Ive lost ALL confidence in CGC - UPDATE on page 221 2 2

[DrWatson]

Whilst I'm sure that this whole incident has been shocking for the OP - and obviously world-shattering for a lot of the responders - I'm really not sure why?

 

The bottom line here is that an opinion has changed. That the consequences of said changed opinion are so huge has nothing to do with CGC and everything to do with us, the marketplace.

 

Being brutally honest, despite their deliberately misleading business name, CGC guarantees nothing other than the fact that a couple of nameless employees, with unknown credentials, working to undisclosed 'standards', will take a gander at your book. The next time said book comes back through Sarasota, it will be a different pair of nameless employees, with unknown credentials, working to undisclosed 'standards',who will give it the once over. It might also be examined during show season, when the pressure is huge to turn books around and employees are working 50% longer hours. It might also be examined during a 'lax' period of grading.

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

And yet we, the market, put so much store by these entombed collectibles that we are willing to pay huge premiums for exactly the same item we could have bought outside of a slab, solely on the basis of the Big Number.

 

But that Big Number can change in the blink of an eye, as can the fetching shade of the label, obviously.

 

Does nobody else grasp the lunacy inherent in this scenario?

 

CGC will make mistakes. CGC will continue to be inconsistent. It's not just because 'they're only human', but also because their internal processes contains flaws and also because the whole model is ripe for being gamed.

 

If more people truly understood this, we'd have a much more stable market, IMHO.

A stable market controlled by book junkies with OCD?!?

 

[chrisco37]

I envision another scenario where The CGC purchases the JIM, attaches a thin chain to the top two corners, then uses it as an in-house dunce cap by making any employee who up wear it around his or her neck for the day.

 

Attach it to the restroom key like they do at gas stations.

[budsbundy]

I envision another scenario where The CGC purchases the JIM, attaches a thin chain to the top two corners, then uses it as an in-house dunce cap by making any employee who up wear it around his or her neck for the day.

 

Attach it to the restroom key like they do at gas stations.

The gas station by my house as a kid had their bathroom key attached to an old car rim.

They said they were sick of it getting lost, or people forgetting to return it.

Edited April 2, 2014 by budsbundy

[THE_BEYONDER]

And with this thread....micro-trimming moves one step closer to market acceptance.

 

I give it 18 months before Ewert goes public with his services.

 

 

Coming soon.....'the dangers of improper trimming'.

[Santos208]

Buyer said it was OK to share

 

- As of 9am this morning CGC wanted the book to look it over again and make a determination. Offered buyer $3500 to buy the book outright.

 

- Buyer does not respond to CGC as he wants to keep the book for his collection (his intentions the entire time)

 

- CGC makes a statement around 5pm stating they are in the process of buying the book back, and it is DEFINATELY trimmed

 

What to believe?? Maybe I'm the one being April Fooled

 

 

Not sure if serious, , I'll gladly offer $4000 for it, a "6.0" for $3500 is like stealing candy from a baby.

[timfinz]

The problem is that we have put too much expectation on CGC for something that is not an exact science as Liam stated previously.

When you pay CGC, you are paying for their professional opinion on the state of a book.

 

You are not putting money in a machine that uses algorithms to calculate a grade.

 

Three highly experienced individuals take a look at your book and each give their opinion, in an efficient (and generally effective) amount of time.

It is easy for us to make accusations with respect to CGC accuracy and consistency because we are not the ones reviewing the books and applying the grades and notes.

 

As an active participant on the PGM thread in these forums I can tell you that I have looked at the same books in the thread and graded them and then re-graded them three some times even four times and come up with different grades. This is most frequent in the mid grades 4.5 to 9.0.

 

I purposely try and re-grade books that I have looked at previously to try and hone my accuracy and believe me it is not easy. And yes grading from a scan is not always accurate it's just fun, but it proves a point that we are all just human.

 

If there was a simple solution to this whole fiasco I am sure that CGC would or will try and come up with one but in the greater picture I believe that grading books is an art and not without it's faults. And to cast doubt or blame on any one at CGC or all of CGC for that matter, for their work is unfair. The fact that they have issued a statement is proof positive that they are aware of the problem(s) and that with time and effort will hopefully try and correct or at least minimize the problems.

 

I think now is the time to get behind CGC and give them our support to try and move forward with creating a more stable and accurate grading and restoration detection systems. Provide them with more feedback if necessary and with that feedback give them the opportunity and guidance to move in the right direction. We have to believe!

[BEAUMONTS]

Whilst I'm sure that this whole incident has been shocking for the OP - and obviously world-shattering for a lot of the responders - I'm really not sure why?

 

The bottom line here is that an opinion has changed. That the consequences of said changed opinion are so huge has nothing to do with CGC and everything to do with us, the marketplace.

 

Being brutally honest, despite their deliberately misleading business name, CGC guarantees nothing other than the fact that a couple of nameless employees, with unknown credentials, working to undisclosed 'standards', will take a gander at your book. The next time said book comes back through Sarasota, it will be a different pair of nameless employees, with unknown credentials, working to undisclosed 'standards',who will give it the once over. It might also be examined during show season, when the pressure is huge to turn books around and employees are working 50% longer hours. It might also be examined during a 'lax' period of grading.

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

And yet we, the market, put so much store by these entombed collectibles that we are willing to pay huge premiums for exactly the same item we could have bought outside of a slab, solely on the basis of the Big Number.

 

But that Big Number can change in the blink of an eye, as can the fetching shade of the label, obviously.

 

Does nobody else grasp the lunacy inherent in this scenario?

 

CGC will make mistakes. CGC will continue to be inconsistent. It's not just because 'they're only human', but also because their internal processes contains flaws and also because the whole model is ripe for being gamed.

 

If more people truly understood this, we'd have a much more stable market, IMHO.

 

(thumbs u

You look at threads like this and the "Costanza" comics it really drives the point home.

[comicwiz]

I agree with a lot of points FT (Nick makes).

 

The glaring issue for me has been about scaling the submission service levels according to a number of different scenarios.

 

People keep harping on the motives of the submitter, but it's the wrong thing to take-away from this situation.

 

The take-away is this.

 

CGC's model has had resounding success because they incorporate restoration detection in all it's service levels. They don't attach a secondary or additional fee to "authenticate" genuine product like AFA does for toys. It is this "toll-based" check using a set of expert eyes which caused AFA to find themselves (as did the UK-based company UKG) in the middle of the biggest scandal of non-factory sealed toy passing through undetected in their short history as grading companies.

 

The issue however is scaling grading expertise that is well-rounded enough to catch any/all production deviations in that few minutes it's in front of the person.

 

You can't clone that kind of human judgement, however you can cross-pollinate detection methods. Even then, there is a slight chance certain types of unknown manipulation is able to pass through.

 

Pick any person, anyone in the hobby, with the best set of eyes and give them the duty of grading. Pay them handsomely to set-up at a show, and build a market success story showing how books graded by Grading Expert X are attaining record prices.

 

The Achilles heel will always be the "scenario", namely, the one where the number of book exceeds that individuals ability to accurately/consistently grade each book with the appropriate amount of time to fully check the book for restoration/tampering.

 

Now this is speculation on my part, but to me this isn't so much about CGC needing to tighten up it's grading, as much as it is an inherent flaw with the way their human resources and the expertise attached to the value of their service not "humanly" being able to be stretched to cover same-day service offerings on the weekend of a major show.

 

Can you blame a submitter for exposing this? The economics of attending a show (3 nights at a hotel + travel/flight + weekend pass + money for comics) and maybe not getting in on time for the cut-off, versus submitting a book through walk-thru, spend a fraction of the cost and hassle of submitting through on-site.

 

This is a double-edged sword because even if CGC were to post a "check for service exclusions regularly on our site to avoid disappointment - or call ahead to make sure we can accept walk-thru's" they are admitting the capacity issue is causing inconsistency in their service.

 

If they do nothing, then this will play out two ways. People will continue to expose this vulnerability, and buyers will simply do a serial/lookup on their site and making their purchase contingent on whether the book was graded within the week range of any major show.

 

You can't blame status quo because scaling human judgement is not an easy thing, nor can you blame the collecting community for recapitulating the problems with CGC.

 

The question of CGC's relevance however rests squarely on their marketing credo and claims of incorporating restoration detection to keep a community safe, which is significantly devalued and contestable when a situation like this rears it's ugly head.

[Hulksdaddy1]

Bottom line:

 

I still love me some slabbed funny books!

[timfinz]

Well said comicwiz!

[ComicConnoisseur]

Whilst I'm sure that this whole incident has been shocking for the OP - and obviously world-shattering for a lot of the responders - I'm really not sure why?

 

The bottom line here is that an opinion has changed. That the consequences of said changed opinion are so huge has nothing to do with CGC and everything to do with us, the marketplace.

 

Being brutally honest, despite their deliberately misleading business name, CGC guarantees nothing other than the fact that a couple of nameless employees, with unknown credentials, working to undisclosed 'standards', will take a gander at your book. The next time said book comes back through Sarasota, it will be a different pair of nameless employees, with unknown credentials, working to undisclosed 'standards',who will give it the once over. It might also be examined during show season, when the pressure is huge to turn books around and employees are working 50% longer hours. It might also be examined during a 'lax' period of grading.

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

And yet we, the market, put so much store by these entombed collectibles that we are willing to pay huge premiums for exactly the same item we could have bought outside of a slab, solely on the basis of the Big Number.

 

But that Big Number can change in the blink of an eye, as can the fetching shade of the label, obviously.

 

Does nobody else grasp the lunacy inherent in this scenario?

CGC will make mistakes. CGC will continue to be inconsistent. It's not just because 'they're only human', but also because their internal processes contains flaws and also because the whole model is ripe for being gamed.

 

If more people truly understood this, we'd have a much more stable market, IMHO.

Great post.

 

Yes. I started realizing how crazy it all was when I looked at the huge price differences between any generic 9.6 and 9.8.

Luke Cage Hero for Hire #1 was a perfect example of this or how about the price differences between NM#98 CGC 9.8 and 9.9?

Like I said before CGC are great businessman, and have done a great job in promoting and selling their product. I also agree that most of the collectors just don`t understand the big picture.

Edited April 2, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur

[Hibou]

And with this thread....micro-trimming moves one step closer to market acceptance.

 

I give it 18 months before Ewert goes public with his services.

 

 

Coming soon.....'the dangers of improper trimming'.

 

I knew that slippery slope had to be here somewhere...

 

Totally unrelated, but when I was very young I found my grandfather's stamp collection. Those little stickers, with their unsightly scalloped edges, looked soooo much better cut off!

 

[cheetah]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

[ItsJustRyan]

The saga continues...

[comicwiz]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

[ItsJustRyan]

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

True. But in reality doesn't change anything.

[comicwiz]

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

True. But in reality doesn't change anything.

 

Maybe, but in the past year, I've been asked more times in all the years I've been collecting if any of my slabs were submitted at a show. I'd imagine the next check point question from buyers will be walk-thru's timed around major shows.

 

That's an unforeseen barrier to trade and impediment to what I expect from CGC as a selling tool.

 

Things take time to evolve and unfold, but it would be naive to think for a moment this situation won't have some negative trickle effect on their reputation.

[Davenport]

CGC has decided that the book is trimmed, so they were in the right for publicly announcing that, therefore voiding their certification of the book as it is right now. Good move.

 

I disagree with the idea of removing the book from the market. The blue label already voided in the eyes of the boards, and if it comes up on the public market with the apparent trimming not disclosed, someone here will notice and will make it public. If the seller is honest about the apparent trimming, then buyers will know what they're buying into.

 

I don't think this will, or should, hurt CGC's reputation in any way, since they did everything they promised they'd do, and provided the service they paid for.

I would imagine CGC's legal team would be very very very careful with this one. This isn't like the Ewert fiasco where both Ewert's business partner and CGC had a mutual goal of saving face, where confiscating books and cutting checks worked toward that shared end.

 

This is one owner and his one book, so any demonstrable harm to him or his property wouldn't be the smart play. And if the history of comic encapsulation shows anything, it's that CGC's legal team is very careful and really good in crisis mode.

[VintageComics]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

The reason why Nick's quote isn't absolutely true to me is because a single dealer can have good and bad days as well.

 

I had a very long winded conversation with a long time dealer and he said something along these lines: "Dealers buy and profit from other dealer's mistakes."

 

He's absolutely right.

 

You buy some dealer's SA books because he grades them as VF's and you can sell them as proper NM-'s.

 

Or a dealer under prices his books not realizing that prices have changed.

 

Or a dealer doesn't realize what he has in his inventory.

 

Dealers get busy, tired and distracted the way a grader might. I can't even remember how many dealers have told me they'll grade a box of books sitting at their feet while watching a ball game or a TV show. And these are well respected, tight graders on the con circuit.

 

At least with more than one set of eyes looking at a book, there is more than one opportunity to catch something that the first person misses.

 

The bottom line is that you can't remove humanity from the equation. You can only try to.

[techtre2003]

 

All in all, it's not exactly a model for consistency and in truth, you're likely to get more consistency (please note I didn't say 'more accuracy', as that's a whole other debate) buying raw books from the same dealer over and over again.

 

From someone who should know better, I found this to be one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread.

 

Why is this ridiculous? Aren't you in a sense buying a persons reputation when you deal with them?

 

If your answer is yes, then why would buying from a dealer with a reputation to "consistently" grade accurately over a company that demonstrates a fact pattern of inconsistency be a ridiculous notion?

 

I'd personally love to see the data on walk-thru and submissions timed around major shows to get a real sense of how wide and far back this exploit has been used by submitters to cheat the system.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, this thread's existence impacts the perception of economic advantages to CGC grading, and to some extent, raises many more questions on the limitations and validity of its opinion.

 

The reason why Nick's quote isn't absolutely true to me is because a single dealer can have good and bad days as well.

 

I had a very long winded conversation with a long time dealer and he said something along these lines: "Dealers buy and profit from other dealer's mistakes."

 

He's absolutely right.

 

You buy some dealer's SA books because he grades them as VF's and you can sell them as proper NM-'s.

 

Or a dealer under prices his books not realizing that prices have changed.

 

Or a dealer doesn't realize what he has in his inventory.

 

Dealers get busy, tired and distracted the way a grader might. I can't even remember how many dealers have told me they'll grade a box of books sitting at their feet while watching a ball game or a TV show. And these are well respected, tight graders on the con circuit.

 

At least with more than one set of eyes looking at a book, there is more than one opportunity to catch something that the first person misses.

 

The bottom line is that you can't remove humanity from the equation. You can only try to.

 

You're right, you can't remove humanity (yet), but you are still removing a variable by having a constant grader. Anytime you can remove a variable you are going to get more consistent results.