Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[mschmidt]

I'm not sure if it's because of my past involvement in threads like this, or my tell it like it is approach, but I have had a handful of people approach me in strict confidence that they have had resubbed/CPR'd books once sitting in a blue label, flagged for trimming.

 

My word to them that I would not reveal names or situations means more than making such revelations public. My guess though is that people doing pro CPR wouldn't dismiss what I'm stating to be fact based on their own experiences handling submissions to CGC on behalf of clients.

 

I also don't think it's necessary to split hairs in such instances to determine whether they were micro or plain "trimmed." What's essential to mention is that in at least two cases, I was informed CGC put up a fuss and didn't want to offer restitution for their mistakes until the discussion path veered in the direction of publicly outing their slip-up.

 

How often this happens, I'm not sure. But the fact that CGC missed trimming is telling enough for me to believe they can't consistently detect certain manipulative techniques.

 

I'm not following you here ... are you saying that in at least two cases blue label books were resubbed and then came back with a trimmed notation & purple label?

 

More than two, and yes.

 

Which means that CGC isn't "missing trimming", but they're actually erring on the side of caution when it comes to detecting trimming ... which I'm personally ok with :shrug:

[THE_BEYONDER]

I have no doubt that a micro-trimmer is reading these comments & laughing their off.

 

Not sure why anyone would currently feel confident that CGC is anywhere near consistent in detecting it.

too much risk in trimming a book. Way too much. Especially if trimming talk is circulating and cgc starts putting books that aren't trimmed into purples out of fear.

 

Why trim when you can shift an avengers 1 8.5 into a 9.2

 

Why NOT trim if CGC isn't catching it? Trimmer sends a batch of try-outs thru. They come back blue. Trimmer discovers there is no risk.....only reward.

 

 

How would you ever know that CGC missed a micro-trim on a book you purchase? Unless one of our forum detectives posts before pics that is....

 

Shrunken covers, RSR, stain removal....and who knows what else is getting blue labels. Doesn't create much faith in their detection skills IMO.

 

That's a nonsense argument.

 

"Why NOT color touch if CGC isn't catching it? Color toucher sends a batch of try-outs thru. They come back blue. Color toucher discovers there is no risk.....only reward."

 

You have no proof whatsoever that CGC isn't capable of detecting trimming - as a matter of fact, we have tons of empirical evidence stating the exact opposite.

 

Please convince me....with evidence....that CGC is now able to consistently detect micro-trimming. There's no proof whatsoever that they ARE detecting it.

[VintageComics]

Their grading is too soft lately. They need to slow down and tighten up.

 

OMG, if they tighten up any more they'll be putting 9.8 books into 9.2 holders. They are currently giving dead 9.8 books 9.4 and 9.6 grades.

 

They are anything but soft if you ask me, but then it could just be the batch I just got back or the grade range I usually deal in. I just got back 50 books and not a single gift grade in the bunch.

 

Currently, they seem to reasonably OK in the 8.5-9.2 range and tight from 9.4 on up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

I'm not sure if it's because of my past involvement in threads like this, or my tell it like it is approach, but I have had a handful of people approach me in strict confidence that they have had resubbed/CPR'd books once sitting in a blue label, flagged for trimming.

 

My word to them that I would not reveal names or situations means more than making such revelations public. My guess though is that people doing pro CPR wouldn't dismiss what I'm stating to be fact based on their own experiences handling submissions to CGC on behalf of clients.

 

I also don't think it's necessary to split hairs in such instances to determine whether they were micro or plain "trimmed." What's essential to mention is that in at least two cases, I was informed CGC put up a fuss and didn't want to offer restitution for their mistakes until the discussion path veered in the direction of publicly outing their slip-up.

 

How often this happens, I'm not sure. But the fact that CGC missed trimming is telling enough for me to believe they can't consistently detect certain manipulative techniques.

 

I'm not following you here ... are you saying that in at least two cases blue label books were resubbed and then came back with a trimmed notation & purple label?

 

More than two, and yes.

 

Which means that CGC isn't "missing trimming", but they're actually erring on the side of caution when it comes to detecting trimming ... which I'm personally ok with :shrug:

 

Ok, waffling is welcome with hungry mornings and romps to find an all-day breakfast place, but just to remind you, the reason why this even came up is to put to rest this notion that people wouldn't take risks to trim an example and submit it to CGC.

 

This simply is not true.

[Spiderphill]

 

There would have been no reason to trim the top as the 1/8" shift should have sharpened the spine. I can't imagine this group trimming a book unless it was guaranteed to increase profit and in this instance the risk/reward ratio doesn't fit.

 

That said, there looks like there should have been a very slight rub at the top of the spine after the shift, that does not appear in the scans. I would guess that the coverstock in that areas is slightly rolled toward the interior.

it's not trimmed. The shift gives the sharp corner illusion.

Not obvious on left corner I agree because of the RSR but take a closer look at right corner. The little green dot is at a micro shorter distance from the top edge in the second scan.

 

Hard to see I confess but if CGC is unable to catch obvious Costanzas and RSR books, how could they catch such micro-trimming ?

 

It's not trimmed - the only reason people perform the RSR is because they previously weren't penalized for doing so. Trimming, however, is a completely different matter.

Exactly. The only reason I see for such manipulations (including the possible return of micro-trimming) is because CGC do not penalize them...

 

CGC puts micro-trimmed books in a purple label slab - how is that not a penalty?

 

It makes no sense to go through all the trouble of "improving" this book through an RSR and then risk losing the money & work invested by adding a trim job that most likely would mean the book ends up in a restored slab.

 

You're making some big assumptions here.

 

Most noteworthy is that CGC is inspecting every micro-millimeter of a book. Of the more serious allegations discussed in this thread and in the past relating to "misses", I think clipped bits and micro-trims being missed might be the most realistic based on their unwillingness or inability (take your pick) to properly notice and penalize wear migrated to the spine on RSR examples.

 

The second, and perhaps equally noteworthy, is that an individual with the cajones to realign the spine of a book likely wouldn't flinch at the though of practicing nip and tuck techniques to the Nth degree if it meant a higher grade.

 

I'll give you that most here would deem such techniques as outrageous and risky, but based on the range of manipulation evidenced from prior examples worked-on by this individual, to hacks like this the grade outcome ALWAYS justifies the means.

 

But, again, the risk far outweighs the potential reward here. They are getting the grade bumps through the RSRs alone which carries no risk whatsoever - there's no logical reason why they need to take it 1 step further, do a micro-trim and potentially end up with a book in a purple label slab.

 

The paper has shifted because of the RSR - that's what you're seeing here.

 

And, yes, I do believe CGC can detect a micro-trim - do you have any evidence showing that they can't?

 

 

I'm not sure if it's because of my past involvement in threads like this, or my tell it like it is approach, but I have had a handful of people approach me in strict confidence that they have had resubbed/CPR'd books once sitting in a blue label, flagged for trimming.

 

My word to them that I would not reveal names or situations means more than making such revelations public. My guess though is that people doing pro CPR wouldn't dismiss what I'm stating to be fact based on their own experiences handling submissions to CGC on behalf of clients.

 

I also don't think it's necessary to split hairs in such instances to determine whether they were micro or plain "trimmed." What's essential to mention is that in at least two cases, I was informed CGC put up a fuss and didn't want to offer restitution for their mistakes until the discussion path veered in the direction of publicly outing their slip-up.

 

How often this happens, I'm not sure. But the fact that CGC missed trimming is telling enough for me to believe they can't consistently detect certain manipulative techniques.

 

I'm not following you here ... are you saying that in at least two cases blue label books were resubbed and then came back with a trimmed notation & purple label?

 

More than two, and yes.

I see nothing wrong with that

 

1. They could be ewert books that slipped through.

 

2. There's purple label books that should be blue because cgc has panicked in the past after the ewert scandal.

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

It's not trimmed - the only reason people perform the RSR is because they previously weren't penalized for doing so. Trimming, however, is a completely different matter.

Exactly. The only reason I see for such manipulations (including the possible return of micro-trimming) is because CGC do not penalize them...

 

CGC puts micro-trimmed books in a purple label slab - how is that not a penalty?

 

It makes no sense to go through all the trouble of "improving" this book through an RSR and then risk losing the money & work invested by adding a trim job that most likely would mean the book ends up in a restored slab.

 

You're making some big assumptions here.

 

Most noteworthy is that CGC is inspecting every micro-millimeter of a book. Of the more serious allegations discussed in this thread and in the past relating to "misses", I think clipped bits and micro-trims being missed might be the most realistic based on their unwillingness or inability (take your pick) to properly notice and penalize wear migrated to the spine on RSR examples.

 

The second, and perhaps equally noteworthy, is that an individual with the cajones to realign the spine of a book likely wouldn't flinch at the though of practicing nip and tuck techniques to the Nth degree if it meant a higher grade.

 

I'll give you that most here would deem such techniques as outrageous and risky, but based on the range of manipulation evidenced from prior examples worked-on by this individual, to hacks like this the grade outcome ALWAYS justifies the means.

 

But, again, the risk far outweighs the potential reward here. They are getting the grade bumps through the RSRs alone which carries no risk whatsoever - there's no logical reason why they need to take it 1 step further, do a micro-trim and potentially end up with a book in a purple label slab.

 

The paper has shifted because of the RSR - that's what you're seeing here.

 

And, yes, I do believe CGC can detect a micro-trim - do you have any evidence showing that they can't?

 

 

I'm not sure if it's because of my past involvement in threads like this, or my tell it like it is approach, but I have had a handful of people approach me in strict confidence that they have had resubbed/CPR'd books once sitting in a blue label, flagged for trimming.

 

My word to them that I would not reveal names or situations means more than making such revelations public. My guess though is that people doing pro CPR wouldn't dismiss what I'm stating to be fact based on their own experiences handling submissions to CGC on behalf of clients.

 

I also don't think it's necessary to split hairs in such instances to determine whether they were micro or plain "trimmed." What's essential to mention is that in at least two cases, I was informed CGC put up a fuss and didn't want to offer restitution for their mistakes until the discussion path veered in the direction of publicly outing their slip-up.

 

How often this happens, I'm not sure. But the fact that CGC missed trimming is telling enough for me to believe they can't consistently detect certain manipulative techniques.

 

I'm not following you here ... are you saying that in at least two cases blue label books were resubbed and then came back with a trimmed notation & purple label?

 

More than two, and yes.

I see nothing wrong with that

 

1. They could be ewert books that slipped through.

 

2. There's purple label books that should be blue because cgc has panicked in the past after the ewert scandal.

 

 

There's still the problem of minimizing the real issues, which are someone was rewarded for CGC's screw-up, and the other taking a bath during the change in ownership.

 

Change the undetected manipulative technique to RSR and you have the exact same problem, yet that sense of urgency is nowhere to be found to both rid and not reward the practice.

[Spiderphill]

Once they deemed pressing non restorative. This is the result.

[mschmidt]

I have no doubt that a micro-trimmer is reading these comments & laughing their off.

 

Not sure why anyone would currently feel confident that CGC is anywhere near consistent in detecting it.

too much risk in trimming a book. Way too much. Especially if trimming talk is circulating and cgc starts putting books that aren't trimmed into purples out of fear.

 

Why trim when you can shift an avengers 1 8.5 into a 9.2

 

Why NOT trim if CGC isn't catching it? Trimmer sends a batch of try-outs thru. They come back blue. Trimmer discovers there is no risk.....only reward.

 

 

How would you ever know that CGC missed a micro-trim on a book you purchase? Unless one of our forum detectives posts before pics that is....

 

Shrunken covers, RSR, stain removal....and who knows what else is getting blue labels. Doesn't create much faith in their detection skills IMO.

 

That's a nonsense argument.

 

"Why NOT color touch if CGC isn't catching it? Color toucher sends a batch of try-outs thru. They come back blue. Color toucher discovers there is no risk.....only reward."

 

You have no proof whatsoever that CGC isn't capable of detecting trimming - as a matter of fact, we have tons of empirical evidence stating the exact opposite.

 

Please convince me....with evidence....that CGC is now able to consistently detect micro-trimming. There's no proof whatsoever that they ARE detecting it.

 

Yeah, that's not a loaded question at all

 

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

[batman_fan]

There is a small piece of data on the trimming. Back at the height of the Ewert issue, people were sending books back to CGC to be checked. A dealer sent back a JIM book but didn't tell CGC it was a Ewert book and it got regarded and ended in a blue label even though it had been trimmed. Someone else could probably chime in with better details.

 

It seems to me CGC's grading is a bit of a mess right now. We can only hope they are going to actively work towards addressing the recent issues going forward.

[fantastic_four]

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

 

CGC can't always detect micro-trimming--nobody can if it's done right on the right type of book. One way to detect a post-production trim is if the paper color of the edge differs from the interior paper color, but on well-preserved books with mostly white edges, trimmed edges aren't going to differ in color. If the cut pattern is also done in a way that mimics the original production cut, boom, nobody can detect that trim. Not just CGC--NOBODY can do it.

 

Knowledge of the inability to detect some types of trims precedes CGC. Cicconi mentioned it in the original edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. Bashing CGC for something that's not possible to detect is about like bashing them for not being able to detect well-done pressing, but hey, reality never stopped anybody from bashing them for whatever they feel like. Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

[originalisbest]

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

 

CGC can't always detect micro-trimming--nobody can if it's done right on the right type of book. One way to detect a post-production trim is if the paper color of the edge differs from the interior paper color, but on well-preserved books with mostly white edges, trimmed edges aren't going to differ in color. If the cut pattern is also done in a way that mimics the original production cut, boom, nobody can detect that trim. Not just CGC--NOBODY can do it.

 

Knowledge of the inability to detect some types of trims precedes CGC. Cicconi mentioned it in the original edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. Bashing CGC for something that's not possible to detect is about like bashing them for not being able to detect well-done pressing, but hey, reality never stopped anybody from bashing them for whatever they feel like. Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

 

I find that the board community is... given to hyperbole.

[THE_BEYONDER]

What's the conspiracy Francis?

[mschmidt]

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

 

CGC can't always detect micro-trimming--nobody can if it's done right on the right type of book. One way to detect a post-production trim is if the paper color of the edge differs from the interior paper color, but on well-preserved books with mostly white edges, trimmed edges aren't going to differ in color. If the cut pattern is also done in a way that mimics the original production cut, boom, nobody can detect that trim. Not just CGC--NOBODY can do it.

 

Knowledge of the inability to detect some types of trims precedes CGC. Cicconi mentioned it in the original edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. Bashing CGC for something that's not possible to detect is about like bashing them for not being able to detect well-done pressing, but hey, reality never stopped anybody from bashing them for whatever they feel like. Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

 

I find that the board community is... given to hyperbole.

 

And wild speculation with nothing to back it up

[fantastic_four]

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

 

CGC can't always detect micro-trimming--nobody can if it's done right on the right type of book. One way to detect a post-production trim is if the paper color of the edge differs from the interior paper color, but on well-preserved books with mostly white edges, trimmed edges aren't going to differ in color. If the cut pattern is also done in a way that mimics the original production cut, boom, nobody can detect that trim. Not just CGC--NOBODY can do it.

 

Knowledge of the inability to detect some types of trims precedes CGC. Cicconi mentioned it in the original edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. Bashing CGC for something that's not possible to detect is about like bashing them for not being able to detect well-done pressing, but hey, reality never stopped anybody from bashing them for whatever they feel like. Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

 

I find that the board community is... given to hyperbole.

 

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

[THE_BEYONDER]

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

 

CGC can't always detect micro-trimming--nobody can if it's done right on the right type of book. One way to detect a post-production trim is if the paper color of the edge differs from the interior paper color, but on well-preserved books with mostly white edges, trimmed edges aren't going to differ in color. If the cut pattern is also done in a way that mimics the original production cut, boom, nobody can detect that trim. Not just CGC--NOBODY can do it.

 

Knowledge of the inability to detect some types of trims precedes CGC. Cicconi mentioned it in the original edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. Bashing CGC for something that's not possible to detect is about like bashing them for not being able to detect well-done pressing, but hey, reality never stopped anybody from bashing them for whatever they feel like. Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

 

I find that the board community is... given to hyperbole.

 

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

 

No problem. I'm out. Let's hope the apologists will leave to.

[comicwiz]

You claim CGC can't detect micro-trimming, so the burden is on you to show that your accusation is correct. After all, I can very easily point to 100s of books that have a trimmed notation which more than proves CGC is capable of detecting trimming.

 

CGC can't always detect micro-trimming--nobody can if it's done right on the right type of book. One way to detect a post-production trim is if the paper color of the edge differs from the interior paper color, but on well-preserved books with mostly white edges, trimmed edges aren't going to differ in color. If the cut pattern is also done in a way that mimics the original production cut, boom, nobody can detect that trim. Not just CGC--NOBODY can do it.

 

Knowledge of the inability to detect some types of trims precedes CGC. Cicconi mentioned it in the original edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide. Bashing CGC for something that's not possible to detect is about like bashing them for not being able to detect well-done pressing, but hey, reality never stopped anybody from bashing them for whatever they feel like. Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

 

I find that the board community is... given to hyperbole.

 

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

 

Where are these "conspiracy theories" that are being "bandied about?"

[Bomber-Bob]

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

 

The trouble is we are talking to ourselves. Nobody that can help is listening.

They don't have to. The machine is still in motion, hasn't even slowed down.

 

[fantastic_four]

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

 

The trouble is we are talking to ourselves. Nobody that can help is listening.

They don't have to. The machine is still in motion, hasn't even slowed down.

 

As was pointed out earlier, CGC learned after their first attempt to create CCS that the loudly negative opinions expressed via the anonymity of the Internet in this forum often aren't reflective of the majority of their customers. It's not difficult to equate forum hyperbole to the type of rage people fly into in their cars, screaming at other drivers secure in the knowledge that those drivers either can't respond unless they go out of their way to actually chase them down or that those drivers can't even hear what they're saying in the first place.

[comicwiz]

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

 

The trouble is we are talking to ourselves. Nobody that can help is listening.

They don't have to. The machine is still in motion, hasn't even slowed down.

 

As was pointed out earlier, CGC learned after their first attempt to create CCS that the loudly negative opinions expressed via the anonymity of the Internet in this forum often aren't reflective of the majority of their customers. It's not difficult to equate forum hyperbole to the type of rage people fly into in their cars, screaming at other drivers secure in the knowledge that those drivers either can't respond unless they go out of their way to actually chase them down or that those drivers can't even hear what they're saying in the first place.

 

I have no idea what you read in this thread to make you react this way, but if past "successes" using tone deafness is the approach you're suggesting CGC take to sort through this mess, I'd suggest doing the same if the opinions of respondents in this thread is driving you to comment in this manner. Especially since I don't see any reason for it.

[fantastic_four]

Which is a shame. Namisgr's scans and MasterChief's largely objective voice and highly informative scans pointing out the problems are the beacon of usefulness in the thread. The biased, half-ignorant hyperbole being bandied about by a dozen or so others simply lessens the effectiveness of that information and invites the thread to be heavily filtered by the rational--if not mostly ignored.

 

The trouble is we are talking to ourselves. Nobody that can help is listening.

They don't have to. The machine is still in motion, hasn't even slowed down.

 

As was pointed out earlier, CGC learned after their first attempt to create CCS that the loudly negative opinions expressed via the anonymity of the Internet in this forum often aren't reflective of the majority of their customers. It's not difficult to equate forum hyperbole to the type of rage people fly into in their cars, screaming at other drivers secure in the knowledge that those drivers either can't respond unless they go out of their way to actually chase them down or that those drivers can't even hear what they're saying in the first place.

 

I have no idea what you read in this thread to make you react this way, but if past "successes" using tone deafness is the approach you're suggesting CGC take to sort through this mess, I'd suggest doing the same if the opinions of respondents in this thread is driving you to comment in this manner, especially when I don't see any reason for it.

 

I implied no such suggestion, nor would I ever. But I get why they would tune people out showing them a near-total lack of civility, respect, or objectivity. Pretty much anybody would in real life--nobody talks so harshly there. We all know better, but full or partial anonymity often brings out the worst in many.