• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CGG (not CGC) holder professionally tested PLASTIC NOT ARCHIVAL!!!

411 posts in this topic

wait.... the test was done on CGG? I was talking about CGC.

Im not worried about CGG. From all the other horror stories Ive heard I wont be buying a CGG slabbed book.

 

But CGCs well is a serious concern to most of us.

 

What part of my post did you not understand confused-smiley-013.gifforeheadslap.gif

 

the part where he had to read. Apparently that troubles some people on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kev,

 

what he is trying to say is that the report does not say where the two unidentified plastic samples originated from. They could have CGG, CGC, or 3PG's inner wells. Or for that matter they could have been from any other source. While the report's authenticity is not in question the actual samples used is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember with my PVC card sheet holders that they give off a distinctive smell. Can anyone break open one of their CGG's and smell the inner sleeve? It very distinctive.

 

PVC does give off a distinctive odor. Another site I reviewed re: PVC mentioned that the odor you smell when you buy a new car is the smell of PVC.

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember with my PVC card sheet holders that they give off a distinctive smell. Can anyone break open one of their CGG's and smell the inner sleeve? It very distinctive.

 

PVC does give off a distinctive odor. Another site I reviewed re: PVC mentioned that the odor you smell when you buy a new car is the smell of PVC.

 

Kev

 

Maybe that was part of their strategy. Afterall....everyone loves that new car smell ..... cloud9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was my understanding that CGC was in a hurry to get going in business. They had their business plan, Borock etc on deck...all they needed was a product/case. AND, as it goes, testing was taking a long time and they settled on the current materials. I had assumed that they would replace the slabs with true archival materials after a few years. I still hope so. But this is not 'news'. We have all known this...It needs to be continually talked about and CGC MUST reinvent their slabs.

 

Now that Ive actually bought a few slabbed books, I am very concerned!

 

Our interior well has ALWAYS been made of Barex, these guys are talking about CGG 893frustrated.gif We would never use PVC! 893naughty-thumb.gif

 

doh! never mind!

seriously though, there were issues with CGCs materials too. Were still not talking about totally inert plastics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that was part of their strategy. Afterall....everyone loves that new car smell .....

 

Grade with CGG and get the new car smell ABSOLUTELY free!!!

 

Now, that's a slogan!! devil.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what he is trying to say is that the report does not say where the two unidentified plastic samples originated from. They could have CGG, CGC, or 3PG's inner wells. Or for that matter they could have been from any other source. While the report's authenticity is not in question the actual samples used is.

 

Which is why I mentioned again, where the samples came from. The lab analyzes samples, they don't crack slabs and describe in detail where the plastic came from.

 

I believe the source when they say they cracked a CGG slab and sent the inner well plastic in for analysis, but as I said before if you choose not to believe my source then send a CGG inner well in for analysis and see whether or not it confirms this lab's findings.

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kev,

 

what he is trying to say is that the report does not say where the two unidentified plastic samples originated from. They could have CGG, CGC, or 3PG's inner wells. Or for that matter they could have been from any other source. While the report's authenticity is not in question the actual samples used is.

 

Thanks for the clarification, deathlok! thumbsup2.gif Kev, it's ok....really....it is...flowerred.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what he is trying to say is that the report does not say where the two unidentified plastic samples originated from. They could have CGG, CGC, or 3PG's inner wells. Or for that matter they could have been from any other source. While the report's authenticity is not in question the actual samples used is.

 

Which is why I mentioned again, where the samples came from. The lab analyzes samples, they don't crack slabs and describe in detail where the plastic came from.

 

I believe the source when they say they cracked a CGG slab and sent the inner well plastic in for analysis, but as I said before if you choose not to believe my source then send a CGG inner well in for analysis and see whether or not it confirms this lab's findings.

 

Kev

 

I understand you trust your source on this. However you are asking staunch CGG supporters to trust your unidentified source. I doubt anyone here is going to spend that kind of money to verify the reports results. It just not worth it to anyone else except CGC in order to obtain evidence to support cause for a lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what he is trying to say is that the report does not say where the two unidentified plastic samples originated from. They could have CGG, CGC, or 3PG's inner wells. Or for that matter they could have been from any other source. While the report's authenticity is not in question the actual samples used is.

 

Which is why I mentioned again, where the samples came from. The lab analyzes samples, they don't crack slabs and describe in detail where the plastic came from.

 

I believe the source when they say they cracked a CGG slab and sent the inner well plastic in for analysis, but as I said before if you choose not to believe my source then send a CGG inner well in for analysis and see whether or not it confirms this lab's findings.

 

Kev

 

can i borrow $800 for the analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I have been smoking crack reading this this thread. What does analysis of CGG's inner well have to do with CGC and a law suit? insane.gif

 

As for the results.....if people want to question the source then go ahead. All I know is that if Kev gives validity to the source then that would be enough for me to get any books I had in a CGG slab out of there. If the source was wrong then what damage was there.....but if the source is right............. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I have been smoking crack reading this this thread. What does analysis of CGG's inner well have to do with CGC and a law suit? insane.gif

 

As for the results.....if people want to question the source then go ahead. All I know is that if Kev gives validity to the source then that would be enough for me to get any books I had in a CGG slab out of there. If the source was wrong then what damage was there.....but if the source is right............. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

I've really never considered them for my comic grading needs, and this cements it. I don't doubt the report, just saying that there is no substantal information brought before me that says the materials came from CGG. That's all. Don't read all of this stuff into my statement--it's pretty plain and simple...

Link to comment
Share on other sites