The Mistakes CGC Makes again and again and again...

[Tnerb]

The following is long. I am not anti CGC. I still enjoy what this company does, but I had to write the following based off my own experiences. This makes me question if a simple mistake can't be caught then how can they be trusted to grade my most cherished objects. Mind you the following is not a sought after comic, it's a book I purchased a long time ago. Any and all comments are welcomed by members and CGC employees. Thank you.

 

Part I: The mistakes CGC makes

 

What is quality control? It seems invoices take a step back when they go from "graded" to "grading/quality control". This small nitpick is a simple observation. If they flipped the terminology around, I wouldn't have paid attention. Three of the invoices I turned over to CGC at the Baltimore Comic Con in early September made its way to "order status" on my registry page rather quickly. Two were fast tracked while the third is still under the "received" stage. The first two are two book invoices. One was for the universal label while the second was under CGC's signature series.

 

I watched amused knowing they made a mistake and yet I did nothing to change the outcome. I could have called to alert them of the Faux pas but opted against it. The reason, well I wanted something to write about and if it happens to me it happens to others. I have found people will praise CGC, but equally they will despise them. Why hate a third party company that makes no money with the comic books but only charge a modicum sum to grade the comic books we send in. We do ask for it don't we. That is only my opinion, although why a collector might hate CGC could be mistakes like the following, please bear with me.

 

I don't get how a grade is debated between CGC between graders. I picture a formula with what is and isn't allowed to be I each grade, not a best of three. Between two different comic shops I can understand how one might disagree with another. In fact that was the premise behind a third party grading company which spawned CGC. This way a collector didn't have to haggle over the condition of the book, only the price.

 

Part II: A flaw is a flaw.

 

A folded page, a nicked corner, a rusty stable, or a even a Lucky Charms marshmallow stain can decrease the condition of a comic book. A shift of newly purchased books thought to be secured in a bag could cause a spectacular looking book drop from a hopeful 9.8 to a disgraced 9.6. There are many times I purchased a flawless book at Fat Jack's Comicrypt that were somehow damaged by my impatience to read one or two of them on the way home.

 

I understand not counting a defect if the flaw is a manufacturing error, after all if every book has the same defect there is an impossibility inherited that perfection could be attained, which draws the question, can a book with a manufacturing defect achieve a gem mint grade? However we can get into that another day. This time around I want to talk about a simple mistake that should have been caught.

 

A long process of storytelling follows if not necessarily in story form.

 

Part III: Bouncing through Baltimore

Bagofleas and I merrily trekked throughout the Baltimore convention center getting our beloved New Mutants books among others for signings for CGC's Signature Series. We are hoping upon hope that the books we turned in will retain the 9.8 they previously were. I do understand that mishandling a book could happen allowing a 9.8 to drop to a 9.6, and even a 9.4 which previously happened to me. This is also why I started to handle my own books the best I can.

 

Unfortunately circumstances occurred that our best bet would be to turn these beauties over to Mike for Sal Buscema's signature. CGC set it up and our original fear was not being able to get Sal Buscema's autograph was surpassed once we found out the Simonson's were sick and possibly not able to attend. We both trusted Mike to take care of our books implicitly, especially since he is in charge of the signature series designation. This added an additional ten dollars per book.

 

The books I turned over for Sal 's scrawl were spread across four different invoices. Two made their way to CCS for pressing. I decided to have them go that route just in case after all a 9.8 isn't always necessarily a 9.8. The second grouping was through CGC which includes the speed of a slow boat to China, which subsequently reminds me of a Superman comic book. The last invoice contained two books that Sal signed from my own personal collection which contained two issues.

 

Part IV: Two issues

 

My issue 15 now has Chris Claremont, Stan Lee, Bob McLeod, Louise Simonson (Jones) and Sal Buscema's signatures across the cover. Issue 16 has two, Sal being one of them. I put these 4.5's through the fast track service because I want them home and sure enough they have made their way through the grading process pretty quickly, too quickly I might add. Especially the verification process. As everyone knows the first part of the process is the "received,verified" stage. My two issues only took a day to change from "received" to "verified". This allows me to see the books listed with minor information. However, this minor but important data includes title, issue # and date.

 

CGC has marked that verified means the following:

 

Verification is a detailed check that the title, publisher, and issue number of the comics match the information on the submission form.

 

This should be very important and easy. How difficult could it be to make sure the book listed is the book in hand? Another important factor CGC describes for their quality control process.

 

The quality control process is when graded and encapsulated comics are re-examined by a grader to make certain that their labels are correct for both the grade and its accompanying descriptive information. He also inspects each comic for any major flaws on its holder.

 

I'm sure these two books were easy to grade. All the nicks and flaws make these the pinnacle of my collection, but before I knew it, the invoice went from the above aforementioned "verification" to "grading/quality control". Not bad for fast track. But there's one major problem. Quality control sucks at CGC. Of course that could go hand in hand with the verification process. How could someone misinterpret a book from 2010 and 1984, especially since the book was signed by the artist of the book from 1984, not 2010?

 

Saying CGC's quality process is harsh. After all their business is increasing and multiplying exponentially making their jobs tougher. Collectors like me and others keep them busy. I am not saying that CGC will never have my business again especially since I like what they do. I even admitted freely after I first heard about a grading company placing comic books in an insensitive plastic case was appalling. I would never be able to read these beautiful stories again. What right did they have?

 

Part V: Rectifying a problem

 

A decade after these thoughts and I have praised them and been overjoyed with the books I have acquired, but what is going on at CGC when an X-Men #137 was numbered #132, my New Mutants #4 was labeled with Spider-Man #1 on top, or my annual #4 was returned as a qualified green label at Wizard World Philadelphia with the witness a bare few feet away, and a purchase made cheaper because the auction had labeled a book what CGC labeled it allowing me to purchase a 9.8 copy of New Mutants Vol. 1 #17 and NOT Vol. 3 #17.

 

Of course I could be prematurely writing this because it is still days before the invoice will be marked shipped. I estimate that Friday I shall find out if they did mess up or if they caught it but my issue #16 from volume one with a cover date of 6/84 to be signed by Sal Buscema and marked on the invoice as volume one has been going through the system as New Mutants 16 10/10, a book published over 25 years later.

 

So why didn't I call CGC and report this, quite frankly it's not my job, as much as I would like it to be. Besides they even say that information is not guaranteed until after item is shipped, and wouldn't that also be the case with the book itself. I figure once the book gets to CGC for grading it must go through at least five different sets of hands, three of them graders. How could they not see the difference? Even common sense should prevail and beseech the question why would Sal Buscema sign a book by Leonard Kirk?

 

Could you imagine a copy of Amazing Fantasy 15 going through the system and being labeled as 14? These are graders and if they miss the difference between a book from 2010 and 1984 how can I trust that they don't make a mistake in grading or even worse mixing a book of mine up, which I honestly do believe they have done before with a copy of Wolverine #10.

 

I understand accidents do happen, and I know that every problem I have had with CGC they rectified. The annual four was given the signature series label, the #132 was changed to #137 and I'm sure they will replace the sticker at the next Wizard World if I so choose and I will have my New Mutants #16 fixed without a problem, but with all the waiting we do couldn't the company take an extra day and make sure the book graded is the book graded.

 

Thanks for Reading

 

 

Tnerb

 

See more journals by Tnerb

[bagofleas]

I haven't had the sheer numbers of errors that you have had. In fact, I have only had one, when CGC screwed up my Claremont signed copy of New Mutants #35 by putting all of the SS information onto a blue label instead of the yellow label.

 

Luckily, it was at Megacon, when they were doing on site grading. They took the book back to Sarasota, fixed it, and got it back to me in 3 days, no harm no foul.

 

We will see how CGC ultimately handles all of the invoices I have in limbo right now. Pretty much all of them have been going through CCS for pressing, which extends the wait time but helps with grade retention. I will keep my eyes on these as they go through the process to see if there are any slip ups, but so far so good.

 

 

[surfer99]

Wow, that's too bad Tnerb. Sorry you're having to deal with this. I always thought those who did the quality control you described were different from those who actually graded the comics. Regardless of how many thousands of books CGC processes on a weekly basis there really is no excuse for missing the blatantly obvious errors...QC should not be that difficult, and I'm sure those doing it must have some appreciation for comics...right?

 

 

[cheetah]

Have you ever caught an error when looking on your account page and then called up and tried to get it fixed? According to most of their 'customer service' staff, it is usually your own fault and there is nothing you can do about it except have them finish their work, send it to you, you send it back to them for reholdering. And when you send it back, you must not only call them to tell them. You must also mark it on every copy of the invoice AND write in big black letters on the slab as to what they did wrong.

 

It is just ridiculous for a professional company to have such poor QA/QC standards and to be so rigid that they can't even find a method to correct their mistakes when told about them before they even happen.

 

I have found that with anything coming out of Matt Nelson's shop that has an error, whether his or CGC's, you can call CCS and they will get it fixed.

[mysterio]

If they do ship you back an error, take it to them the next time you go to a show where they have a table so you don't have to pay shipping. In addition to all the frustrations that cheetah lists above, you will also be on the hook for paying shipping to Sarasota to fix their mistake. Name another company that requires their customers to pay more money out of pocket to fix a mistake the company makes. I always drop my error slabs at shows to get fixed, and they accept them for that. And since a CGC employee accepts them and writes the invoice you get an added layer of responsibility from them.

 

Edit: and if it were me, I'd call them and report the error to save the hassle. You can't put the book in your registry if it is wrong, which is a consideration.

[newshane]

I have three mislabeled books sitting at the CGC right now.

 

The company definitely has quality control issues.

 

Combine this with the problems they are having with inner well distortions in the slabs and you can clearly see a decline in over quality over the last few years. It's disconcerting to say the least. Seems like they are more worried about getting their TATs caught up than ensuring a quality product.

[bagofleas]

Personally, I have had nothing but good experiences with the people at CGC. The few times I have called them and dealt with them over the phone, they've been polite, helpful, knowledgeable and understanding.

 

I'm not sure why some others are having bad experiences with their customer service. I never have. Maybe I'm just lucky?

 

Mike in particular has done extremely well by me. And he's the busiest guy there. Don't judge the Tatts.

 

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear of others having trouble. Yes, CGC is known to make mistakes but with the sheer volume and nature of what they do, that's bound to happen. As long as they own up to the errors and provide an avenue for them to be corrected, I don't have a problem with it.

[mzhammer]

Always love a good Tnerb journal, even a venting one. I think you've had enough time and experience with CGC to give us, the collector's society, this kind of feedback. As always, thanks for sharing!

 

I'd like to comment on a couple of things...

 

First, I couldn't agree more in most points... And I have put some thought into this... I have a serious issue with the software / website & have continually thought some of the "Quality Control" & "Mislabeled" types of issues might be related. (I'm Tech Support in real life and deal with this kind of stuff all the time) - Company buys 1/2 software, implements, and for a decade struggles with the limits and design that don't really function for the needs of the company. We do it yearly over here!

 

Don't get me wrong, 9 out of 10, human error is where it all starts... But sometimes the software "lends" itself to these kinds of problems. With that in mind, a basic type-O (#137 becoming #132) - An artist name being swapped for a different cover, a date being entered incorrectly... These might be related to a where the cursor lands in the program, a date jumps because of a "funny tab" - etc... I'm saying it is the software, I'm suggesting the software can "add" to the problem.

 

Anyway, First things first, when there is enough of a breakdown in QC, it's time to QC the QC... CGC would ultimately need to review the process, find out why & where it is breaking down....

 

Now, I have little faith it will be addressed, because of issue #2. Turnaround times... Current Turnaround Times & Estimated Turnaround times. To put it bluntly, Current Turnaround Times should be changed to reflect, Current Estimated Turnaround Times... and Estimated Turnaround times should be removed. This does follow common sense, right? Why list an estimated turnaround time if you're never going to reach it?!?!!? I've been here 3 years now, they've never been reached.

 

And finally, back to the software... The site itself, our collector's site, is pretty limited.... notes field is tiny when trying to type in, display views are limited and kind of lame, .... OBVIOUSLY, creating a new set MUST BE A BEAR, as it takes for ever.... adding comics without sets is not set up, but worked around... Basically, what I'm getting at is it's time for an upgrade, maybe a new software, big conversion... of course... The thought of that process pains me even more....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kaholo1256]

Your subject here actually got me a strike from the boards for a week long period. It was my curse ladeled Journal in which everything that had anything to do with CGC had just pissed me off past the boiling point.

 

My example was with my CGC copy of Avengers vs X-Men #2 Diamond Retailer Variant. With variants I understand the issue with there being so many but even in looking at the invoice that was sent back in the box and comparing it to the one I had when I turned it in at WW Austin the mistake of placing a #1 on the label instead of a #2 just didn't make sense to me. For me I chalked it up to a simple mistake. So I resubmitted it with a printed form for a reholder. A few weeks later and I get it back and.... what the hell??? Still screwed it up. Had to resubmit a total of three times even circling it on the slab of their quality control mistake, wrote in sharpie all over the slab about what to fix and attached a note on the forms as well as sent copies of the email traffic between me and CGC.

 

So with it and my continued frustration I was told via email from CGCSubmmissions (Convienent how no name is sent with the response) that I would receive a credit to my account no harm no foul kind of thing. Angry still yes but I figured that at the amount credited I could then have two books sent in for Modern Tier grading and simply pay a few bucks for shipping. A week after they are sent I see Received in my status but also noticed I was charged for those two books... WTF? So again I email and continue to receive the CGCSubmissions as the email replier but instead of simply going with that I request an email so that someone can be accountable. Finally I get a real email from Eric Downton who at first seemed a little confused about my frustration but being a hoarder of email was able to show him my 7 months worth of back and forth frustration multiplied by an additional 4 incorrect labels. After showing him everything I finally had some sort of frustration alleviated but have held off on submitting any other sense the resolution to find out if there really is a credit. Figure I'll wait until WW Austin in November to test the waters with this one in person when I drop off a total of 55 submissions there. At least then I will only be charged with 53 of them.......

 

Oh well. Current issue for me though. My submission sent out in July has reached Grading to Graded back to Grading and now sits at Graded once again for a total of two weeks. Confused on why the back and forth but hoping next week will be when I finally see some grades.

 

I won't jump ship any time soon but I do ask for someone who works at Verification and or Quality Control to pay more attention to detail. I figure this is what I pay the extra $5 bucks for.

 

Tnerb- Lot's of amazing points in year Journal. Hopefully someone from them read a few.

 

K

[meshuggah]

Tnerb - Its definitely rough dealing with all the errors you seem to run into. I've seen many others post on different threads about such similar things. Most commonly the label typos and the bubbles in the cases. It is understandable for there to be errors. But from what I see on these boards its becoming more and more prevalent and out of hand.

 

The only problem I've run into with CGC is what I noted in my SDCC Books arrived journal. I sent in 3 books to be signed through DWC. Two were dinged up pretty bad in the exact same spot. Now this could've occurred at so many differet times its impossible to assign blame to DWC, CGC or USPS. So I just deal with the risk I assumed in submitting those books. Now the 3rd was a Walking Dead 100 Chromium. That book has just disappeared. At SDCC, CGC had set up with Kirkman to bring him all the books that people wanted signed and graded including DWC's invoices. So when my invoice arrived with only 2 books, I called DWC. They explained that CGC had lost/misplaced a few of the books for DWC signed by Kirkman. They told me CGC would send me a copy of that book in 9.8 signed by Kirkman and Adlard. Seems like a fair exchange to me. Except I can't seem to get any answers from anyone on this. I've asked DWC repeatedly about this to determine the status and when I should expect the book. Its been almost a month since I first asked them and I have written multiple times via email and facebook and no reply. I feel like I should just contact CGC directly but worry that customer service will not have a clue what I'm talking about.

 

I know my problem now seems to be with communication from DWC, but ultimately CGC losing/misplacing my book, as well as a few others is pretty bad. I hope that they are able to rectify these problems as all of us appreciate the service they provide. But if frustration among us(community) continues to build they could start to lose customers permanently.

[Garlanda]

I wonder if the appearance of so many mistakes is simply a factor of scale. I really have no idea how many books CGC slabs on a given day/week/month, but I know I've seen guys drop off a short box full at the CGC table at cons. I think they announced they'd crossed the two million mark a little while back. I would also hazard that with the pre-screen service they've looked at quite a few more books than they actually slabbed. Basically, I'm suggesting that the errors may be a statistically microscopic percentage of their total work but get a disproportionate amount of attention, in part because the target audience of CGC are typically comic professionals or expert amateurs. Any endeavor has a certain margin of error, but these circumstances really allow for none.

 

I expect a high standard in part because I feel that if I know a fact about a comic, such as cover artist or cameo appearance inside, then I expect that CGC professionals should know that info too. We pay for that little blue, yellow, or (God forbid) purple or green label, and we expect the info on it to be as accurate and developed as possible.

 

I fully hope for, and expect, your New Mutants 16 to come back properly labelled, and the status matrix corrected with the next update.

[revat]

I wonder if the appearance of so many mistakes is simply a factor of scale. I really have no idea how many books CGC slabs on a given day/week/month, but I know I've seen guys drop off a short box full at the CGC table at cons. I think they announced they'd crossed the two million mark a little while back. I would also hazard that with the pre-screen service they've looked at quite a few more books than they actually slabbed. Basically, I'm suggesting that the errors may be a statistically microscopic percentage of their total work but get a disproportionate amount of attention, in part because the target audience of CGC are typically comic professionals or expert amateurs. Any endeavor has a certain margin of error, but these circumstances really allow for none.

 

I expect a high standard in part because I feel that if I know a fact about a comic, such as cover artist or cameo appearance inside, then I expect that CGC professionals should know that info too. We pay for that little blue, yellow, or (God forbid) purple or green label, and we expect the info on it to be as accurate and developed as possible.

 

I fully hope for, and expect, your New Mutants 16 to come back properly labelled, and the status matrix corrected with the next update.

 

I think this is a very reasonable question to ask. and it might be a question better posed to some of the large volume submitters.

 

I know for me personally I've submitted about 60 - 75 comics and gotten 1 back mislabeled. I would hope the error rate is less than 1%, but I think people who have submitted say a thousand or more in the last year would be able to give a bigger, better picture.

[meshuggah]

I wonder if the appearance of so many mistakes is simply a factor of scale. I really have no idea how many books CGC slabs on a given day/week/month, but I know I've seen guys drop off a short box full at the CGC table at cons. I think they announced they'd crossed the two million mark a little while back. I would also hazard that with the pre-screen service they've looked at quite a few more books than they actually slabbed. Basically, I'm suggesting that the errors may be a statistically microscopic percentage of their total work but get a disproportionate amount of attention, in part because the target audience of CGC are typically comic professionals or expert amateurs. Any endeavor has a certain margin of error, but these circumstances really allow for none.

 

I expect a high standard in part because I feel that if I know a fact about a comic, such as cover artist or cameo appearance inside, then I expect that CGC professionals should know that info too. We pay for that little blue, yellow, or (God forbid) purple or green label, and we expect the info on it to be as accurate and developed as possible.

 

I fully hope for, and expect, your New Mutants 16 to come back properly labelled, and the status matrix corrected with the next update.

 

I think this is a very reasonable question to ask. and it might be a question better posed to some of the large volume submitters.

 

I know for me personally I've submitted about 60 - 75 comics and gotten 1 back mislabeled. I would hope the error rate is less than 1%, but I think people who have submitted say a thousand or more in the last year would be able to give a bigger, better picture.

 

I totally agree with you guys on this. I expect high quality. But also understand mistakes will happen. And without definitive numbers we will never know how often this really happens. But when it does happen it will probably be brought up here and receive plenty of attention. I do have to say that K-Mans problem seems a little ridiculous that it kept happening. That kind of thing should never happen.

[Garlanda]

But when it does happen it will probably be brought up here and receive plenty of attention. I do have to say that K-Mans problem seems a little ridiculous that it kept happening. That kind of thing should never happen.

 

So far I have had 43 of my submitted books returned from CGC, and have not noticed any significant errors (knock on wood).

 

I do completely agree that returning a book for correction and getting a new slab with the same error is beyond frustrating. I can't imagine that so many books get returned for corrections that they wouldn't manually do the correction. I guess they just routed it down the line for reholder.

[cheetah]

Mine have averaged about 2% errors. There are much higher on moderns, especially variants. My last few orders have been perfect thanks to Cynthia at CCS Paper. I think Matt hired a good one.