CGC Issue Resolved

[Spider-Dan]

 

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?

 

Since the mail didn't run today (President's Day) they were able to grab the box out of the shipping dept. The will be evaluated tomorrow.

[Moondog]

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.

 

In the case of my Hulk 181 it was shortly after the Ewert scandal. I pointed this out to Steve in my request and suggested that maybe they were "erring on the side of caution" and to please take another stringent look at the book. I don't believe Steve changed the book to a Universal label because he "believed" my story. I think he looked at the book again and saw that it wasn't trimmed.

 

There are more sophisticated means available today to detect restoration. That means that books graded 5 - 10 years ago could be at risk for being restored if they are re-submitted. Anyone playing this game should be aware of that. I think we all are now.

[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.

 

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.

 

I wish most business' saw it that way because it's been proven to be right.

 

I think CGC has it's own unique set of circumstances though that cause it to have to pause before action, but ultimately I think they've shown they'll at the very least listen and try. And really, without competition...

 

Walmart pulled back it's no receipt /no hassle return policy many years ago (though they're still pretty lenient), and it didn't destroy their business (though they have many, many, many other issues)... this could've been seen as a major mistake that impacted their business, but it didn't.

 

However if CGC makes a mistake and are viewed as benefitting a certain type of customer and people lose confidence in their product, I would think it could be disastrous....

 

 

[Red84]

 

There shouldn't be micro-fractions of grades... 20-points and that's it. This increases grade consistency and market stability. As for dealers who make their living capitalizing on these inconsistencies... well... tough.

 

 

You make some interesting points, but this is the one I have the most problems with. In coins, disregarding the "plus" and "star" designations (which have their purposes, too), there are 30 grade designations, from Poor-1 to Mint State-70 (and their corresponding Proof numbers.)

 

Every number between 60 and 70 is represented, and it has tremendously stabilized the market.

 

There's a real issue when a book grades 9.6 and is worth $2,000, but grades 9.4 and is only worth $600. The incentive to CPR is quite obvious. Grade consistency and market stability are not increased at all; quite the opposite.

 

But if a 9.5, which would be worth, say, $1300...that incentive is greatly diminished. This leads to a much more stable and steady market.

 

Eventually, the market will make this demand so overpowering that it can no longer be resisted. If the coinees do it, eventually so must everyone else.

 

And yes, the *concept* of a CVR will also be normalized, too.

 

The problem is that the marketplace has created these disproportionate price differences for books that look almost identical. Everyone knows that a 9.4 and a 9.6 can switch places on any given day, but people are willing to spend much more for that 9.6 on the label. that's not CGC's problem, that's the collector's problem. Then again, I'm not a high grade collector, so I guess I just don't get it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

In the case of my Hulk 181 it was shortly after the Ewert scandal. I pointed this out to Steve in my request and suggested that maybe they were "erring on the side of caution" and to please take another stringent look at the book. I don't believe Steve changed the book to a Universal label because he "believed" my story. I think he looked at the book again and saw that it wasn't trimmed.

 

There are more sophisticated means available today to detect restoration. That means that books graded 5 - 10 years ago could be at risk for being restored if they are re-submitted. Anyone playing this game should be aware of that. I think we all are now.

 

I don't really understand why it needs to be called a "game." Are there people out there, looking to capitalize on items they feel are undergraded? Of course. And there are also collectors and hobbyists who got tired of being cheated by people selling them books that were not what they were claimed to be, for whom this is very much not a game.

 

For the last nearly 15 years, an entire market has developed...from nothing...that is built on a foundation that a book in a Universal slab....with exceptions noted...was an unrestored book, and they let their money follow that belief.

 

Very, very few people have a problem with a number grade changing slightly over time.

 

But that the book was free from restoration....? That is the foundation upon which this house was built.

 

How many people will now get into arguments about blue labels, asking dealers...yet again..."are you sure this isn't restored?"

 

A return to the bad old days, and maybe worse...now the book can't be checked.

 

Or, maybe this is a good thing, and books will be freed from their slabs en masse, knowing that CGC's slab is just an opinion, as good as most everyone else's, and will no longer carry a premium.

 

Who knows. Interesting waters ahead...

 

[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.

 

In the case of my Hulk 181 it was shortly after the Ewert scandal. I pointed this out to Steve in my request and suggested that maybe they were "erring on the side of caution" and to please take another stringent look at the book. I don't believe Steve changed the book to a Universal label because he "believed" my story. I think he looked at the book again and saw that it wasn't trimmed.

 

There are more sophisticated means available today to detect restoration. That means that books graded 5 - 10 years ago could be at risk for being restored if they are re-submitted. Anyone playing this game should be aware of that. I think we all are now.

 

Thanks for the elaboration Gary (thumbs u

 

Definitely agree with your last point.

[MrBedrock]

I don't really understand why it needs to be called a "game."

True! It is very serious bidness!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Everyone knows that a 9.4 and a 9.6 can switch places on any given day.

 

This is not quite accurate. An average 9.4 and an average 9.6 CANNOT switch places on any given day. A superior 9.4, and a below average 9.6 can.

 

Which is why the 9.5 is necessary. It gives the graders more room to make a call, without relegating a marginal book to a much lower...or higher...grade level, when it's really an "in between."

 

Trust me, I think the market (especially my market, 1975-2005) would be thrilled with a 9.7 grade. It takes all the pressure off for everything to be "9.8 or worthless" (which is absolutely true), but doesn't knock it down to the worthless 9.6.

 

People, dealers, collectors...resisted the addition of grades like MS61, 62, 66, 64 for decades in coins. Now that it has been institutionalized for 30 years, you almost never hear a peep about it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I don't really understand why it needs to be called a "game."

True! It is very serious bidness!

 

Alright, smartypants. You better watch it, or I'll shake this rolled up Detective Comics #73 at you!

[comicwiz]

How many people will now get into arguments about blue labels, asking dealers...yet again..."are you sure this isn't restored?"

 

A return to the bad old days, and maybe worse...now the book can't be checked.

 

Or, maybe this is a good thing, and books will be freed from their slabs en masse, knowing that CGC's slab is just an opinion, as good as most everyone else's, and will no longer carry a premium.

 

Who knows. Interesting waters ahead...

 

Toygrader (AFA) find itself embattled with this very problem since it was revealed in early December that they may have graded a large number of mint on card figures which weren't factory sealed. The UK dealer responsible for the "cheating" has gone into hiding and these AFA figures are feverishly being dumped on eBay.

 

Apart from unsuspecting buyers being duped with a worthless warranty of "genuine product" it's created a never before seen climate of panic in the vintage toy category. To your point about "asking whether a blue label book isn't restored", there hasn't been a day that has passed since the revelation where someone posts a question about whether their toys are effected by this scandal.

[Bookery]

Trust me, I think the market (especially my market, 1975-2005) would be thrilled with a 9.7 grade. It takes all the pressure off for everything to be "9.8 or worthless" (which is absolutely true), but doesn't knock it down to the worthless 9.6.

 

Ah... I think this explains why we disagree on this subject, and why I suspect, within our markets, we both may be right. When I think of graded books, I think golden and silver-age, because that's what I deal in (or prefer to deal in, at any rate).

 

I think the multi-grades between 9.0 and 10.0 do probably work better with more modern books. There are going to be fewer issues to consider to begin with. Moderns have heavier, slicker paper that probably wears in more predictable patterns, not entirely unlike coins. Paper ageing is rarely an issue (especially from 1990s-up). That Book #X from 2001 probably tends to have y-number of spine ticks from which above-average and below-average copies can better be determined.

 

The older a book gets the more issues arise in ever exponentially-more complex combinations, meaning grading gets ever-more subjective. This is why no one would ever break down a 1st ed. "Sun Also Rises" into 9.4 and 9.6 designations (let alone a Shakespeare portfolio!). Trying to determine if a pulp is even an 8.0 or 8.5 also would probably be silly.

 

So the BGC (Bookery Grading Company) would likely not make a very good fit for you in the same way the current system doesn't really work for me.

 

[VintageComics]

 

I agree it's not good. It's how I make my living so I have a stake in this.

 

Personally, I think they are erring on the side of caution much more than they were in the past.

 

Chris Friesen was good, and I'm not sure what has changed but I'm personally seeing books come back with resto where even after getting the book back I can't find resto (ie colour touch) even after close scrutiny. My opinion is that whatever they are doing now, they are much more conservative now than they were in the past and are erring on the side of caution more than they were in the past.

 

This might have to do with Kent's skill set and difference experience (the new guy) and it might have to do with internal procedural changes but it is an observation I've had over the last year or so.

 

Roy, please clarify, if they are being more cautious, are you saying this is a good thing or bad thing ? Pretend, for a moment, this event with Dan didn't happen and we are not discussing it in his thread. Would news of CGC tightening up their restoration procedures be frowned upon by the general buying public ?.

 

I'm not commenting on whether it's good or bad, just saying that they seem tighter on catching resto now than before.

[shadroch]

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?

 

Dan should not have had to start this thread in the first place. CGC should have looked at the books before any of this became public.

[joeypost]

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.

 

Without listing my pressing resume I can state I submit a lot of books to CGC. For my customers and myself. I am physically at their facility few times a month. Take home a ton of 9.8 books. Send in many walkthrough books. I shake their hands at shows and have even broken bread with most of them. I would consider my relationship more professional than friend, but a level of friendship exists.

 

I would still expect to be treated the same as everyone else, even though a long track record of my honesty and integrity already exists. It stinks, believe me I know. I do not expect to be treated any differently when it comes to an issue of this severity.

[joeypost]

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?

 

Dan should not have had to start this thread in the first place. CGC should have looked at the books before any of this became public.

 

Bingo. If this was initially handled confidentially it might have gone smoother. Once CGC was backed into the corner what did you expect would happen.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Everyone knows that a 9.4 and a 9.6 can switch places on any given day.

 

This is not quite accurate. An average 9.4 and an average 9.6 CANNOT switch places on any given day. A superior 9.4, and a below average 9.6 can.

 

I don't believe this to be true.

 

There are many examples of books that have moved two grade points (or more) upon a simple straight resub.

 

What I don't believe can happen is a book that was graded yesterday at 9.4 can be graded today at anything beyond the 9.2-9.6 range.

 

However, a book that was graded in 2002 could be pretty much anything if graded today.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Trust me, I think the market (especially my market, 1975-2005) would be thrilled with a 9.7 grade. It takes all the pressure off for everything to be "9.8 or worthless" (which is absolutely true), but doesn't knock it down to the worthless 9.6.

 

Ah... I think this explains why we disagree on this subject, and why I suspect, within our markets, we both may be right. When I think of graded books, I think golden and silver-age, because that's what I deal in (or prefer to deal in, at any rate).

 

I think the multi-grades between 9.0 and 10.0 do probably work better with more modern books. There are going to be fewer issues to consider to begin with. Moderns have heavier, slicker paper that probably wears in more predictable patterns, not entirely unlike coins. Paper ageing is rarely an issue (especially from 1990s-up). That Book #X from 2001 probably tends to have y-number of spine ticks from which above-average and below-average copies can better be determined.

 

The older a book gets the more issues arise in ever exponentially-more complex combinations, meaning grading gets ever-more subjective. This is why no one would ever break down a 1st ed. "Sun Also Rises" into 9.4 and 9.6 designations (let alone a Shakespeare portfolio!). Trying to determine if a pulp is even an 8.0 or 8.5 also would probably be silly.

 

So the BGC (Bookery Grading Company) would likely not make a very good fit for you in the same way the current system doesn't really work for me.

 

I am not unfamiliar with the foibles of Gold and Silver age books.

 

 

You make some excellent points about wear patterns, but the same arguments can be made for the non-steam powered coins of the late 18th-early 19th century US. Adjustments are made to take those things into consideration.

 

 

[comicwiz]

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?

 

Dan should not have had to start this thread in the first place. CGC should have looked at the books before any of this became public.

 

Bingo. If this was initially handled confidentially it might have gone smoother. Once CGC was backed into the corner what did you expect would happen.

 

Maybe. But having been through the ringer once with them, I feel it wouldn't have produced any different a result. The exception of course is that it going public makes people aware of the risks and the fine print on missed restoration.

[Flaming_Telepath]

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.

 

Without listing my pressing resume I can state I submit a lot of books to CGC. For my customers and myself. I am physically at their facility few times a month. Take home a ton of 9.8 books. Send in many walkthrough books. I shake their hands at shows and have even broken bread with most of them. I would consider my relationship more professional than friend, but a level of friendship exists.

 

I would still expect to be treated the same as everyone else, even though a long track record of my honesty and integrity already exists. It stinks, believe me I know. I do not expect to be treated any differently when it comes to an issue of this severity.

 

I suspect that in part, a certain Jason Ewert was able to work his magic because of the trust that CGC afforded him. The level of personal betrayal Steve Borock displayed at the time certainly suggests that this was the case.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Everyone knows that a 9.4 and a 9.6 can switch places on any given day.

 

This is not quite accurate. An average 9.4 and an average 9.6 CANNOT switch places on any given day. A superior 9.4, and a below average 9.6 can.

 

I don't believe this to be true.

 

There are many examples of books that have moved two grade points (or more) upon a simple straight resub.

 

Oh, don't I know it. I had a Wolverine #1 Mini graded 9.4 onsite at WWLA in 2008...off-white pages. I cracked it and straight re-subbed it several years later under a 9.8 pre-screen, and it came back a 9.8 with white pages.

 

 

But, in this case, it was a clearly superior book (relative to the 9.4 range), that should never have been in a 9.4 slab to begin with.

 

What I don't believe can happen is a book that was graded yesterday at 9.4 can be graded today at anything beyond the 9.2-9.6 range.

 

However, a book that was graded in 2002 could be pretty much anything if graded today.

 

I think you're absolutely correct on both points.