CGC Case Indentations 0

[lizards2]

I just found one in my collection.

 

 

If it's a Disney comic, that may be a hidden Mickey.

 

Looks like one of those big-bottomed bears to me.

[Transplant]

I just found one in my collection.

 

 

If it's a Disney comic, that may be a hidden Mickey.

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Here's the book. At first I thought it was an odd scanner reflection/issue, but I double checked and it's there.

[mintcollector]

The whole 'no returns on CGC books' is a BS policy to begin with. A good seller will allow returns on both raw & slabbed.

I don't allow returns on slabs I sell on eBay. Not sure why I would. The risk is much greater of flaky buyers, returns with magazines in the box instead of the slab, people deciding they don't like the price they paid, etc. Here, I'll let people return within a reasonable time. But eBay is a different story. Plus, as someone said, would you expect auction houses to also allow returns? For that matter, I usually sell by BIN one eBay, but what about auctions? Allow returns there?

 

I just don't get it.

 

I guess I've been spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long. I haven't sold on EBay in almost a decade. I don't consign to auction houses. Buying & selling has been much more personal for me.

 

Colour me insulated....

 

So you now have changed your position after another forum member offers the same view I have? Or by your own admission of 'being spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long' you now admit that you had no idea as to what proper position is outside this forum?

 

I am just curious because it is ironic that after I chose to post in this thread for the first time in over thirty plus days and comment on another topic entirely, you chose to 'bump' a statement I made more than two pages back and a month prior; just to go against the views that have now given you second thought.

 

Again, this is not the fault of the seller and even if you bought something like this from our own forum, what restitution other than a refund could the seller possibly offer you? A reholder would currently subject the book to the same defect in question without the original problem being resolved. Again I ask, why blame the seller?

 

 

I'm still not sure after all this back and forth whether you agree that a seller should disclose this defect in the slab. That's the key point. If a buyer purchases a slab where the defect has been disclosed, that's on the buyer. If the buyer purchases a slab where the defect has not been disclosed, that's on the seller.

 

You may well be correct that major dealers or auction houses will likely ban a buyer who complains after receiving a defective slab, but if enough buyers refuse to accept these slabs, pressure on CGC to correct the problem will increase. In the end, CGC is much more likely to respond to the big dealers and auction houses than to any of us.

 

In any event, my guess is that when this problem is resolved, it will probably be done silently. There are far too many of these slabs out there now for CGC to admit they are defective and to agree to reholder them without charge.

 

Actually, I responded to this same statement twice.

 

One of my posts even starts with this:

 

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

 

 

[Pete Marino]

Does CGC have any guarantee in their TOS that if a holder does damage a comic they will reimburse you for the damage or replace your comic?

 

I'd take it that would be covered under the "defective" clause, but I don't know.

 

I am sure this happens once in a while when someone flubbs up at seal or something goes awry behind the curtain as it is. This may not be a problem for them now, but like someone else said, in 5 years there may be a lot of comics they need to replace or dole out money for....

 

Esp if they are saying it's not a defect. That may open them up for even more issues in the future.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Not even sure what we're arguing about at this point. You seem overly concerned that a seller might ban you from future purchases if you complained.

 

Sorry...but that isn't a concern of mine.

 

And before you go on a rant about how I'm probably a problem buyer to avoid, I've returned 2 books in the last decade. A CGC 9.8 FF 214 due to severe SCS, and 1 raw book that I felt was misrepresented. It got returned because it was a 1k + book.

 

 

When I get overgraded raw books from fellow forum members I just put them in a pile and avoid that seller going forward.

 

After deciding to respond to my original comment more than 35 days after I posted it; and only after I originally made a statement unrelated to what you mentioned, you now state that you have no idea what we are arguing about?

 

Your statement above already perfectly clarifies that you don't know what we are discussing. My simple question is then why did you respond to begin with? Obviously, both the original intent and resolution have escaped your grasp.

 

Was that last line supposed to be subtle?

[Dr. Love]

Probably 90% or more of the customers who have these slabs don't know about it and wouldn't care even if they did. At this point I would pay the re-holder fee for a slab guaranteed to be free of puddling. I would hope they're actively seeking a solution to the QC issue.

 

Mark Z will bring some light and perhaps heat to the issue.

[lizards2]

I just checked the stack of inner wells that I have here in my deslab area (i.e., pool table). I save them for my wife to take to school - she uses them for art projects for the kindergartners.

 

She recently went back to school a month ago, so there were only 14 in the pile. 9 had these pooch marks, and 5 did not. I'm wondering if it roughly equates to old labels vs. new labels....,

 

I can tell you that no comics had damage from the inner well.

[seanfingh]

Not even sure what we're arguing about at this point. You seem overly concerned that a seller might ban you from future purchases if you complained.

 

Sorry...but that isn't a concern of mine.

 

And before you go on a rant about how I'm probably a problem buyer to avoid, I've returned 2 books in the last decade. A CGC 9.8 FF 214 due to severe SCS, and 1 raw book that I felt was misrepresented. It got returned because it was a 1k + book.

 

 

When I get overgraded raw books from fellow forum members I just put them in a pile and avoid that seller going forward.

 

After deciding to respond to my original comment more than 35 days after I posted it; and only after I originally made a statement unrelated to what you mentioned, you now state that you have no idea what we are arguing about?

 

Your statement above already perfectly clarifies that you don't know what we are discussing. My simple question is then why did you respond to begin with? Obviously, both the original intent and resolution have escaped your grasp.

 

(1) Who cares?

(2) You don't get to decide who does and doesn't respond to your posts, no matter how old they are.

(3) This ridiculous bulldog-like tenacity to try and get Beyonder to engage you about what his "agenda" is takes away from the real discussion, and it is dumb.

(4) THIS WILL NOT BE A RE-HOLDER ISSUE. They will either have to regrade the books, or change their entire stance about re-grading books when they have to remove them from the inner well.

[mintcollector]

Not even sure what we're arguing about at this point. You seem overly concerned that a seller might ban you from future purchases if you complained.

 

Sorry...but that isn't a concern of mine.

 

And before you go on a rant about how I'm probably a problem buyer to avoid, I've returned 2 books in the last decade. A CGC 9.8 FF 214 due to severe SCS, and 1 raw book that I felt was misrepresented. It got returned because it was a 1k + book.

 

 

When I get overgraded raw books from fellow forum members I just put them in a pile and avoid that seller going forward.

 

After deciding to respond to my original comment more than 35 days after I posted it; and only after I originally made a statement unrelated to what you mentioned, you now state that you have no idea what we are arguing about?

 

Your statement above already perfectly clarifies that you don't know what we are discussing. My simple question is then why did you respond to begin with? Obviously, both the original intent and resolution have escaped your grasp.

 

(1) Who cares?

(2) You don't get to decide who does and doesn't respond to your posts, no matter how old they are.

(3) This ridiculous bulldog-like tenacity to try and get Beyonder to engage you about what his "agenda" is takes away from the real discussion, and it is dumb.

(4) THIS WILL NOT BE A RE-HOLDER ISSUE. They will either have to regrade the books, or change their entire stance about re-grading books when they have to remove them from the inner well.

 

You do understand that I am NOT the one who is trying to engage him? Had he not engaged me to begin with, we would not be having this conversation.

 

Also, note that I am by no means upset that he or anyone chooses to respond to my statements, otherwise I would not post here. The reason I bring this up is because not only after 35 days and numerous other posts did he choose to respond, but he waited until I specifically commented on something that had nothing to do with the original inquiry he responded to. You are welcome to go back a few pages and see that he engaged me, not the other way around. I am merely responding to his and other forum members continual questions. If they do not remember why they started their own discussions I cannot help them.

 

 

[mintcollector]

I don't think "re-holder" is the right terminology. Re-holders work for the correction of errors or damaged outer cases. This is neither. This is a defective inner well. Thus, it is not a simple re-holder, and adds another layer of complexity to the matter.

 

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments.

[jimjum12]

..... if the terms say "NO RETURNS ON CGC GRADED BOOKS" ..... then don't enter into the transaction if that bothers you. Pretty simple. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Dr. Love]

In an effort to get everyone on the same page. Mark Zaid just posted this on another thread

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7073362#Post7073362

 

If anyone is experiencing an increased frequency of "puddling", please let me know and send clear scans of the books that will allow me to see the cert # and the "puddling" to Mark@MarkZaid.com. Let me know how often you have experienced this and when the book was submitted.

 

I can absolutely understand the concerns that have been expressed, particularly the extent to which the existence of "puddling", which was explained in that Q & A from another thread should not be impacting the book (thereby a CGC 9.8 book with "puddling" is still a CGC 9.8 book), could subsequently adversely impact the book itself. Of course, I am in no way minimizing the impact on the appearance value which to some may be significant, as it was to the OP.

 

As I understand it, this is not a new problem and has actually existed for the entirety of CGC's existence (14 years). Thus, if this issue has adversely impacted any books one would think there should be some evidence of damage. I have not seen or heard of any to date but if anyone has such evidence please let me know.

 

Whether an old or new problem, I can state that CGC is currently examining these expressed concerns and I discussed the issue just today and will continue to do so.

[Dr. Love]

In an effort to get everyone on the same page. Mark Zaid just posted this on another thread

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7073362#Post7073362

 

If anyone is experiencing an increased frequency of "puddling", please let me know and send clear scans of the books that will allow me to see the cert # and the "puddling" to Mark@MarkZaid.com. Let me know how often you have experienced this and when the book was submitted.

 

I can absolutely understand the concerns that have been expressed, particularly the extent to which the existence of "puddling", which was explained in that Q & A from another thread should not be impacting the book (thereby a CGC 9.8 book with "puddling" is still a CGC 9.8 book), could subsequently adversely impact the book itself. Of course, I am in no way minimizing the impact on the appearance value which to some may be significant, as it was to the OP.

 

As I understand it, this is not a new problem and has actually existed for the entirety of CGC's existence (14 years). Thus, if this issue has adversely impacted any books one would think there should be some evidence of damage. I have not seen or heard of any to date but if anyone has such evidence please let me know.

 

Whether an old or new problem, I can state that CGC is currently examining these expressed concerns and I discussed the issue just today and will continue to do so.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Dr. Love

[Sqeggs]

The whole 'no returns on CGC books' is a BS policy to begin with. A good seller will allow returns on both raw & slabbed.

I don't allow returns on slabs I sell on eBay. Not sure why I would. The risk is much greater of flaky buyers, returns with magazines in the box instead of the slab, people deciding they don't like the price they paid, etc. Here, I'll let people return within a reasonable time. But eBay is a different story. Plus, as someone said, would you expect auction houses to also allow returns? For that matter, I usually sell by BIN one eBay, but what about auctions? Allow returns there?

 

I just don't get it.

 

I guess I've been spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long. I haven't sold on EBay in almost a decade. I don't consign to auction houses. Buying & selling has been much more personal for me.

 

Colour me insulated....

 

So you now have changed your position after another forum member offers the same view I have? Or by your own admission of 'being spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long' you now admit that you had no idea as to what proper position is outside this forum?

 

I am just curious because it is ironic that after I chose to post in this thread for the first time in over thirty plus days and comment on another topic entirely, you chose to 'bump' a statement I made more than two pages back and a month prior; just to go against the views that have now given you second thought.

 

Again, this is not the fault of the seller and even if you bought something like this from our own forum, what restitution other than a refund could the seller possibly offer you? A reholder would currently subject the book to the same defect in question without the original problem being resolved. Again I ask, why blame the seller?

 

 

I'm still not sure after all this back and forth whether you agree that a seller should disclose this defect in the slab. That's the key point. If a buyer purchases a slab where the defect has been disclosed, that's on the buyer. If the buyer purchases a slab where the defect has not been disclosed, that's on the seller.

 

You may well be correct that major dealers or auction houses will likely ban a buyer who complains after receiving a defective slab, but if enough buyers refuse to accept these slabs, pressure on CGC to correct the problem will increase. In the end, CGC is much more likely to respond to the big dealers and auction houses than to any of us.

 

In any event, my guess is that when this problem is resolved, it will probably be done silently. There are far too many of these slabs out there now for CGC to admit they are defective and to agree to reholder them without charge.

 

Actually, I responded to this same statement twice.

 

One of my posts even starts with this:

 

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

 

 

Only after being asked? So a seller has no obligation to disclose this defect when listing the book? It's fine not to disclose it unless someone asks? I don't see this as a defensible position.

[seanfingh]

I don't think "re-holder" is the right terminology. Re-holders work for the correction of errors or damaged outer cases. This is neither. This is a defective inner well. Thus, it is not a simple re-holder, and adds another layer of complexity to the matter.

 

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments.

 

You are wrong about this. Re holder is only the outer shell. If they have to open the inner well it gets regarded.

[Transplant]

I don't think "re-holder" is the right terminology. Re-holders work for the correction of errors or damaged outer cases. This is neither. This is a defective inner well. Thus, it is not a simple re-holder, and adds another layer of complexity to the matter.

 

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments.

 

You are wrong about this. Re holder is only the outer shell. If they have to open the inner well it gets regarded.

How is it regarded?

[Mark 1]

It's regarded as a bit concave and convex at the same time

[mintcollector]

I don't think "re-holder" is the right terminology. Re-holders work for the correction of errors or damaged outer cases. This is neither. This is a defective inner well. Thus, it is not a simple re-holder, and adds another layer of complexity to the matter.

 

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments.

 

You are wrong about this. Re holder is only the outer shell. If they have to open the inner well it gets regarded.

How is it regarded?

 

The inner well, along with the micro chamber paper; are replaced via a reholder.

 

I asked this question long ago before I started sending books in for reholder; which would have been between 2008-2009. Seanfingh is wrong, just ask CGC.

 

To change the micro chamber paper they have to take the book out of the inner well fully.

[seanfingh]

just ask CGC.

 

On it!