really feel that the consumer advocate role of these boards is one of the most important aspects of them. It's up to us, thats you and me RS, to continually examine this very objective thing called a grading service. It can only benefit the dealers, grading companies etc. to be as upfront with us as possible because they are asking us, very simply, to trust them. CGC, to this point, has simply done a far better job of that than CGG, and it may turn out to be the critical difference between survival and extinction for the newer kid on the block.

[FFB]

It won't take years if the person asserting infringement can get a preliminary injunction. That can be done in less than a month if you have a great case. One question the court will have, however, will be why CGC has waited so long to bring suit if the "harm" caused by the infringement is truly irreparable.

 

YES I KNOW FOR SURE THAT THEY DO HAVE PATENTS ON THE HOLDER AND WELL DESIGN.

 

What CGG haven't copied is the material the holder is made of.

 

Kev

 

Hey Kev

 

For what its worth, patents don't mean a darned thing unless you are willing to fight it out in the courts, and even then, there are NO gurantees you will have any success in challenging a case on the grounds of infringement.

 

This should not be taken to mean that companies should not enforce their patents against cases of infringement. In the case of CGG, I'm not too sure about the extent of similarity between the hard-platic encasement, or material used for their inner-well, and how it all relates back to CGC's patent on their holder.

 

It did however concern me greatly when I first saw the CGG product. Not because of their early approach to encapsulating their comics (grading comics in the CGC equivalent of an inner-well). Not even because they might be a viable competitor. The thing that bothered me most (and I'm sure CGC too) is the level in which they were attempting brand confusion with their product/service offerings. If you looked at their early labels, they looked very similar to the CGC label. The flimsy inner-well looked like a CGC'd book that had its case cracked, and someone was trying to sell its remains. After having owned a CGC slab, CGG's early attempt at grading appeared ridiculous.

 

Here is the biggest problem with patents. Even though you have a patent, it could take years to challenge the grounds of infringement in the court of law. By then, the copycat company could have done a considerable amount of damage during this time, by virtue of competing with a clearly inferior product that closely resembles one of an established quality and excellence, and in essence, destroying the OVERALL perception towards third-party comic book grading. The brand confusion element to this entire argument is one which may potentially translate into collectors identifying with the CGG product, and the CGC product as one and the same. We all know the difference, but we cannot assume everyone else does.

[FFB]

I think it means that their holder is made out of plasticized olive oil.

 

CGG on the other hand doesn't claim to use archival materials but 100% virgin materials = what does that mean?