• 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!!!

Started by Kevin Boyd,

411 posts in this topic

Kevin Boyd

Kevin Boyd

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

 

Actually, I pretty much expect CGG supporters NOT to trust the source. I sure wish the source could speak for him/herself but they are not able to do so at this time.

 

I'm hoping that this will raise enough doubt as to just what the CGG inner well is made of that those staunch CGG supporters will at least ask their buddies at CGG just what their "archival" quality holders are made out of.

 

Perhaps CBG or Gemstone/Overstreet could initiate their own independant analysis to confirm or deny the veracity of this report...

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deathlok

deathlok

Posted
Posted
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

 

If you were CGC and you were going to file a suit against a competitor like CGG for patent infringement. One of the first things you would do would be to obtain a chemical analysis to see if the materials were similiar. I'm NOT saying this report was done by CGC, just that they would obtain the same report.

 

I also believe kev and his source, however he is asking others do believe his source. Without revealing this, the validity of the samples will be in question. Responding by having others spend a large amount of money is not a logical response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dam60

dam60

Posted
Posted

Kev, when I first read this I too thought that you meant "CGC" (i.e. the company whose boards we are posting on now). I was shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course, I now realize that it is CGG.

 

Very interesting news - thanks much for the heads up,

 

DAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Boyd

Kevin Boyd

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I also believe kev and his source, however he is asking others do believe his source. Without revealing this, the validity of the samples will be in question. Responding by having others spend a large amount of money is not a logical response.

 

Unfortunately, I can only say "please believe me and my source"... those of you who know me well enough will understand that I would not post this as fact if I did not believe it to be so, and I trust my source.

 

The only other way to effectively verify this report is to either (a) have another test done or (b) get CGG to admit just what exactly their inner well is made of.

 

 

... or look for that new car smell... 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darthdiesel

Darthdiesel

Posted
Posted
I can't say I'm surprised to hear this. However, does anyone else think that the submitter wishing to remain anonymous somewhat damages the credibility of this analysis?

 

If the submitter won't even make their identity known, then who is to say what he/she actually sent in, or if the report is even real.

 

If a person is going to take the time, money, and effort to challenge a company regarding the materials used for their product, they should be willing to make themselves known and not clandestinely "leak" this information to the collecting community. What ulterior motive would a person have for hiding their identity? How's that for a reverse conspiracy theory?

 

Kev - Did this individual send you the entire report, or just the three pages that you posted?

 

Great job, Kev! Thanks for sharing this with all of us.

 

Thanks!

 

I was just sent the three pages, not the entire report. I can probably try to get the entire report, but the submitter felt that page 2 was the most telling and that the other pages were worthwhile to verify the legitimacy of the lab that did the testing.

 

I realize that anonymity certainly damages my source's credibility, but he/she has their reasons for keeping their identity private for now. Please take my word, whatever that is worth to you, that that this is a valid report and it has come from a very reliable source.

 

Kev

 

I take your word for it. What insufficiently_thoughtful_person would send in two pieces of PVC tubing to be analyzed at a crazy exorbitant cost just to prove CGG was using destructive storage materials? I'd rather spend a couple grand on a vacation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deathlok

deathlok

Posted
Posted
they dont have a patent on Mylar, thats dupont. Why analyze the material??? im a law student. and its not the material, its the method that is the intellectual property that is to be analyzed when filing a claim for patent infringment.

 

I didn't say that CGC had a patent on Mylar, especailly since they don't even use mylar in their holder. They do have a patent on the construction of their holder, which uses specific materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted

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.

I was wondering about what materials they were using when I first cracked open a CGG book. It does have have a much stronger smell than I remember coming from CGC Holders. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darthdiesel

Darthdiesel

Posted
Posted
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.

I was wondering about what materials they were using when I first cracked open a CGG book. It does have have a much stronger smell than I remember coming from CGC Holders. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

gossip.gif probably just the fetid mold on your pre-code horrors stooges.giftongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Boyd

Kevin Boyd

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What pecuniary interest, if any, does the submitter of the test samples have of discrediting CGG?? kev?? You can disclose that cant you? Or simply, does he have any interest at all in discrediting CGG?

 

The submitter wanted to know if the materials CGG were using were archivally sound, as he/she felt that it did not have the appearance of a mylar-based plastic.

 

I'm not saying that it was submitted by a dealer... BUT considering the amount of money that some dealers spend on grading and encapsulation at CGC in a given year, $800+ for a test of this type is a drop in the bucket.

 

For some people they want to know what their books are being encapsulated in before making the decision to support a new grading company.

 

He/she felt that the results of the test should be made available as a warning of the potential damage that people will be exposing their books to when submitting to CGG.

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darthdiesel

Darthdiesel

Posted
Posted
What pecuniary interest, if any, does the submitter of the test samples have of discrediting CGG?? kev?? You can disclose that cant you? Or simply, does he have any interest at all in discrediting CGG?

 

what if the motive was to acertain that the materials he was storing his NM FF1, AF15, Action 1, high grade key issue etc.. was really of safe archival caliber as opposed to a comic book death trap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clark Khaos-migration

Clark Khaos-migration

Posted
Posted
What pecuniary interest, if any, does the submitter of the test samples have of discrediting CGG?? kev?? You can disclose that cant you? Or simply, does he have any interest at all in discrediting CGG?

 

The submitter wanted to know if the materials CGG were using were archivally sound, as he/she felt that it did not have the appearance of a mylar-based plastic.

 

I'm not saying that it was submitted by a dealer... BUT considering the amount of money that some dealers spend on grading and encapsulation at CGC in a given year, $800+ for a test of this type is a drop in the bucket.

 

For some people they want to know what their books are being encapsulated in before making the decision to support a new grading company.

 

He/she felt that the results of the test should be made available as a warning of the potential damage that people will be exposing their books to when submitting to CGG.

 

Kev

 

Riiiiight. Thank goodness for the Godfather, keeping an eye out for us all. (And protecting his investment in CGC at the same time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
What pecuniary interest, if any, does the submitter of the test samples have of discrediting CGG?? kev?? You can disclose that cant you? Or simply, does he have any interest at all in discrediting CGG?

 

what if the motive was to acertain that the materials he was storing his NM FF1, AF15, Action 1, high grade key issue etc.. was really of safe archival caliber as opposed to a comic book death trap.

 

Let's at least be realistic.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted
could someone just crack open one of their cgg's and smell the damn well?

 

I have one cracked CGG holder and several cracked CGC holders and can't tell the difference by smell.

 

But the CGG holder has a distinctively "fishy" taste. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing