tdcomixncardz and CGG

[Michael JC-migration]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I am not intentionally trying to be known as a CGG advocate, and I realize that CGC is the recognized authority, as they should be, but I also recognize that the amount of books CGC does per day would seemingly not allow them to spend more than 20-30 seconds per book, where I would guess CGG could spend as much time with a book as they wanted.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

NOT true! I spend an average of 4 minutes per book, and I'm only a pregrader at the moment!

 

West

 

Thanks for the response! I would like to ask another question though. Does the pre-grader spend the majority of the time with a book, and are their more than two pre-graders? My understanding is their are two separate grading teams consistings of three people per team. If this is incorrect, my mistake.

 

If each team spent an average of 4 minutes per book, each team could grade an average of 15 books per hour. If each team graded books for eight hours a day(which I would not recommend to anyone that wants to mantain consistency, aside from CGC of course , just a small innocent jab there , that would add up to 120 books per team, with a total of 240 per day.

 

Yet Steve recently stated in another thread that if CGC only graded 200 books a day they would never make a mistake. The way it read was that only grading 200 books a day was like a joke and that CGC graded many more books a day than that.

 

What am I missing? I am throwing out at anyone is allowed to grade more than eight hours a day, as I think that would be irresponsible.

 

Are there more than two teams of graders or 3 or more pregraders that are able to allow the other higher up graders that be able to only spent a short time with each book?

 

Thank you for your time, and your response!

[BachelorOfComix]

As an update to the original topic: Somehow the slabs with the date of 6/04 MYSTERIOUSLY changed to 3/04. I wish I had saved an image of the scans on my desktop

 

Brian

What a tool. Poor photoshopping of the "3", fuzzy & not consistent with the other 3s on the label.

[Rip]

Photoshop...you make the call

 

[Murph]

Here's an easier comparison to make

 

 

First one is a fake CGG 3, second one is a real CGG 3. (Taken from Bugaboo's post on the CPG forums).

 

Brian

[Rip]

Worse than hammer's job

 

[BachelorOfComix]

Bad photoshop scan manipulation & CGG. Where have we heard that before?

[BachelorOfComix]

What's the link to the CPG Forums?

[OldGuy]

Bad photoshop scan manipulation & CGG. Where have we heard that before?

 

[Rip]

http://www.comicspriceguide.com/forum2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15468

[uclapeterg]

As an update to the original topic: Somehow the slabs with the date of 6/04 MYSTERIOUSLY changed to 3/04. I wish I had saved an image of the scans on my desktop

 

Brian

 

They did say 6/04. I'll back you up on that one. At least two of them did.

[OldGuy]

http://www.comicspriceguide.com/forum2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15468

 

Good lord. I feel another web page coming on.

[BachelorOfComix]

As an update to the original topic: Somehow the slabs with the date of 6/04 MYSTERIOUSLY changed to 3/04. I wish I had saved an image of the scans on my desktop

 

Brian

 

They did say 6/04. I'll back you up on that one. At least two of them did.

I saw the duck one before it was altered & it clearly had 6/04 on the label. TD's known for altering auction images after they've been called out on the Forum. Big-Time Shadiness.

[DiceX]

 

[Rip]

[awe4one]

Here's your proof....

 

The CGG serial number is consecutive. These are few from my submission in April:

 

 

 

Here are two of TD's auctions where the slab has been digitally manipulated to change the date:

 

 

 

TD's comics were submitted after mine in April....4/04 for those reading the label...

 

Jim

[FFB]

1) PVC is non-archival. I am not going to recopy the Library of Congress email for the nth time. I am not really sure why you are asking this question, as I know you've read the email each time I've posted it.

 

Yea, I've read it, but I was busy that week and didn't have time to post. Has the Library of Congress tested every blend of PVC out there, or do they explicitly state that all possible PVC compounds are non-archival?

 

 

2) I am saying that a book inside a mylar with a backboard containing a 3% calcium carbonate buffer is better than a book inside of a Barex well with two pieces of microchamber paper

 

Why's that?

 

Go back and read the email where she says that no kinds of PVC are safe for long-term storage. Then also read the LOC's recommendations for paper storage with PET (mylar or equivalent) and an alkaline reserve.

[FFB]

Here's your proof....

 

The CGG serial number is consecutive. These are few from my submission in April:

 

 

 

Here are two of TD's auctions where the slab has been digitally manipulated to change the date:

 

 

 

TD's comics were submitted after mine in April....4/04 for those reading the label...

 

Jim

 

[FFB]

For everyone's info, here's a link back to the previous thread (which contains a link to yet another thread on the topic) on the archival quality of the CGG case:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=comicgen&Number=452974

 

Actually, I was referring to this thread:

 

Here's what the Library of Congress says about putting comics in PVC

[awe4one]

Also note that the Swamp Thing #8 that TD has up has an error in the serial number. The 8 and the 1 have been switched....

 

Jim

[RS]

no kinds of PVC are safe for long-term storage

 

How long is long term 25 year 50 years?

 

 

The micro paper should be changed after 7 year. New case every 7 years so what the danger?