Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[mschmidt]

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

 

Symantics. CGC + CCS = CGC

(thumbs u

 

Yea I don't get the point of differentiating CCS from CGC. It's all CGC to me.

 

If that was really true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Good thing it's not :thumbsup:

[fantastic_four]

The key to resolving this issue has always been for CGC to take page fanning into account when grading. I think it's unlikely they will do this because it would result in reduced submissions from dealers trying to get higher grades for already high-grade books, thereby hurting both the CCS and CGC ends of the business.

 

They're unlikely to do this because grading is about appearance. All of these suggestions to have CGC stop downgrading as a disincentive for pressers to stop creating pokethrough are approaching the entire idea about grading from the wrong direction.

 

Obviously I know a few dozen of you guys think that 1/8" pokethrough completely ruins a book and CGC doesn't downgrade enough, but I've seen no evidence from the history of grading that supports such a view.

 

So, a book with no poke thru gets a 9.2 and a book that has the poke thru gets a 9.4 instead? If you look at some of those books earlier in this thread, their appearance is *worse* than they originally looked. How do they get a grade bump? That is the part I don't get.

 

I'll admit though, one of the last books posted here did look better. At least the front cover does and we never did see the back cover to see how it looks. But I believe that was a spine realignment book, not a pressed book with a cover that shrunk.

 

I think the poke thru is going to be like miswrapped books. Some people are going to be fine with them and some people are not going to want to have them in their collection.

 

I agree with your last sentence, and it answers the question you posed in your first sentence. Pokethrough is about as bad as a miswrap, and as you pointed out, downgrading for that has always been controversial enough such that CGC takes almost no position on it and barely downgrades for it below the 9.9 level.

[drbanner]

CGC didn't press these books :shrug:

It's all under the same umbrella. In other words, if blame were butter, they would all be greasy.

 

Symantics. CGC + CCS = CGC

(thumbs u

Yea I don't get the point of differentiating CCS from CGC. It's all CGC to me.

(thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

Yea I don't get the point of differentiating CCS from CGC. It's all CGC to me.

 

If that was really true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Good thing it's not :thumbsup:

 

The fact that CGC's process isolates the CCS work as almost completely separate doesn't make referring to CCS generically as part of CGC invalid. There is isolation in multiple steps of the CGC grading process, but that doesn't make each part of it so distinct that we can't just refer to the pre-grader, the restoration checker, each of the graders, and the grade finalization as all a part of the same overall process.

[drbanner]

...a huge conflict of interest.

(thumbs u

[faster friends]

If the pressed books had covers that were perfectly aligned, the poke through would not bother me AS much. But those CS books with the cover overhang at the top is just ugly.

[mschmidt]

Yea I don't get the point of differentiating CCS from CGC. It's all CGC to me.

 

If that was really true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Good thing it's not :thumbsup:

 

The fact that CGC's process isolates the CCS work as almost completely separate doesn't make referring to CCS generically as part of CGC invalid. There is isolation in multiple steps of the CGC grading process, but that doesn't make each part of it so distinct that we can't just refer to the pre-grader, the restoration checker, each of the graders, and the grade finalization as all a part of the same overall process.

 

When people consistently refer to CGC (instead of CCS) in the context of pretending that it's the same people who press a book and then subsequently grade it, then yes, that does make it invalid

[mschmidt]

...a huge conflict of interest.

(thumbs u

 

You missed something

 

Is this is one of those situations where you've been making false claims for so long that you're now actually starting to believe them yourself?

[fantastic_four]

Yea I don't get the point of differentiating CCS from CGC. It's all CGC to me.

 

If that was really true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Good thing it's not :thumbsup:

 

The fact that CGC's process isolates the CCS work as almost completely separate doesn't make referring to CCS generically as part of CGC invalid. There is isolation in multiple steps of the CGC grading process, but that doesn't make each part of it so distinct that we can't just refer to the pre-grader, the restoration checker, each of the graders, and the grade finalization as all a part of the same overall process.

 

When people consistently refer to CGC (instead of CCS) in the context of pretending that it's the same people who press a book and then subsequently grade it, then yes, that does make it invalid

 

Other people's bad assumptions and agendas do not affect the language I use. The main reason to use CCS is it's just more efficient since you don't have to ship the book between the presser and the certification company, so , it's all CGC. The guys like Banner who take issue with CCS being a conflict of interest are going to think that no matter what you call them. They're all in Sarasota, they're all owned by the same folks, I presume they're all in the same building but don't really know that for sure--they're the same, with the right amount of isolation. I've got very little issue with the whole arrangement, although I do have an issue with Banner and the rest exaggerating the issue.

[fantastic_four]

...a huge conflict of interest.

(thumbs u

 

You missed something

 

Is this is one of those situations where you've been making false claims for so long that you're now actually starting to believe them yourself?

 

Out of context quotes designed to intentionally change meaning suck when you're not just doing it for fun.

[Silver Surfer]

I noticed that there is a certain high grade early Avengers issue at auction on Comiclink with one of those 1198 cert's, short looking covers, etc. Just saying.

[Silver Surfer]

First, let me say that I believe Mark has his priorities correct in attending to his primary work first as a high profile attorney on some high profile cases that have national significance.

 

Second, I think Mark is much more detached from the intimate day to day goings on of the boards (as I am as well increasingly) that makes it hard to put the same level of energy and focus.

 

Third, as he and I discussed when he was deciding whether to accept CGC's invitation, I was concerned this would tie his hands to some degree.

 

Fourth, I'm not sure the answers to Mark are going to be all that different than already supplied here on the boards, so the notion that there's going to be substantial movement as a direct result of Mark's influence (or anyone's from the outside or even acting as a consultant) seems slim to me.

 

Fifth, I know several dealers and significant collectors have expressed their concerns about many of the issues and problems raised in this thread. Some of which CGC has addressed, others, it may not come here and make some sort of grand sweeping statement.

 

Finally, criticizing Mark for not being responsive in the time frame the boards deems appropriate seems unfair. The bottom line is that none of these issues are going to be addressed overnight.

 

I hear several folks expressing disdain for the money train at the expense of the books. This problem is not reversing itself.

I have said it before, I will say it again. If you don't like the trend and tactics of CGC, stop buying slabbed books, stop getting books graded. Start paying dealers aggressive slab like numbers for raw books and CGC becomes marginalized.

 

But that won't happen. They continue to be backed up because so many people are utilizing their services and books "have" to be sent there before being sold. People are looking for the security of CGC and for them to be acting in some sort of uber benevolent manner and not for profit. When operating for profit, tactics that manipulate the books to the edge of reason are going to be tested. The people making the "money decisions" and running the business side of CCS and CGC want to max the profit. That's not Paul or even Matt. Their job is to improve the process by which money can be gained. The people making the money decisions are not comic book fans or conservators.

 

Brian I have tons of respect for you but I think the highlighted portion above is perhaps too much of a generalization. Issues like reverse spine roll were brought to the fore front because people on these boards questioned a new "trend" that either CGC endorsed or completely missed.

[pickycollector]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

[fantastic_four]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Could you repeat that another five times? It takes me ten repetitions before I remember any given piece of information, so the previous five times you pointed that out in this thread weren't enough for it to sink in.

[drbanner]

They're all in Sarasota, they're all owned by the same folks, I presume they're all in the same building but don't really know that for sure--they're the same, with the right amount of isolation.

Per an earlier post from West, the pressing, cleaning, manipulating, restoration detection, and grading operations are all under the same roof and per the legalese used by Mark Zaid earlier, they're owned by the "same entity." So yeah, it's a seamless operation conducted under one roof with a single owner.

 

I really don't know what you mean by exaggerating the issue, it's either a conflict of interest or it isn't, and in this case, it is. You are free to weight it as you deem fit, but it is what it is.

[pickycollector]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Could you repeat that another five times? It takes me ten repetitions before I remember any given piece of information, so the previous five times you pointed that out in this thread weren't enough for it to sink in.

Since you asked, here it is:

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

[drbanner]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

I don't mind where the centerfold and interior pages stick out beyond the cover at the top of the book and taper to being flush with the bottom of the book as this is how many/most SA Marvels have always looked. This is different though than books where the 1st page extends out beyond the cover edge, especially if it's visible the entire length of the cover like the JIMs and other Schave books uncovered in this thread. I've always avoided SA books like that and am much more sensitive to it now given this fiasco.

[fantastic_four]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Could you repeat that another five times? It takes me ten repetitions before I remember any given piece of information, so the previous five times you pointed that out in this thread weren't enough for it to sink in.

Since you asked, here it is:

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

 

Perfect, thanks.

[fantastic_four]

They're all in Sarasota, they're all owned by the same folks, I presume they're all in the same building but don't really know that for sure--they're the same, with the right amount of isolation.

Per an earlier post from West, the pressing, cleaning, manipulating, restoration detection, and grading operations are all under the same roof and per the legalese used by Mark Zaid earlier, they're owned by the "same entity." So yeah, it's a seamless operation conducted under one roof with a single owner.

 

I really don't know what you mean by exaggerating the issue, it's either a conflict of interest or it isn't, and in this case, it is. You are free to weight it as you deem fit, but it is what it is.

 

It's a potential conflict of interest. The risk of it being an actual one is pretty similar to the idea that any of the three graders on a book break procedure and allow themselves to be biased by the grades of the other ones. Or maybe the final grader looks at the other grades before he assigns his, which he isn't supposed to do until his own opinion is done. The process could break down almost anywhere, and for all we know, it does on a regular basis and always has.

 

The first person who points out "but the fact that CGC is not downgrading for shrunken covers is PROOF that they let CCS work slide!" is going to get a slap.

[pickycollector]

Personally, any CGC book with an exaggerate right edge pokethrough is now an automatic no-buy for me.

I don't mind where the centerfold and interior pages stick out beyond the cover at the top of the book and taper to being flush with the bottom of the book as this is how many/most SA Marvels have always looked. This is different though than books where the 1st page extends out beyond the cover edge, especially if it's visible the entire length of the cover like the JIMs and other Schave books uncovered in this thread. I've always avoided SA books like that and am much more sensitive to it now given this fiasco.

I agree with you on top edge overlaps, Mike, as this is how many/most SA Marvels have always looked. What I meant was inside pages that poke through the right edge, and yes, along the entire right edge to be more specific.