current turn around rates at CGC 79 79

[CGC Mike]

On 2/14/2023 at 1:07 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

So I decided to simply bring up the screen again (which showed basically what I posted above) and then hit Ctrl+F5 to clear my cache and refresh the page. Thankfully, that worked!

So I think this issue is resolved for me, and I hope you can pass on my solution to your team so they know what to advise anyone else who sees this problem. 

I will pass this info along.   Thanks!

[jokiing]

Modern submission 2/6/23 ....  shipped 2/14/23. Got to wonder how much quality time is spent grading these books at such a fast turnaround.

A bit suspicious when all four copies of Spider-man 2099 #1 came back with the identical grade of 9.4 (white pages) and grader notes ... "light cover tanning"

These were stored with a couple thousand other comics from the same era and at least a couple hundred have been graded with no tanning issues. Guess I'll know more when they show up next week.

[jokiing]

Looks like Magazines are starting to move along..

6/30/22  Magazine Modern now GEI 2/16/23

[Gaard]

On 2/18/2023 at 5:45 PM, jokiing said:

A bit suspicious when all four copies of Spider-man 2099 #1 came back with the identical grade of 9.4 (white pages) and grader notes ... "light cover tanning"

Yeah, sounds suspicious to me, too.

[Still Only 35c]

On 2/19/2023 at 9:48 AM, jokiing said:

Looks like Magazines are starting to move along..

6/30/22  Magazine Modern now GEI 2/16/23

Be prepared to stay at this status for a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng[ei] time

[IceHole]

My recent order of 15 books. 

Delivered 2/16 went straight into SFG. 

Today, 2/20 seeing it in GEI.

Seeing books move this fast...how strange is it knowing there was a time it would take months, sometimes a year to get books graded!  Do the kids these days know our pain!  Am I that old man telling kids to get off my lawn?

And as an aside here...this was my first sub in a while and I was not familiar with the new drop down menus for inputting the books.  These gals and guys at CGC found my mistakes in my submission and had it fixed at this GEI stage.  Thanx CGC...I'll do better next time, promise.

Edited February 20, 2023 by IceHole

[Still Only 20¢]

6 Book Mechanical Error Submission
2021-02-02  Delivered to CGC
2021-02-07    CGC Received/SFG

25 Book Mechanical Error Submission
2021-02-02  Delivered to CGC
2021-02-03    CGC Received/SFG

3 Book Mechanical Error Submission 
2023-01-19    Delivered to CGC
2023-01-30    CGC Received/SFG
2023-02-20    GEI  

3 Book Reholder Submission
2023-01-19    Delivered to CGC
2023-01-23    CGC Received/SFG

[jokiing]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:45 PM, jokiing said:

Modern submission 2/6/23 ....  shipped 2/14/23. Got to wonder how much quality time is spent grading these books at such a fast turnaround.

A bit suspicious when all four copies of Spider-man 2099 #1 came back with the identical grade of 9.4 (white pages) and grader notes ... "light cover tanning"

These were stored with a couple thousand other comics from the same era and at least a couple hundred have been graded with no tanning issues. Guess I'll know more when they show up next week.

@CGC Mike ... Hi Mike, I've never argued with CGC about grades I've gotten on my books, although there are times when I'm puzzled at a 9.6 that shows no defects. That being said, I just received the four copies of Spider-Man 2099 #1 and I can't see why the grader decided there was "light cover tanning" on all four copies. First off, all four books look identical so seems odd that they would all have the exact amount of tanning. Is it possible that the grader was not familiar with this book, which has a very colorful cover, and mistook something in the artwork for tanning? I know CGC usually doesn't  veer from the given grade, but I think there is a mistake in this instance. I'm not sure what to do about this and don't want to incur more expence on these books if CGC doesn't agree with my concern.

[CGC Mike]

On 2/20/2023 at 7:55 PM, jokiing said:

@CGC Mike ... Hi Mike, I've never argued with CGC about grades I've gotten on my books, although there are times when I'm puzzled at a 9.6 that shows no defects. That being said, I just received the four copies of Spider-Man 2099 #1 and I can't see why the grader decided there was "light cover tanning" on all four copies. First off, all four books look identical so seems odd that they would all have the exact amount of tanning. Is it possible that the grader was not familiar with this book, which has a very colorful cover, and mistook something in the artwork for tanning? I know CGC usually doesn't  veer from the given grade, but I think there is a mistake in this instance. I'm not sure what to do about this and don't want to incur more expence on these books if CGC doesn't agree with my concern.

PM me quality pictures of each book.  Be sure to include the label.  I will send them to the team and let you know what they say.  

[Sweet Lou 14]

Here's the hot take nobody asked for:

"Tanning" makes no sense on a book published in 1992 unless the book was badly mishandled.

[jjfversion1]

On 2/20/2023 at 4:55 PM, jokiing said:

@CGC Mike ... Hi Mike, I've never argued with CGC about grades I've gotten on my books, although there are times when I'm puzzled at a 9.6 that shows no defects. That being said, I just received the four copies of Spider-Man 2099 #1 and I can't see why the grader decided there was "light cover tanning" on all four copies. First off, all four books look identical so seems odd that they would all have the exact amount of tanning. Is it possible that the grader was not familiar with this book, which has a very colorful cover, and mistook something in the artwork for tanning? I know CGC usually doesn't  veer from the given grade, but I think there is a mistake in this instance. I'm not sure what to do about this and don't want to incur more expence on these books if CGC doesn't agree with my concern.

We must have had the same grader.

I sent 7 copies of Spider-Man 2099 #1 in one invoice back in December and here were my results:

9.4 x5

9.6 x2

I thought these would all come back 9.8. Only one 9.4 had grader's notes: "light cover tanning".

I'm guessing this must be common with Spider-Man 2099 #1 

Needless to say, I have stopped sending multiple copies of one book to CGC.

[Beastfeast]

On 2/20/2023 at 6:26 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

Here's the hot take nobody asked for:

"Tanning" makes no sense on a book published in 1992 unless the book was badly mishandled.

I've seen tanning on books from the early 2000s.  The Southeast destroys books that aren't stored well.  

[jokiing]

On 2/20/2023 at 7:50 PM, Beastfeast said:

I've seen tanning on books from the early 2000s.  The Southeast destroys books that aren't stored well.  

I can see that being the case.... Fortunately, I'm Southwest and my books are happy for that.

[jokiing]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:49 PM, CGC Mike said:

PM me quality pictures of each book.  Be sure to include the label.  I will send them to the team and let you know what they say.  

Thanks Mike.... I'll get those pics to you as soon as I can,

[jokiing]

On 2/20/2023 at 7:47 PM, jjfversion1 said:

We must have had the same grader.

I sent 7 copies of Spider-Man 2099 #1 in one invoice back in December and here were my results:

9.4 x5

9.6 x2

I thought these would all come back 9.8. Only one 9.4 had grader's notes: "light cover tanning".

I'm guessing this must be common with Spider-Man 2099 #1 

Needless to say, I have stopped sending multiple copies of one book to CGC.

Interesting.... considering how tough CGC is on grades these days all four of mine should be at least 9.6, if not 9.8's as well.

The tanning would only be common with this particular book if it was caused by something other than poor storage.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 2/20/2023 at 6:26 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

Here's the hot take nobody asked for:

"Tanning" makes no sense on a book published in 1992 unless the book was badly mishandled.

Not rare, but I seen many copies have that defect on that book.  Seen copies have those before.

Not surprised at all.

[Sweet Lou 14]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:17 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Not rare, but I seen many copies have that defect on that book.  Seen copies have those before.

Not surprised at all.

You're saying that Spider-Man 2099 #1 in particular is prone to tanning?

I don't remember exactly when the quality of the paper used in comics was given a significant upgrade, and I suspect it's happened more than once.  Apologies that I don't know the technical terms used to describe the paper and the printing process.  I just know that the paper they've been using for at least the last 15-20 years is glossy, and pretty much immune to tanning of the sort seen in older books.  Obviously this is a 30-year-old book, and I'm forgetting what the interior pages looked like, but I would have thought by the time they were printing foil covers that the interior pages would be at least a step or two above the Bronze Age.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 2/20/2023 at 8:27 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

You're saying that Spider-Man 2099 #1 in particular is prone to tanning?

I don't remember exactly when the quality of the paper used in comics was given a significant upgrade, and I suspect it's happened more than once.  Apologies that I don't know the technical terms used to describe the paper and the printing process.  I just know that the paper they've been using for at least the last 15-20 years is glossy, and pretty much immune to tanning of the sort seen in older books.  Obviously this is a 30-year-old book, and I'm forgetting what the interior pages looked like, but I would have thought by the time they were printing foil covers that the interior pages would be at least a step or two above the Bronze Age.

Yes, inside covers

[cd4ever]

On 2/20/2023 at 10:29 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Yes, inside covers

That was my thought....the inside front cover would likely be the place to look. But that would require a crack. 

[NewWorldOrder]

In some good news.

I am seeing a positive pattern in Economy TATs decreasing 10 business days every 1 week.

Two weeks ago they were 155 business days

Last week they were 145 business days

Just checked now and they are 135!