CGC Case Indentations 0

[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.

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.

 

And that seems OK to you? When I've worked in stores, if we end up with a defective product we do not use it. Even if the defect is hidden, we wouldn't use it. It is like pulling the wool over the customer.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

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.

 

I don't know the degree of industry awareness to this problem, dealers or otherwise, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions

 

But one thing is certain, this is a severe cosmetic issue with possibly damaging effects to the comic book. As such, it falls under the same "full disclosure" area as a cracked slab.

 

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

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.

 

I don't know the degree of industry awareness to this problem, dealers or otherwise, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions

 

But one thing is certain, this is a severe cosmetic issue with possibly damaging effects to the comic book. As such, it falls under the same "full disclosure" area as a cracked slab.

 

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

 

Without a reasonable doubt, if I received a book like this it'd go back in a heartbeat.

 

Not that I have a lot of books slabbed, but I don't plan to have anything done until this is over either. If CGC sent me a book like this I'd argue it until they gave me my money back. I'm surprised people aren't already.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

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.

 

There actually IS a front and back tray member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link.

 

LINK

[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.

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.

 

There actually IS a front and back member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link.

 

LINK

 

I like how it is a link to a link.

 

But I didn't know this. Thanks for the information.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

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

 

Excellent. The more data and photos we have on this issue the better.

[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.

 

I don't know the degree of industry awareness to this problem, dealers or otherwise, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions

 

But one thing is certain, this is a severe cosmetic issue with possibly damaging effects to the comic book. As such, it falls under the same "full disclosure" area as a cracked slab.

 

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

 

Maybe, but the dealers who frequent these boards gotta know, I would think. Hard to believe Borock at HA doesn't know about this and SC monitors these boards. I imagine there has been extensive behind the scenes discussion but, of course, I have no way of knowing.

[CKB]

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

 

I don't see any justification for this. CGCs primary grader is on record stating the issue will not harm the book and while they would also prefer it wasn't there, continue to churn out slabs with the issue.

 

Until CGC calls it a defect and wants the slabs back, I don't see how sellers can be expected to. Of course, any buyer can be choosy and ask about this issue before buying a slab and should not purchase it unless it can be verified the issue isn't present.

[Davenport]

I don't see any justification for this. CGCs primary grader is on record stating the issue will not harm the book and while they would also prefer it wasn't there, continue to churn out slabs with the issue.

 

Until CGC calls it a defect and wants the slabs back, I don't see how sellers can be expected to. Of course, any buyer can be choosy and ask about this issue before buying a slab and should not purchase it unless it can be verified the issue isn't present.

The earlier statement came across as it being an element of using "high-end" Barex material. Not a defect per se. Like they'd rather it not occur at all, but it will and does to varying degrees.

 

"We have had indents ("Puddling") on our wells since day one. In the beginning it presented itself more as a "C" - now it looks kind of like a "O"."

 

[Sqeggs]

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

 

I don't see any justification for this. CGCs primary grader is on record stating the issue will not harm the book and while they would also prefer it wasn't there, continue to churn out slabs with the issue.

 

Until CGC calls it a defect and wants the slabs back, I don't see how sellers can be expected to. Of course, any buyer can be choosy and ask about this issue before buying a slab and should not purchase it unless it can be verified the issue isn't present.

 

It is not at all clear that this defect won't harm the books. I just can't see how this problem isn't a defect because it would be a rare buyer who wouldn't want a slab without it.

 

As to what sellers can be expected to do, I would say they can be expected to insist that CGC replace slabs with this defect. At the very least, sellers should be disclosing the defect in their listings. If they don't, they should expect to receive returns from dissatisfied buyers.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

 

I don't see any justification for this. CGCs primary grader is on record stating the issue will not harm the book and while they would also prefer it wasn't there, continue to churn out slabs with the issue.

 

Until CGC calls it a defect and wants the slabs back, I don't see how sellers can be expected to. Of course, any buyer can be choosy and ask about this issue before buying a slab and should not purchase it unless it can be verified the issue isn't present.

 

I see your point, but eBay/PayPal will not make this distinction.

 

In fact, if a seller caught in the middle of a SNAD case opened against him were to use CGC documentation regarding this defect, it would only confirm his responsibility for disclosure rather than relieve him of it.

[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.

 

There actually IS a front and back tray member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link.

 

LINK

It depends on which inner well is used. The modern inner well is pretty much a sleeve with both the front and the back being the same:

 

 

It doesn't not have the defect.

 

The inner well for this Bronze Age book is as you described; a tray with the book dropped into it and then the top sheet placed over it:

 

 

It does have the defect.

 

So, the next question would be is the defect only limited to the tray style inner wells or did I just get lucky on one and not the other.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

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.

 

There actually IS a front and back tray member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link.

 

LINK

It depends on which inner well is used. The modern inner well is pretty much a sleeve with both the front and the back being the same:

 

 

It doesn't not have the defect.

 

The inner well for this Bronze Age book is as you described; a tray with the book dropped into it and then the top sheet placed over it:

 

 

It does have the defect.

 

So, the next question would be is the defect only limited to the tray style inner wells or did I just get lucky on one and not the other.

 

Good point. The defect "seems" to be caused by the formation of the tray in the manufacturing process, so it would make sense that "sleeve-type" inner wells would probably be immune to this issue.

 

I just checked through my Modern Age slabs and found both varieties, sleeve and tray. For example, my slabbed Ultimate Spider-Man books from 2000/2001 have the tray.

 

Interestingly, one of them (Grade Date: 09/25/2002) has the defect on the backside tray, but it is only noticeable along the spine and top edge areas of the book and travels the length of both sides. In other words, it's very large and only along one half of the tray. This correlates well with the CGC statement that this issue has been present in varying degrees from the beginning.

 

I took a couple photos. If you look carefully, you can see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2013 by Shellhead

[The Kaptain]

Is that really worthy of a spoiler tag?

 

Also, did you take those photos thru a kaleidoscope?

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Is that really worthy of a spoiler tag?

 

Also, did you take those photos thru a kaleidoscope?

 

 

The spoiler tags are a browser courtesy because of the large size of the photos.

 

I did not use a kaleidoscope. Getting the proper angle of reflected light is difficult - I opted for sunlight.

[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.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2013 by mintcollector

[Tom473]

I don't think anyone is saying the defect is anyone's responsibility other than CGC's. The fact is that CGC's decision to lower quality standards (even temporarily) can have second order effects for those who deal in CGC's product. Therefore, ethically, CGC should have been upfront with that decision.

 

The impact to resellers could come in the form of decreased sales or resale value as awareness of the rampant defect grows, exacerbated by CGC's disinterested and defensive response to the concerns of collectors.

 

Another impact to resellers could be, since most are not aware, unknowingly passing on defective cases to valued customers, then those equally unaware customers asking resellers for refunds/returns. Again, not something I advocate, just stating a potential consequence as each buyer is different. Yes, the reseller could then ban that buyer, so essentially they get doubly screwed by CGC, loss of a customer and defective merchandise.

 

Bottom line, all parties (collectors, resellers, etc) have an interest in registering displeasure with the way CGC has handled the defect, lack of company transparency in notifying its customers of the problem it is experiencing, and not (apparently) aggressively pursuing the restoral of pre 2011 quality standards.

 

Yes, resellers could ignore the problem by saying its all on CGC, but I doubt that would garner an effective resolution faster than by contacting CGC and asking what is being done to ensure quality now and in the future. The latter approach (especially by major resellers) is better for the health of the comic collecting, buying, and selling community as a whole.

 

Minor grammar edit

Edited September 1, 2013 by Tom473

[mintcollector]

I don't think anyone is saying the defect is anyone's responsibility other than CGC's. The fact is that CGC's decision to lower quality standards (even temporarily) can have second order effects for those who deal in CGC's product. Therefore, ethically, CGC should have been upfront with that decision.

 

The impact to resellers could come in the form of decreased sales or resale value as awareness of the rampant defect grows, excaerbated by CGC's disinterested and defensive response to the concerns of collectors.

 

Another impact to resellers could be, since most are not aware, unknowingly passing on defective cases to valued customers, then those equally unaware customers asking resellers for refunds/returns. Again, not something I advocate, just stating a potential consequence as each buyer is different. Yes, the reseller could then ban that buyer, so essentially they get doubly screwed by CGC, loss of a customer and defective merchandise.

 

Bottom line, all parties (collectors, resellers, etc) have an interest in registering displeasure with the way CGC has handled the defect, lack of company transparency in notifying its customers of the problem it is experiencing, and aggressively pursuing the restoral of pre 2011 quality standards.

 

Yes, resellers could ignore the problem by saying its all on CGC, but I doubt that would garner an effective resolution faster than by contacting CGC and asking what is being done to ensure quality now and in the future. The latter approach (especially by major resellers) is better for the health of the comic collecting, buying, and selling community as a whole.

 

I agree fully with what you are saying...and then some. My point was that by either holding individual resellers or auction companies liable would NOT solve the problem. If CGC refuses to fix the issue then there would be no point in issuing refunds or offering a free reholder as the product would come back as the same as before. It is sad that some unethical buyers will find a way to profit from this at the expense of those who are not directly responsible for the issue.

 

In conclusion, I am all for CGC finding a solution. However, I do not and will not support ethical dealers and auction houses taking the blame for something they cannot control. I have gotten a lot of great deals right here on these forums. For some of these sellers to continue to offer buyers like myself below market prices they should not be forced to handle a problem that is completely out of their control.

 

 

 

 

[CKB]

Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

 

I don't see any justification for this. CGCs primary grader is on record stating the issue will not harm the book and while they would also prefer it wasn't there, continue to churn out slabs with the issue.

 

Until CGC calls it a defect and wants the slabs back, I don't see how sellers can be expected to. Of course, any buyer can be choosy and ask about this issue before buying a slab and should not purchase it unless it can be verified the issue isn't present.

 

It is not at all clear that this defect won't harm the books. I just can't see how this problem isn't a defect because it would be a rare buyer who wouldn't want a slab without it.

 

As to what sellers can be expected to do, I would say they can be expected to insist that CGC replace slabs with this defect. At the very least, sellers should be disclosing the defect in their listings. If they don't, they should expect to receive returns from dissatisfied buyers.

 

I just don't see it. Take buyers/sellers out of it. Say you submit a book yourself for your own collection and it comes back with this issue. You call CGC, they say it's normal, and they will not reholder it for free. Or, maybe they will reholder it for free just to get you off the phone, but they cannot guarantee the reholdered book will not have the same issue.

 

What do you do??

 

[joeypost]

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.

 

There actually IS a front and back tray member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link.

 

LINK

It depends on which inner well is used. The modern inner well is pretty much a sleeve with both the front and the back being the same:

 

 

It doesn't not have the defect.

 

The inner well for this Bronze Age book is as you described; a tray with the book dropped into it and then the top sheet placed over it:

 

 

It does have the defect.

 

So, the next question would be is the defect only limited to the tray style inner wells or did I just get lucky on one and not the other.

 

I looked over a few different inner well styles over the past few days. There are a few styles CGC uses, not all of them have a tray for the book to fit into. What I have seen (keep in mind it is a very small sampling of less than a dozen cases) is the defect is present in both types of inner well.