Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[ciorac]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

no they don't

[Davenport]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

and

 

 

I give up...

That's what's so insane about this thread and the phenomenon. Like DrBanner suggests, in the broader world of paper conservation the "fix" would be Professionals documenting the process and publishing it in a professional journal so fellow conservationists could avoid it.

But those are accredited professionals who advocate for the artifacts they treat, a far different mindset than paper-mechanics gaming a certification system for their clients.

[jimbo_707]

I've heard nobody suggest different downgrades for different severities, i.e. 1/64" vs. 1/32" vs. 1/16" vs. 1/8" vs. 1/4....

 

Is that a fact? Because I replied to one of your previous posts with just such a suggestion.

 

I am not alone in the thinking. I still stick with three grade level drop for the shrunk covers.

 

Three levels regardless of severity? I presume not--so how much for 1/16"? 2/16"? 3/16"?

 

Someone said that a book with a subscription crease gets a 5.5. I wouldn't go that low on otherwise high grade books with only slight shrinkage, but to me, the worst cases of shrinkage make a book look worse than a fine-yet-color-breaking subscription crease.

 

What I would propose for blue label grades is as follows*:

*(I'm not sure how CGC rounds, but I'm assuming here that they round to the nearest increment but round up when equidistant between two increments.)

 

1) Detectable shrinkage less than 1/32" = 0.4 point deduction on books that would be 9.8 or higher, 0.2 point penalty on books 9.6 or 9.4, no penalty on books 9.2 or below

10.0 => 9.6

9.9 => 9.6

9.8 => 9.4

9.6 => 9.4

9.4 => 9.2

9.2 => no penalty

 

2) 1/32" - 1/16" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 0.6 point deduction on all books down to 8.0

10.0 => 9.0

9.9 => 9.0

9.8 => 9.0

9.6 => 9.0

9.4 => 8.5

9.2 => 8.5

9.0 => 8.5

8.5 => 8.0

8.0 => 7.5

7.5 => no penalty

 

3) 1/16" - 1/8" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 1.0 point deduction down to 6.5, 0.5 point deduction on books otherwise 6.0 to 5.5, no penalty on books 5.0 and below

10.0 => 8.0

9.9 => 8.0

9.8 => 8.0

9.6 => 8.0

9.4 => 7.5

9.2 => 7.5

9.0 => 7.5

8.5 => 7.0

8.0 => 6.5

7.5 => 6.5

7.0 => 6.0

6.5 => 5.5

6.0 => 5.5

5.5 => 5.0

5.0 => no penalty

 

4) 1/8" - 3/16" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 1.0 point deduction down to 5.0, 0.5 point deduction on books otherwise 4.5 to 4.0, no penalty on books 3.5 and below

10.0 => 7.0

9.9 => 7.0

9.8 => 7.0

9.6 => 7.0

9.4 => 6.5

9.2 => 6.5

9.0 => 6.5

8.5 => 6.0

8.0 => 5.5

7.5 => 5.5

7.0 => 5.0

6.5 => 4.5

6.0 => 4.5

5.5 => 4.0

5.0 => 4.0

4.5 => 4.0

4.0 => 3.5

3.5 => no penalty

 

My bad, should have given you credit for that. Even though I disagree with many of your proposed deduction amounts--particularly the ones that would knock Barton's (Ghost_Town's) 9.6 Spideys down to the 8.0 to 9.0 range--it's a superior analysis, and I applaud you for it.

 

The extreme amount of melodrama you've also been prone to has caused me to mentally edit out most of your posts from the last month or so. I don't enjoy pointing it out, but I attribute the absolutely most radical hyperbole detracting from the anti-shrinkage protest's credibility directly to many of your posts. Could you tone down the self-righteous indignation a bit, or preferrably, a LOT? I believe you've got a lot of great things to say and don't need the melodrama to say them.

Point taken. At times my frustration with certain elements of the hobby reaches a boiling point, but I will try to be more diplomatic.

[fantastic_four]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

and

 

 

I give up...

That's what's so insane about this thread and the phenomenon. Like DrBanner suggests, in the broader world of paper conservation the "fix" would be Professionals documenting the process and publishing it in a professional journal so fellow conservationists could avoid it.

But those are accredited professionals who advocate for the artifacts they treat, a far different mindset than paper-mechanics gaming a certification system for their clients.

 

You're building both Matt and CGC up to be more than they are. Nobody accredits CGC--they're a commercial entity, a business. Nobody oversees the ethics of what they do, although I have found Borock to be highly open to thoughtful suggestion. Litch has demonstrated at least some openness to suggestion when the board pointed out RSR and shrinkage, although the follow-through has been pretty poor I do admit since we're continuing to see books with RSR and shrinkage pop up after they said they'd take steps to stop or at least downgrade more for it. The law might prosecute them for fraud if someone presents evidence to Florida or federal authorities that they're committing it. I've seen no evidence of fraud myself. Matt is not strictly a conservator, nor do I recall him ever claiming that. Just checked the CCS web site and I see no indication of him making that claim. Conservation is when you do work to prevent further damage to a book like sealing a tear. He can do that work, but the bulk of what he does appears to be appearance-improving restoration. Pressing is rarely an attempt at conservation, although it can be if the paper is so crumpled that you can't even turn the pages or encapsulate it without removing the crumpling.

[fantastic_four]

My bad, should have given you credit for that. Even though I disagree with many of your proposed deduction amounts--particularly the ones that would knock Barton's (Ghost_Town's) 9.6 Spideys down to the 8.0 to 9.0 range--it's a superior analysis, and I applaud you for it.

 

The extreme amount of melodrama you've also been prone to has caused me to mentally edit out most of your posts from the last month or so. I don't enjoy pointing it out, but I attribute the absolutely most radical hyperbole detracting from the anti-shrinkage protest's credibility directly to many of your posts. Could you tone down the self-righteous indignation a bit, or preferrably, a LOT? I believe you've got a lot of great things to say and don't need the melodrama to say them.

Point taken. At times my frustration with certain elements of the hobby reaches a boiling point, but I will try to be more diplomatic.

 

Diplomacy is one way, but an easier one is to see CGC for what it is--a bunch of guys trying to do what they think is best. Just like any of us in our own jobs, sometimes we're going to do a better job than others, but either way, if our customers or co-workers are screaming at us in a highly disrespectful, uncivil, and biased manner, we're going to naturally block them out. You'd filter it out just like they do to the melodrama--and if you were in their shoes, you might do no better and possibly far worse.

 

I don't like shrinkage. I don't like RSR. I don't particularly like pressing either, mostly because the market has forced me to make a decision about it--press, or leave money on the table. I resent being faced with that decision. Reason with Litch, don't scream at him and belittle him. He'll block you out. You'd do the same if you were him.

[fantastic_four]

The law might prosecute them for fraud if someone presents evidence to Florida or federal authorities that they're committing it. I've seen no evidence of fraud myself.

 

Davenport, you asked earlier who oversees CGC. The most specific answer to your question I could find is that Ed Brodsky does as the state's attorney for Sarasota county, which is where CGC does business.

 

https://www.scgov.net/SAO12/Pages/default.aspx

 

If you ever think you have evidence of fraud by them, Brodsky is where you'd start presenting it. He only oversees them for following the law--nobody oversees CGC's ethics. Except their customers, hence Foolkiller's suggestion that you stop patronizing CGC and their product if you don't like their ethics. It's your only recourse if they're not breaking the law.

[Randall Dowling]

After reading the last many pages of this thread, I see a couple of issues that are being brought up that I'll give my 2 cents on (some of you will think it's worth less than that).

 

1) There is a sense that some people want the defect of pages sticking out of the book on the right side to be downgraded because of it's origin- having been pressed.

 

Response: I don't think this is correct. I think just about everyone wants the defect downgraded, definitely not upgraded, as had been practiced by CGC on these books (and who knows how many others). Regardless of origin, it is a defect and should be downgraded. I think the frustration that some are expressing (and I share this) is that for many years now, pressing comics has been sold as a completely benevolent treatment that does no wrong. Now, for the first time (thanks to Namisgr), we have evidence that this was, at best, a factual error, at worst, a dissembling of the truth for financial gain at the expense of the innocence of collectors not "in the know". In the latter case, those involved are little better than Danny Dupcak or Jason Ewert or any others that have come into comic collecting to take financial advantage of collectors joy and enthusiasm for comic books. I choose to believe that none of the posters on this board fall into the latter category. Just that they chose to believe and practice a treatment of comics that was other than described. They are just as surprised as everyone else.

 

From what I've seen in this thread, anyone still believing that pressing is a non-detrimental treatment of comic books is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Calling some pressing "bad" or "poorly done" is just rationalization to continue believing that it doesn't damage books. There may be a tradeoff in the case of flattening bends or folds or spine rolls in exchange for the damage that pressing does to books and that tradeoff may be a net positive. But it is a tradeoff. Pressing (as practiced by CCS and others) does damage to comic books. Damaging comic books should not result in higher grades of certification.

 

Which brings up the next point:

 

2) There is a conflict of interest for a certification company (indeed "the certification company") to have an in-house restoration service performing pressing prior to certification.

 

Response: I've thought about this for a long time and have come to the following conclusion- it is a very, very, odd move. Trust is the primary currency of a certification company and it's continued business model. Incorporating CCS would do nothing to create trust, in fact, it creates doubt about the legitimacy of certification. They brought Mark Zaid on to try to counteract this doubt and establish there was no conflict of interest or special treatment for CCS. And still, there is doubt. And that's because perception is a cornerstone of trust. Whether real or imagined, in the end, it doesn't matter if the result is a perception of bias (all of you who are lawyers out there will understand this well). And that is a strange thing for a certification company in the practice of adjudication to play with.

 

For sure, the following is true-

 

Not doing anything to address these questions is a choice to maintain the status quo. It is a conscious choice to keep things the way they are.

 

[jimbo_707]

 

Diplomacy is one way, but an easier one is to see CGC for what it is--a bunch of guys trying to do what they think is best. Just like any of us in our own jobs, sometimes we're going to do a better job than others, but either way, if our customers or co-workers are screaming at us in a highly disrespectful, uncivil, and biased manner, we're going to naturally block them out. You'd filter it out just like they do to the melodrama--and if you were in their shoes, you might do no better and possibly far worse.

 

I don't like shrinkage. I don't like RSR. I don't particularly like pressing either, mostly because the market has forced me to make a decision about it--press, or leave money on the table. I resent being faced with that decision. Reason with Litch, don't scream at him and belittle him. He'll block you out. You'd do the same if you were him.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with Litch personally.

 

I do have a problem with CGC refusing to downgrade for cover shrinkage.

 

I think the logic behind lumping it in with manufacturing defects is specious. It does not exist at the time of manufacture. Whether it be from pressing or from less-than-ideal storage conditions, it's something that happens to a book after that book has been manufactured. Therefore, it's damage.

 

(I don't think true manufacturing defects should get a free pass, either, but that's an argument for another day.)

 

I'm not sure how much autonomy Litch has in his role. Maybe Steve Eichenbaum is telling him what to say. Maybe whatever bankers have their fingers in the CGC pie behind the scenes are pulling the strings.

 

What I do know is, Litch took a position on this issue that is not valid logically, so his credibility is not great at this point, in my opinion. Time will tell whether he can earn it back.

[jimbo_707]

After reading the last many pages of this thread, I see a couple of issues that are being brought up that I'll give my 2 cents on (some of you will think it's worth less than that).

 

1) There is a sense that some people want the defect of pages sticking out of the book on the right side to be downgraded because of it's origin- having been pressed.

 

Response: I don't think this is correct. I think just about everyone wants the defect downgraded, definitely not upgraded, as had been practiced by CGC on these books (and who knows how many others). Regardless of origin, it is a defect and should be downgraded. I think the frustration that some are expressing (and I share this) is that for many years now, pressing comics has been sold as a completely benevolent treatment that does no wrong. Now, for the first time (thanks to Namisgr), we have evidence that this was, at best, a factual error, at worst, a dissembling of the truth for financial gain at the expense of the innocence of collectors not "in the know". In the latter case, those involved are little better than Danny Dupcak or Jason Ewert or any others that have come into comic collecting to take financial advantage of collectors joy and enthusiasm for comic books. I choose to believe that none of the posters on this board fall into the latter category. Just that they chose to believe and practice a treatment of comics that was other than described. They are just as surprised as everyone else.

 

From what I've seen in this thread, anyone still believing that pressing is a non-detrimental treatment of comic books is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Calling some pressing "bad" or "poorly done" is just rationalization to continue believing that it doesn't damage books. There may be a tradeoff in the case of flattening bends or folds or spine rolls in exchange for the damage that pressing does to books and that tradeoff may be a net positive. But it is a tradeoff. Pressing (as practiced by CCS and others) does damage to comic books. Damaging comic books should not result in higher grades of certification.

 

Which brings up the next point:

 

2) There is a conflict of interest for a certification company (indeed "the certification company") to have an in-house restoration service performing pressing prior to certification.

 

Response: I've thought about this for a long time and have come to the following conclusion- it is a very, very, odd move. Trust is the primary currency of a certification company and it's continued business model. Incorporating CCS would do nothing to create trust, in fact, it creates doubt about the legitimacy of certification. They brought Mark Zaid on to try to counteract this doubt and establish there was no conflict of interest or special treatment for CCS. And still, there is doubt. And that's because perception is a cornerstone of trust. Whether real or imagined, in the end, it doesn't matter if the result is a perception of bias (all of you who are lawyers out there will understand this well). And that is a strange thing for a certification company in the practice of adjudication to play with.

 

For sure, the following is true-

 

Not doing anything to address these questions is a choice to maintain the status quo. It is a conscious choice to keep things the way they are.

+1

This post is succinct, straightforward, tactful, and right on the money.

[fantastic_four]

I think the logic behind lumping it in with manufacturing defects is specious. It does not exist at the time of manufacture. Whether it be from pressing or from less-than-ideal storage conditions, it's something that happens to a book after that book has been manufactured. Therefore, it's damage.

 

I've seen no evidence that it doesn't occur during manufacture--it just doesn't happen to the extent of 1/8" or more as we're commonly seeing on the Schaved books. Peter's CGC 9.8 Iron Man and Subby #1 looks like an angled cut creating that 1/8" pokethrough. As Timely and DiceX were suggesting earlier, it's not entirely known what leads to top/bottom overhang and right-edge pokethrough and exactly when it occurs. Dice thinks it happened long after production, Timely and Barton propose that it may have happened shortly after leaving the line, i.e. within the first week or so following assembly, possibly even within hours. Not sure anyone knows.

 

From a grading perspective, it shouldn't matter. Just downgrade for it no matter how it happened.

[rjrjr]

I never said you overlooked anything.....just noted I feel and it appears that CGC grades based on condition structure without giving much thought to appearance. I thought most thought this way as well. That is all.

 

I however do think they should count appearance a bit more then they do. Page fanning, mis-wraps, shruken covers should all be down graded. I do understand with the mis wraps that would be hard to do with all the variables.

 

The age old argument about how to downgrade for a defect is no different than coming to an agreement on whether a politician is doing a good job or not. Everyone is going to see it differently.

 

But cover shrinkage....that should definately be down graded. IT IS A DEFECT whether it happened from pressing or naturally. It is not normal and is a defect, what else is it?

 

Again, a point to be brought up is that in 10 years of reading this forum, I don't remember a single post about anyone complaining about peek through until someone made a post proving it was related to pressing.

 

I think this is the point F_F is trying to make.

 

I wouldn't care about pressing (and never did in the past), but in these examples, someone has clearly take what is a better looking book and made it worse looking in the process. Then CGC assigned a higher grade to the end result. That is why people are upset about this. If this process wasn't being done in house, you wouldn't hear anyone talking about conflict of interest either, but the fact this pressing might be happening in house (I haven't heard definitively if these books are being damaged in house) on top of it all lends itself to people claiming conflict of interest too.

 

It's possible these books were pressed by an outside party. It's also possible they happen to be caught up in a period when CGC is loosely grading, hence the higher grade being assigned to what are clearly worse looking books.

 

I understand what F_F is saying, but I'm not sure why it matters when people started complaining. I think we can all understand why they are complaining though. If these books were grade the same or downgraded to match the inferior look they now have, I think the outrage would not be as high.

 

Personally, I think it is a shame to see some of these high grade books damaged in this matter. While it's possible someone will find a way to reverse this damage that this is being done, I'm doubtful and I hate to see more and more of these ugly books showing up in high grade slabs.

[fantastic_four]

I understand what F_F is saying, but I'm not sure why it matters when people started complaining.

 

Because paying little or no attention to a defect circa 2012 and before but suddenly decrying that same defect to ruin the aesthetics of the book now that you know it's due to pressing is bad grading. If CGC suddenly shifted their opinion like that on any given defect, we'd crucify them.

 

I certainly view grading as a process under continual refinement, but the jump from barely caring to wanting big downgrades is too sudden. I don't see clear, unbiased, rational opinions as to the aesthetics being voiced by anyone who hasn't also voiced great ethical outrage over the damage being caused by Matt--and many are suggesting the downgrade as a preventative measure to dissuade pressers from doing this in the future. Grading isn't a tool we use to enforce ethical behavior.

[rjrjr]

Punish simply because it was pressed? Absolutely NOT. I have no problem with pressing.

Downgrade because it is a structural defect that does not meet community standards of grade, Absolutely.

 

Clearly they do not incorporate it enough into grade, as per the consensus.

 

Exactly. Let's not forget, in some of these examples, the staples are now being pulled through the cover too, which is adding to the structural damage being done here.

 

I'll say this, it's a good thing these pressing are being done to books that are then encased. Because I'm not sure these books could survive outside the slab any more without losing there covers easily.

 

[rjrjr]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

Yep. (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

Yep. (thumbs u

 

Do you know why CGC stopped putting label comments on blue-label books starting in 2003?

[rjrjr]

After reading the last many pages of this thread, I see a couple of issues that are being brought up that I'll give my 2 cents on (some of you will think it's worth less than that).

 

1) There is a sense that some people want the defect of pages sticking out of the book on the right side to be downgraded because of it's origin- having been pressed.

 

Response: I don't think this is correct. I think just about everyone wants the defect downgraded, definitely not upgraded, as had been practiced by CGC on these books (and who knows how many others). Regardless of origin, it is a defect and should be downgraded. I think the frustration that some are expressing (and I share this) is that for many years now, pressing comics has been sold as a completely benevolent treatment that does no wrong. Now, for the first time (thanks to Namisgr), we have evidence that this was, at best, a factual error, at worst, a dissembling of the truth for financial gain at the expense of the innocence of collectors not "in the know". In the latter case, those involved are little better than Danny Dupcak or Jason Ewert or any others that have come into comic collecting to take financial advantage of collectors joy and enthusiasm for comic books. I choose to believe that none of the posters on this board fall into the latter category. Just that they chose to believe and practice a treatment of comics that was other than described. They are just as surprised as everyone else.

 

From what I've seen in this thread, anyone still believing that pressing is a non-detrimental treatment of comic books is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Calling some pressing "bad" or "poorly done" is just rationalization to continue believing that it doesn't damage books. There may be a tradeoff in the case of flattening bends or folds or spine rolls in exchange for the damage that pressing does to books and that tradeoff may be a net positive. But it is a tradeoff. Pressing (as practiced by CCS and others) does damage to comic books. Damaging comic books should not result in higher grades of certification.

 

Which brings up the next point:

 

2) There is a conflict of interest for a certification company (indeed "the certification company") to have an in-house restoration service performing pressing prior to certification.

 

Response: I've thought about this for a long time and have come to the following conclusion- it is a very, very, odd move. Trust is the primary currency of a certification company and it's continued business model. Incorporating CCS would do nothing to create trust, in fact, it creates doubt about the legitimacy of certification. They brought Mark Zaid on to try to counteract this doubt and establish there was no conflict of interest or special treatment for CCS. And still, there is doubt. And that's because perception is a cornerstone of trust. Whether real or imagined, in the end, it doesn't matter if the result is a perception of bias (all of you who are lawyers out there will understand this well). And that is a strange thing for a certification company in the practice of adjudication to play with.

 

For sure, the following is true-

 

Not doing anything to address these questions is a choice to maintain the status quo. It is a conscious choice to keep things the way they are.

 

Randall, this was a terrific and well thought out post. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Davenport]

The law might prosecute them for fraud if someone presents evidence to Florida or federal authorities that they're committing it. I've seen no evidence of fraud myself.

 

Davenport, you asked earlier who oversees CGC. The most specific answer to your question I could find is that Ed Brodsky does as the state's attorney for Sarasota county, which is where CGC does business.

 

https://www.scgov.net/SAO12/Pages/default.aspx

 

If you ever think you have evidence of fraud by them, Brodsky is where you'd start presenting it. He only oversees them for following the law--nobody oversees CGC's ethics. Except their customers, hence Foolkiller's suggestion that you stop patronizing CGC and their product if you don't like their ethics. It's your only recourse if they're not breaking the law.

No, I understand there are no consumer protections, no laws being broken.

 

But I think that gets lost in the discussion. Grade-certification is strictly opinion-certification and not some documented Inspection Service. The market treats it like it is, but CGC never claims to be that. "Universal" doesn't mean "found to be unaltered".

 

Looking for "fixes" and behaviors that might occur in other regulated investment collectibles markets probably won't come to be. It's not that kind of market. There'll be efforts to manage perceptions, along side maintaining gaming loopholes. They're both equally important to the System.

 

 

[drbanner]

2) There is a conflict of interest for a certification company (indeed "the certification company") to have an in-house restoration service performing pressing prior to certification.

 

Response: I've thought about this for a long time and have come to the following conclusion- it is a very, very, odd move. Trust is the primary currency of a certification company and it's continued business model. Incorporating CCS would do nothing to create trust, in fact, it creates doubt about the legitimacy of certification. They brought Mark Zaid on to try to counteract this doubt and establish there was no conflict of interest or special treatment for CCS. And still, there is doubt. And that's because perception is a cornerstone of trust. Whether real or imagined, in the end, it doesn't matter if the result is a perception of bias (all of you who are lawyers out there will understand this well). And that is a strange thing for a certification company in the practice of adjudication to play with.

Good points, the inherent conflict of interest in a single company restoring and unrestoring books and then passing judgement on the quality of THEIR OWN WORK is obvious. And now, you have the inherent conflict of interest becoming a real conflict of interest with these books being awarded higher grades after being damaged in-house and there's a huge trust issue and calling into question all CGC's grades, not just on books with the Schave effect.

 

Fortunately, mitigating the loss of confidence in CGC's product due to this fiasco can be achieved by CGC simply acknowledging what they do to these books before grading them by inclusion of such notes on the label.

[rjrjr]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

Yep. (thumbs u

 

Do you know why CGC stopped putting label comments on blue-label books starting in 2003?

 

 

 

I'm not sure labelling the case would be appropriate, but definitely proving notes for the book and including the processes done to the books in the notes would be helpful. And I do understand why they don't (puts them at a competitive disadvantage, etc.) Honestly, CGC should just let CCS go and become it's own entity again. Things would definitely be simpler. This marriage was a bad idea.

[fantastic_four]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

Yep. (thumbs u

 

Do you know why CGC stopped putting label comments on blue-label books starting in 2003?

 

 

 

I'm not sure labelling the case would be appropriate, but definitely proving notes for the book and including the processes done to the books in the notes would be helpful. And I do understand why they don't (puts them at a competitive disadvantage, etc.) Honestly, CGC should just let CCS go and become it's own entity again. Things would definitely be simpler. This marriage was a bad idea.

 

They stopped putting comments on the label because it created a stigma on the book. No matter what you put there, many or most people think it's separate from the numerical grade, i.e. your 9.0 with a label comment is really an 8.5 or worse with that comment factored in. It already WAS factored in, but people kept thinking it wasn't. The ideal solution would be to provide a complete documentation of all defects with every comic, but they didn't think that was viable, so they took them all away.

 

The conclusion you just came to that CCS should just go away is the only one you can possibly come to if you follow Banner's advice of documenting CCS pressing but nobody else's. I'm pretty sure that's why he keeps suggesting it, because he hates the idea of CCS. I agree with both of you that it creates the appearance of a potential conflict. I don't go so far as to say it's an actual one until I see evidence of it.