Action 5, CGC 9.4 blue on CLINK

[MasterChief]

 

So, since it's an old label and it was not ON the census...maybe they are inputted manually and an error was made? :shrug:[/color]

 

I imagine that is exactly what happened, same as with Jeff's Americas Best not being taken off?

CGC is human, and obviously over the years some labels that were returned, never get removed from the Census. And some books that were slabbed, were incorrectly entered into the census.

 

A quick phone call to CGC or Matt to correct discrepancies can only help make the census as accurate as possible.

 

Has policy changed...?

 

I thought CGC stated that they had to have the label in hand in order to remove it from the census.

 

Or do you boys have an in when you ring up the CGC?

 

If so...

 

Maybe the next time you're chatting it up have 'em remove the first two versions of Boy Comics #17.

 

You know the one... the manipulated Church copy. It went from 4.0 to 7.5 and then finally to 9.0.

 

Well tell them the lower graded books are searchable, so delete those numbers. They're screwing up the construction of the inverted pyramid.

 

 

 

[mt1000]

If I've lost any labels over the years, it has to be enough to count on only two hands. And they were likely cheap books. Labels to books like Superman #1, AF #15 I keep very close track of.

 

 

I'm just glad to hear you are not mad I was nosing around your desk!!

 

 

Hes is cutting your last paycheck today and you have 2 weeks to get a new job

[DrWatson]

There are a lot of discrepancies in the census and most will never be corrected. For example, the Northland X-Men #8 previously sold on eBay. I contacted the purchaser about selling it to me. He informed me that he had already cracked the book out of the 8.0 slab and had thrown away the label and the certificate (if there was one).

 

Luckily, I saved all the scans from eBay and the owner sent me an email stating that the book was indeed the Northland copy. I had it pressed and it was regraded a 9.0 with the Northland desigantion. I emailed CGC that the 8.0 Northland needed to be removed from the census. I was told they needed the label. Well, the label doesn't exist anymore. So, I guess there will be one extra 8.0 in the census from now until eternity because that label isn't coming back to be returned to CGC.

 

And this is just one example. I'm sure this happens with a measure of regularity.

[MrBedrock]

If you send me your manipulation files I'll bounce them with the ol' Manufacture Gold database.

 

I see you baiting Matt here. Impressive.

Heck, you really are a Master baiter (thumbs u

[Straw-Man]

perhaps so, in principle, but does he have time to exercise that what with all the work manufactured gold must require?

[MrBedrock]

exercise that

[lou_fine]

What is wrong with pressing a comic book?

 

Seriously.

 

Nothing really........but the mere fact that the people who are pressing their books and trying to hide this fact gives the distinct impression that these people themselves believe they are doing something underhanded and wrong.

 

If there is nothing wrong with pressing a comic, then why are they doing their best to conceal this activity from the marketplace. Especially when Borock himself have stated empatically that any rational person would pay full price for a book based upon the CGC grade itself, irregardless of whether a book had been pressed and upgraded or not.

 

Buy the label, not the book.

 

You're speaking in very broad terms. People disclose pressing every day right here in the marketplace.

 

I know that the major auction houses such as Heritage and CL do not disclose pressing as I do not ever remember this in one of their auction descriptions. If a consignor wants to have this dislcosed on the auction description, would Heritage, CL, etc. comply with the consignor's request or would they simply refuse to do it?

[DrWatson]

perhaps so, in principle, but does he have time to exercise that what with all the work manufactured gold must require?

Good question as both are very hands on endeavors.

[Ze-man]

 

So, since it's an old label and it was not ON the census...maybe they are inputted manually and an error was made? :shrug:[/color]

 

I imagine that is exactly what happened, same as with Jeff's Americas Best not being taken off?

CGC is human, and obviously over the years some labels that were returned, never get removed from the Census. And some books that were slabbed, were incorrectly entered into the census.

 

A quick phone call to CGC or Matt to correct discrepancies can only help make the census as accurate as possible.

 

Has policy changed...?

 

I thought CGC stated that they had to have the label in hand in order to remove it from the census.

 

Or do you boys have an in when you ring up the CGC?

 

If so...

 

Maybe the next time you're chatting it up have 'em remove the first two versions of Boy Comics #17.

 

You know the one... the manipulated Church copy. It went from 4.0 to 7.5 and then finally to 9.0.

 

Well tell them the lower graded books are searchable, so delete those numbers. They're screwing up the construction of the inverted pyramid.

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea, the only time I call CGC is to tell Plitch he is a poopy head.

 

What I do know is that when presented with a problem or situation, the guys at CGC more often then not try and accommodate when possible. So if Matt were to call and say he returned a label from a resub, and it was not removed from the census, they might remove it. Then again they might not because they do not have the label in hand.

 

But just assuming CGC wont because of a general policy seems self defeating. If it were important enough, I think you would wear out your phone line trying to get things like this corrected. Maybe you have.

 

What I do not understand is why you intentionally lace your posts with enough snark to remove any hope of constructive discourse with the very people you want to effect change.

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

[nearmint]

 

So, since it's an old label and it was not ON the census...maybe they are inputted manually and an error was made? :shrug:[/color]

 

I imagine that is exactly what happened, same as with Jeff's Americas Best not being taken off?

CGC is human, and obviously over the years some labels that were returned, never get removed from the Census. And some books that were slabbed, were incorrectly entered into the census.

 

A quick phone call to CGC or Matt to correct discrepancies can only help make the census as accurate as possible.

 

Has policy changed...?

 

I thought CGC stated that they had to have the label in hand in order to remove it from the census.

 

Or do you boys have an in when you ring up the CGC?

 

If so...

 

Maybe the next time you're chatting it up have 'em remove the first two versions of Boy Comics #17.

 

You know the one... the manipulated Church copy. It went from 4.0 to 7.5 and then finally to 9.0.

 

Well tell them the lower graded books are searchable, so delete those numbers. They're screwing up the construction of the inverted pyramid.

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea, the only time I call CGC is to tell Plitch he is a poopy head.

 

What I do know is that when presented with a problem or situation, the guys at CGC more often then not try and accommodate when possible. So if Matt were to call and say he returned a label from a resub, and it was not removed from the census, they might remove it. Then again they might not because they do not have the label in hand.

 

But just assuming CGC wont because of a general policy seems self defeating. If it were important enough, I think you would wear out your phone line trying to get things like this corrected. Maybe you have.

 

What I do not understand is why you intentionally lace your posts with enough snark to remove any hope of constructive discourse with the very people you want to effect change.

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

 

I agree. MasterChief is too accustomed to posting in Comics General. I'm also unimpressed with his research, stating as fact that CGC has never certified a Hit #3 as 5.0, when clearly Alanna had sold a 5.0 on the boards just last year.

 

As for the ABC #7, I PM'd Gemma today, provided her with the before and after scans, and asked her if she could have the 6.5 removed from the census. We'll see what she says.

[MasterChief]

I agree. MasterChief is too accustomed to posting in Comics General. I'm also unimpressed with his research, stating as fact that CGC has never certified a Hit #3 as 5.0, when clearly Alanna had sold a 5.0 on the boards just last year.

 

Hello there, Jeff.

 

If you don't mind me saying the research is based on the CGC Census and Greg Holland's CGC Census Analysis website.

 

The illustrated chart I provided above displays a snapshot of the CGC grades for Hit Comics #3 and the chart came from CGCdata.com. That website sources all of its data directly from the CGC Census located at http://www.cgccomics.com/census/.

 

According to the data a 5.0 copy of HC#3 never entered the census. That is factual information according to the source.

 

The only other thing that I can think of, which may be leading to all the confusion, is that the folks at CGC assigned the wrong ComicID during the certification process.

 

What is a ComicID, you ask?

 

Well, the ComicID is a unique number identifier assigned to a comic book title and issue the very first time it is graded. For example:

 

ComicID 0001: Walt Disney's Comics and Stories 1

ComicID 0002: Daredevil 1

ComicID 0003: Fantastic Four 1

ComicID 0004: Detective Comics 27

ComicID 0005: Mystery Men Comics 3

ComicID 0006: All Select Comics 1

ComicID 0007: Adventure Comics 247

ComicID 0008: Amazing Spider-Man 1

ComicID 0009: Crypt of Terror 17

ComicID 0010: Crypt of Terror 18

 

The above 10 items are the books CGC graded the first time, in sequential order, as they were received after their business doors opened. The numbering system continued as new books were received, their title and issue numbers assigned to ComicIDs, and their resulting grades rendered.

 

So where does that leave the topic of our discussion... the Hit Comics #3?

 

Well, the ComicID assigned by CGC to Hit Comics #3 is 1152. That's a documented fact.

 

And the book we are discussing, which should be assigned with ComicID=1152, is not being displayed in the Census Analysis History Chart (see image below).

 

Therefore, I submit, that this particular book, the Alanna 5.0 copy, was mistakenly assigned a different ComicID.

 

And that could be the only answer, right Jeff?

 

Check my facts, my friend. Your true due diligence is welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nearmint]

I agree. MasterChief is too accustomed to posting in Comics General. I'm also unimpressed with his research, stating as fact that CGC has never certified a Hit #3 as 5.0, when clearly Alanna had sold a 5.0 on the boards just last year.

 

Hello there, Jeff.

 

If you don't mind me saying the research is based on the CGC Census and Greg Holland's CGC Census Analysis website.

 

And that's where your research falls short. Sharon stated that a 5.0 sold on the boards. Why wasn't that a basis of your research? A simple search of the boards(it took me less than a minute), would have confirmed her statement. Instead, you stated categorically that CGC has never certified a Hit #3 as 5.0, and that Sharon must have been thinking of the 3.0 or 4.0., and you were wrong.

 

I had a similar problem with your Gallery of Disclosure, which should have been composed of books volunteered for inclusion in the gallery. You could have had documentation of the work done to the books, rather than guess work. But, rather than making the gallery about education, you made it about catching the bad guys manipulating comics. People own the books in the gallery, and some of them spent a great deal of money on those books. You've branded them with a scarlet letter based on your opinion that they were manipulated. Had the gallery been composed of volunteered books accompanied by documentation, there would have been no cause for controversy. It would have become a useful tool to educate newcomers to the hobby.

 

Research is obviously very valuable, but incomplete research can be damaging.

 

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

[tth2]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

[skypinkblu]

There are a lot of discrepancies in the census and most will never be corrected. For example, the Northland X-Men #8 previously sold on eBay. I contacted the purchaser about selling it to me. He informed me that he had already cracked the book out of the 8.0 slab and had thrown away the label and the certificate (if there was one).

 

Luckily, I saved all the scans from eBay and the owner sent me an email stating that the book was indeed the Northland copy. I had it pressed and it was regraded a 9.0 with the Northland desigantion. I emailed CGC that the 8.0 Northland needed to be removed from the census. I was told they needed the label. Well, the label doesn't exist anymore. So, I guess there will be one extra 8.0 in the census from now until eternity because that label isn't coming back to be returned to CGC.

 

And this is just one example. I'm sure this happens with a measure of regularity.

 

Can I go back to saying it's "wildly" inaccurate;)? or semi wildly....

 

Seriously, with so many people in the mix, and so little control of outside forces (some deliberately manipulative, most probably not), accidents, clerical errors, typos, system failures, etc...

 

It just ain't going to be perfect.

 

We also have to remember, that it's not really a true guide to how many books are around because a lot of people off these boards, and on, own RAW copies of stuff.

 

Many more than people who post here, might realize, since we are used to seeing so many slabbed books here.

 

 

 

[Flex Mentallo]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

 

As with what Jeff said above about disclosure of alleged restoration, the implications of casually dismembering someone's reputation whether as collector or professional can be very damaging. It's equally a strawman argument to suggest that the fact certain people with experience defend a respected colleague implies a conspiracy. It can just as logically be argued that they do so because they know the implications are false and that they share a true opinion.

[Flex Mentallo]

There are a lot of discrepancies in the census and most will never be corrected. For example, the Northland X-Men #8 previously sold on eBay. I contacted the purchaser about selling it to me. He informed me that he had already cracked the book out of the 8.0 slab and had thrown away the label and the certificate (if there was one).

 

Luckily, I saved all the scans from eBay and the owner sent me an email stating that the book was indeed the Northland copy. I had it pressed and it was regraded a 9.0 with the Northland desigantion. I emailed CGC that the 8.0 Northland needed to be removed from the census. I was told they needed the label. Well, the label doesn't exist anymore. So, I guess there will be one extra 8.0 in the census from now until eternity because that label isn't coming back to be returned to CGC.

 

And this is just one example. I'm sure this happens with a measure of regularity.

 

Can I go back to saying it's "wildly" inaccurate;)? or semi wildly....

 

Seriously, with so many people in the mix, and so little control of outside forces (some deliberately manipulative, most probably not), accidents, clerical errors, typos, system failures, etc...

 

It just ain't going to be perfect.

 

We also have to remember, that it's not really a true guide to how many books are around because a lot of people off these boards, and on, own RAW copies of stuff.

 

Many more than people who post here, might realize, since we are used to seeing so many slabbed books here.

 

 

 

I always check to see if any pedigree copies of a given issue are or should be on the census. If highest graded status is claimed but, say, the Mile High or San Francisco copy (if one is known to exist) is absent from the census, I'm thinking the claim is more than a little doubtful.

[DrWatson]

There are a lot of discrepancies in the census and most will never be corrected. For example, the Northland X-Men #8 previously sold on eBay. I contacted the purchaser about selling it to me. He informed me that he had already cracked the book out of the 8.0 slab and had thrown away the label and the certificate (if there was one).

 

Luckily, I saved all the scans from eBay and the owner sent me an email stating that the book was indeed the Northland copy. I had it pressed and it was regraded a 9.0 with the Northland desigantion. I emailed CGC that the 8.0 Northland needed to be removed from the census. I was told they needed the label. Well, the label doesn't exist anymore. So, I guess there will be one extra 8.0 in the census from now until eternity because that label isn't coming back to be returned to CGC.

 

And this is just one example. I'm sure this happens with a measure of regularity.

 

Can I go back to saying it's "wildly" inaccurate;)? or semi wildly....

 

Seriously, with so many people in the mix, and so little control of outside forces (some deliberately manipulative, most probably not), accidents, clerical errors, typos, system failures, etc...

 

It just ain't going to be perfect.

 

We also have to remember, that it's not really a true guide to how many books are around because a lot of people off these boards, and on, own RAW copies of stuff.

 

Many more than people who post here, might realize, since we are used to seeing so many slabbed books here.

How about simply, inaccurate?

[buttock]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

 

As with what Jeff said above about disclosure of alleged restoration, the implications of casually dismembering someone's reputation whether as collector or professional can be very damaging. It's equally a strawman argument to suggest that the fact certain people with experience defend a respected colleague implies a conspiracy. It can just as logically be argued that they do so because they know the implications are false and that they share a true opinion.

 

Far too much reason in this post.

[Flex Mentallo]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

 

As with what Jeff said above about disclosure of alleged restoration, the implications of casually dismembering someone's reputation whether as collector or professional can be very damaging. It's equally a strawman argument to suggest that the fact certain people with experience defend a respected colleague implies a conspiracy. It can just as logically be argued that they do so because they know the implications are false and that they share a true opinion.

 

Far too much reason in this post.

 

I object!

[Flex Mentallo]

And Kenny is right. The snarky attitude towards Matt doesn't help your argument either.

Talk about a strawman argument.

 

It`s not the tone that you guys really object to, it`s the substance. Any statement that`s even remotely negative about Matt, whether delivered sweetly, snarkily or meanly, will immediately bring you, Richard and others jumping to deliver a beat down.

 

As with what Jeff said above about disclosure of alleged restoration, the implications of casually dismembering someone's reputation whether as collector or professional can be very damaging. It's equally a strawman argument to suggest that the fact certain people with experience defend a respected colleague implies a conspiracy. It can just as logically be argued that they do so because they know the implications are false and that they share a true opinion.

 

Far too much reason in this post.

 

..and of course pace tth2, a guy whose views I greatly respect!

 

Reason - ie reasoning, ie verbal dexterity, should not of course be confused with truth.

 

I'm just saying that from my perspective that goes for both sides of the debate!

 

Or as Stan Freberg oft said, parodying Joe Friday in Dragnet, "Just the facts, ma'am,"