CGC Response on Suspected Ewert Books

[burntboy]

Tim;

 

What I am saying is that if it has gone through all of the checks and through everybody's hands and still comes out as untrimmed, why can't we simply accept the fact that the book is not trimmed. This is the best solution that we have at this point in time.

 

If you still insist that the book is trimmed even if it has been given a clean bill of health by everybody else and you also can't tell yourself, then this may not be the hobby that you should be pursuing as there's no point in collecting in fear.

 

Actually, I don't find that my line of reasoning is that tiresome since it appears to be quite similar to yours.

Okay, if that`s what you`re saying, then I agree with you. It`s just that from what you wrote I thought you were saying just the opposite.

 

Me too - i thought Dean was being tongue-in-cheek...

 

and I agree with the two of you that if CGC gives a resub a clean bill of health, that's about as good as it's gonna get... (thumbs u

[Transplant]

So what's the story morning glory? Will CGC comment any further or just figure that everyone will let the issue die again?

We still stand by this and it will be reposted as a sticky today. Why was it removed? Until books were sent in recently, CGC hadn’t been sent a single comic book purchased from Jason Ewert for review in over a year. This recent review submission was prompted because of the diligent attention of message board members, so we’re appreciative of these efforts.

Is this because CGC checks the cert # of every re-sub it gets or b/c someone questioned about whether their book was a Ewert sub?

Please email Harshen directly if you have concerns about specific books in your collection (hpatel@cgccomics.com). The list of submission numbers that have been compiled elsewhere is comprehensive, but also inaccurate. It is a list of books sold by Jason Ewert, not a list of those submitted by him. Only books submitted to CGC for certification by Ewert are eligible to be sent in for review. If you have a book on that list, contact Harshen and he will tell you if it should be reviewed.

 

Out of the number of books submitted by Jason Ewert that CGC has reviewed, the percentage found to be micro-trimmed is less than 10%.

 

1) Why won't CGC simply release a list of the cert #s for books that were submitted by Ewert?

2) Why doesn't CGC proactively contact registry members who have such a book?

3) Is anyone else troubled that the % of Ewert submitted books, which were trimmed, is close to 10%?

 

I am thankful CGC has at least addressed the questions raised for weeks now. But frankly, I think the answer is lacking.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

[Flaming_Telepath]

We seem to be missing something?

[Moondog]

Does CGC GUARANTEE their grading and restoration check (including trimming)?

 

Well, no.

 

Do they do their best deligence as any good company does? Yes.

 

As to micro-trimming, is it like the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The answer being yes. But, if a book is trimmed and no one can say for certain that it was or wasn't, does it matter?

 

Can a book be made at the factory that is not exactly the same as the book in front of it and behind it, on the assembly line. um, probably.

 

CGC does well, but they are humans. Sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. No one can tell me that they haven't bought a book that later turned out to not be what they thought they were buying. It is part of the hobby and part of life in general.

 

I think that CGC SHOULD be proactive in resolving this Ewert issue, more than they currently are. But, in the big scheme of things. Some of us are the fire hydrants on this one and that is that. Move on. If a book that you have is not easily detectable as having been trimmed, you ain't that bad off. If I buy a bar of gold and it weighs .09 less than the other guys bar of gold, am I going to be too upset if we paid the same for them? Nope.

 

Are not ya'll the ones who keep saying "buy what you like" and you will be happy with it, and not for investment? Or did I get that message wrong?

 

Just stirring the pot a little

 

cfreak:

 

Your post brings to the fore what worries me about this entire fiasco/scandal: because trimming (let's not call it micro-trimming please - trimming is trimming) may be too difficult to detect easily and quickly (read: cheaply enough) let's try to diminish its importance.

 

I believe that CGC is taking this approach to the problem. By saying that trimming is hard to detect, and that a book you have MAY be trimmed, they are in effect saying that trimming isn't as big a problem that many of us are making it out to be.

 

They've already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it. Let's not add trimming to this list.

 

In an earlier post Buttock said:

 

I have huge issues with this whole situation, primarily re: CGCs ability or inability to reliably detect trimming.

 

Most of the focus has been on whether or not they can detect it, and how hard it is to detect it. But what about mis-detection - i.e. calling a book trimmed when it isn't?

 

This push to have them all evaluated is operating on the assumption that it can (a) be detected with some degree of certainty, and (b) that this detection is valid.

 

Neither of those two points have been established, and I don't see them being established. Until they are, every Ewert book remains suspect regardless of what CGC says. Any "clearance" by CGC is a false security blanket.

 

Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

 

[buttock]

Does CGC GUARANTEE their grading and restoration check (including trimming)?

 

Well, no.

 

Do they do their best deligence as any good company does? Yes.

 

As to micro-trimming, is it like the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The answer being yes. But, if a book is trimmed and no one can say for certain that it was or wasn't, does it matter?

 

Can a book be made at the factory that is not exactly the same as the book in front of it and behind it, on the assembly line. um, probably.

 

CGC does well, but they are humans. Sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. No one can tell me that they haven't bought a book that later turned out to not be what they thought they were buying. It is part of the hobby and part of life in general.

 

I think that CGC SHOULD be proactive in resolving this Ewert issue, more than they currently are. But, in the big scheme of things. Some of us are the fire hydrants on this one and that is that. Move on. If a book that you have is not easily detectable as having been trimmed, you ain't that bad off. If I buy a bar of gold and it weighs .09 less than the other guys bar of gold, am I going to be too upset if we paid the same for them? Nope.

 

Are not ya'll the ones who keep saying "buy what you like" and you will be happy with it, and not for investment? Or did I get that message wrong?

 

Just stirring the pot a little

 

cfreak:

 

Your post brings to the fore what worries me about this entire fiasco/scandal: because trimming (let's not call it micro-trimming please - trimming is trimming) may be too difficult to detect easily and quickly (read: cheaply enough) let's try to diminish its importance.

 

I believe that CGC is taking this approach to the problem. By saying that trimming is hard to detect, and that a book you have MAY be trimmed, they are in effect saying that trimming isn't as big a problem that many of us are making it out to be.

 

They've already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it. Let's not add trimming to this list.

 

In an earlier post Buttock said:

 

I have huge issues with this whole situation, primarily re: CGCs ability or inability to reliably detect trimming.

 

Most of the focus has been on whether or not they can detect it, and how hard it is to detect it. But what about mis-detection - i.e. calling a book trimmed when it isn't?

 

This push to have them all evaluated is operating on the assumption that it can (a) be detected with some degree of certainty, and (b) that this detection is valid.

 

Neither of those two points have been established, and I don't see them being established. Until they are, every Ewert book remains suspect regardless of what CGC says. Any "clearance" by CGC is a false security blanket.

 

Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

 

Gary, I'm not sure that's something that's realistic. My point wasn't to criticize CGC, but rather to say that their "certification" needs to be taken at face value and not as gospel. Therefore, all of the Ewert books are suspect regardless of whether they have been cleared by CGC or not.

 

CGC is in a bad situation here. They've been presented with something that they clearly can't reliably identify. I'm not sure what their responsibility is here. Someone played the game better than them (or anyone else for that matter) and they have tried to take some of the blame for that. I'm not sure the blame lies with them.

 

On one hand, they were offering a service and that service proved flawed. On the other hand, they were gamed - and in a manner that was realistically beyond their control.

 

So I guess I'd sum things up as:

1) CGC and others got taken

2) CGC made a good-faith effort to try and rectify things

3) despite said effort:

(a) they still can't reliably detect trimming

(b) some people will chose not to have their books checked

© some people have no idea this problem exists

 

I'm not sure what bringing this up over and over again is going to accomplish. What is a reasonable time frame for CGC to have provided the owners of these books? It's been several years now since this broke, and (according to CGC) they had no inquiries for a year.

 

 

[MrBedrock]

They've (CGC) already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it.

Gary, this is an incorrect assessment. CGC did not succeed in getting pressing accepted. Many folks accepted pressing completely independant of, and prior to, anything CGC (or any other group for that matter) has said on the issue.

So to say CGC is the reason pressing is accepted is erroneous.

[Moondog]

Does CGC GUARANTEE their grading and restoration check (including trimming)?

 

Well, no.

 

Do they do their best deligence as any good company does? Yes.

 

As to micro-trimming, is it like the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The answer being yes. But, if a book is trimmed and no one can say for certain that it was or wasn't, does it matter?

 

Can a book be made at the factory that is not exactly the same as the book in front of it and behind it, on the assembly line. um, probably.

 

CGC does well, but they are humans. Sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. No one can tell me that they haven't bought a book that later turned out to not be what they thought they were buying. It is part of the hobby and part of life in general.

 

 

 

 

I think that CGC SHOULD be proactive in resolving this Ewert issue, more than they currently are. But, in the big scheme of things. Some of us are the fire hydrants on this one and that is that. Move on. If a book that you have is not easily detectable as having been trimmed, you ain't that bad off. If I buy a bar of gold and it weighs .09 less than the other guys bar of gold, am I going to be too upset if we paid the same for them? Nope.

 

Are not ya'll the ones who keep saying "buy what you like" and you will be happy with it, and not for investment? Or did I get that message wrong?

 

Just stirring the pot a little

 

cfreak:

 

Your post brings to the fore what worries me about this entire fiasco/scandal: because trimming (let's not call it micro-trimming please - trimming is trimming) may be too difficult to detect easily and quickly (read: cheaply enough) let's try to diminish its importance.

 

I believe that CGC is taking this approach to the problem. By saying that trimming is hard to detect, and that a book you have MAY be trimmed, they are in effect saying that trimming isn't as big a problem that many of us are making it out to be.

 

They've already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it. Let's not add trimming to this list.

 

In an earlier post Buttock said:

 

I have huge issues with this whole situation, primarily re: CGCs ability or inability to reliably detect trimming.

 

Most of the focus has been on whether or not they can detect it, and how hard it is to detect it. But what about mis-detection - i.e. calling a book trimmed when it isn't?

 

This push to have them all evaluated is operating on the assumption that it can (a) be detected with some degree of certainty, and (b) that this detection is valid.

 

Neither of those two points have been established, and I don't see them being established. Until they are, every Ewert book remains suspect regardless of what CGC says. Any "clearance" by CGC is a false security blanket.

 

Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

 

Gary, I'm not sure that's something that's realistic. My point wasn't to criticize CGC, but rather to say that their "certification" needs to be taken at face value and not as gospel. Therefore, all of the Ewert books are suspect regardless of whether they have been cleared by CGC or not.

 

CGC is in a bad situation here. They've been presented with something that they clearly can't reliably identify. I'm not sure what their responsibility is here. Someone played the game better than them (or anyone else for that matter) and they have tried to take some of the blame for that. I'm not sure the blame lies with them.

 

On one hand, they were offering a service and that service proved flawed. On the other hand, they were gamed - and in a manner that was realistically beyond their control.

 

So I guess I'd sum things up as:

1) CGC and others got taken

2) CGC made a good-faith effort to try and rectify things

3) despite said effort:

(a) they still can't reliably detect trimming

(b) some people will chose not to have their books checked

© some people have no idea this problem exists

 

I'm not sure what bringing this up over and over again is going to accomplish. What is a reasonable time frame for CGC to have provided the owners of these books? It's been several years now since this broke, and (according to CGC) they had no inquiries for a year.

 

 

A very reasonably stated assessment, and maybe I was too harsh in my criticism, but it's extremely frustrating for me to see them stonewalling on the Ewert list and trimming in general.

 

If manipulation can't be detected by the means available - then it's not a problem just doesn't fly with me. It's a slippery slope for sure.

[Moondog]

They've (CGC) already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it.

Gary, this is an incorrect assessment. CGC did not succeed in getting pressing accepted. Many folks accepted pressing completely independant of, and prior to, anything CGC (or any other group for that matter) has said on the issue.

So to say CGC is the reason pressing is accepted is erroneous.

 

When did Overstreet change its definition of restoration, Richard? Before or after CGC came into existence? You know the answer.

 

Certainly some of us (including me) accepted pressing long ago, but many collectors didn't. CGC's saying pressing wasn't resto - and Overstreet affirming this by changing their standards - have led to an acceptance of pressing by most of the collecting community.

[Ze-man]

Does CGC GUARANTEE their grading and restoration check (including trimming)?

 

Well, no.

 

Do they do their best deligence as any good company does? Yes.

 

As to micro-trimming, is it like the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The answer being yes. But, if a book is trimmed and no one can say for certain that it was or wasn't, does it matter?

 

Can a book be made at the factory that is not exactly the same as the book in front of it and behind it, on the assembly line. um, probably.

 

CGC does well, but they are humans. Sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. No one can tell me that they haven't bought a book that later turned out to not be what they thought they were buying. It is part of the hobby and part of life in general.

 

I think that CGC SHOULD be proactive in resolving this Ewert issue, more than they currently are. But, in the big scheme of things. Some of us are the fire hydrants on this one and that is that. Move on. If a book that you have is not easily detectable as having been trimmed, you ain't that bad off. If I buy a bar of gold and it weighs .09 less than the other guys bar of gold, am I going to be too upset if we paid the same for them? Nope.

 

Are not ya'll the ones who keep saying "buy what you like" and you will be happy with it, and not for investment? Or did I get that message wrong?

 

Just stirring the pot a little

 

cfreak:

 

Your post brings to the fore what worries me about this entire fiasco/scandal: because trimming (let's not call it micro-trimming please - trimming is trimming) may be too difficult to detect easily and quickly (read: cheaply enough) let's try to diminish its importance. Yes Gary, trimming is trimming but detecting micro trimming compared to whole edge trimming is apples and oranges. CGC might want to minimize their blunder, or their ability to detect it, but I dont see them minimizing trimming itself.

 

I believe that CGC is taking this approach to the problem. By saying that trimming is hard to detect, and that a book you have MAY be trimmed, they are in effect saying that trimming isn't as big a problem that many of us are making it out to be.

Well you are free to interpret it how you want to, I dont read that much into it.

 

They've already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it. Let's not add trimming to this list.

Do you think pressing isn't resto because CGC said so, or because like most here you formed your own opinion based on what you read? Can you detect pressing Gary? Would you label a book as pressed if you "thought it was"? Who would? Trimming is not pressing because you can point out aspects of a book that show a book to be trimmed, but there are a multitude of reasons why a book "might" appear to be trimmed or pressed but in actuality might not be either. And that to me is the rub,trimming can be isolated, where as detecting pressing is more speculative due to a variety of reasons.

 

In an earlier post Buttock said:

 

I have huge issues with this whole situation, primarily re: CGCs ability or inability to reliably detect trimming.

 

Most of the focus has been on whether or not they can detect it, and how hard it is to detect it. But what about mis-detection - i.e. calling a book trimmed when it isn't?

 

This push to have them all evaluated is operating on the assumption that it can (a) be detected with some degree of certainty, and (b) that this detection is valid.

 

Neither of those two points have been established, and I don't see them being established. Until they are, every Ewert book remains suspect regardless of what CGC says. Any "clearance" by CGC is a false security blanket.

 

Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

 

I agree, we do need more from CGC, but I would ask you who can detect all forms of manipulation 100% of the time? Nobody. Till then people can choose CGC if they want to, or Susan or Matt or whoever. But to throw out CGC with the bathwater does not make sense to me if you really do believe certification can be a good thing.

 

 

Sorry for all the blue type, I didnt know how else to address all you brought up.

 

You brought up a lot!

 

 

 

[Moondog]

Does CGC GUARANTEE their grading and restoration check (including trimming)?

 

Well, no.

 

Do they do their best deligence as any good company does? Yes.

 

As to micro-trimming, is it like the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The answer being yes. But, if a book is trimmed and no one can say for certain that it was or wasn't, does it matter?

 

Can a book be made at the factory that is not exactly the same as the book in front of it and behind it, on the assembly line. um, probably.

 

CGC does well, but they are humans. Sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. No one can tell me that they haven't bought a book that later turned out to not be what they thought they were buying. It is part of the hobby and part of life in general.

 

I think that CGC SHOULD be proactive in resolving this Ewert issue, more than they currently are. But, in the big scheme of things. Some of us are the fire hydrants on this one and that is that. Move on. If a book that you have is not easily detectable as having been trimmed, you ain't that bad off. If I buy a bar of gold and it weighs .09 less than the other guys bar of gold, am I going to be too upset if we paid the same for them? Nope.

 

Are not ya'll the ones who keep saying "buy what you like" and you will be happy with it, and not for investment? Or did I get that message wrong?

 

Just stirring the pot a little

 

cfreak:

 

Your post brings to the fore what worries me about this entire fiasco/scandal: because trimming (let's not call it micro-trimming please - trimming is trimming) may be too difficult to detect easily and quickly (read: cheaply enough) let's try to diminish its importance. Yes Gary, trimming is trimming but detecting micro trimming compared to whole edge trimming is apples and oranges. CGC might want to minimize their blunder, or their ability to detect it, but I dont see them minimizing trimming itself.

 

I believe that CGC is taking this approach to the problem. By saying that trimming is hard to detect, and that a book you have MAY be trimmed, they are in effect saying that trimming isn't as big a problem that many of us are making it out to be.

Well you are free to interpret it how you want to, I dont read that much into it.

 

They've already succeeded in getting pressing accepted by most here as non-restoration because they couldn't detect it. Let's not add trimming to this list.

Do you think pressing is resto because CGC said so, or because like most here you formed your own opinion based on what you read? Can you detect pressing Gary? Would you label a book as pressed if you "thought it was"? Who would? Trimming is not pressing because you can point out aspects of a book that show a book to be trimmed, but there are a multitude of reasons why a book "might" appear to be trimmed or pressed but in actuality might not be either. And that to me is the rub,trimming can be isolated, where as detecting pressing is more speculative due to a variety of reasons.

 

In an earlier post Buttock said:

 

I have huge issues with this whole situation, primarily re: CGCs ability or inability to reliably detect trimming.

 

Most of the focus has been on whether or not they can detect it, and how hard it is to detect it. But what about mis-detection - i.e. calling a book trimmed when it isn't?

 

This push to have them all evaluated is operating on the assumption that it can (a) be detected with some degree of certainty, and (b) that this detection is valid.

 

Neither of those two points have been established, and I don't see them being established. Until they are, every Ewert book remains suspect regardless of what CGC says. Any "clearance" by CGC is a false security blanket.

 

Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

 

I agree, we do need more from CGC, but I would ask you who can detect all forms of manipulation 100% of the time? Nobody. Till then people can choose CGC if they want to, or Susan or Matt or whoever. But to throw out CGC with the bathwater does not make sense to me if you really do believe certification can be a good thing.

 

 

Sorry for all the blue type, I didnt know how else to address all you brought up.

 

You brought up a lot!

 

 

 

Hi Kenny,

 

I've got no problem with pressing - I've been upfront about that for years, but the pattern is the same to me. The inability for CGC to detect pressing - when it was restoration according to Overstreet - led to its becoming accepted . I just don't want to see that happen with trimming. It's a destructive procedure pure and simple.

[MCMiles]

 

Clearly this is the heart of the matter. We need more from CGC than what they've given us. Until I have my confidence restored in their ability to detect all forms of manipulation - their slab means nothing to me anymore.

 

I can't say I like the fact that there may be an inability to detect all forms of trimming.

 

However, I'll still take CGC over the alternative, and I'm not talking about their competition. I'm talking about buying from good ole boy BSDs. Many of which haven't improved their grading skills since the 1970s, much less their ability to detect restoration. A lot of them may have even been some of the first to butcher comics in order to manipulate the grade. The best case scenario is being very limited to a handful of people that actually have the ability and will take the time required to detect most restoration successfully.

 

What is the better alternative? A least CGC is some what of a deterrent. There is obviously a certain amount of risk involved for a person that would trim a book. If it gets detected and receives a plod, it is a complete loss. Depending solely on the ability of most dealers and collectors out there, there is just about no deterrent.

[Ze-man]

 

Hi Kenny,

 

I've got no problem with pressing - I've been upfront about that for years, but the pattern is the same to me. The inability for CGC to detect pressing - when it was restoration according to Overstreet - led to its becoming accepted . I just don't want to see that happen with trimming. It's a destructive procedure pure and simple.

 

I don't think anyone here will argue that "trimming is ok" Gary. If CGC decides someday trimming is not destructive I will march outside their office and throw eggs at Pauls window.

 

Night

 

 

[1koko]

 

Hi Kenny,

 

I've got no problem with pressing - I've been upfront about that for years, but the pattern is the same to me. The inability for CGC to detect pressing - when it was restoration according to Overstreet - led to its becoming accepted . I just don't want to see that happen with trimming. It's a destructive procedure pure and simple.

 

I don't think anyone here will argue the "trimming is ok" point Gary. If CGC decides someday trimming is ok I will march outside their office and throw eggs at Pauls window.

 

Night

 

 

 

A key issue is the market's perception of what a comic is if it has a blue label (assumed unrestored) or a purple label (restored).

 

 

 

The fact that:

 

1. CGC calls a blue labelled book "Universal" rather than "Unrestored"

 

2. Universal graded books can have some restoration (minor amounts of color touch and glue)

 

3. Disclaimer on back of label notes that they only note restoration that they have detected not all that may have been done to the book

 

should have highlighted the issue.

 

In fact a CGC graded book only really notes the amount of restoration that CGC has detected.

 

I view trimming and pressing to be a form of restoration but with differing levels of enhancement and when spending money on books I have to determine cost impacts of buying a book that is less valuable than my cost due to me making an uninformed purchase.

 

Why do I buy Universal graded books?

 

- CGC are better at detecting restoration than I am

 

- not all sellers of books disclose work that they know has been done on a book

 

 

Solution:

 

More education of the collecting public as a whole (including me).

 

Teach restoration detection to collectors (session I attended in Chicago 08 was too generic due to the amount of types covered)

 

Improve ways of identifying restoration. CGC or NOD or anyone else should reverse engineer how (micro) trimming is done and devise a method to check for it. If it can't be detected then you have to live with the risk that it has occured and someone with a more informed position won't pay the same amount on a book than you have spent on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MCMiles]

George, this no place for a logical, and level headed post.

[kc120us]

 

Hi Kenny,

 

I've got no problem with pressing - I've been upfront about that for years, but the pattern is the same to me. The inability for CGC to detect pressing - when it was restoration according to Overstreet - led to its becoming accepted . I just don't want to see that happen with trimming. It's a destructive procedure pure and simple.

 

I don't think anyone here will argue the "trimming is ok" point Gary. If CGC decides someday trimming is ok I will march outside their office and throw eggs at Pauls window.

 

Night

 

 

 

A key issue is the market's perception of what a comic is if it has a blue label (assumed unrestored) or a purple label (restored).

 

 

 

The fact that:

 

1. CGC calls a blue labelled book "Universal" rather than "Unrestored"

 

2. Universal graded books can have some restoration (minor amounts of color touch and glue)

 

3. Disclaimer on back of label notes that they only note restoration that they have detected not alll that may have been done to the book

 

should have highlighted the issue.

 

In fact a CGC garded book only really notes the amount of restoration that CGC has detected.

 

I view trimming and pressing to be a form of restoration but wiith differing levels of enhacement and when spending money on books I have to determine cost impacts of buying a book that is less valuable than my cost due to me making an uninformed purchase.

 

Why do I buy Universal graded books?

 

- CGC are better at detecting restoration than I am

 

- not all sellers of books disclose work that they know has been done on a book

 

 

Solution:

 

More education of the collecting public as a whole (including me).

 

Teach restoration detection to collectors (session I attended in Chicago 08 was too generic due to the amount of types covered)

 

Improve ways of identifyying restoration. CGC or NOD or anyone else should reverse engineering how (micro) trimming is done and devise a method to check for it. If it can't be detected then you have to live with the risk that it has occured and someone with a more infoormed position won't pay the same amount on a book than you have spent on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said, George.

[1koko]

 

Well said, George.

 

Other than all the typos

[joeypost]

 

Hi Kenny,

 

I've got no problem with pressing - I've been upfront about that for years, but the pattern is the same to me. The inability for CGC to detect pressing - when it was restoration according to Overstreet - led to its becoming accepted . I just don't want to see that happen with trimming. It's a destructive procedure pure and simple.

 

I don't think anyone here will argue the "trimming is ok" point Gary. If CGC decides someday trimming is ok I will march outside their office and throw eggs at Pauls window.

 

Night

 

 

 

A key issue is the market's perception of what a comic is if it has a blue label (assumed unrestored) or a purple label (restored).

 

 

 

The fact that:

 

1. CGC calls a blue labelled book "Universal" rather than "Unrestored"

 

2. Universal graded books can have some restoration (minor amounts of color touch and glue)

 

3. Disclaimer on back of label notes that they only note restoration that they have detected not all that may have been done to the book

 

should have highlighted the issue.

 

In fact a CGC graded book only really notes the amount of restoration that CGC has detected.

 

I view trimming and pressing to be a form of restoration but with differing levels of enhancement and when spending money on books I have to determine cost impacts of buying a book that is less valuable than my cost due to me making an uninformed purchase.

 

Why do I buy Universal graded books?

 

- CGC are better at detecting restoration than I am

 

- not all sellers of books disclose work that they know has been done on a book

 

 

Solution:

 

More education of the collecting public as a whole (including me).

 

Teach restoration detection to collectors (session I attended in Chicago 08 was too generic due to the amount of types covered)

 

Improve ways of identifying restoration. CGC or NOD or anyone else should reverse engineer how (micro) trimming is done and devise a method to check for it. If it can't be detected then you have to live with the risk that it has occured and someone with a more informed position won't pay the same amount on a book than you have spent on it.

 

 

 

It would be nice if an organization existed that could put on seminars to educate people on what to look for regarding potential restoration when purchasing a book.

 

If that were to happen it would create less havok in the hobby and help keep posts from members like fatcomicmafia to a minimum.

 

To assume that any organization is going to run at 100% efficiency is absurd. Even the aviation industry who is well above 99.9999999999999% has the ocassional failure. Does that mean I will never get on another plane?

 

Instead of complaining (you know who you are) do something about it.

 

 

[Transplant]

Great points raised by some folks here. But they are not the point of this thread.

 

CGC has notified the community that they suspect someone who submitted books to them did so after trimming the books. They've acknowledged that some of the books trimmed and submitted received blue labels.

 

The point of this thread was to point out in the insufficiency and of CGC's response so far. Questions remain as to:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

This is not a thread to discuss whether CGC can detect all resto work or whether there is a better alternative or whether more education is needed for collectors. Discussing it here is OT and contributes to the idea that CGC can just ignore the reasonable questions posed to them.

[kc120us]

 

Well said, George.

 

Other than all the typos

 

It is the thought that counts. (thumbs u