CGC Issue Resolved

[conditionfreak]

 

if you're going to spend thousands of dollars on a book you should either educate yourself on the hobby before spending money or you should hire an expert to go over your books. Kind of like how you have a mechanic look over a used car before buying it.

 

Right. You want an expert to look over your book. Maybe some Company who could Certify or Guaranty the grade.

 

But how can you 'guarantee' the grade ? Grading is a moving target. I like Jimjum's analogy of CGC to a stock analyst. What happened to Dan is not cool but to suggest CGCs label is a guarantee is not plausible.

 

hmmm...what does the first "C" and the "G" in CGC stand for? Grade? Restoration check?

 

Exactly what do they certify? Their opinion, and that they looked for restoration, but both are not certified or guaranteed?

 

Perhaps it should be the COC. Certified Opinion Corporation.

 

First off, I was quoting your reference to the grade being guaranteed. The Restoration check should be held to a higher standard.

 

You have me confused with another. You did not quote me. I don't recall ever saying that a grade is guaranteed. I have said over and over again, it is an opinion. One that can (and often does) change from day to day.

 

But a restoration check is not an opinion. It SHOULD be a fact. And guaranteed in some form or fashion. Not just a "likely not" opinion.

 

Okay, syntax is important around here. I will change my statement to

'First off, I was quoting the reference to the grade being guaranteed. The Restoration check should be held to a higher standard. ' .

 

 

 

 

It is not a syntax mistake. It was a misstatement of facts. But I really don't want to argue it. I knew what you meant. But you put it on me, and that just did not happen.

 

It was a simple posting mistake on your part. Let's move on and be friends. Sort of.

[GAMBIT]

I've lost confidence in CGC from this thread.

 

Not just because of the OP, but because there have been so many others boardies posting it's happened to them as well.

 

Buying a blue label book for thousands of dollars to find out it was restored is down right terrible. That's the reason many people (myself included) prefer slabbed books when making an expensive purchase.

 

if you're going to spend thousands of dollars on a book you should either educate yourself on the hobby before spending money or you should hire an expert to go over your books. Kind of like how you have a mechanic look over a used car before buying it.

 

This isn't CGC's fault - its the laziness that many collectors are falling into.

 

CGC's grade is speculative.(read the label) Get over it.

 

+1

[LordRahl]

All this would have been so much more interesting had the books been sent in slabbed. As such, there really is no argument.

 

Agreed. CGC is good about fixing mistakes by them when it is clear that it is their mistake. It is not clear in this case. They don't know Dan personally. I don't either. Just because he is a poster on this board does not mean that he didn't monkey with the books when he cracked them out. Do I think he did? No. But I don't know that. And neither does CGC.

 

CGC can not and should not reimburse him for this as it would set a bad precedent and enable a lot of shenanigans by those less scrupulous in our hobby, of which there a lot unfortunately. It really is a case of play the game and you can get burned. If he had sent them in slabbed, he would have a very good case for reimbursement and likely would have been reimbursed. However, then he would not have the advantage of being able to press them first.

 

I had a JIM 85 that was an 8.5 that I resubbed still in the slab because I thought it was undergraded. They managed to damage the book when breaking it out and it came back a 7.0. When I called them, they admitted the problem and reimbursed me in a credit towards future subs.

 

The key difference was that my book was still slabbed.

[blazingbob]

Ok, the book was guaranteed unrestored while in the holder.

 

The book is cracked out while in the buyers possession, mailed and restoration is determined.

 

How and why should CGC believe that the submitter didn't do anything to the book if it is not submitted in the holder?

 

Replace Dan with "name of someone you don't trust" and does this outcome matter as much?

 

 

[LordRahl]

Ok, the book was guaranteed unrestored while in the holder.

 

The book is cracked out while in the buyers possession, mailed and restoration is determined.

 

How and why should CGC believe that the submitter didn't do anything to the book if it is not submitted in the holder?

 

Replace Dan with "name of someone you don't trust" and does this outcome matter as much?

 

 

Agreed 100%.

[comicwiz]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to get out of Jail, pass GO, and collect $200 at least once using the same lame excuse.

[LordRahl]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

[comicwiz]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

 

Elaborate what the difference is for the less intelligent people in this thread so we can better understand why a scan of a serialized book sitting in a blue label slab can't be matched-up to a book later sitting in a purple label slab. I'll contact the mods and give them the heads-up we might need to scrub 14 years of scans used to prove wrongdoing because it's not longer a valid method of evidence.

[mschmidt]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to get out of Jail, pass GO, and collect $200 at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

That's a pretty flawed analogy, though.

 

Let's say you buy a CGC'ed book from a dealer.

You crack the CGC'ed book, have it pressed and set it to CGC.

The book comes back restored.

 

Should the dealer now be on the hook? How would he know that you didn't, in fact, do a spot of CT before mailing it back in CGC?

 

(Let me be clear: I'm not saying this is what happened in this scenario. But the fact remains that with the exception of Dan, none of us (including CGC) can be 100% sure what happened to the book when it was raw).

[LordRahl]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

 

Elaborate what the difference is for the less intelligent people in this thread so we can better understand why a scan of a serialized book sitting in a blue label slab can't be matched-up to a book later sitting in a purple label slab.

 

How does whether or not it can be matched up relate to what Bob said? Does Dan have a high res scan of the book in the slab before that can be matched up with the book now? I don't know. I haven't seen any scans it this thread.

[comicwiz]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

 

Elaborate what the difference is for the less intelligent people in this thread so we can better understand why a scan of a serialized book sitting in a blue label slab can't be matched-up to a book later sitting in a purple label slab.

 

How does whether or not it can be matched up relate to what Bob said? Does Dan have a high res scan of the book in the slab before that can be matched up with the book now? I don't know. I haven't seen any scans it this thread.

 

I haven't either, but Bob's suggestion is a blanket statement which I'm suggesting can be proven incorrect if the submitter has before scans.

[kav]

maybe its not right that a book with a single dot of black ct on spine gets the same label as a book that's been heavily re colored....maybe there should be another color label for very minor resto. and prices would reflect this.

[maloney414]

I've lost confidence in CGC from this thread.

 

Not just because of the OP, but because there have been so many others boardies posting it's happened to them as well.

 

Buying a blue label book for thousands of dollars to find out it was restored is down right terrible. That's the reason many people (myself included) prefer slabbed books when making an expensive purchase.

 

if you're going to spend thousands of dollars on a book you should either educate yourself on the hobby before spending money or you should hire an expert to go over your books. Kind of like how you have a mechanic look over a used car before buying it.

 

This isn't CGC's fault - its the laziness that many collectors are falling into.

 

CGC's grade is speculative.(read the label) Get over it.

 

I honestly don't know if your post is serious or joking...

 

Why the would you hire a mechanic to look over a used car before buying it? If he misses something, so what? It's your own fault for being lazy and not learning how to build and fix a car yourself. It's the laziness car buyers are falling into.

 

Seriously, CGC is the restoration detection "expert" hired to look over your book before buying. That's their service. That's the very confidence people are discussing in this thread.

 

[LordRahl]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

 

Elaborate what the difference is for the less intelligent people in this thread so we can better understand why a scan of a serialized book sitting in a blue label slab can't be matched-up to a book later sitting in a purple label slab.

 

How does whether or not it can be matched up relate to what Bob said? Does Dan have a high res scan of the book in the slab before that can be matched up with the book now? I don't know. I haven't seen any scans it this thread.

 

I haven't either, but Bob's suggestion is a blanket statement which I'm suggesting can be proven incorrect if the submitter has before scans.

 

So you are saying "it is one of the strangest lines of reasoning you have ever seen" based on the small probability that the submitter has a hi res enough scan to prove that he didn't monkey with the books, which he has neither mentioned nor posted in the thread? Ummm.... ok. I think you need to reconsider your definition of "strangest lines of reasoning you've ever seen".

[LordRahl]

maybe its not right that a book with a single dot of black ct on spine gets the same label as a book that's been heavily re colored....maybe there should be another color label for very minor resto. and prices would reflect this.

 

There's enough colors as it is. The label already differentiates this by the S/M/E designation. The problem is the lack of education amongst collectors, which is not a CGC problem.

[kav]

What kind of scanner has black light capability? would a hi res scan even show ct?

[comicwiz]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

 

Elaborate what the difference is for the less intelligent people in this thread so we can better understand why a scan of a serialized book sitting in a blue label slab can't be matched-up to a book later sitting in a purple label slab.

 

How does whether or not it can be matched up relate to what Bob said? Does Dan have a high res scan of the book in the slab before that can be matched up with the book now? I don't know. I haven't seen any scans it this thread.

 

I haven't either, but Bob's suggestion is a blanket statement which I'm suggesting can be proven incorrect if the submitter has before scans.

 

So you are saying "it is one of the strangest lines of reasoning you have ever seen" based on the small probability that the submitter has a hi res enough scan to prove that he didn't monkey with the books, which he has neither mentioned nor posted in the thread? Ummm.... ok. I think you need to reconsider your definition of "strangest lines of reasoning you've ever seen".

 

Wouldn't you think it peculiar for people to turn on a board member if they say a book they bought from a dealer came back restored - and the reasoning is that the board member added the dot themselves?

 

I've seen a lot of posts on these boards in the 12+ years I've been a member. Some had some unusual cynical twists, but I have never seen a single situation where a board member who claimed a book they bought from a dealer came back restored being accused of doing the resto work themselves.

 

Never.

 

Until now.

 

So I think this qualifies as one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have ever seen on the boards, especially now that it's been twisted to favourably justify CGC's reasons for not making the submitter financially whole for their miss.

[maloney414]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to get out of Jail, pass GO, and collect $200 at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

That's a pretty flawed analogy, though.

 

Let's say you buy a CGC'ed book from a dealer.

You crack the CGC'ed book, have it pressed and set it to CGC.

The book comes back restored.

 

Should the dealer now be on the hook? How would he know that you didn't, in fact, do a spot of CT before mailing it back in CGC?

 

(Let me be clear: I'm not saying this is what happened in this scenario. But the fact remains that with the exception of Dan, none of us (including CGC) can be 100% sure what happened to the book when it was raw).

 

No need to add pressing or CGC to the situation.

 

You buy any book from a dealer, and they say it's unrestored.

You send it to CGC and it comes back PLOD.

 

Should the dealer now be on the hook? How would he know that you didn't, in fact, do a spot of CT before mailing it back in CGC?

 

There are certain reputable dealers who would take the book back. They are the ones who have earned honest reputations in this hobby, and therefore have more customers willing to spend big bucks with them.

 

So why do we as a community hold dealers to this; however, the community is quick to give CGC a pass?

[pickycollector]

If Stan Lee does the CT, can it be considered a type of signature?

 

Have you seen the ASM with the spider he drew on it?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

I have always said that a color touched purple label is easily fixed.

 

Just have someone sign it (CGC SS) and make sure they sign with the right kind of instrument, right on top of the color touch.

 

Or even draw a cockroach, car or stop sign.

 

Problem solved and you have a yellow unrestored labeled book.

This shows perfectly how ridiculous yellow labels are (and why I don't want to buy any)

[LordRahl]

So given this rationale, do we assume that a book shipped to a buyer from dealer XYZ is not the same book bought from said deal when restoration is discovered?

 

I have to say that this is easily one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have heard during my time on these boards.

 

Might as well give every dealer whose sold a restored book as unrestored a free pass because of course how can you prove the book they shipped to the buyer wasn't "changed" or "swapped" during the delivery.

 

CGC missed restoration. I understand the proof would be to match up before scans of the books in a blue label holder, but to suggest a "fix" can't be honoured because the book no longer is in the slab is a free pass that you might as well photocopy for every dealer to pass GO at least once using the same lame excuse.

 

The line of reasoning isn't strange at all. There is a difference in your scenario and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what that is but you are purposely ignoring it. However, let's take your analogy. Yes, every dealer can play that card and for all I know some do. So what?

 

Elaborate what the difference is for the less intelligent people in this thread so we can better understand why a scan of a serialized book sitting in a blue label slab can't be matched-up to a book later sitting in a purple label slab.

 

How does whether or not it can be matched up relate to what Bob said? Does Dan have a high res scan of the book in the slab before that can be matched up with the book now? I don't know. I haven't seen any scans it this thread.

 

I haven't either, but Bob's suggestion is a blanket statement which I'm suggesting can be proven incorrect if the submitter has before scans.

 

So you are saying "it is one of the strangest lines of reasoning you have ever seen" based on the small probability that the submitter has a hi res enough scan to prove that he didn't monkey with the books, which he has neither mentioned nor posted in the thread? Ummm.... ok. I think you need to reconsider your definition of "strangest lines of reasoning you've ever seen".

 

Wouldn't you think it peculiar for people to turn on a board member if they say a book they bought from a dealer came back restored - and the reasoning is that the board member added the dot themselves?

 

I've seen a lot of posts on these boards in the 12+ years I've been a member. Some had some unusual cynical twists, but I have never seen a single situation where a board member who claimed a book they bought from a dealer came back restored being accused of doing the resto work themselves.

 

Never.

 

Until now.

 

So I think this qualifies as one of the strangest lines of reasoning I have ever seen on the boards, especially now that it's been twisted to favourably justify CGC's reasons for not making the submitter financially whole for their miss.

 

I did not read Bob's post as accusing Dan of doing the resto. My post right before Bob's said much the same thing as Bob did. The point isn't that we think Dan did the resto. The point is that we don't know if he did or not. And neither does CGC. Do I think he did - No probably not but then again I didn't think Ewert was trimming books either until it was proven that he was.