Comic Book Spine Realignment Therapy, turn your 8.5's into 9.2's!

[fantastic_four]

No. CGC was misgrading books and will now charge you $12 to fix their mistake.

 

The $12 is to correct the reverse spine roll. I'm guessing a re-grade will be full price and therefore cost more than that.

[comicwiz]

What color label would a "reverse spine roll" receive and would it be noted on the label?

 

+1 will it be noted on the label?

 

I'd like to know this as well.

 

No, it'd be a bad idea for the same reason all partial comments about what goes into grade are a bad idea--a significant percentage of collectors think the comments aren't incorporated into the grade, so they mentally say "this is a 9.0 minus the few defects noted on the label." No matter how many times CGC says it, lots of people will never hear it. And even when people know it those partial comments would still server as enough of a stigma for a significant number of collectors to pass on a book and wait for one without comments. We've repeated it on these boards hundreds of times and people still don't get or haven't seen it and keep thinking those incomplete label comments are separate.

 

In a perfect world, all defects would be documented somewhere--either on a printed invoice or perhaps a paper insert in a sleeve on the back of the slab label. Since no hobby's certification services have ever come close to complete documentation of defects, I doubt even competition would force CGC to do this.

 

This is a markedly different situation. I'm going to say that in a perfect world, CGC wouldn't be charging for graders notes (which from Mark's comment, appears to be where the notes on a "bad press" or "reverse spin roll" job would land). This is hidden work with a pejorative influence on the overall value and standalone grade appearing on the label (unless it's sent in for review, reassessed, and corrected at a cost). Status quo won't work here, unless CGC doesn't charge for graders notes, or they need to note this hidden hack work on the label.

[fantastic_four]

This is a markedly different situation. I'm going to say that in a perfect world, CGC wouldn't be charging for graders notes (which from Mark's comment, appears to be where the notes on a "bad press" or "reverse spin roll" job would land). This is hidden work with a pejorative influence on the standalone grade appearing on the label. Status quo won't work here, unless CGC doesn't charge for graders notes, or they note the hack work on the label.

 

That's an overreaction born of bias, albeit one that I suspect dozens of people here will agree with. There's little objective difference between a reverse spine roll and other bad forms of pressing in that they both cause slight damage. The main difference between this and most types of bad presses is that it's less severe because it is removable whereas many types of bad presses cause permanent damage. I get the visceral reaction people are having--it's the same old same old, someone's monkeying with books to make a buck. Nobody likes people who do that and that's why some will prefer to stigmatize the products of that effort. I share in that disgust, but remaining detached from it and focusing on the state of the book, it's a minor thing. The money and deception involved will turn some away, but hey, reality was waiting for them all along to rear its ugly head. Half of the high-end hobby still doesn't even seem to realize that you can trim comics without detection--that's the elephant in the room I still can't believe people don't get outraged about more often than they have to date. I expect multiple controversies related to that over the next decade. Nothing to be done about it, so if you really hate manipulation, it really is best to exit the high-end hobby. Slight forms of it are possible in all hobbies without detection, and comics are no exception.

 

I agree that the question of how they were missing back-cover defects is still an open one. I have long thought CGC didn't downgrade as much for back-cover defects, but a few have stated that graders have informed them otherwise. I'm left not knowing if they do or not. If they don't downgrade less for back cover defects, then how these books were getting higher grades isn't explained by Mark's suggestion that the rest of the pressing offset the spine ticks--there are multiple examples in this thread of books having far more spine ticks than are allowed in their assigned grade.

[comicwiz]

This is a markedly different situation. I'm going to say that in a perfect world, CGC wouldn't be charging for graders notes (which from Mark's comment, appears to be where the notes on a "bad press" or "reverse spin roll" job would land). This is hidden work with a pejorative influence on the standalone grade appearing on the label. Status quo won't work here, unless CGC doesn't charge for graders notes, or they note the hack work on the label.

 

That's an overreaction born of bias, albeit one that I suspect dozens of people here will agree with. There's little objective difference between a reverse spine roll and other bad forms of pressing in that they both cause slight damage.

 

I don't understand how you arrived at this determination.

 

CGC is reviewing books which have been incorrectly graded. These books would need to at minimum be regraded to reflect the reverse spine roll treatment they received, which means the stated grade is null, and needs to be revised.

 

They are offering to correct the hack work at a cost of $12, but are not making any guarantees the grade will be the same after this adjustment tweak is performed.

 

Now when we are talking about books still in the wild which have not yet been flagged, reviewed, had grades adjusted - how is this born from a bias?

 

This is the reality and fall-out from a sample of books which have been certified by CGC, which bear an invalid grade and assessment because this hack work got through undetected.

[fantastic_four]

This is a markedly different situation. I'm going to say that in a perfect world, CGC wouldn't be charging for graders notes (which from Mark's comment, appears to be where the notes on a "bad press" or "reverse spin roll" job would land). This is hidden work with a pejorative influence on the standalone grade appearing on the label. Status quo won't work here, unless CGC doesn't charge for graders notes, or they note the hack work on the label.

 

That's an overreaction born of bias, albeit one that I suspect dozens of people here will agree with. There's little objective difference between a reverse spine roll and other bad forms of pressing in that they both cause slight damage.

 

I don't understand how you arrived at this determination.

 

CGC is reviewing books which have been incorrectly graded. These books would need to at minimum be regraded to reflect the reverse spine roll treatment they received, which means the stated grade is null, and needs to be revised.

 

They are offering to correct the hack work at a cost of $12, but are not making any guarantees the grade will be the same after this adjustment tweak is performed.

 

Now when we are talking about books still in the wild which have not yet been flagged, reviewed, had grades adjusted - how is this born from a bias?

 

This is the reality and fall-out from a sample of books which have been certified by CGC, which bear an invalid grade and assessment because this hack work got through undetected.

 

What does the existence of the misgraded books with reverse spine rolls have to do with label comments going forward?

[comicwiz]

This is a markedly different situation. I'm going to say that in a perfect world, CGC wouldn't be charging for graders notes (which from Mark's comment, appears to be where the notes on a "bad press" or "reverse spin roll" job would land). This is hidden work with a pejorative influence on the standalone grade appearing on the label. Status quo won't work here, unless CGC doesn't charge for graders notes, or they note the hack work on the label.

 

That's an overreaction born of bias, albeit one that I suspect dozens of people here will agree with. There's little objective difference between a reverse spine roll and other bad forms of pressing in that they both cause slight damage.

 

I don't understand how you arrived at this determination.

 

CGC is reviewing books which have been incorrectly graded. These books would need to at minimum be regraded to reflect the reverse spine roll treatment they received, which means the stated grade is null, and needs to be revised.

 

They are offering to correct the hack work at a cost of $12, but are not making any guarantees the grade will be the same after this adjustment tweak is performed.

 

Now when we are talking about books still in the wild which have not yet been flagged, reviewed, had grades adjusted - how is this born from a bias?

 

This is the reality and fall-out from a sample of books which have been certified by CGC, which bear an invalid grade and assessment because this hack work got through undetected.

 

What does the existence of the misgraded books with reverse spine rolls have to do with label comments going forward?

 

One concerning scenario would be If the book is resubbed for whatever reason, but the individual sending it in doesn't go ahead with the adjustment. Some here may take exception with CGC charging a toll to have the hack work fixed, but I'm most in disagreement with the idea of charging potential buyers for grading notes to discover the hidden work. Why not just disclose it on the label?

[fantastic_four]

I'm most in disagreement with the idea of charging potential buyers for grading notes to discover the hidden work. Why not just disclose it on the label?

No, it'd be a bad idea for the same reason all partial comments about what goes into grade are a bad idea--a significant percentage of collectors think the comments aren't incorporated into the grade, so they mentally say "this is a 9.0 minus the few defects noted on the label." No matter how many times CGC says it, lots of people will never hear it. And even when people know it those partial comments would still server as enough of a stigma for a significant number of collectors to pass on a book and wait for one without comments. We've repeated it on these boards hundreds of times and people still don't get or haven't seen it and keep thinking those incomplete label comments are separate.

 

In a perfect world, all defects would be documented somewhere--either on a printed invoice or perhaps a paper insert in a sleeve on the back of the slab label. Since no hobby's certification services have ever come close to complete documentation of defects, I doubt even competition would force CGC to do this.

 

I don't like them charging for grader's notes either, but as to why they wouldn't note in on the label. we've been having this conversation since 2002. I outlined the answer to that above, and it is the same problem now as it has been since CGC started--collectors have always been and always will be biased and confused by incomplete descriptions of defects on the label, so it creates a stigma separate from the grade. If all books had complete defect inventories we'd be able to put comments about condition like this into better perspective, but CGC doesn't fully document defects. No grading company in any hobby does.

[comicwiz]

I'm most in disagreement with the idea of charging potential buyers for grading notes to discover the hidden work. Why not just disclose it on the label?

No, it'd be a bad idea for the same reason all partial comments about what goes into grade are a bad idea--a significant percentage of collectors think the comments aren't incorporated into the grade, so they mentally say "this is a 9.0 minus the few defects noted on the label." No matter how many times CGC says it, lots of people will never hear it. And even when people know it those partial comments would still server as enough of a stigma for a significant number of collectors to pass on a book and wait for one without comments. We've repeated it on these boards hundreds of times and people still don't get or haven't seen it and keep thinking those incomplete label comments are separate.

 

In a perfect world, all defects would be documented somewhere--either on a printed invoice or perhaps a paper insert in a sleeve on the back of the slab label. Since no hobby's certification services have ever come close to complete documentation of defects, I doubt even competition would force CGC to do this.

 

I don't like them charging for grader's notes either, but as to why they wouldn't note in on the label. we've been having this conversation since 2002. I outlined the answer to that above, and it is the same problem now as it has been since CGC started--collectors have always been and always will be biased and confused by incomplete descriptions of defects on the label, so it creates a stigma separate from the grade. If all books had complete defect inventories we'd be able to put comments about condition like this into better perspective, but CGC doesn't fully document defects. No grading company in any hobby does.

 

AFA has made exceptions in cases where consumers needed to be aware of aspects of a collectible which were altered post production. One example, as evidenced in cases of historically important prototypes which were repaired, AFA either assessed such items on their numerical grade scale, or in extreme cases assigned an NG grade, and added the details on their COA. This is just one example of certification making adjustments where appropriate, so to make a blanket statement that no grading company in the hobby does is inaccurate.

 

As we are seeing in the case of books being reviewed for undetected work, these are complex situations where a standalone grade isn't sufficient, and we've simply been conditioned to believe it's fine with CGC's product, but in cases such as the one we are discussing, it isn't enough, unless notation of the hidden work is disclosed. Personally, and based on the way I've seen it handled by at least one other grading company, it isn't satisfactory to expect a "less is more" response to address this issue.

[fantastic_four]

AFA has made exceptions in cases where consumers needed to be aware of aspects of a collectible which were altered post production. One example, as evidenced in cases of historically important prototypes which were repaired, AFA either assessed such items on their numerical grade scale, or in extreme cases assigned an NG grade, and added the details on their COA. This is just one example of certification making adjustments where appropriate, so to make a blanket statement that no grading company in the hobby does is inaccurate.

 

As we are seeing in the case of books being reviewed for undetected work, these are complex situations where a standalone grade isn't sufficient, and we've simply been conditioned to believe it's fine with CGC's product, but in cases such as the one we are discussing, it isn't enough, unless notation of the hidden work is disclosed. Personally, and based on the way I've seen it handled by at least one other grading company, it isn't satisfactory to expect a "less is more" response to address this issue.

 

I certainly wasn't implying "less is more"--less is less and more is more. But the in-between of incomplete defect descriptions is confusing.

 

CGC certainly notes plenty of things on the label when it comes to restoration. Do you have a link to an example of one of the AFA COAs you're referring to? I did a Google image search and wasn't able to find a good example.

[comicwiz]

AFA has made exceptions in cases where consumers needed to be aware of aspects of a collectible which were altered post production. One example, as evidenced in cases of historically important prototypes which were repaired, AFA either assessed such items on their numerical grade scale, or in extreme cases assigned an NG grade, and added the details on their COA. This is just one example of certification making adjustments where appropriate, so to make a blanket statement that no grading company in the hobby does is inaccurate.

 

As we are seeing in the case of books being reviewed for undetected work, these are complex situations where a standalone grade isn't sufficient, and we've simply been conditioned to believe it's fine with CGC's product, but in cases such as the one we are discussing, it isn't enough, unless notation of the hidden work is disclosed. Personally, and based on the way I've seen it handled by at least one other grading company, it isn't satisfactory to expect a "less is more" response to address this issue.

 

I certainly wasn't implying "less is more"--less is less and more is more. But the in-between of incomplete defect descriptions is confusing.

 

CGC certainly notes plenty of things on the label when it comes to restoration. Do you have a link to an example of one of the AFA COAs you're referring to? I did a Google image search and wasn't able to find a good example.

 

I usually steer clear of altered collectibles regardless of their significance, so I wouldn't have mined or stored those incidents for recall. From recent memory recall, there was a DT Ben prototype where someone repaired the saber which I discovered when it was listed on eBay. I remember this mostly because it prompted me to contact AFA for an explanation, and both Chad and Tom D responded to my inquiry.

 

Most recently, and more in the context of AFA making adjustments on a case-by-case basis, this was done for an MOC. So steeped was collecting lore in believing this MOC was never produced, that even after it was graded, people questioned its authenticity. This prompted the owner to request a COA, which to my knowledge has never before been given to any other production MOC example.

[skypinkblu]

This is an interesting discussion, but my guess it's going to be moot. After all, how many people are going to pay $12 plus shipping fees etc. to have their books downgraded.

 

It's pretty unlikely they are going to be UPGRADED...do I doubt anyone is going to have to worry about label notes.

[THE_BEYONDER]

What color label would a "reverse spine roll" receive and would it be noted on the label?

 

+1 will it be noted on the label?

 

I'd like to know this as well.

 

No, it'd be a bad idea for the same reason all partial comments about what goes into grade are a bad idea--a significant percentage of collectors think the comments aren't incorporated into the grade, so they mentally say "this is a 9.0 minus the few defects noted on the label." No matter how many times CGC says it, lots of people will never hear it. And even when people know it those partial comments would still server as enough of a stigma for a significant number of collectors to pass on a book and wait for one without comments. We've repeated it on these boards hundreds of times and people still don't get or haven't seen it and keep thinking those incomplete label comments are separate.

 

 

Maybe CGC needs to spend some money educating their consumers.

[comicwiz]

This is an interesting discussion, but my guess it's going to be moot. After all, how many people are going to pay $12 plus shipping fees etc. to have their books downgraded.

 

It's pretty unlikely they are going to be UPGRADED...do I doubt anyone is going to have to worry about label notes.

 

Sharon to elaborate on the scenario I mentioned previously.

 

A book is resubbed (again deliberately for concerns it's been hacked, or to have regraded).

 

Upon review, it is determined to have had a reverse spine roll performed on it.

 

The grade will change (negatively) and the submitter will have the option to have it removed for a fee.

 

Now this is where we need to remain mindful of what this remediation measure brings.

 

In some cases, the corrective treatment may actually downgrade the item further than if it was left alone, or if it was simply downgraded for a bad press/reverse spine roll.

 

This downgrade may strictly be from a technical standpoint, and/or more pejoratively by the aesthetic appearance, because the attempt to recreate a new spine line has left a permanent defect when corrected.

 

IF the submitter leaves the book as is, the downgrade from the bad press still isn't enough IMHO.

 

That book will still present better (with the appearance of a near defect-free spine), and/or will allow them to market the grade as being too harsh, given the way the book presents when migrating the original defects to the rear cover.

 

Whether they decide to market it for full scheming effect by using photos instead of close-up scans, or a front shot only, the CGC label must disclose the newly created spine not original to the books production.

 

Otherwise, this is not really a remedy, and if the idea is to expect buyers to pay for graders notes on a book which has been flagged for reverse spine role, it needs to be rethought.

 

One solution I'd deem acceptable would be to include that information in the free serial number lookup tool available on the CGC website.

[Jaded Savage]

It boggles the mind why that info is not available on the serial lookup in the first place. The most expensive collectables grading company and yet I gotta shell out more money for graders notes? All this "hush hush" bull is pretty pathetic.

[fantastic_four]

Most recently, and more in the context of AFA making adjustments on a case-by-case basis, this was done for an MOC. So steeped was collecting lore in believing this MOC was never produced, that even after it was graded, people questioned its authenticity. This prompted the owner to request a COA, which to my knowledge has never before been given to any other production MOC example.

 

What's the point of the COA? Does AFA sometimes grade fake items? It wouldn't occur to me to even need a COA for comics--never seen CGC grade a fake. The CGC slab itself serves the purpose of a COA.

 

It sounds like the owner got a free copy of an AFA "grading report," which I presume is somewhat comparable to CGC's grader's notes. I'm of the opinion that CGC should give a free copy of grader's notes to the submitter of EVERY comic, so no argument there! But I don't see in that example that AFA put incomplete info on their grading label in their slab like you're suggesting CGC should do, so the example doesn't seem comparable.

[fantastic_four]

It boggles the mind why that info is not available on the serial lookup in the first place. The most expensive collectables grading company and yet I gotta shell out more money for graders notes?

 

+1

[skypinkblu]

This is an interesting discussion, but my guess it's going to be moot. After all, how many people are going to pay $12 plus shipping fees etc. to have their books downgraded.

 

It's pretty unlikely they are going to be UPGRADED...do I doubt anyone is going to have to worry about label notes.

 

Sharon to elaborate on the scenario I mentioned previously.

 

A book is resubbed (again deliberately for concerns it's been hacked, or to have regraded).

 

Upon review, it is determined to have had a reverse spine roll performed on it.

 

The grade will change (negatively) and the submitter will have the option to have it removed for a fee.

 

Now this is where we need to remain mindful of what this remediation measure brings.

 

In some cases, the corrective treatment may actually downgrade the item further than if it was left alone, or if it was simply downgraded for a bad press/reverse spine roll.

 

This downgrade may strictly be from a technical standpoint, and/or more pejoratively by the aesthetic appearance, because the attempt to recreate a new spine line has left a permanent defect when corrected.

 

IF the submitter leaves the book as is, the downgrade from the bad press still isn't enough IMHO.

 

That book will still present better (with the appearance of a near defect-free spine), and/or will allow them to market the grade as being too harsh, given the way the book presents when migrating the original defects to the rear cover.

 

Whether they decide to market it for full scheming effect by using photos instead of close-up scans, or a front shot only, the CGC label must disclose the newly created spine not original to the books production.

 

Otherwise, this is not really a remedy, and if the idea is to expect buyers to pay for graders notes on a book which has been flagged for reverse spine role, it needs to be rethought.

 

One solution I'd deem acceptable would be to include that information in the free serial number lookup tool available on the CGC website.

 

I understand what you are saying Joseph...personally, I WISH they had more notes on the label, and I'd even like longer grader's notes on the back of the label...and of COURSE the graders notes should be free, if to no one else, then at least for the submitter.

 

However, I think that CGC picked a "solution" that will not cause any more stress for them, because I don't think very many people are going to send the books in, if ANY.

 

From the corporation's point of view, it was a brilliant "solution".

 

I'm not real happy with it as a collector, but if I owned the company, I'd be taking whoever came up with this one, out to lunch. Looking at it from a purely business- not caring if the collectors were a little upset angle, this is a great idea... after all, once again, they are the only game in town and people are on cgc crack.

 

Frankly, I'm disappointed..however,. I'm realistic, this is a business after all, and they need to make decisions that are less costly to them both financially and in terms of time lost/reputation. Now they can say they addressed the problem and came up with an equitable solution.

 

If I owned one of those books, I'd be banging my head against the wall right now.

 

Luckily, I rarely buy high grade books, so my wall is safe..

[sufunk]

It boggles the mind why that info is not available on the serial lookup in the first place. The most expensive collectables grading company and yet I gotta shell out more money for graders notes? All this "hush hush" bull is pretty pathetic.

 

If you mock the grade of a different book, you might be able to get plitch to post your graders notes for free as an attempted burn

 

Worked for me

[originalisbest]

Non-additive = If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again.

---------------------------------------------------------- Gamer Bible, 3rd Psalm

 

, whatadoosh!

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

What color label would a "reverse spine roll" receive and would it be noted on the label?

 

+1 will it be noted on the label?

 

I'd like to know this as well.

 

No, it'd be a bad idea for the same reason all partial comments about what goes into grade are a bad idea--a significant percentage of collectors think the comments aren't incorporated into the grade, so they mentally say "this is a 9.0 minus the few defects noted on the label." No matter how many times CGC says it, lots of people will never hear it. And even when people know it those partial comments would still server as enough of a stigma for a significant number of collectors to pass on a book and wait for one without comments. We've repeated it on these boards hundreds of times and people still don't get or haven't seen it and keep thinking those incomplete label comments are separate.

 

 

Maybe CGC needs to spend some money educating their consumers.

 

That's exactly what I said a decade ago when I read this lameness: "Finally, and you may not believe this, but we have gotten calls from people who are new to comics and hate anything with a minus next to it. One guy did not care that his book was a 3.5, he just did not understand why he had a minus sign, what he called a negative, on his book"

 

My comment: "Why don't you educate these new consumers instead of dumbing down the label?"