CGC Case Indentations 0

[Sqeggs]

Q: Why are these cases making it through QC?

 

A: Because the books themselves are not damaged.

 

Pretty flippant attitude.

CGC needs to keep in mind that they don't create comics.

They grade them and put them in a plastic shell.

When half of the service you offer is compromised, you need to have a better response to customers than telling them to F O.

 

It's especially bush league when they admit that they saw the error during the QC phase, and their response to the imperfect shells is to take a coffee break and go swim in their money bin like Scrooge McDuck.

 

If I ever tried this in my business, a business where we have competition and customers have limitless options, we'd be out of business within the year.

 

 

 

Well stated. (thumbs u

[newshane]

I guess I won't be submitting anytime soon to CGC until this gets rectified. They lost my business for now.

 

+1

 

[Tom473]

I received a slab from Heritage auctions today that was cratered (first time from HA, and I'm a regular.) I'm going to ask them to start providing images of the backs for books they're auctioning that have the CGC crater defect evident and point them to this thread. It was a Bronze Age book, but probably slabbed recently. I know it was probably just an optical illusion, but it made the ads on the back of the comic look wavy itself, almost akin to water damage (on an otherwise beautiful 9.8). Presentation matters, hope HA will agree. Most sellers I have asked about the defect were unaware, but very interested in learning more.

 

If other members start asking other Ebay sellers and major dealers if the back of their books suffer from CGC crater problem, it may prompt a more professional response from CGC on the problem.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2013 by Tom473

[mintcollector]

I received a slab from Heritage auctions today that was cratered (first time from HA, and I'm a regular.) I'm going to ask them to start providing images of the backs for books they're auctioning that have the CGC crater defect evident and point them to this thread. It was a Bronze Age book, but probably slabbed recently. I know it was probably just an optical illusion, but it made the ads on the back of the comic look wavy itself, almost akin to water damage (on an otherwise beautiful 9.8). Presentation matters, hope HA will agree. Most sellers I have asked about the defect were unaware, but very interested in learning more.

 

If other members start asking other Ebay sellers and major dealers if the back of their books suffer from CGC crater problem, it may prompt a more professional response from CGC on the problem.

 

 

No it would not. It would just force a problem on an innocent third party that has no control of the situation at hand.

 

CGC is responsible for this issue and NOT any reseller of their books. Why should an eBay reseller or an auction house be responsible for someone else's mistake? When you agree to buy an item at auction the merchandise transfers ownership to you in 'as is' condition unless otherwise noted. It is unethical and completely unfair to blame a seller for something they have no control over.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

I received a slab from Heritage auctions today that was cratered (first time from HA, and I'm a regular.) I'm going to ask them to start providing images of the backs for books they're auctioning that have the CGC crater defect evident and point them to this thread. It was a Bronze Age book, but probably slabbed recently. I know it was probably just an optical illusion, but it made the ads on the back of the comic look wavy itself, almost akin to water damage (on an otherwise beautiful 9.8). Presentation matters, hope HA will agree. Most sellers I have asked about the defect were unaware, but very interested in learning more.

 

If other members start asking other Ebay sellers and major dealers if the back of their books suffer from CGC crater problem, it may prompt a more professional response from CGC on the problem.

 

 

No it would not. It would just force a problem on an innocent third party that has no control of the situation at hand.

 

CGC is responsible for this issue and NOT any reseller of their books. Why should an eBay reseller or an auction house be responsible for someone else's mistake? When you agree to buy an item at auction the merchandise transfers ownership to you in 'as is' condition unless otherwise noted. It is unethical and completely unfair to blame a seller for something they have no control over.

 

 

I disagree. If the seller receives defective merchandise it hardly seems proper to pass it along to the buyer with the excuse that the seller didn't cause the damage. If you buy a shirt online from LL Bean, say, and it arrives with a tear in it, I doubt you would accept the excuse that the tear was caused by the manufacturer and isn't LL Bean's fault.

 

Of course Heritage has control over the problem. Heritage should not accept defective slabs from CGC. If it does accept defective slabs it should be willing to accept a return from a dissatisfied customer. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that a credit card company would be willing to back the buyer should it come to that. I don't see how the "as is" condition holds when the buyer was unable to see the defect because the back of the slab wasn't shown in the listing.

 

Edited to fix typo.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Sqeggs

[Tom473]

I contacted HA. To be clear, I had no intention of requesting a return, only to request back scans for more recently slabbed books (or those that have cratering). Like most sellers, they were unaware of the issue but very interested in learning about the defect and specifically asked what CGC's response to customers have been on the matter. I pointed them to the thread.

 

There is no intention to penalize any third parties, merely to raise awareness of the issue - especially since CGC has been mum on the matter on the official website. It would be good to at least have a status update of where the troubleshooting stands.

 

If larger customer bases query CGC on the issue, it may provide a greater business incentive for CGC to take the defects seriously, and work quickly to restore quality standards.

[Ant-Man]

You almost have to ask the seller directly as scans may not pick up the defect. The last book I got from Sparkle City had back scans, but nothing looked wrong. Once I got the book and held it at an angle, I could see the crater. Maybe the more severe cases will show from a flat scan, but not all.

[mintcollector]

I received a slab from Heritage auctions today that was cratered (first time from HA, and I'm a regular.) I'm going to ask them to start providing images of the backs for books they're auctioning that have the CGC crater defect evident and point them to this thread. It was a Bronze Age book, but probably slabbed recently. I know it was probably just an optical illusion, but it made the ads on the back of the comic look wavy itself, almost akin to water damage (on an otherwise beautiful 9.8). Presentation matters, hope HA will agree. Most sellers I have asked about the defect were unaware, but very interested in learning more.

 

If other members start asking other Ebay sellers and major dealers if the back of their books suffer from CGC crater problem, it may prompt a more professional response from CGC on the problem.

 

 

No it would not. It would just force a problem on an innocent third party that has no control of the situation at hand.

 

CGC is responsible for this issue and NOT any reseller of their books. Why should an eBay reseller or an auction house be responsible for someone else's mistake? When you agree to buy an item at auction the merchandise transfers ownership to you in 'as is' condition unless otherwise noted. It is unethical and completely unfair to blame a seller for something they have no control over.

 

 

I disagree. If the seller receives defective merchandise it hardly seems proper to pass it along to the buyer with the excuse that the seller didn't cause the damage. If you buy a shirt online from LL Bean, say, and it arrives with a tear in it, I doubt you would accept the excuse that the tear was caused by the manufacturer and isn't LL Bean's fault.

 

Of course Heritage has control over the problem. Heritage should not accept defective slabs from CGC. If it does accept defective slabs it should be willing to accept a return from a dissatisfied customer. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that a credit card company would be willing to back the buyer should it come to that. I don't see how the "as is" condition holds when the buyer was unable to see the defect because the back of the slab wasn't shown in the listing.

 

Edited to fix typo.

 

Giving resellers the task of fixing this problem is not a long term solution. You really cannot compare limited collectibles to the likes of overly produced manufactured goods. What if that 'shirt' in your example was a Detective Comics #27? It isn't as easy as refusing the item and asking for a replacement. You are buying the book, not the holder. By this logic we should all stop buying graded books if this is the current mentality. I routinely buy four figure coins that come in scratched and damaged holders that I have to pay to send in to be reholdered. As long as it does not affect the grade, I can live with it. Why on earth would I hold a dealer responsible for this? Again, the grade of the item is not compromised. CGC has stated a similar sentiment in regards to its current quality issue that it is working to resolve. First off, I normally get these items at a significant discount because dealers want my repeat business. Second of all, most of the dealers who sell me such coins only make one hundred dollars in profit or less. I am sure they would be happy if I would I complain because, to cite your example again; these are not 'shirts' that can easily be replaced. Someone else would LOVE to have the item in question at a reduced cost.

 

In conclusion this is CGC's issue and not any reputable dealer's fault. I would hope that Heritage and C-Link would have procedures in place to block certain buyers that routinely complain about the items they receive. I know that several local well known auction houses have these kind of procedures in place, so I am confident the top players in the industry do as well.

 

 

[Tom473]

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.

[r100comics]

 

Has it been clarified why the cratering is primarily on the back cover ?

[accessndx]

I call shenanigans on the entire CGC stance relating to cratering. If they owned up to the problem causing ANY impact (even minimal) on the comic they'd have a huge issue on their hands. People would be demanding reholdering at their cost and they'd be culpable as well as liable.

 

Additionally, I don't think the issue has existed long enough for anyone to be able to evaluate the 'long term' impact of such cratering.

 

We've had some reputable individuals here (Joey P for one) that have cracked the cases and looked at the inner well. They've cited disturbing things about the defect upon closer analysis.

 

Is the CGC 'working it out'? I suppose they are. Will they eventually fix it? 'hopefully so'.

 

In the interim their standard response and stance that nothing harmful is happening as a result of the defect can only be to minimize the outrage and to diminish any backlash that would surely happen if they were transparent about the situation.

 

It's the old "there's nothing to see here, please move on" line.

 

Saying that the defects can easily be pressed out is also really not much consolation. I'm glad they can be, but why should any comic I submit be subjected to any sort of negative impact from the use of defective tools or supplies....even if it is reversible?

 

A moratorium on slabbing would be the quickest way to fix this mess once and for all. Of course there are plenty of folks that haven't the slightest idea this is occurring.....so they keep feeding the machine. Bring that monster to a screeching halt and let's see how quickly it gets rectified. Betcha it takes less than 1 week before some heads roll and everything is brandy new again.

 

 

[DrWatson]

Has it been clarified why the cratering is primarily on the back cover ?

It's a manufacturing defect from the supplier. Plus, I am guessing that the CGC has chosen to put the defect on the back of the inner well as opposed to the front. I don't believe unused inner wells have a specified front or back. That would be like specifying right and left socks.

 

It is my understanding from reading various posts on the boards that the CGC received a bad batch of inner wells from their supplier.

 

Instead of waiting for new inner wells from their suppliers, the CGC chose to continue under a "business as usual" mantra until the supplier of the inner wells rectified the problem. This left the CGC with an unspecified amount of defective (my word, not theirs) product to work their way through.

[accessndx]

How about they just send back the 'defective' parts to their supplier? Isn't that the way it works in almost every other industry with purchased parts that aren't what they were advertised to be?

 

Why stiff the hardworking folks that spend their hard earned money to slab their prized collectibles?

 

If they bought a bunch of 'cracked cases' it'd be no different, but it would be so obvious they'd have no alternative but to return them before slabbing.

 

They've chosen to stick it to the end user. Greed, deception and laziness are never a pleasant trio to deal with.

[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.

 

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Has it been clarified why the cratering is primarily on the back cover ?

It's a manufacturing defect from the supplier. Plus, I am guessing that the CGC has chosen to put the defect on the back of the inner well as opposed to the front. I don't believe unused inner wells have a specified front or back. That would be like specifying right and left socks.

 

It is my understanding from reading various posts on the boards that the CGC received a bad batch of inner wells from their supplier.

 

Instead of waiting for new inner wells from their suppliers, the CGC chose to continue under a "business as usual" mantra until the supplier of the inner wells rectified the problem. This left the CGC with an unspecified amount of defective (my word, not theirs) product to work their way through.

 

Actually, they do, and the problem appears to be limited to the bottom tray member. Please read my prior post.

 

LINK

 

We now know this to be true.

 

Since the core is formed of two pieces of semi-rigid plastic (called tray members), and the bottom tray member includes the depression for receiving the comic book, and since the warping defect appears to only be seen on the back side, it may be that the warping defect is caused from the process that creates the depression from a flat sheet of semi-rigid plastic. I assume the depression is formed with a mold that applies heat and pressure to create the shape seen below.

 

So, in other words, a problem with the creation of the bottom tray member, rather than a sealing issue.

 

[joeypost]

I'll verify this later. I have a few cracked out inner wells in the garbage. I'll take pictures tonight.

[Sqeggs]

Yeah, this is an important and disturbing issue. It seems evident that dealers are caught in a bind -- notice how few, if any, have contributed their thoughts to either thread? I would guess they have been told by CGC not to try returning any of these defective slabs. So, then, what do they do? Waiting it out until CGC runs through the defective inner wells is really not an option for high volume operations like SA or HA and would be at least a serious inconvenience for smaller volume dealers.

 

Apparently dealers are opting to just pass the defective slabs along to buyers with the hope they don't get too many complaints. Would be interesting to know whether SC or HA will accept returns on the basis of this problem.

[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.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

The thing that sticks out the most about this is that the indent is always one the back. Aren't slabs symmetrical and could go either way? Does that mean CGC has enough foresight to put the book in so the indent is on the back? They seem to be knowingly pushing books through without catching and correcting the mistake.

[DrWatson]

The thing that sticks out the most about this is that the indent is always one the back. Aren't slabs symmetrical and could go either way? Does that mean CGC has enough foresight to put the book in so the indent is on the back? They seem to be knowingly pushing books through without catching and correcting the mistake.

It's a manufacturing defect from the supplier. Plus, I am guessing that the CGC has chosen to put the defect on the back of the inner well as opposed to the front. I don't believe unused inner wells have a specified front or back. That would be like specifying right and left socks.

 

It is my understanding from reading various posts on the boards that the CGC received a bad batch of inner wells from their supplier.

 

Instead of waiting for new inner wells from their suppliers, the CGC chose to continue under a "business as usual" mantra until the supplier of the inner wells rectified the problem. This left the CGC with an unspecified amount of defective (my word, not theirs) product to work their way through.