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

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

There are many different types of market. I've been saying this for years. There are many types of raw markets and many types of CGC markets and those that are able to diversify across them and arbitrage between them will profit the most.

 

I just said this to someone. Get out of my brain.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

I agree

 

The difference is in how large the variable is, and is it worth their time and effort to

 

a) prevent graders from attending shows (I'm sure that CGC didn't pay for their head graders to fly off to Seattle without good reason)

b) hire and train more graders

c) pay them more

d) have them spend more time grading each separate book

3) charge more per book

 

The flip side of the coin is that you can ask the consumer the question: "Would you be willing to pay more for a better product?" The answer is usually a consistent "No." It's the way of the modern world. We want it all and we want it cheap and we want it now.

 

This can be shown by the outrage when CGC did change there prices a few years ago for the first time in nearly a decade.

 

I personally would pay more for a better service if it meant better service but then I'm usually in the minority.

 

Maybe it's because the prices being charged are *more than* the value that price provides to the average CGC consumer.

 

Example: a single 1976 Marvel comic book worth $100 in the slab costs $35 (before discount) while a single 1980 comic book worth $100 costs $18 (before discount.)

 

There is functionally no difference between that 1976 Marvel and that 1980 Marvel. It takes exactly the same amount of effort and cost to grade...but it's (almost) twice the price.

 

CGC has clearly demonstrated that they *can* grade that book for $18...so why do they charge almost double?

 

This isn't the only example, there are many such inconsistencies in the fee structure.

 

There are many different types of market. I've been saying this for years. There are many types of raw markets and many types of CGC markets and those that are able to diversify across them and arbitrage between them will profit the most.

 

But then the customer has a legitimate argument to make against "paying a better price for a better service." The service isn't any better between the 1976 book and the 1980 book (and again...this happens up and down the fee structure), but the price is *already* nearly double.

 

And a point I didn't bring up: that 1976 book takes about 3.5 months start to finish, while that 1980 book takes a full month less. Slower service for almost double the price.

[Flaming_Telepath]

FT's point still stands (look, RMA defending FT, for which no credit will be given ): you'll get more consistency from the same dealer over and over again because you establish a picture of how that dealer grades (even taking into account "good and bad days"), even if that dealer consistently over/undergrades. At CGC, you don't know, and cannot control, who sees your books, and so don't know what flaw(s) will bother one grader over another. There's no way to get consistency because the parameters change with every pair of eyes.

 

As I've said for the ten thousandth time, and will say ten thousand more times: it all comes down to opinion, which is why the vast gulfs in price between grades is utter lunacy. A spine tic is worth $500,000? In some cases...yes. A book that is in BETTER condition worth substantially LESS than another? Yes.

 

But the market won't listen.

 

 

But otherwise...this. (thumbs u

[stanley1883]

I did want to give my regarding the statements that we pay CGC for their opinion. That is FALSE. We pay CGC for their expertise, knowledge "training" (if any), and their service. If I want an opinion, there's a perfectly functioning grading forum where other members are very knowlegeable and reach the same grade that CGC does if not, they're very close.

 

I understand that the grader's are humans and perfection cannot be asked, and I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for a product/service that warrants the money spent. Mistakes are fine, BIG mistakes like the one we had here are not, in my humble opinion.

 

I appreciate CGC, and everything they do, and I certainly undertand the immense pressure and scrutiny they are under. I will continue to submit there, partly because there is no alternative, and I enjoy my graded books.

 

With that said, I do think CGC should be more receptive to suggestions by us, the consumers. Especially regarding transparency and turn around times, I also think that some of their Customer Service reps could use some customer service training. If I would see that they are making a legitimate attempt at improvent, that would quell my concerns. Sadly, as it stands now, it only looks like CGC will strive for improvments when they have a legitimate threat by a competitor, and by then, it may be too late. Proactive is better than reactive.

[RockMyAmadeus]

FT's point still stands (look, RMA defending FT, for which no credit will be given ): you'll get more consistency from the same dealer over and over again because you establish a picture of how that dealer grades (even taking into account "good and bad days"), even if that dealer consistently over/undergrades. At CGC, you don't know, and cannot control, who sees your books, and so don't know what flaw(s) will bother one grader over another. There's no way to get consistency because the parameters change with every pair of eyes.

 

As I've said for the ten thousandth time, and will say ten thousand more times: it all comes down to opinion, which is why the vast gulfs in price between grades is utter lunacy. A spine tic is worth $500,000? In some cases...yes. A book that is in BETTER condition worth substantially LESS than another? Yes.

 

But the market won't listen.

 

 

But otherwise...this. (thumbs u

 

 

Will wonders never cease!

[Flaming_Telepath]

I did want to give my regarding the statements that we pay CGC for their opinion. That is FALSE. We pay CGC for their expertise, knowledge "training" (if any), and their service. If I want an opinion, there's a perfectly functioning grading forum where other members are very knowlegeable and reach the same grade that CGC does if not, they're very close.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

If we were paying for their expertise, knowledge and training...we'd want a few more details regarding that expertise, knowledge and training.

 

And right now...we don't have any. We have no clue who looked at our books, what experience they have, what knowledge they might possess, or what training they may have undertaken.

 

The only thing that matters to customers is that Big Number...which is simply an opinion rendered by faceless employees with no transparent credentials.

[cheetah]

Maybe one of you can recap the names.

 

Seems strange for someone to ask for names, then turtle when asked to provide their own - worse of which, to come on and tear a new one into "dealers who can't grade" like some motivation of fear that should compel all collectors to run in droves to have their books graded by CGC.

 

 

I like to see you squirm because you do it so deliciously. I want you and Nick to name names because you are giving unsupported arguments as fact. Typical internet barristers with no legs to stand on.

 

Here, I'll make it easy on you. It was a different subject but close enough. Care to support your claims as much?

 

Link

 

So, you've been disputing our claims based on data you collated...using CGC as the 'test'?

 

Can you not see that it's impossible to dispute what I've said (that CGC is inherently inconsistent) by judging dealers' consistency against CGC and against each other?

 

I know you read my comment that it wasn't 'to the same. Did you choose to ignore it on purpose?

 

I had missed your thread in the GA forum, and appreciate the referral to it now. Your data are interesting and informative, but unfortunately their interpretation is skewed by two aspects of the design: pressing and CGC. One of Nick's points on which I agree is that a data set that uses the CGC grade (post-pressing, no less) as the comparator grade is inherently flawed by the variability that exists within CGC itself at assigning grades.

 

And a congrats to Bob Storms for being the most conservative (relative to CGC) among the 7 graders evaluated.

 

I tried to be upfront about the limitations of the data. Pressing, sample size, selection of primarily high-grade books, etc. The data was intended to show which dealers were best at grading according to CGC standards. Since that is where my collecting focus is, that's what I was looking into.

 

As far as the CGC variability goes, I occasionally have books that come back with a grade I did not expect (though usually I see my error when I examine it closer). With every dealer I have ever dealt with, I have books in virtually every order that I do not agree with on the grade. I think Bob is great, but I've bought enough raw books from him to know that he is capable of bombing on a book every now and then. In my view, he also grades golden age books more poorly than he does silver and bronze.

 

Metro is likely the most consistent with grading that I have seen, but they miss them, too, even excluding their grading bias they show pedigreed or high-value books. I've sent multiple books back to Metro where the grade wasn't accurate. The older the book, the more inconsistent the grading.

 

Jim Payette is lauded as a superior grader but he misses books as much as any other dealer.

 

Steve Ritter is the same. I think he is underrated on his grading skills but I have bought books from him that were very undergraded while others have been spot on. Granted, Ritter and Storms are the kind of guys you want to buy from because you are more likely to get a better book for your money than you are a worse book. But it doesn't make them unnaturally consistent.

 

Regardless, I work in an industry where QA/QC is an enormous deal because failures in QA/QC cause people to get burned to cinders. Saying that a single trained person is more consistent than a team of trained personnel flies in the face of reality and human nature. Individuals miss things. ALL individuals miss things. It doesn't matter how much you think of the person's skills or how much you think of your own skills. One individual performing the same function day in and day out results in errors. The errors are due to lapses in concentration, not due to someone never recognizing a 1-inch color-breaking crease on every book they ever looked at. Add an additional step in the QA/QC process and you improve consistency and product. Add more personnel and you generate higher consistency and product.

 

 

[CBT]

I sure would like to have the ability to jump to any page I want in a thread. I have not looked at this thread for awhile and I see the title has been updated with new info on April 1st, but there have been 175 posts I have not read.

I would love to be able to do a drop down jump to page 96.

 

As it is, I dont have time to click forward or back passed 40 pages in a thread.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7567892&fpart=135

 

replace with whatever page number you want...

[cheetah]

I see a few very vested interests in this string of conversations.

 

 

'Very' being an understatement.

 

Are you saying that all of my CGC books may decrease in value if confidence in CGC was to waver?

 

Not sure if serious....

 

He's got the type of vested interest that pokes fun at people who have a vested interest in CGC.

 

 

The fact that some people have a vested interest in CGC and that some of them may be posting in this thread is a complete shock to me!

 

 

Shocking, I know, but if the new grading company started, I would quit using CGC in a heartbeat.

 

Not sure if serious...

 

 

Yes, I am serious. I think their QA/QC is indefensibly poor, particularly with the slabbing process. The number of books I have gotten back that were incorrectly labeled is stunning and it pisses me off that I have to take the time to fill out a form, repack the books, send them back down to Sarasota, then hope and pray they get it right the second time. Too many times they haven't but according to them it was my fault.

 

I also think their customer service is pitiful. Knowing that a book in their system is mislabeled or missing a pedigree designation doesn't allow you to call and get it fixed. It allows you to call and get told that no one can reach the book and that they will catch it in final QC and then they don't.

 

I also detest that books still get damaged in slabs because the slabber doesn't get the book tight enough and it slides around in the plastic. How hard is that to check? I can hear it before I even open a box.

 

One of the good things CGC did in hiring Matt Nelson was give me someone I could call that would actually answer questions or try to fix things. It may be hard for the pressing crowd to stomach but Matt is willing to take time out from his other chores to find some solutions. The fact that you can now see reholder order details in your on-line account is a change he had made based on one of my complaints.

 

Regardless, I would support a competitor that I recognized and respected for no other reason than it would force CGC to clean up their act.

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's very interesting that the hue and cry, and ultimately solution, is for there to be competition as that would solve all problems.

 

I think it will solve some problems, spur innovation and perhaps resolve inconsistencies.

 

But we'd have new complaints about the new company.

 

I also think it's interesting that we wax poetic about the days gone by in terms of grading. If we all saw how the sausage got made, maybe we wouldn't be so keen.

 

Regardless, I think most folks would agree that some competition would be a good thing. I guess we'll have to watch what happens.

 

Competition "solves all problems" only in the sense that problems that come up must now be addressed, rather than ignored, or the consumer now has other options.

 

There would definitely be new complaints about a new company, but the ones with the complaint would now have the ability to choose which service to use, and the company has to resolve those problems if they wish to keep those customers.

 

Example: some of CGC's customer service representatives have absolutely no business being in customer service. When/if a customer is unhappy (regardless of why), the answer is never, ever, EVER to become argumentative, dismissive, and/or combative, but this is precisely what certain customer service representatives have done, to their great discredit.

 

Help. Explain. Be supportive. Empathize, even if the customer is dead wrong. NEVER argue, and NEVER be combative. This is customer service 101, yet, some reps are atrocious. They take complaints extremely personally, utterly forgetting the fact that they REPRESENT something else, and it has nothing to do with them, personally.

 

PS. That doesn't mean there aren't outstanding reps. There are.

[mschmidt]

I did want to give my regarding the statements that we pay CGC for their opinion. That is FALSE. We pay CGC for their expertise, knowledge "training" (if any), and their service. If I want an opinion, there's a perfectly functioning grading forum where other members are very knowlegeable and reach the same grade that CGC does if not, they're very close.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

If we were paying for their expertise, knowledge and training...we'd want a few more details regarding that expertise, knowledge and training.

 

And right now...we don't have any. We have no clue who looked at our books, what experience they have, what knowledge they might possess, or what training they may have undertaken.

 

The only thing that matters to customers is that Big Number...which is simply an opinion rendered by faceless employees with no transparent credentials.

 

Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGC’s Grading Team!

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I also think their customer service is pitiful. Knowing that a book in their system is mislabeled or missing a pedigree designation doesn't allow you to call and get it fixed. It allows you to call and get told that no one can reach the book and that they will catch it in final QC and then they don't.

 

Cheetah and I did not coordinate our posts.

[techtre2003]

Only thing I don't like about using a different preference though is that when someone posts a link like VintageComics just did it doesn't work.

 

Just change the page number in your own URL at the to of your browser and then it will work, no?

 

I just posted the link to show everyone page number 67 at the end - not to use my link.

 

I was just using your link as an example, but I've had it happen before. If I click on the link you posted it tries to take me to "page 67 of 27" which just gives me a blank page.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I did want to give my regarding the statements that we pay CGC for their opinion. That is FALSE. We pay CGC for their expertise, knowledge "training" (if any), and their service. If I want an opinion, there's a perfectly functioning grading forum where other members are very knowlegeable and reach the same grade that CGC does if not, they're very close.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

If we were paying for their expertise, knowledge and training...we'd want a few more details regarding that expertise, knowledge and training.

 

And right now...we don't have any. We have no clue who looked at our books, what experience they have, what knowledge they might possess, or what training they may have undertaken.

 

The only thing that matters to customers is that Big Number...which is simply an opinion rendered by faceless employees with no transparent credentials.

 

Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGCs Grading Team!

 

The warranty says these people MAY have looked at your books. It doesn't say they did. The warranty expressly states that your books are examined by two "comic professionals", not graders.

 

I know, probably just a nitpick.

 

 

[kav]

It's very interesting that the hue and cry, and ultimately solution, is for there to be competition as that would solve all problems.

 

I think it will solve some problems, spur innovation and perhaps resolve inconsistencies.

 

But we'd have new complaints about the new company.

 

I also think it's interesting that we wax poetic about the days gone by in terms of grading. If we all saw how the sausage got made, maybe we wouldn't be so keen.

 

Regardless, I think most folks would agree that some competition would be a good thing. I guess we'll have to watch what happens.

 

Competition "solves all problems" only in the sense that problems that come up must now be addressed, rather than ignored, or the consumer now has other options.

 

There would definitely be new complaints about a new company, but the ones with the complaint would now have the ability to choose which service to use, and the company has to resolve those problems if they wish to keep those customers.

 

Example: some of CGC's customer service representatives have absolutely no business being in customer service. When/if a customer is unhappy (regardless of why), the answer is never, ever, EVER to become argumentative, dismissive, and/or combative, but this is precisely what certain customer service representatives have done, to their great discredit.

 

Help. Explain. Be supportive. Empathize, even if the customer is dead wrong. NEVER argue, and NEVER be combative. This is customer service 101, yet, some reps are atrocious. They take complaints extremely personally, utterly forgetting the fact that they REPRESENT something else, and it has nothing to do with them, personally.

 

PS. That doesn't mean there aren't outstanding reps. There are.

Yep. When you call ebay or tech support for say HP, you get India, and the reps always say stuff like "I am very sorry you are having this problem and assure I will do my best to solve the problem for you.' If you get frustrated they remain calm and apologetic throughout. Never once have I experienced India arguing with me or being dismissive. Then you receive an email to grade the rep on how well he handled the problem.

 

[CBT]

Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGC’s Grading Team!

 

Not even close to enough people for the volume they do. They need to get their act together and stop being a mom&pop shop with everything they do.

 

They have more than enough income to do much much better. No excuses.

[mschmidt]

I did want to give my regarding the statements that we pay CGC for their opinion. That is FALSE. We pay CGC for their expertise, knowledge "training" (if any), and their service. If I want an opinion, there's a perfectly functioning grading forum where other members are very knowlegeable and reach the same grade that CGC does if not, they're very close.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

If we were paying for their expertise, knowledge and training...we'd want a few more details regarding that expertise, knowledge and training.

 

And right now...we don't have any. We have no clue who looked at our books, what experience they have, what knowledge they might possess, or what training they may have undertaken.

 

The only thing that matters to customers is that Big Number...which is simply an opinion rendered by faceless employees with no transparent credentials.

 

Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGCs Grading Team!

 

The warranty says these people MAY have looked at your books. It doesn't say they did. The warranty expressly states that your books are examined by two "comic professionals", not graders.

 

I know, probably just a nitpick.

 

 

I get the distinction you're trying to make, but it's still ridiculously disingenuous for FT to pretend that books submitted to CGC are graded by "faceless employees with no transparent credentials" and that we "have no clue who looked at our books, what experience they have, what knowledge they might possess, or what training they may have undertaken" when there's an entire page on the CGC website dedicated to the grading team.

[VintageComics]

 

But then the customer has a legitimate argument to make against "paying a better price for a better service." The service isn't any better between the 1976 book and the 1980 book (and again...this happens up and down the fee structure), but the price is *already* nearly double.

 

And a point I didn't bring up: that 1976 book takes about 3.5 months start to finish, while that 1980 book takes a full month less. Slower service for almost double the price.

 

While you and I might know this, CGC doesn't have to explain or justify why they charge $X any more for grading a book than you or I need to for selling a book.

[mschmidt]

Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGC’s Grading Team!

 

Not even close to enough people for the volume they do. They need to get their act together and stop being a mom&pop shop with everything they do.

 

They have more than enough income to do much much better. No excuses.

 

[techtre2003]

Who Is Grading Your Comics? Meet CGC’s Grading Team!

 

Not even close to enough people for the volume they do. They need to get their act together and stop being a mom&pop shop with everything they do.

 

They have more than enough income to do much much better. No excuses.

 

 

Which one of those is you?