CGC go back to multi show holds..... please

[reptilekingdie]

This was an awesome option and wish they would reconsider doing holds again.

[seanfingh]

 

Translation: CGC it was really awesome when I could pay one submission and grading fee and have you shlep my books to multiple conventions for multiple signatures FOR FREE, all so I can have a book that is better and worth more when I flip it.

 

Awesome post, bro.

 

 

[Jeffro.]

When a company offers a service and then removes that service, people are disappointed. I don't blame anyone for wanting this back. Perhaps CGC should never have been offering this option in the first place.

[troydivision1]

I think it was right for CGC to remove themselves from the responsibility of getting books signed.

It gets expensive and it was an awkward situation where they were mixing what they do with ways to help the collectors.

 

My question:

Why can't CAWs or facilitators carry over books if they feel like and charge their clients a fee?

Excluding them as well seems like a money grab as it has nothing with CGC's costs (only their profits).

 

Thoughts?

[seanfingh]

When a company offers a service and then removes that service, people are disappointed. I don't blame anyone for wanting this back. Perhaps CGC should never have been offering this option in the first place.

 

I loved it, too. I was the beneficiary umpteen times. But seriously, just because they were doing something that was great for us and terrible for them from a fiscal standpoint, don't you thinnk it is kind of stupid to say, "Hey it would be nice if you guys brought back a couple of your most profit-destroying ideas from the past."

[seanfingh]

I think it was right for CGC to qremove themselves from the responsibility of getting books signed.

It gets expensive and it was an awkward situation where they were mixing what they do with ways to help the collectors.

 

My question:

Why can't CAWs or facilitators carry over books if they feel like and charge their clients a fee?

Excluding them as well seems like a money grab as it has nothing with CGC's costs.

 

Thoughts?

 

The book has to go straight from the CAW to CGC. So that means facilitators are out for holds. I would never agree to hold books for other shows as a CAW for several reasons (1) I don't carry insurance to cover damage (2) Who is going to pay for the shipping supplies and shipping costs (3) I am not getting compensated for any of that anyway, so why should I do it.

[jokersrevenge]

I wish they had a label color for certificates of authenticity...

I don't blame them for withdrawing that service..

[jokersrevenge]

Translation: CGC it was really awesome when I could pay one submission and grading fee and have you shlep my books to multiple conventions for multiple signatures FOR FREE, all so I can have a book that is better and worth more when I flip it.

 

Awesome post, bro.

 

Not as awesome as your post, though, Bro.

[troydivision1]

The book has to go straight from the CAW to CGC. So that means facilitators are out for holds. I would never agree to hold books for other shows as a CAW for several reasons (1) I don't carry insurance to cover damage (2) Who is going to pay for the shipping supplies and shipping costs (3) I am not getting compensated for any of that anyway, so why should I do it.

 

But what if your fee included shipping supplies / cost and some form of compensation that kept the price per book at half of what a resub costs?

It would be a win/win you get more money, your client saves money.

 

I would think the bigger players in the SS game carry insurance.

[seanfingh]

The book has to go straight from the CAW to CGC. So that means facilitators are out for holds. I would never agree to hold books for other shows as a CAW for several reasons (1) I don't carry insurance to cover damage (2) Who is going to pay for the shipping supplies and shipping costs (3) I am not getting compensated for any of that anyway, so why should I do it.

 

But what if your fee included shipping supplies / cost and some form of compensation that kept the price per book at half of what a resub costs?

It would be a win/win you get more money, your client saves money.

 

I would think the bigger players in the SS game carry insurance.

 

You are confusing CAWs with facilitators. I am certain many of the larger facilitators carry insurance. CAWs are just CGC employees (either full time or on a per show basis) whose sole job is to insure that the signatures are authentic and then get the books to CGC for grading and encapsulation. CAWs don't have clients.

[towards2112]

When a company offers a service and then removes that service, people are disappointed. I don't blame anyone for wanting this back. Perhaps CGC should never have been offering this option in the first place.

 

I loved it, too. I was the beneficiary umpteen times. But seriously, just because they were doing something that was great for us and terrible for them from a fiscal standpoint, don't you thinnk it is kind of stupid to say, "Hey it would be nice if you guys brought back a couple of your

most profit-destroying ideas

from the past."

 

most profit-destroying ideas

And I have had soooo many. Ask Evans.

[troydivision1]

You are confusing CAWs with facilitators. I am certain many of the larger facilitators carry insurance. CAWs are just CGC employees (either full time or on a per show basis) whose sole job is to insure that the signatures are authentic and then get the books to CGC for grading and encapsulation. CAWs don't have clients.

 

Thank you, I was confusing the two.

I would be interested to know how it was done previously with facilitators that handled it themselves and what the costs were.

[Jeffro.]

When a company offers a service and then removes that service, people are disappointed. I don't blame anyone for wanting this back. Perhaps CGC should never have been offering this option in the first place.

 

I loved it, too. I was the beneficiary umpteen times. But seriously, just because they were doing something that was great for us and terrible for them from a fiscal standpoint, don't you thinnk it is kind of stupid to say, "Hey it would be nice if you guys brought back a couple of your most profit-destroying ideas from the past."

 

But why didn't they recognize it as a profit-destroying idea from the beginning?

[lscomics]

If it's a matter of how it affects CGCs bottom line I'd be willing to pay whatever the fees would be (essentially 2 x grading) to have a book held over just to be able to get multiple signatures. That way I wouldn't have to send it out, wait for it to come back, send it back out etc.

[tth2]

When a company offers a service and then removes that service, people are disappointed. I don't blame anyone for wanting this back. Perhaps CGC should never have been offering this option in the first place.

 

I loved it, too. I was the beneficiary umpteen times. But seriously, just because they were doing something that was great for us and terrible for them from a fiscal standpoint, don't you thinnk it is kind of stupid to say, "Hey it would be nice if you guys brought back a couple of your most profit-destroying ideas from the past."

 

But why didn't they recognize it as a profit-destroying idea from the beginning?

Even Steve Jobs and Apple have had a few turkeys, so you expect that CGC will manage to do something that no other company has been able to achieve--never make a mistake?

[Sal]

When a company offers a service and then removes that service, people are disappointed. I don't blame anyone for wanting this back. Perhaps CGC should never have been offering this option in the first place.

 

I loved it, too. I was the beneficiary umpteen times. But seriously, just because they were doing something that was great for us and terrible for them from a fiscal standpoint, don't you thinnk it is kind of stupid to say, "Hey it would be nice if you guys brought back a couple of your most profit-destroying ideas from the past."

 

But why didn't they recognize it as a profit-destroying idea from the beginning?

 

because they didn't have clarity of hindsight?

 

[Jeffro.]

Okay fair enough. How long was this hold practice in place?

[seanfingh]

Okay fair enough. How long was this hold practice in place?

 

6 1/2 to 7 years. It wasn't a big deal until some (read: one) facilitator(s) were taking such huge advantage of the holds that it really brought to light how much time, effort and money were being siphoned off and a wholesale change was made. It absolutely made sense from CGC's perspective. Now every time I add a Brady kid to my Brady Bunch book, I have to get it reslabbed.

[arexcrooke]

I blame you Ginger

[reptilekingdie]

I would be willing to pay a little more for holds id they brought it back.