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

[kav]

So ... CGC have the book in hand yet ?

No apparently it was mysteriously 'lost in shipping'.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

this is really influencing my decision on certain books. definitely not acceptable to any standard.

 

What they should also do is make their encapsulation process measured to the exact degree of the book. If a book is trimmed and purple labeled, the encasement should reflect that amount. whether there is a ruler built into the encasement, or some form of measurement to distinguish the short length/width of a purple label, it has to be done.

 

[Prince Namor]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

[VintageComics]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

 

I don't think he is either.

 

There's a zillion people that are 'tight' with CGC but that doesn't mean they are all going to lie when confronted about something.

 

Vendettas on this forum are a cancer.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't rely on CGC to tell me what the grade is, I need them to tell me whether its been monkeyed with or not

 

I can look at a CGC graded 6.0 and decide whether I think its a 6.0 or not, (hell Ive managed to make a second income out of it) I cant tell whether its CT, trimmed, pieces added..... etc

[kav]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

People used to think I was a shill. It's hard to shake an accusation, man.

How do you prove a negative?

[RockMyAmadeus]

To which my answer is "the reason it is "No" isn't necessarily because the customers are cheap, but that the value for the price paid may not be there"

 

And I would disagree with you. The average North American consumer is thrifty (cheap sounds demeaning and I don't want to offend anybody).

 

Just look at all the coupons, rewards programs, surveys, freebies, lotto purchases, etc. These things drive a huge portion of the economy.

 

Look at black Monday and Boxing day shopping. and

 

This capitalistic, industrial society is in a constant death spiral towards cheaper at the expense of quality. Perceived quality is all that matters. But that's a discussion for another forum.

 

 

You are KILLING me.

 

You said: " 'Would the consumer be willing to pay more for a better service' ", and said the answer is "No", and gave the reason as being "because they are cheap."

 

My response: "That's not necessarily true, especially if the service might be overpriced for the value."

 

It wasn't a general comment about consumerism. It was a response to your reasoning. I didn't say you were wrong: you are mostly right (and I don't disagree with ANY of this post of yours I'm quoting here.)

 

But you didn't cover the flip side of that, which is MAYBE CGC is overpriced (in some areas), and that was the reason for the outcry when they raised fees. It was not *NECESSARILY* because the consumers are "thrifty" or "cheap" (and they ARE and CAN be!), but also perhaps because CGC doesn't provide *enough* value for the price.

 

If I sell dairy cow milk, and price it at $49 a gallon, are my customers "cheap" because they won't pay that? Or am I overpricing my product? In this case, I'm overpricing my product, which is what I suggest CGC is doing.

 

Come on, Roy, you gotta read what I'm saying!

 

 

 

[mysterio]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

People used to think I was a shill. It's hard to shake an accusation, man.

How do you prove a negative?

 

You prove it by posting so much on this account that there would be no time for you to post on the other account(s). Thus, there is no point.

[MatterEaterLad]

The label changed color; the number on the label did a little two step; the page quality is schizophrenic.

 

No consistency in grade, page quality, or the results of the resto check. Mistakes happen, the graders are human, yadda, yadda, yadda; I get it. The problem is, when you consider these inconsistencies in the context of a market that values one grade increment over another to such a degree that the time, expense and risk involved in resubmitting books is more often than not worthwhile, and thus profitable, it becomes clear that this entire segment of the hobby has jumped the shark.

 

You are taking isolated incidents and extrapolating them like it's common place. It isn't.

 

How do you know it's not more common? How does anyone?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Speaking of quality over price...I have begun to buy organic food, which is, as those of you who buy it know, much more expensive, generally, than "regular" food.

 

But...when you consider the poison that we all ingest on a daily basis, especially in the face of genetic modification, and the fact that the "real" price of unfiddled with food is much higher than what we pay, it begins to look like a bargain.

 

[VintageComics]

But you didn't cover the flip side of that, which is MAYBE CGC is overpriced (in some areas), and that was the reason for the outcry when they raised fees. It was not *NECESSARILY* because the consumers are "thrifty" or "cheap", but also perhaps because CGC doesn't provide *enough* value for the price.

 

If I sell dairy cow milk, and price it at $49 a gallon, are my customers "cheap" because they won't pay that? Or am I overpricing my product? In this case, I'm overpricing my product, which is what I suggest CGC is doing.

 

Come on, Roy, you gotta read what I'm saying!

 

 

 

Fair comment. I didn't even weigh the variables when CGC raised prices because as a consumer of their product, whether I pay $125 or $150 for a $3000 walk through makes relatively little difference to me but I can see your point of view though and raising prices on cheaper tiers can make using their other services challenging for some markets.

 

It's probably why many dealers are starting to move cheaper books raw with tight grading. They don't need to invest the money.

 

Thanks for explaining.

 

[shadroch]

Because it's not a "screw up."

 

It's an opinion, of *this* book, at *this* time, on *this* day.

 

And yes, you're perfectly right: a 9.6 and 9.8 can often be interchangeable.

 

There are books that are definitive 9.6 and 9.8.

 

The problem is that there is no 9.7 grade. I have seen thousands of books that "in my mind" I call a 9.7 and decide if I should give it a 9.6 or 9.8 depending on certain factors, one factor being "Will this book look like a 9.6 or a 9.8 in a holder".

 

You also can't have a 9.1, 9.3, 9.5 or 9.7 grade in the scale, as it would make it even more difficult to be a consistent grader.

 

PQ can change depending on the lighting. I had more trouble with PQ at onsite grading than I did sitting at my grading desk in an office.

 

 

 

hings would have been so much easier if CGC had used one hundred points instead of basing it on ten points. Coins use a seventy point grading system. Why did CGC decide not to go that route.

[VintageComics]

The label changed color; the number on the label did a little two step; the page quality is schizophrenic.

 

No consistency in grade, page quality, or the results of the resto check. Mistakes happen, the graders are human, yadda, yadda, yadda; I get it. The problem is, when you consider these inconsistencies in the context of a market that values one grade increment over another to such a degree that the time, expense and risk involved in resubmitting books is more often than not worthwhile, and thus profitable, it becomes clear that this entire segment of the hobby has jumped the shark.

 

You are taking isolated incidents and extrapolating them like it's common place. It isn't.

 

How do you know it's not more common? How does anyone?

 

As I've always said, I'm commenting based on my own sample size, which is usually a few 1000 comics a year.

 

Some regrades, some raw, some resubmissions. Not scientific by any means.

 

Gotta go for now. Dinner calls!

[kav]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

People used to think I was a shill. It's hard to shake an accusation, man.

How do you prove a negative?

 

You prove it by posting so much on this account that there would be no time for you to post on the other account(s). Thus, there is no point.

Well they were saying I was someone from the past and wasn't concurrently posting but more an 'I'm back' type of situation....

[Prince Namor]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

 

I don't think he is either.

 

There's a zillion people that are 'tight' with CGC but that doesn't mean they are all going to lie when confronted about something.

 

Vendettas on this forum are a cancer.

 

Exactly.

[N/A]

The

 

*** You are ignoring this user ***

Toggle the display of this post

 

are coming out of the word work. While I'd love to open it and bask in its wisdom, pass

 

You're not really ignoring a user if you're still commenting on them. (thumbs u

[MatterEaterLad]

I agree with Dan in thinking that the book probably isn't trimmed. It came back blue twice, purple once, and now declared purple sight unseen. Sounds like a total cover your move by CGC, which is disappointing.

 

 

[N/A]

 

There's nothing unusual about that.

 

 

 

That was my very simply and quick reply, its a little more complicated and trust me, he's a mod/in so tight with them might as well be one.

 

I am not going to dig it all back up, he had a bunch of information which only the mod I was debating with had.

 

He's NOT a mod. You're wrong.

 

I don't think he is either.

 

There's a zillion people that are 'tight' with CGC but that doesn't mean they are all going to lie when confronted about something.

 

Vendettas on this forum are a cancer.

 

Exactly.

 

So much for trying not to sidetrack, CBT.

[N/A]

Speaking of quality over price...I have begun to buy organic food, which is, as those of you who buy it know, much more expensive, generally, than "regular" food.

 

But...when you consider the poison that we all ingest on a daily basis, especially in the face of genetic modification, and the fact that the "real" price of unfiddled with food is much higher than what we pay, it begins to look like a bargain.

 

 

Organic is so confusing.

[mysterio]

But you didn't cover the flip side of that, which is MAYBE CGC is overpriced (in some areas), and that was the reason for the outcry when they raised fees. It was not *NECESSARILY* because the consumers are "thrifty" or "cheap", but also perhaps because CGC doesn't provide *enough* value for the price.

 

If I sell dairy cow milk, and price it at $49 a gallon, are my customers "cheap" because they won't pay that? Or am I overpricing my product? In this case, I'm overpricing my product, which is what I suggest CGC is doing.

 

Come on, Roy, you gotta read what I'm saying!

 

 

 

Fair comment. I didn't even weigh the variables when CGC raised prices because as a consumer of their product, whether I pay $125 or $150 for a $3000 walk through makes relatively little difference to me but I can see your point of view though and raising prices on cheaper tiers can make using their other services challenging for some markets.

 

It's probably why many dealers are starting to move cheaper books raw with tight grading. They don't need to invest the money.

 

Thanks for explaining.

 

 

How is this for a look at the cost of a CGC grade vs. the value.

 

For a book published in December, 1979, you can get it graded for $25 per book but only if you send in at least 15 of them for the value tier with a $150 max value per book. If you don't want to spend that minimum of $375 then you have to pay $35 per book. These are all without discounts, and all without fast tracking. Currently non-FT value or Economy takes roughly 3-4 months.

 

For a book published one month later, in January, 1980, one book can get graded for $7 less than the value tier ($17 less than economy, or roughly 50% of the cost of economy tier), you don't have to reach a minimum book threshold, and a modern can have a max value $50 higher than the value book and still qualify for this less expensive service. Oh, and modern books get turned around in roughly half the time of a value/economy book even without fast tracking.

 

So does that one month difference in publishing time really require that much of a difference in grading fees? If it did, I wouldn't do so much hand-wringing about whether or not to submit pre-1979 books for grading.