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

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not understanding the logic either.

 

I acknowledge the "small town" tendencies in our hobby, which leads to people developing sentiment towards certain people/dealers. But the sentiment of "dealer X can't detect restoration" or "they don't grade consistently" might have been a gleaming feature of CGC's impartial grading, because it removes the personal brand tied to by ownership.

 

That once gleaming benefit however is eroding with this thread, and other threads which have demonstrated their inconsistency, and perceived inability to detect restoration.

 

To ask the naming of names of people who can do better is an unusual counter-argument, because people are buying into that dealers personal brand, they aren't expecting anything more than their honesty and some form of accountability to follow through on the assessment of grade, which has absolutely nothing to do with "paying" a third-party grading company to do their job, and the existence of a thread which reveals their inability to live up to their service claim.

[rjpb]

 

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.

 

Name names. WHO is more consistent? Not nebulous philosophical truisms. Exactly WHO am I supposed to trust to be more consistent?

 

trust yourself, don't rely on other companies or dealers to tell you what a grade is. If a book grades the way you feel comfortable with, pay the appropriate price.

 

While I fully agree with this, it is harder to do if the book is slabbed. Not just in hand, but frequently from images as well. I am pretty confident in my ability to grade from a decent scan, and a complete description of interior and hidden flaws, and don't go by a seller's grade but my own when buying on line. When I make a return, it's always based on issues not visible in the scans or photos.

 

On the other hand many sellers lack the ability to adequately scan or photograph slabbed books, and in those cases I often bid or offer a price below what I might if I had a better idea of what the book actually looked like, particularly if there is a no return on CGC books policy.

 

In either case it is definitely much harder to parse the subtle grade differences in high grade books (9.4 and up) via images, but even in hand, slabbed books are going to be bought as much on trust as what one's eyes can see.

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not talking about agreement with CGC, I'm talking about internal consistency.

 

This book (one of thousands we've seen here before) was a 6.0, then a 7.0, then a 6.0 again. It's not a one-off...it's part of a historical trend.

 

If I had graded that book on three separate occasions, I can guarantee you that it would not have shifted two points and then back again two points. Whether I had graded it a 6.0 or a 13.2 doesn't matter...it's whether I would have come up with the same results...or within a point...on three separate occasions.

 

Yes, we are talking about the same things. You just don't like my point of view. You are saying that, in your history of selling books, you would have graded every single book exactly the same or within one grade increment. Additionally you are saying that any other dealer would do the same thing and that CGC is the outlier and least consistent grader out there because they use multiple people instead of the same person.

 

I'm saying that you are wrong. It is clear that most vendors can't grade to save their and are so wildly inconsistent that you can't buy raw books without being concerned that the dealer is scamming you or just on crack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be complaining about the fools on ebay so much. I'm also saying that if you, or anyone else, graded 2,000,000 books and then went back and graded them a second time, there would be ample examples of you being off more than a single grade increment. You and all other vendors are not free from basic human mistakes.

[october]

CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

And I do put my grades on every book I sell...and I guarantee them to one point of variance if submitted to CGC.

 

Yes, guarantee.

 

Which is more of a guarantee than CGC's.

 

Don't you think it's kind of weird to say that CGC is inconsistent, then say that you guarantee your books to be within one point of that inconsistent grade? Why take returns based on a system you believe to be flawed?

 

For the record, I agree with you on CGC fluctuations...which is why I would never guarantee something like that.

[TheLiamSturgess]

 

If, in their opinion, the book is a 6.0, that book is NOT necessarily going to be a 6.0 by everyone's standards, including professionals who have been active longer than CGC.

 

If you send a book in and three of CGC's graders decide together on a 6.0 one day, then their honest opinion at that point in time is that it's a 6.0. If they say, "Hey, Paul, I'm pretty sure this one is restored." Paul says, "Yeah, I agree, but I can't be sure - I'm gonna check with a few more people," and they all agree (in their educated opinion) that it is trimmed, then the CGC designation will reflect that. Once again, that is just the company's opinion.

 

If they get the book on a different day and a different pregrader looks at it and evaluates the book using his experience and it seems to be non-trimmed and there isn't anything prompting him to look deeper or longer than any other book that gets submitted, then why would he? He passes the book on to the Primary Grader without a "trimmed" designation and the Primary Grader has no reason to dig deeper (unless he notices something the pregrader doesn't, which I'm sure happens from time to time). Then, it gets the blue label.

 

 

I can post scans in the Please Grade My section and get the same service; except there I'll have my answer within the hour.

 

You are mostly correct - it's not the same service because you only get to evaluate the front and back covers of the books, ignoring interior covers, pages, feel of the book, smell, et al.

 

That being said, you're STILL only requesting opinions, so if you prefer that service, use that instead of CGC.

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not understanding the logic either.

 

I acknowledge the "small town" tendencies in our hobby, which leads to people developing sentiment towards certain people/dealers. But the sentiment of "dealer X can't detect restoration" or "they don't grade consistently" might have been a gleaming feature of CGC's impartial grading, because it removes the personal brand tied to by ownership.

 

That once gleaming benefit however is eroding with this thread, and other threads which have demonstrated their inconsistency, and perceived inability to detect restoration.

 

To ask the naming of names of people who can do better is an unusual counter-argument, because people are buying into that dealers personal brand, they aren't expecting anything more than their honesty and some form of accountability to follow through on the assessment of grade, which has absolutely nothing to do with "paying" a third-party grading company to do their job, and the existence of a thread which reveals their inability to live up to their service claim.

 

Unusual because it puts you on the spot to support your beliefs? Yes, I can see how the denizens of Comics General might find that unusual.

[Flaming_Telepath]

 

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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not talking about agreement with CGC, I'm talking about internal consistency.

 

This book (one of thousands we've seen here before) was a 6.0, then a 7.0, then a 6.0 again. It's not a one-off...it's part of a historical trend.

 

If I had graded that book on three separate occasions, I can guarantee you that it would not have shifted two points and then back again two points. Whether I had graded it a 6.0 or a 13.2 doesn't matter...it's whether I would have come up with the same results...or within a point...on three separate occasions.

 

Yes, we are talking about the same things. You just don't like my point of view. You are saying that, in your history of selling books, you would have graded every single book exactly the same or within one grade increment. Additionally you are saying that any other dealer would do the same thing and that CGC is the outlier and least consistent grader out there because they use multiple people instead of the same person.

 

I'm saying that you are wrong. It is clear that most vendors can't grade to save their and are so wildly inconsistent that you can't buy raw books without being concerned that the dealer is scamming you or just on crack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be complaining about the fools on ebay so much. I'm also saying that if you, or anyone else, graded 2,000,000 books and then went back and graded them a second time, there would be ample examples of you being off more than a single grade increment. You and all other vendors are not free from basic human mistakes.

 

Whether the dealer can grade in accordance with accepted standards is not the issue. Whether he grades consistently to his own weird and wonderful standards is, so the eBay analogy is irrelevant.

 

Not every dealer does this, but I can name dozens of people who grade consistently to their own standards. As somebody has already pointed out, CGC's phalanx of ever-changing staff is a variable that is counter-productive when looking for consistency. I would also add that seasonal changes in workload and time constraints is another variable rocking the consistency boat. To suggest otherwise is 'one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread'.

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

And I do put my grades on every book I sell...and I guarantee them to one point of variance if submitted to CGC.

 

Yes, guarantee.

 

Which is more of a guarantee than CGC's.

 

Don't you think it's kind of weird to say that CGC is inconsistent, then say that you guarantee your books to be within one point of that inconsistent grade? Why take returns based on a system you believe to be flawed?

 

For the record, I agree with you on CGC fluctuations...which is why I would never guarantee something like that.

 

Why would I offer a guarantee based on a system I think is flawed?

 

Because a lot of my customers don't necessarily have the same viewpoint and I'd rather make them feel comfortable and confident than argue the toss with them.

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not talking about agreement with CGC, I'm talking about internal consistency.

 

This book (one of thousands we've seen here before) was a 6.0, then a 7.0, then a 6.0 again. It's not a one-off...it's part of a historical trend.

 

If I had graded that book on three separate occasions, I can guarantee you that it would not have shifted two points and then back again two points. Whether I had graded it a 6.0 or a 13.2 doesn't matter...it's whether I would have come up with the same results...or within a point...on three separate occasions.

 

Yes, we are talking about the same things. You just don't like my point of view. You are saying that, in your history of selling books, you would have graded every single book exactly the same or within one grade increment. Additionally you are saying that any other dealer would do the same thing and that CGC is the outlier and least consistent grader out there because they use multiple people instead of the same person.

 

I'm saying that you are wrong. It is clear that most vendors can't grade to save their and are so wildly inconsistent that you can't buy raw books without being concerned that the dealer is scamming you or just on crack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be complaining about the fools on ebay so much. I'm also saying that if you, or anyone else, graded 2,000,000 books and then went back and graded them a second time, there would be ample examples of you being off more than a single grade increment. You and all other vendors are not free from basic human mistakes.

 

Whether the dealer can grade in accordance with accepted standards is not the issue. Whether he grades consistently to his own weird and wonderful standards is, so the eBay analogy is irrelevant.

 

Not every dealer does this, but I can name dozens of people who grade consistently to their own standards. As somebody has already pointed out, CGC's phalanx of ever-changing staff is a variable that is counter-productive when looking for consistency. I would also add that seasonal changes in workload and time constraints is another variable rocking the consistency boat. To suggest otherwise is 'one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread'.

 

Then, please, do so. I personally think you are just blowing at this point.

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not understanding the logic either.

 

I acknowledge the "small town" tendencies in our hobby, which leads to people developing sentiment towards certain people/dealers. But the sentiment of "dealer X can't detect restoration" or "they don't grade consistently" might have been a gleaming feature of CGC's impartial grading, because it removes the personal brand tied to by ownership.

 

That once gleaming benefit however is eroding with this thread, and other threads which have demonstrated their inconsistency, and perceived inability to detect restoration.

 

To ask the naming of names of people who can do better is an unusual counter-argument, because people are buying into that dealers personal brand, they aren't expecting anything more than their honesty and some form of accountability to follow through on the assessment of grade, which has absolutely nothing to do with "paying" a third-party grading company to do their job, and the existence of a thread which reveals their inability to live up to their service claim.

 

Unusual because it puts you on the spot to support your beliefs? Yes, I can see how the denizens of Comics General might find that unusual.

 

No its unusual because of what I've already stated. I've already given you my explanation of why I see your counter-argument as being unusual, and misdirection at best. If you want to use this thread to throw dealers under the bus because of CGC's mistakes, that's your right, but I'm calling it for what it is. And please, don't stop at making blanket statements of dealers inconsistencies by merely soliciting others for names - do a roll-call yourself so at least we can see some validity in your own beliefs and claims.

[Bropper]

 

i'd bet $1,000. that if i resubbed my 3 books that i think are questionably touched, at least one would come back blue

 

This scares me. It appears CGC is going to be bombarded with resubmitted

PLOD's, trying to slip it past them, and then come on here and say 'I told you so'. I hope all of you waste a lot of money and still get the PLOD and a lower grade.

CGC, if you are listening, to put a stop to all this nonsense I would start grading tight, tight, tight. Let the resubs take a beating and slow this train down for a while.

 

I would think having a system in place to really check any books submitted from the top 100 Golden Age, top 50 Silver Age and Top 20 Bronze Age get compared to scans of previously graded comics in similar grade. Or maybe all comics worth $5,000 or more. With the technology today it shouldn't be that difficult or time consuming, should it? Maybe have a hit list using census data of books that have a high number of restored copies that get extra scrutiny. Something like that might help with consistency.

 

May biggest issues are with the ability or lack thereof to detect restoration and what is or is not being done to address the problem.

 

I would also like to know who submitted the book the last time and get their side. Or at least I would like to know if this is a high volume CGC customer or someone that just submits a few comics to be graded. Taking a risk of getting a high value comic downgraded to become less valuable seems like something that a person who has only submitted a few comics to CGC would NOT do. Big risk to roll the dice unless you are fairly sure of the outcome before you do it.

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not understanding the logic either.

 

I acknowledge the "small town" tendencies in our hobby, which leads to people developing sentiment towards certain people/dealers. But the sentiment of "dealer X can't detect restoration" or "they don't grade consistently" might have been a gleaming feature of CGC's impartial grading, because it removes the personal brand tied to by ownership.

 

That once gleaming benefit however is eroding with this thread, and other threads which have demonstrated their inconsistency, and perceived inability to detect restoration.

 

To ask the naming of names of people who can do better is an unusual counter-argument, because people are buying into that dealers personal brand, they aren't expecting anything more than their honesty and some form of accountability to follow through on the assessment of grade, which has absolutely nothing to do with "paying" a third-party grading company to do their job, and the existence of a thread which reveals their inability to live up to their service claim.

 

Unusual because it puts you on the spot to support your beliefs? Yes, I can see how the denizens of Comics General might find that unusual.

 

No its unusual because of what I've already stated. I've already given you my explanation of why I see your counter-argument as being unusual, and misdirection at best. If you want to use this thread to throw dealers under the bus because of CGC's mistakes, that's your right, but I'm calling it for what it is.

 

Me. too. Cowardice.

[rjpb]

CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

And I do put my grades on every book I sell...and I guarantee them to one point of variance if submitted to CGC.

 

Yes, guarantee.

 

Which is more of a guarantee than CGC's.

 

Don't you think it's kind of weird to say that CGC is inconsistent, then say that you guarantee your books to be within one point of that inconsistent grade? Why take returns based on a system you believe to be flawed?

 

For the record, I agree with you on CGC fluctuations...which is why I would never guarantee something like that.

 

Why would I offer a guarantee based on a system I think is flawed?

 

Because a lot of my customers don't necessarily have the same viewpoint and I'd rather make them feel comfortable and confident than argue the toss with them.

 

I see the logic in this, especially as most customers likely won't even put it to the test, and even if they do they're not going to complain if CGC comes back more than one point higher. Also one point is two grades if I understand correctly, and if one has any sense of CGCs grading, one is likely to come within a point more than 95% of the time. I'm probably that consistent just based on scans in the guess the grade thread.

[october]

CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

And I do put my grades on every book I sell...and I guarantee them to one point of variance if submitted to CGC.

 

Yes, guarantee.

 

Which is more of a guarantee than CGC's.

 

Don't you think it's kind of weird to say that CGC is inconsistent, then say that you guarantee your books to be within one point of that inconsistent grade? Why take returns based on a system you believe to be flawed?

 

For the record, I agree with you on CGC fluctuations...which is why I would never guarantee something like that.

 

Why would I offer a guarantee based on a system I think is flawed?

 

Because a lot of my customers don't necessarily have the same viewpoint and I'd rather make them feel comfortable and confident than argue the toss with them.

 

You spend a good amount of time on here blasting CGC, I would think you would relish the opportunity.

[Flaming_Telepath]

What, precisely, is 'cowardice'?

 

And why are you so upset?

 

Honestly confused...

[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.

 

It's 100% true and I stand behind it.

 

Send your books to CGC over the years and they get 'graded' by dozens of different people, working under differing time pressures, during show season or slow season, under changing guidelines and you get a mishmash of grades. The proof is right in front of our very eyes and has been for many years.

 

On the other hand, you have books graded by the same dealer, using the same internal guidelines/preferences, and you are sure to have greater consistency.

 

As I said, I'm not talking about accuracy here...just consistency.

 

Name names, Nick. Or maybe you should grade 100 randomly selected books then send them off to CGC for grading. Then we can have a grading contest and people can compare consistency for themselves. CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

Are we talking about totally different things here, or what?

 

I'm not understanding the logic either.

 

I acknowledge the "small town" tendencies in our hobby, which leads to people developing sentiment towards certain people/dealers. But the sentiment of "dealer X can't detect restoration" or "they don't grade consistently" might have been a gleaming feature of CGC's impartial grading, because it removes the personal brand tied to by ownership.

 

That once gleaming benefit however is eroding with this thread, and other threads which have demonstrated their inconsistency, and perceived inability to detect restoration.

 

To ask the naming of names of people who can do better is an unusual counter-argument, because people are buying into that dealers personal brand, they aren't expecting anything more than their honesty and some form of accountability to follow through on the assessment of grade, which has absolutely nothing to do with "paying" a third-party grading company to do their job, and the existence of a thread which reveals their inability to live up to their service claim.

 

Unusual because it puts you on the spot to support your beliefs? Yes, I can see how the denizens of Comics General might find that unusual.

 

No its unusual because of what I've already stated. I've already given you my explanation of why I see your counter-argument as being unusual, and misdirection at best. If you want to use this thread to throw dealers under the bus because of CGC's mistakes, that's your right, but I'm calling it for what it is.

 

Me. too. Cowardice.

 

I've given you at least three names of people I'd have no problem buying from.

 

These are people who habitually either undergrade or are spot on, which is a practice CGC knows nothing about.

 

I know how you give it by putting people on the spot with your misdirection - lets see how you handle it when it's thrown back at you.

 

Name names.

[quicksilver]

Personally, I think I'll stick with evaluating my own books and paying a fraction of the cost of the CGC equivalent to get them.

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

CGC puts their grades on every book that goes through their office. It shouldn't be too daunting for you and a few other vendors to do the same.

 

And I do put my grades on every book I sell...and I guarantee them to one point of variance if submitted to CGC.

 

Yes, guarantee.

 

Which is more of a guarantee than CGC's.

 

Don't you think it's kind of weird to say that CGC is inconsistent, then say that you guarantee your books to be within one point of that inconsistent grade? Why take returns based on a system you believe to be flawed?

 

For the record, I agree with you on CGC fluctuations...which is why I would never guarantee something like that.

 

Why would I offer a guarantee based on a system I think is flawed?

 

Because a lot of my customers don't necessarily have the same viewpoint and I'd rather make them feel comfortable and confident than argue the toss with them.

 

I see the logic in this, especially as most customers likely won't even put it to the test, and even if they do they're not going to complain if CGC comes back more than one point higher. Also one point is two grades if I understand correctly, and if one has any sense of CGCs grading, one is likely to come within a point more than 95% of the time. I'm probably that consistent just based on scans in the guess the grade thread.

 

No, one point is one grade...the difference between a 8.0 and an 8.5, or a 9.2 and a 9.4.

[october]

Cheetah already named names, in a very interesting and informative golden age thread.

[chrisco37]

Cheetah already named names, in a very interesting and informative golden age thread.

 

That was a good thread.