CGC Issue Resolved

[mschmidt]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

 

Yeah, the fact that they are willing to address the issue in non-cracked out comics and even talk to Dan in this case does give me some of my trust back. Well played CGC.

 

I will certainly keep everyone posted on how it goes.

 

The offer has been made to send them back at CGC's cost and they will look them over again. Also my original grading fee will be adjusted to reflect the actual value of the books as they sit. Which is what I asked for in the 1st place

 

So far, so good. Keep an eye on this thread for play by play

 

Honestly, they should not have taken so long to hear you out. Their defensive posturing as someone else eluded to in an earlier post is unnecessary and unwelcome, and their overall customer service needs improvement. You win more with good press than protecting yourself against the occasional thief at every turn.

 

This thread was started Friday at 5 pm and Dan heard back from CGC today (Monday) - how much faster do you expect CGC to be?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I realize their are a lot of long time friendships and communications among people that extend to those who work for CGC, but when we talk about reputation...

Which is really more damaging?

 

That CGC sets up a standard on how they handle something like this and sometimes it doesn't work out best for the customer?

Or that if you know someone, you can get it taken care of at CGC?

 

 

Exactly. If it starts getting so that the company treats certain customers better based on reputation, that plays into the whole fears that already exist about favoritism. My reputation in this part of the country is impeccable, but I only do occasional business with CGC, so I'm sure I have no "reputation" to speak of with them.

 

All they can do is double-check to make sure the mistake wasn't made "this time", and that there really isn't restoration on one or both books. If the mistake was made years ago, all they can do is continue to improve on detection.

 

If they start picking and choosing who's reliable, the whole system falls apart.

 

Again, I'll have to disagree completely.

 

If someone has a proven track record (let's use myself as an example) of submitting hundreds of moderns, and getting only 9.8s, with a handful of 9.6s, and pretty much nothing else, then all of a sudden I get a 9.0 (this is a true story) on a common modern book because it was damaged by someone during the grading process...then yes, my track record should be given more weight than the guy who has subbed 17 books and isn't happy with his grades.

 

At Wondercan last year, I subbed 39 books for Sig Series.

 

32 came back 9.8. The other 7 were 9.6.

 

At SDCC, I submitted 51 books for Sig Series. 37 came back 9.8, 13 came back 9.6...and one 9.0. The damage which dropped it to 9.0 is quite obvious, and on a book which I would never, ever submit for Sig Series in that condition.

 

And these are not brand new books. They are 1980's and early 90's books that are, in most cases, the copies I handpicked for myself and have carefully stored this entire time, until waiting to be brought out for signing.

 

In that case, since the book was pressed by me, and went from my hand to CGC itself, then it is reasonable for CGC to give me the benefit of the doubt...which benefit my track record has earned...over the average guy who has only ever subbed 17 books.

 

This is about taking someone's word that they did what they claim they did, about giving an established customer the benefit of the doubt, not giving "better grades" to preferential customers (and I'm certainly not one of those.)

[RockMyAmadeus]

One note regarding Dan's books:

 

Both the first time they were graded, and the second, it's pretty much a lock that they went through a normal grading process, with no extra scrutiny given.

 

In *this* case, as I mentioned before, because there's now a conflict, then the extra scrutiny given should make the final results...whatever they are...much weightier than either the first two grading sessions.

 

So, no matter what the outcome, the market can be assured that, in least these two examples, they were looked at much more closely and the final assessment is "the most accurate" one.

 

That's a good thing.

[romanheart]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

 

Yeah, the fact that they are willing to address the issue in non-cracked out comics and even talk to Dan in this case does give me some of my trust back. Well played CGC.

 

I will certainly keep everyone posted on how it goes.

 

The offer has been made to send them back at CGC's cost and they will look them over again. Also my original grading fee will be adjusted to reflect the actual value of the books as they sit. Which is what I asked for in the 1st place

 

So far, so good. Keep an eye on this thread for play by play

 

Honestly, they should not have taken so long to hear you out. Their defensive posturing as someone else eluded to in an earlier post is unnecessary and unwelcome, and their overall customer service needs improvement. You win more with good press than protecting yourself against the occasional thief at every turn.

 

This thread was started Friday at 5 pm and Dan heard back from CGC today (Monday) - how much faster do you expect CGC to be?

 

The second he made his request and not 3 days later when the thread makes news.

[slym2none]

The CGC offices probably weren't open at 5PM on Friday...

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Spider-Dan]

The CGC offices probably weren't open at 5PM on Friday...

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

To be clear, I called them Friday before they were marked "shipped"

 

They offered no resolution at that time

[bb8]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

Just to be clear, the BleedingCool article was posted before this response. Looks like a case of media pressure to me, not some altruistic attempt to make good by CGC.

[Prince Namor]

I realize their are a lot of long time friendships and communications among people that extend to those who work for CGC, but when we talk about reputation...

Which is really more damaging?

 

That CGC sets up a standard on how they handle something like this and sometimes it doesn't work out best for the customer?

Or that if you know someone, you can get it taken care of at CGC?

 

 

Exactly. If it starts getting so that the company treats certain customers better based on reputation, that plays into the whole fears that already exist about favoritism. My reputation in this part of the country is impeccable, but I only do occasional business with CGC, so I'm sure I have no "reputation" to speak of with them.

 

All they can do is double-check to make sure the mistake wasn't made "this time", and that there really isn't restoration on one or both books. If the mistake was made years ago, all they can do is continue to improve on detection.

 

If they start picking and choosing who's reliable, the whole system falls apart.

 

Again, I'll have to disagree completely.

 

If someone has a proven track record (let's use myself as an example) of submitting hundreds of moderns, and getting only 9.8s, with a handful of 9.6s, and pretty much nothing else, then all of a sudden I get a 9.0 (this is a true story) on a common modern book because it was damaged by someone during the grading process...then yes, my track record should be given more weight than the guy who has subbed 17 books and isn't happy with his grades.

 

At Wondercan last year, I subbed 39 books for Sig Series.

 

32 came back 9.8. The other 7 were 9.6.

 

At SDCC, I submitted 51 books for Sig Series. 37 came back 9.8, 13 came back 9.6...and one 9.0. The damage which dropped it to 9.0 is quite obvious, and on a book which I would never, ever submit for Sig Series in that condition.

 

And these are not brand new books. They are 1980's and early 90's books that are, in most cases, the copies I handpicked for myself and have carefully stored this entire time, until waiting to be brought out for signing.

 

In that case, since the book was pressed by me, and went from my hand to CGC itself, then it is reasonable for CGC to give me the benefit of the doubt...which benefit my track record has earned...over the average guy who has only ever subbed 17 books.

 

This is about taking someone's word that they did what they claim they did, about giving an established customer the benefit of the doubt, not giving "better grades" to preferential customers (and I'm certainly not one of those.)

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact, I think the situation you're talking about should be the perfect situation for a company with hands on ownership to be able to get involved and make things right.

 

But not everyone who submits a large number of books, or even someone who is a quality consistent grader, can be assumed to be 100% honest. Even when all previous dealings with them have been honest.

Now when I say that, it's not from MY personal perspective. It's from a business perspective, that as business gets more and more faceless, it puts those decisions less in the hands of management and more in the hands of 'the way it is'.

Which from a customer service stand point blows.

 

Even beyond that, I understand to some degree, CGC being cautious about situations like this, because it opens up a window for manipulation. In a society like ours where money seems to be the driving force behind everything, even a company that allows management to make those decisions, it can make the management of those scenarios a nightmare. They probably have more requests for this kind of thing than we're aware of.

 

The other side of it is the customers who DON'T get that benefit, either through lack of submissions or just because they may be new to the hobby or new to CGC. And of course their vocal displeasure of it.

Does something like this put CGC in a liable position down the road? Can someone claim unfair practices?

It might not go anywhere, but no company wants to go through the annoyance and the bad feedback that comes with being in the legal process.

 

I have empathy for the customer service perspective of taking care of good customers. To me, it just seems like a no brainer.

But a cold business philosophy within our society and a dirty ugly back room hobby like ours can make a bad mix for good customers.

[Prince Namor]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

 

Yeah, the fact that they are willing to address the issue in non-cracked out comics and even talk to Dan in this case does give me some of my trust back. Well played CGC.

 

I will certainly keep everyone posted on how it goes.

 

The offer has been made to send them back at CGC's cost and they will look them over again. Also my original grading fee will be adjusted to reflect the actual value of the books as they sit. Which is what I asked for in the 1st place

 

So far, so good. Keep an eye on this thread for play by play

 

Honestly, they should not have taken so long to hear you out. Their defensive posturing as someone else eluded to in an earlier post is unnecessary and unwelcome, and their overall customer service needs improvement. You win more with good press than protecting yourself against the occasional thief at every turn.

 

This thread was started Friday at 5 pm and Dan heard back from CGC today (Monday) - how much faster do you expect CGC to be?

 

The second he made his request and not 3 days later when the thread makes news.

 

Oh come on. You expect the grader who answered the phone on Friday at 5 pm to make that decision on the spot? Would he even have that authority?

 

I'd be more worried if CGC made snap decisions like that than the way it is now.

[comicwiz]

I'm really sorry this happened to you. I'm a bit disappointed in CGC, not because the books came back restored, but because the books came back restored AFTER CGC already "verified" that the books weren't restored in the first place. You can analyze, and over analyze CGC's grading capabilities all day, but the fact is that they are proven flip floppers when it comes to their restoration check. Even If this only happens 1% of the time, It still happens, and CGC should take responsibility for not catching the restoration the first time around. I would call CGC and try to work something out with them. Any company with good business ethics should listen to their customers and strive for their satisfaction, especially If the customer is right.

 

Unless the books are cracked in CGC's possession, how do they know they weren't doctored after cracking?

 

Gary, with all due respect, you described a situation where a Hulk 181 flagged for trimming was "reviewed" a second time after you told Steve it was an original owner book bought off the rack, and the book later received a blue label. We don't know what influenced Steve's decision making, but the appearance of bias in the situation can't be overlooked entirely. It's also worth mentioning that yours isn't the first situation where I've heard CGC reconsidering trimming on books based on someone's word it was an off the rack purchase.

 

Using this "taking your word for it" example and comparing it to the OP's current situation, it's disappointing these types of situations are being turned into "how do we know" whether the book was doctored after cracking out especially when CGC has demonstrated a capacity to resolve situations without the need for a thorough forensic examination of where the person grew up, what car they drive, their contribution/participation in our hobby, or what the person had for breakfast for the past month.

 

Even in my own situation, my outcome was achieved absent of prejudice or bias. While I didn't agree with the final decision, especially since I had for years answered calls and provided a second opinion at "no charge" on underground comix under CGC's review to the very person who made the final decision on the outcome, I resigned to understanding CGC's need in maintaining impartiality trumped my request for fairness and my need to understand what happened to my book from the time it left my hands to the time it was returned to me with marks on it revealing it had been used as someone's food tray.

 

To now read the OP's situation being twisted in a way that questions his intent, suggesting he is a liar or someone that we shouldn't completely trust, probably serves as a good primer for the way he might expect to be treated by CGC, but is a real low point for a community that should avoid hijacking the threads awareness element, which IMO ought to be more about exposing the inconsistencies in CGC policy and practice (past to present), and the kinds of questions it raises about the inherent risks associated to having books certified.

 

I get what you're saying here, but...

As a business, where does CGC draw the line on this?

 

Well, so and so in accounting knows this guy so.. we can believe it really was an OO book...? Hey, this guy did our banner ads for us, we can believe this cracked out SS is real....?

 

See it can get tricky.

 

I realize their are a lot of long time friendships and communications among people that extend to those who work for CGC, but when we talk about reputation...

Which is really more damaging?

 

That CGC sets up a standard on how they handle something like this and sometimes it doesn't work out best for the customer?

Or that if you know someone, you can get it taken care of at CGC?

 

 

No doubt, it's a slippery slope. But I merely wanted to tease out the difference between dealing in absolutes (which is pretty much the position CGC would like to portray) and the "grey" (which I know they've done by turning a blind eye in certain situations).

 

Knowing a little more about the OP's situation based on some PM exchanges, he really has no leg to stand on. I feel for the guy because it's like a swift kick to the gut when you realize the black and white handling of such situations.

 

At the face of it, the policy is designed to insulate CGC from blame or accountability.

 

As others have indicated, it also gives CCS a competitive advantage when books are submitted and these "rare" situations arise.

 

When I hear or read situations like the OP's, I look through the policy smokescreen and identify strictly with the plain fact that the book once sitting in a blue label holder is a defective product, and the need for CGC to either take the book off the market or make the owner financially whole.

 

The whole circus act of needing to be in a holder is just noise to distract attention from the fact CGC screwed-up.

 

I understand the purpose and intent of certification, and the way the warranty of grade can only be valid in an unbreached holder.

 

However these boards have also taught us that a lot of the books sitting in a slab have their own unique markers, defects, and distinguishing features.

 

Where does CGC draw the line?

 

My guess is that if push came to shove, and a thread 100 pages long formed from a customer who had before and after scans to show how a book went from blue to purple, the optics of the situation would likely prompt a good-faith negotiation just to quiet the squeeky wheel.

 

Coming full circle with the logic of tempering the absolutes, I don't think it's a bad precedent for CGC to deal with situations in a way where the customer isn't left on the lurch from a mistake they've made.

 

If it's going to take a crater-sized smackdown with photo replay to get them to line their ducks in order, so be it. But to suggest the only way a submitter can be made whole in a situation like this is to submit it in the holder is too convenient and self-serving.

 

CGC may well have developed a comfort from the way the rarity of such situations provides enough time passage to blow over from one event to the next.

 

However what they might soon discover is that the mere mental undressing of their policy this thread has caused might give people more pause and snowball to a new form of resistance toward submissions.

 

Remember, this is a business that relies on comics to be shipped to their offices. If the thought of a comic being lost or stolen during transit wasn't concerning enough, we now need to worry about the possibility a slab damaged during transit, revealing breached posts and no longer meeting CGC's policy eligibility should another "rare" situation arise.

 

Only time will tell, but what CGC may soon discover is that in allowing situations like this to pile-on, accumulate, and combine with the airing of customers bad days, is a festering morass of negativity in the social web that will inevitably lead to a rather uncomfortable strip-search of their businesses from top to bottom. A peeling away of the layers of policy which will likely continue to be met with a level of indifference and scrutiny for as long as they continue to deal with their customers with safety absolutes to cover-up their mistakes, with no give on the notion of using good faith measures in situations where they've made mistakes that lead to significant financial loss.

[tjanse]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

Just to be clear, the BleedingCool article was posted before this response. Looks like a case of media pressure to me, not some altruistic attempt to make good by CGC.

+1

 

[MrBedrock]

Only time will tell, but what CGC may soon discover is that in allowing situations like this to pile-on, accumulate, and combine with the airing of customers bad days, is a festering morass of negativity in the social web that will inevitably lead to a rather uncomfortable strip-search of their businesses from top to bottom. A peeling away of the layers of policy which will likely continue to be met with a level of negativity for as long as they continue to deal with their customers with safety absolutes to cover-up their mistakes, with absolutely no room for good faith measures in situations where they've made mistakes that lead to significant financial loss.

Time has already given us the ability to predict which folks will take any publicized situation involving The CGC and use it as a platform to exercise their prognosticating abilities in the most hyperbolic manner.

[MrBedrock]

I should receive a "What's your deal?!?" pm any minute now

[comeaux]

The current CGC decision with these two books suggests that from now on, ANYONE who submits a RAW book to CGC which comes back as restored can just say that it was previously in a Universal slab and as long as submitter has a cracked slab and blue label for the book that was labeled “restored”, CGC will handle it identically to this case?

[Spider-Dan]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

 

Yeah, the fact that they are willing to address the issue in non-cracked out comics and even talk to Dan in this case does give me some of my trust back. Well played CGC.

 

I will certainly keep everyone posted on how it goes.

 

The offer has been made to send them back at CGC's cost and they will look them over again. Also my original grading fee will be adjusted to reflect the actual value of the books as they sit. Which is what I asked for in the 1st place

 

So far, so good. Keep an eye on this thread for play by play

 

Honestly, they should not have taken so long to hear you out. Their defensive posturing as someone else eluded to in an earlier post is unnecessary and unwelcome, and their overall customer service needs improvement. You win more with good press than protecting yourself against the occasional thief at every turn.

 

This thread was started Friday at 5 pm and Dan heard back from CGC today (Monday) - how much faster do you expect CGC to be?

 

The second he made his request and not 3 days later when the thread makes news.

 

Oh come on. You expect the grader who answered the phone on Friday at 5 pm to make that decision on the spot? Would he even have that authority?

 

I'd be more worried if CGC made snap decisions like that than the way it is now.

 

Graders don't answer phones

[Spider-Dan]

The current CGC decision with these two books suggests that from now on, ANYONE who submits a RAW book to CGC which comes back as restored can just say that it was previously in a Universal slab and as long as submitter has a cracked slab and blue label for the book that was labeled “restored”, CGC will handle it identically to this case?

 

Here's my prediction...

 

Both books will come back with the PLOD

[mschmidt]

Hi All,

 

We want to clarify our stance on this issue. When CGC graders look at a book, they grade only what is in front of them. Submitter information, any history about the book, the graders are not privy to. If a book has been removed from the CGC holder and resubmitted, even if the tag is included, CGC can’t know for certain the book was not altered or damaged in any way. However, if the book is cracked out on our premises, either through CCS or CGC, and restoration is found, we will do our best to make the submitter whole. With CCS here, we also have the ability to see if the restoration can be removed to mitigate the loss. In that event, all fees associated with removal, pressing and grading will be paid for by CGC.

We will be reaching out to Dan today. If any further issues arise and you are not satisfied with our Customer Service, please reach out to me.

hpatel@cgccomics.com

 

Thank you,

Harshen Patel

Director of Operations, CGC

 

Yeah, the fact that they are willing to address the issue in non-cracked out comics and even talk to Dan in this case does give me some of my trust back. Well played CGC.

 

I will certainly keep everyone posted on how it goes.

 

The offer has been made to send them back at CGC's cost and they will look them over again. Also my original grading fee will be adjusted to reflect the actual value of the books as they sit. Which is what I asked for in the 1st place

 

So far, so good. Keep an eye on this thread for play by play

 

Honestly, they should not have taken so long to hear you out. Their defensive posturing as someone else eluded to in an earlier post is unnecessary and unwelcome, and their overall customer service needs improvement. You win more with good press than protecting yourself against the occasional thief at every turn.

 

This thread was started Friday at 5 pm and Dan heard back from CGC today (Monday) - how much faster do you expect CGC to be?

 

The second he made his request and not 3 days later when the thread makes news.

 

Oh come on. You expect the grader who answered the phone on Friday at 5 pm to make that decision on the spot? Would he even have that authority?

 

I'd be more worried if CGC made snap decisions like that than the way it is now.

 

Graders don't answer phones

 

You're right - Chuck's point is still valid with the phone being answered by a CS rep, though

[MCMiles]

Only time will tell, but what CGC may soon discover is that in allowing situations like this to pile-on, accumulate, and combine with the airing of customers bad days, is a festering morass of negativity in the social web that will inevitably lead to a rather uncomfortable strip-search of their businesses from top to bottom. A peeling away of the layers of policy which will likely continue to be met with a level of negativity for as long as they continue to deal with their customers with safety absolutes to cover-up their mistakes, with absolutely no room for good faith measures in situations where they've made mistakes that lead to significant financial loss.

Time has already given us the ability to predict which folks will take any publicized situation involving The CGC and use it as a platform to exercise their prognosticating abilities in the most hyperbolic manner.

Word.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I realize their are a lot of long time friendships and communications among people that extend to those who work for CGC, but when we talk about reputation...

Which is really more damaging?

 

That CGC sets up a standard on how they handle something like this and sometimes it doesn't work out best for the customer?

Or that if you know someone, you can get it taken care of at CGC?

 

 

Exactly. If it starts getting so that the company treats certain customers better based on reputation, that plays into the whole fears that already exist about favoritism. My reputation in this part of the country is impeccable, but I only do occasional business with CGC, so I'm sure I have no "reputation" to speak of with them.

 

All they can do is double-check to make sure the mistake wasn't made "this time", and that there really isn't restoration on one or both books. If the mistake was made years ago, all they can do is continue to improve on detection.

 

If they start picking and choosing who's reliable, the whole system falls apart.

 

Again, I'll have to disagree completely.

 

If someone has a proven track record (let's use myself as an example) of submitting hundreds of moderns, and getting only 9.8s, with a handful of 9.6s, and pretty much nothing else, then all of a sudden I get a 9.0 (this is a true story) on a common modern book because it was damaged by someone during the grading process...then yes, my track record should be given more weight than the guy who has subbed 17 books and isn't happy with his grades.

 

At Wondercan last year, I subbed 39 books for Sig Series.

 

32 came back 9.8. The other 7 were 9.6.

 

At SDCC, I submitted 51 books for Sig Series. 37 came back 9.8, 13 came back 9.6...and one 9.0. The damage which dropped it to 9.0 is quite obvious, and on a book which I would never, ever submit for Sig Series in that condition.

 

And these are not brand new books. They are 1980's and early 90's books that are, in most cases, the copies I handpicked for myself and have carefully stored this entire time, until waiting to be brought out for signing.

 

In that case, since the book was pressed by me, and went from my hand to CGC itself, then it is reasonable for CGC to give me the benefit of the doubt...which benefit my track record has earned...over the average guy who has only ever subbed 17 books.

 

This is about taking someone's word that they did what they claim they did, about giving an established customer the benefit of the doubt, not giving "better grades" to preferential customers (and I'm certainly not one of those.)

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact, I think the situation you're talking about should be the perfect situation for a company with hands on ownership to be able to get involved and make things right.

 

But not everyone who submits a large number of books, or even someone who is a quality consistent grader, can be assumed to be 100% honest. Even when all previous dealings with them have been honest.

Now when I say that, it's not from MY personal perspective. It's from a business perspective, that as business gets more and more faceless, it puts those decisions less in the hands of management and more in the hands of 'the way it is'.

Which from a customer service stand point blows.

 

Even beyond that, I understand to some degree, CGC being cautious about situations like this, because it opens up a window for manipulation. In a society like ours where money seems to be the driving force behind everything, even a company that allows management to make those decisions, it can make the management of those scenarios a nightmare. They probably have more requests for this kind of thing than we're aware of.

 

The other side of it is the customers who DON'T get that benefit, either through lack of submissions or just because they may be new to the hobby or new to CGC. And of course their vocal displeasure of it.

Does something like this put CGC in a liable position down the road? Can someone claim unfair practices?

It might not go anywhere, but no company wants to go through the annoyance and the bad feedback that comes with being in the legal process.

 

I have empathy for the customer service perspective of taking care of good customers. To me, it just seems like a no brainer.

But a cold business philosophy within our society and a dirty ugly back room hobby like ours can make a bad mix for good customers.

 

But it's a PR decision. It doesn't even need to come down to trust, although it should certainly be presented that way.

 

Think of any retailer. If you buy something, and it has a flaw that you didn't know about...you return it, right? And does the retailer grill you on what happened, how it happened, and then refuse the return?

 

No, of course not. They take it back, because its loss is built into the system.

 

And does that apply even if something has been damaged/broken by the customer themselves? Unless it's beyond obvious (in which case, thieves almost always move on to easier prey without much of a fight), yes. They'll take it back and refund the purchase.

 

Because, while there are certainly thieves, it is better to let the handful who want to game the system get away with it...from a purely PR perspective...than it is to have a brick wall policy that may stop the bad, but also frustrates the innocent....and nothing is worse for PR than someone with a righteous cause.

 

Call it "trust", call it anything you want, but giving the benefit of the doubt wins much, much more than it loses over time.

[Balham's Finest]

 

Update - I just talked to CGC, and they told me they would be glad to look them over again, but I would have to pay another submission fee

 

 

Good news, I guess - but I have to say I'd be VERY surprised if they came back blue.

 

That would be tantamount to CGC admitting that their restoration detection is a crapshoot, and suicidal on their part.

 

 

I was being sarcastic

 

Yes I was assuming you were being sarcastic as well. Cause of course you can resub them again whenever you want and just pay for a new invoice.

 

Alright alright alright - to me for being the only one not to spot the sarcasm!

 

Honestly I didn't really focus on the fee point. I thought you were happy to have the opportunity to get them back in a blue labelled slab (not dishonestly, but as a result of CGC deciding that they got a marginal call wrong).

 

So do you intend to resubmit, or not?