CGC Acquires Classics Inc - Response to your Questions

[Theagenes]

Abrasive/dry cleaning is considered "non-additive" and not noted.

 

It's also generally not detectable most of the time.

 

As has been mentioned over and over, you can't detect something that is no longer there.

 

 

Any residue left by the eraser or cleaning pad would be though.

[gyro-1]

Bit of a heads up for monday morning

CGC is answering emails sent to the links in the first post this morning

[drbanner]

Abrasive/dry cleaning is considered "non-additive" and not noted.

It's also generally not detectable most of the time.

 

As has been mentioned over and over, you can't detect something that is no longer there.

Any residue left by the eraser or cleaning pad would be though.

As is the loss of gloss on some books due to the abrasive nature of the process.

[VintageComics]

I can only think that CGC has removed the "pressed" portion from the label because they felt it was causing confusion (just as it has been in this very thread) with many people asking why some books are labelled as pressed and some are not.

 

In every case that pressing is noted on the label, either CGC detected it was pressed, or they guessed it was pressed, right? CGC removing "pressed" from the label continues their well-documented history of providing less and less information to the collector/consumer over time.

 

This is a circular discussion that has been had on here for years and the answer as far as I have been able to understand it has always been the same.

 

According to my understanding, as far as cleaned/pressed books go, there is no guesswork.

 

A cleaned (aquas bath) cover looks and feels different than an uncleaned cover making it easier to detect. It is pressed by necessity after it is bathed.

 

With a "dry clean" a soft erasure (or Wonderbread) is used. If done neatly, you can't tell that someone removed dirt from a cover because there is no change to the paper.

 

With a pressed book, the majority of time it is undetectable.

 

According to my understanding, CGC's policy of removing information from labels has always been to make the product more consistent. All corporations do it. They want to convey information in the most consistent manner possible with the least amount of confusion.

 

When people were seeing some [blue] labels with notations and others without, collectors began to assume that books without notations were better - when in fact, CGC was just notating some defects on labels arbitrarily. All (or at least most) of the information was and still is available in the grading notes. Yes, you have to pay for them now rather than receive them free but that info is for the most part still available unless the book was submitted under a cheap tier where defects were not notated.

 

So the information was not removed (except for the word pressing), it was simply moved to make the product look more consistent.

 

And as far as the word pressing being removed, it does actually cause confusion just as it has in this very thread as can be witnessed by the people who commented on it.

 

In their early days, CGC was great because they leveled the playing field when it came to high grade books and restoration detection. These days? It appears they are more interested in manufacturing high grade books than they are with evaluating their condition and state of preservation and providing such information to the collecting community.

 

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

[Theagenes]

Just for the record, I would agree that the phrase "clean & press" is both outdated and confusing today, as pressing is no longer an activity that is solely associated with aqueous cleaning.

[VintageComics]

Abrasive/dry cleaning is considered "non-additive" and not noted.

It's also generally not detectable most of the time.

 

As has been mentioned over and over, you can't detect something that is no longer there.

Any residue left by the eraser or cleaning pad would be though.

As is the loss of gloss on some books due to the abrasive nature of the process.

 

Absolutely, if done excessively or poorly a book will probably get downgraded for damage much like a poorly pressed book. If done very lightly or very well though, you can't really detect it.

 

Theagenes, as far as residue is concerned, yes you may or may not be right. Don't know. I suppose residue (or traces of it) will always be around of some sort. It's going to be as much a discussion about statistics and philosophy (should residue be considered damning) as it will be about the actual residue. I'd heard that nearly every US dollar bill now has traces of cocaine on it even though every bill may not have necessarily been used with cocaine.

 

The discussion on detection using new technology an entirely different discussion (and an interesting one).

[drbanner]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

[VintageComics]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

 

How so? The same amount of information is available to all people. In fact, you can argue that everyone is better educated now than they were 12 years ago when nobody know who CGC was because now more people understand what CGC is providing.

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

Do you think there's anything "weird" about a System that degrades a comic book for tiny non-damaged paper irregularities (easily reversed with common pressing techniques), but has no problem with completely undoing the original factory book-assembly?

 

I really have a hard time getting past that. So, what do you think?

 

 

The grading system and the topic of dis-assembly are two different discussions.

 

The grading system is a product of a) what the market wants and b) what the market needs. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this in detail.

 

Basically, collectors and dealers need a system that all sides can agree on to make transactions "fair". I think everyone will agree on that.

 

Where people disagree is how to measure those increments. ex. how something "should" grade.

 

The splitting of comics into something like a 25 step scale became a necessity because Good-Fine_Mint was too coarse as comics became extremely valuable (I think it was a raw AF #15 selling for $50,000 in a Sotheby's auction that really got people to take notice).

 

As has been discussed many time over, CGC doesn't necessarily hammer a book for a tiny NCB defect. They do downgrade for it, but then everyone would. Put two books side by side that are identical, and if one has NCB wear on it, everyone will agree that it should grade lower than the one without the NCB wear. How much should it be downgraded? That's where the disagreement comes in.

 

In my experience, tiny non colour breaking wear gets downgrade a tiny amount, if at all (0.0 - 0.2 downgrade).

 

Moderate non colour breaking wear gets downgraded moderately. (0.4 - 1.0)

 

Excessive non colour breaking wear gets downgraded excessively (1.0+ down to nearly a 4.0 downgrade I have seen).

 

Are these "right". I guess that depends on how people like to grade their books. There is no "gold standard".

 

Do I feel CGC over scrutinizes small NCB defects? No, not based what I wrote above. Can anyone say they do after seeing what I wrote (if it's true)?

 

As far as dis-assembly, my understanding is that it comes down to detection again. If CGC can not detect it, they can't call it.

 

Do I think that a disassembled book is the same as one that hasn't been disassembled? No, I do not.

 

Ultimately though, if it can't be detected what can you do about it?

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

 

With a "dry clean" a soft erasure (or Wonderbread) is used. If done neatly, you can't tell that someone removed dirt from a cover because there is no change to the paper.

 

 

I'm amused by the previous XRF discussion. If trace amounts of release paper silicone are important to the hobby, can you imagine the amount of organic material left by smearing a piece of bread across the surface of a comic book cover?

 

You could use an XRF made by Mattel to find that chemical signature.

[drbanner]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

 

How so? The same amount of information is available to all people. In fact, you can argue that everyone is better educated now than they were 12 years ago when nobody know who CGC was because now more people understand what CGC is providing.

 

The eyes see what the eyes want to see I guess...so maybe it's just me that sees it this way. You know I used to defend CGC's policies and practices just as you do now (well, not quite as vigorously ), but CGC has changed, and so has my opinion of what their role in this hobby really is.

[pickycollector]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

 

How so? The same amount of information is available to all people. In fact, you can argue that everyone is better educated now than they were 12 years ago when nobody know who CGC was because now more people understand what CGC is providing.

 

The eyes see what the eyes want to see I guess...so maybe it's just me that sees it this way. You know I used to defend CGC's policies and practices just as you do now (well, not quite vigorously ), but CGC has changed, and so has my opinion of what their role in this hobby really is.

+1

[VintageComics]

The eyes see what the eyes want to see I guess...so maybe it's just me that sees it this way. You know I used to defend CGC's policies and practices just as you do now (well, not quite vigorously ), but CGC has changed, and so has my opinion of what their role in this hobby really is.

 

 

I know where you're coming from. It's no different to me than in politics. Big money makes things happen. That's the reality of the situation.

 

As much I hate being made to conform to big money, without it there is less funding, less progress, less movement, less over all market.

 

I've said it over and over in this thread, it's impossible to please everyone. Someone is always going to think they could have done it better.

 

Ultimately, I'd rather buy graded books (impartial with a resto check) in an eBay transaction than have them looked over by some unknown person in some town grading my books while eating a jelly sandwich. When it all boils down, that is all CGC is providing.

 

 

 

 

 

[Theagenes]

 

With a "dry clean" a soft erasure (or Wonderbread) is used. If done neatly, you can't tell that someone removed dirt from a cover because there is no change to the paper.

 

 

I'm amused by the previous XRF discussion. If trace amounts of release paper silicone are important to the hobby, can you imagine the amount of organic material left by smearing a piece of bread across the surface of a comic book cover?

 

You could use an XRF made by Mattel to find that chemical signature.

 

Comic books or not I'd just love to scan a piece of Wonderbread anyway to see what the hell is in that stuff.

[ComicConnoisseur]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

 

How so? The same amount of information is available to all people. In fact, you can argue that everyone is better educated now than they were 12 years ago when nobody know who CGC was because now more people understand what CGC is providing.

 

The eyes see what the eyes want to see I guess...so maybe it's just me that sees it this way. You know I used to defend CGC's policies and practices just as you do now (well, not quite vigorously ), but CGC has changed, and so has my opinion of what their role in this hobby really is.

I think the other non-in house pressers will be most hurt by this,as now CGC has taken pressing in house.

I mean before there were a lot of hoop n loops to get a book pressed, now I can have CGC add a press to it for full maximum benefit. Most people were on the fence about pressing,BUT that era is over,as this new move now legitimizes pressing.

If people thought we have a lot of modern 9.8s before,then they haven`t seen nothing yet.

[ComicConnoisseur]

 

With a "dry clean" a soft erasure (or Wonderbread) is used. If done neatly, you can't tell that someone removed dirt from a cover because there is no change to the paper.

 

 

I'm amused by the previous XRF discussion. If trace amounts of release paper silicone are important to the hobby, can you imagine the amount of organic material left by smearing a piece of bread across the surface of a comic book cover?

 

You could use an XRF made by Mattel to find that chemical signature.

 

Comic books or not I'd just love to scan a piece of Wonderbread anyway to see what the hell is in that stuff.

Hostess makes Wonderbread,so people better stock about or they will disappear like the Twinkie.

[Davenport]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

 

How so? The same amount of information is available to all people. In fact, you can argue that everyone is better educated now than they were 12 years ago when nobody know who CGC was because now more people understand what CGC is providing.

 

The eyes see what the eyes want to see I guess...so maybe it's just me that sees it this way. You know I used to defend CGC's policies and practices just as you do now (well, not quite vigorously ), but CGC has changed, and so has my opinion of what their role in this hobby really is.

It's NOT just you. Years ago a CGC spokesperson posted and explained CGC doesn't provide an "inspection service" like many assume, that grading assessments are absolutely tied to marketing proclivities.

 

And VintageComics noted the same thing moments ago:

 

The grading system is a product of a) what the market wants and b) what the market needs. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this in detail.

And you HAVE changed DrBanner. Welcome back to reality. Earth needs you.

 

 

 

 

[drbanner]

I think the other non-in house pressers will be most hurt by this,as now CGC has taken pressing in house.

I've used both Matt and Joey to press books for me in the past, and I can assure you that I personally will never use Matt again.

[mschmidt]

The playing field is no less level now that it was 12 years ago as far as I can see.

 

CGC has slowly and steadily tilted the playing field in favor those selling CGC books and away from those buying CGC books, it's not really that hard to see if you look at it objectively.

 

How so? The same amount of information is available to all people. In fact, you can argue that everyone is better educated now than they were 12 years ago when nobody know who CGC was because now more people understand what CGC is providing.

 

The eyes see what the eyes want to see I guess...so maybe it's just me that sees it this way. You know I used to defend CGC's policies and practices just as you do now (well, not quite vigorously ), but CGC has changed, and so has my opinion of what their role in this hobby really is.

I think the other non-in house pressers will be most hurt by this,as now CGC has taken pressing in house.

I mean before there were a lot of hoop n loops to get a book pressed, now I can have CGC add a press to it for full maximum benefit. Most people were on the fence about pressing,BUT that era is over,as this new move now legitimizes pressing.

If people thought we have a lot of modern 9.8s before,then they haven`t seen nothing yet.

 

Have you ever actually had a book pressed?

 

Pretending that it's been in any way difficult or cumbersome to get books pressed these last few years is ridiculous - instead of sending the books to CGC, you simply sent the books to a pressing company who then pressed & submitted the books to CGC on your behalf. How is that "a lot of hoop n loops"?

 

Companies like CFP will continue to do just fine - CGC might add a pressing checkbox to the submission form, but that doesn't mean the service will actually be cheap, fast or give you a 20% discount on your grading fees like most of the other services do.

 

You also seem to be under the misapprehension that the modern 9.8 market is driven by pressing - it's not; it's driven by people going to stores, grabbing 9.8 copies of brand new books off the rack and immediately sending them to CGC. For most moderns, a $15 pressing fee would would kill any chance of a profit.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

 

With a "dry clean" a soft erasure (or Wonderbread) is used. If done neatly, you can't tell that someone removed dirt from a cover because there is no change to the paper.

 

 

I'm amused by the previous XRF discussion. If trace amounts of release paper silicone are important to the hobby, can you imagine the amount of organic material left by smearing a piece of bread across the surface of a comic book cover?

 

You could use an XRF made by Mattel to find that chemical signature.

 

Comic books or not I'd just love to scan a piece of Wonderbread anyway to see what the hell is in that stuff.

 

Enough preservatives to impress the ancient Egyptians.

 

Possibly the cause of the future zombie apocalypse.