CGC Case Indentations 0

[joeypost]

I see a post has been removed.

[Hado]

Don't rock the boat or a Joeypost will be removed

[accessndx]

I just got my first set of books with the indentations. They seem deep, and they disturb me. But I guess I will be sucking it.

 

Don't forget the liberal serving of "Tough Noogies". That's a bit difficult to swallow without ample liquid. My last inquiry revealed that the CGC suggests a fine bottle of urine.....they also suggested that 2010 was a good year for urine....so why not have a fine glass of 2010 Chateau la distension vésicale when attempting to choke down their position?

[Transplant]

I see a post has been removed.

Indeed. I believe it was a reference that Sean prepare for some

 

[Sqeggs]

So I guess we have had all the response from CGC on this one we are going to get.

[accessndx]

Here's the % likelihood the CGC is going to do anything about the issue:

 

[DrWatson]

I see a post has been removed.

Yep, it was mine. It was removed because it was the truth. Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

[accessndx]

Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

 

The Mafia and other organized crime types.

[VintageComics]

I see a post has been removed.

Yep, it was mine. It was removed because it was the truth. Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

 

What did the post say?

 

 

[joecgcmaniac]

I see a post has been removed.

Yep, it was mine. It was removed because it was the truth. Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

 

Microsoft?

 

 

[joeypost]

I see a post has been removed.

Yep, it was mine. It was removed because it was the truth. Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

 

Microsoft?

 

 

 

That would be most software companies.

[DrWatson]

Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

 

The Mafia and other organized crime types.

I dub this post, irony.

[mintcollector]

I see a post has been removed.

Yep, it was mine. It was removed because it was the truth. Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product.

 

Any business that is either a monopoly (or has monopolistic characteristics) or in certain situations, an oligopoly. Now there are other options to CGC...however, CGC is in the service industry, not the business of providing a product. This is a misconception.

 

Without a comic book to start with, CGC can do nothing for you. They don't sell anything tangible in that sense.

 

A prime example that most can relate to is Microsoft (as someone already said). Remember the Xbox 360 and the red ring of death? Want to play Halo? How about Gears of War? Guess you have to have an Xbox 360. Does it matter that it is defective? Nope. If you want to play you will just have to pay.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I agree that the problem is CGC's to fix. However, when you essentially have a monopoly there is very little incentive to solve the problem. Third parties (major dealers) do not have a monopoly, and can potentially be impacted by CGC's decision to lower QC standards in the interim, while they work towards a solution (as far as we know - any updates?). The only way I see that will result in resolving the situation is for those third parties to make CGC aware that quality matters to them as much as the little guy. Sure, they could block their customer base, but that's a poor business model in the long run.

 

Another thing to consider, I don't mind doing a reholder from time to time, and have never held a third party accountable for case condition, unless shipped in a negligent fashion (something you don't have to worry about from pros like HA and SC), but with the defect now impacting a majority of new slabs (over 70% on my recent submission) a reholder is not a serious option for those receiving a defective product from CGC directly or from a third party.

 

The ball is undoubtedly in CGC's court, but unless customer displeasure is registered (both big and small) resolution may take much longer (if ever). I base this on CGC not being upfront with its customer base on the issue. No sellers were aware of it, and submitters are only told about the problem after the fact, and only upon requesting and being denied a reholder.

 

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting.

 

In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

 

 

We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it."

 

Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer.

 

No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it.

 

If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question?

 

If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

 

 

Let me guess.....

 

You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling.

[mintcollector]

I agree that the problem is CGC's to fix. However, when you essentially have a monopoly there is very little incentive to solve the problem. Third parties (major dealers) do not have a monopoly, and can potentially be impacted by CGC's decision to lower QC standards in the interim, while they work towards a solution (as far as we know - any updates?). The only way I see that will result in resolving the situation is for those third parties to make CGC aware that quality matters to them as much as the little guy. Sure, they could block their customer base, but that's a poor business model in the long run.

 

Another thing to consider, I don't mind doing a reholder from time to time, and have never held a third party accountable for case condition, unless shipped in a negligent fashion (something you don't have to worry about from pros like HA and SC), but with the defect now impacting a majority of new slabs (over 70% on my recent submission) a reholder is not a serious option for those receiving a defective product from CGC directly or from a third party.

 

The ball is undoubtedly in CGC's court, but unless customer displeasure is registered (both big and small) resolution may take much longer (if ever). I base this on CGC not being upfront with its customer base on the issue. No sellers were aware of it, and submitters are only told about the problem after the fact, and only upon requesting and being denied a reholder.

 

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting.

 

In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

 

 

We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it."

 

Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer.

 

No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it.

 

If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question?

 

If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

 

 

Let me guess.....

 

You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling.

 

My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry.

 

Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved.

 

My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out of the case and send it to them raw?

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I agree that the problem is CGC's to fix. However, when you essentially have a monopoly there is very little incentive to solve the problem. Third parties (major dealers) do not have a monopoly, and can potentially be impacted by CGC's decision to lower QC standards in the interim, while they work towards a solution (as far as we know - any updates?). The only way I see that will result in resolving the situation is for those third parties to make CGC aware that quality matters to them as much as the little guy. Sure, they could block their customer base, but that's a poor business model in the long run.

 

Another thing to consider, I don't mind doing a reholder from time to time, and have never held a third party accountable for case condition, unless shipped in a negligent fashion (something you don't have to worry about from pros like HA and SC), but with the defect now impacting a majority of new slabs (over 70% on my recent submission) a reholder is not a serious option for those receiving a defective product from CGC directly or from a third party.

 

The ball is undoubtedly in CGC's court, but unless customer displeasure is registered (both big and small) resolution may take much longer (if ever). I base this on CGC not being upfront with its customer base on the issue. No sellers were aware of it, and submitters are only told about the problem after the fact, and only upon requesting and being denied a reholder.

 

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting.

 

In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

 

 

We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it."

 

Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer.

 

No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it.

 

If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question?

 

If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

 

 

Let me guess.....

 

You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling.

 

My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry.

 

Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved.

 

My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out if the case and send it to them raw?

 

 

No control? Of course they do. Sellers just need some incentive to bite the hand that feeds. That incentive will come when buyers start returning slabs because of these craters. The inner well is defective. Sellers need to DEMAND that CGC reholder these books for free.

 

 

If CGC refuses, Timely just pointed out the legal recourse to force them to.

[1904 Comics]

Good to read all of the feedback so far from since when I first started this thread. I guess I should ask if there is someone on the forums who is proficient with the legal process involved in filing a class action lawsuit. If ever that be the next course of action, I suspect that the mere notion should raise some added attention from CGC. I would recommend those of you encountering damages related to sales begin documenting your losses if you intend to follow this direction collaboratively.

[Sqeggs]

I agree that the problem is CGC's to fix. However, when you essentially have a monopoly there is very little incentive to solve the problem. Third parties (major dealers) do not have a monopoly, and can potentially be impacted by CGC's decision to lower QC standards in the interim, while they work towards a solution (as far as we know - any updates?). The only way I see that will result in resolving the situation is for those third parties to make CGC aware that quality matters to them as much as the little guy. Sure, they could block their customer base, but that's a poor business model in the long run.

 

Another thing to consider, I don't mind doing a reholder from time to time, and have never held a third party accountable for case condition, unless shipped in a negligent fashion (something you don't have to worry about from pros like HA and SC), but with the defect now impacting a majority of new slabs (over 70% on my recent submission) a reholder is not a serious option for those receiving a defective product from CGC directly or from a third party.

 

The ball is undoubtedly in CGC's court, but unless customer displeasure is registered (both big and small) resolution may take much longer (if ever). I base this on CGC not being upfront with its customer base on the issue. No sellers were aware of it, and submitters are only told about the problem after the fact, and only upon requesting and being denied a reholder.

 

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting.

 

In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

 

 

We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it."

 

Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer.

 

No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it.

 

If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question?

 

If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

 

 

Let me guess.....

 

You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling.

 

My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry.

 

Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved.

 

My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out if the case and send it to them raw?

 

 

You are clearly incorrect to state the problem affects 100% of slabs. Even now when the incidence of the problem has increased, not every slab is affected. I own at least one hundred slabs without this defect.

 

Since:

 

1. Most people consider this problem a defect (including you, apparently, because you have stopped submitting), and

2. Some slabs have it and some don't,

 

I'm still puzzled by your position that sellers need not disclose that they are selling a slab with this defect or accept returns if the buyer objects. It hardly seems too much to ask that sellers disclose defects in the products they sell.

[mintcollector]

I agree that the problem is CGC's to fix. However, when you essentially have a monopoly there is very little incentive to solve the problem. Third parties (major dealers) do not have a monopoly, and can potentially be impacted by CGC's decision to lower QC standards in the interim, while they work towards a solution (as far as we know - any updates?). The only way I see that will result in resolving the situation is for those third parties to make CGC aware that quality matters to them as much as the little guy. Sure, they could block their customer base, but that's a poor business model in the long run.

 

Another thing to consider, I don't mind doing a reholder from time to time, and have never held a third party accountable for case condition, unless shipped in a negligent fashion (something you don't have to worry about from pros like HA and SC), but with the defect now impacting a majority of new slabs (over 70% on my recent submission) a reholder is not a serious option for those receiving a defective product from CGC directly or from a third party.

 

The ball is undoubtedly in CGC's court, but unless customer displeasure is registered (both big and small) resolution may take much longer (if ever). I base this on CGC not being upfront with its customer base on the issue. No sellers were aware of it, and submitters are only told about the problem after the fact, and only upon requesting and being denied a reholder.

 

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting.

 

In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

 

 

We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it."

 

Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer.

 

No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it.

 

If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question?

 

If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

 

 

Let me guess.....

 

You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling.

 

My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry.

 

Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved.

 

My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out if the case and send it to them raw?

 

 

You are clearly incorrect to state the problem affects 100% of slabs. Even now when the incidence of the problem has increased, not every slab is affected. I own at least one hundred slabs without this defect.

 

Since:

 

1. Most people consider this problem a defect (including you, apparently, because you have stopped submitting), and

2. Some slabs have it and some don't,

 

I'm still puzzled by your position that sellers need not disclose that they are selling a slab with this defect or accept returns if the buyer objects. It hardly seems too much to ask that sellers disclose defects in the products they sell.

 

'Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is a different situation entirely.'

 

I wrote this in the same chain of quotes you choose to include in your statement. Once again, I am not talking about undisclosed defects on a case that holds a graded product.

 

Just to be clear however, I can bump threads where a newbie has come hear asking why he received a CGC graded book with micro chamber paper hanging out on a book he got off of eBay and certain members of this forum think that the individual shoud just 'chill out.' In my opinion, the buyer has a right to a defect free slab, because this is something that can be solved hy a simple reholder. I am quoted on this in this regard. It is amazing how certain rules only apply to certain individuals and dealers.

 

I can nearly guarantee that a buyer is eventually going to buy a 'defective' slab off of one of the well known dealers on this forum and once again, people will forget this thread and say 'why shoud the dealer or auction house be responsible?' Rest assured, this thread will be bumped and linked to that inquiry quicker than a bid being placed on an AF # 15 in the midst of a speculative bubble.

 

Remember, a lot of well known dealers have a no return policy on CGC graded books. Please ask some of them how this issue would be handled. I am sorry but I have seen buyers and bidders 'burn bridges' with well known dealers and auction houses for things they have no control over. Once they get banned though they immediately throw temper tantrums thinking that these policies they clicked the 'agree to' button for don't apply to them.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2013 by mintcollector

[mintcollector]

I agree that the problem is CGC's to fix. However, when you essentially have a monopoly there is very little incentive to solve the problem. Third parties (major dealers) do not have a monopoly, and can potentially be impacted by CGC's decision to lower QC standards in the interim, while they work towards a solution (as far as we know - any updates?). The only way I see that will result in resolving the situation is for those third parties to make CGC aware that quality matters to them as much as the little guy. Sure, they could block their customer base, but that's a poor business model in the long run.

 

Another thing to consider, I don't mind doing a reholder from time to time, and have never held a third party accountable for case condition, unless shipped in a negligent fashion (something you don't have to worry about from pros like HA and SC), but with the defect now impacting a majority of new slabs (over 70% on my recent submission) a reholder is not a serious option for those receiving a defective product from CGC directly or from a third party.

 

The ball is undoubtedly in CGC's court, but unless customer displeasure is registered (both big and small) resolution may take much longer (if ever). I base this on CGC not being upfront with its customer base on the issue. No sellers were aware of it, and submitters are only told about the problem after the fact, and only upon requesting and being denied a reholder.

 

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting.

 

In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

 

 

We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it."

 

Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer.

 

No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it.

 

If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question?

 

If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

 

 

Let me guess.....

 

You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling.

 

My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry.

 

Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved.

 

My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out if the case and send it to them raw?

 

 

No control? Of course they do. Sellers just need some incentive to bite the hand that feeds. That incentive will come when buyers start returning slabs because of these craters. The inner well is defective. Sellers need to DEMAND that CGC reholder these books for free.

 

 

If CGC refuses, Timely just pointed out the legal recourse to force them to.

 

I really wish you luck on this. As I stated above, the minute someone comes here complaining that someone refused a return on a CGC slab that is defective and demands resolution; I certainly hope you are willing to help. Even if the said seller is a well known forum member or dealer of 'ethical traits.' I for one, aside from a full refund and return; would know of no other way of handling the issue. The question then becomes how bad will this hurt the hobby and will prices start to fall as a result? CGC is responsible for bringing confidence to the marketplace. Personally, without CGC; I would not collect to the point I have. I can name other collectors this applies to as well.