• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Answer from CGC.........

Started by sborock,

1,346 posts in this topic

blazingbob

blazingbob

Posted
Posted

Some food for thought.

 

I know that Steve mentioned that the reason they chose Chris was because of the great work he's done. Now with the launching of CGC's pressing service they will have no problem referring books to his service based on the fact that he's one of the best in the business.

 

Well, let's see CGC started in 1999, Chris has been doing restoration CHECKS, NOT restoration WORK since 1999. Amazing that somebody can still be "great" after not doing restoration work for 5 years.

 

Secondly, people have stated what the impact of this will be from the dealers side. Census numbers are already screwed up on some books from the crack out, resubmit game. There are a number of keys such as FF #1 and #2 that are clearly not represented well in the census due to the number of times they were resubmitted. Now CGC will state that if EVERYBODY followed the rules and sent their label back in on the regrade (Yeah, fat chance), those census numbers would be more accurate.

 

CGC pressing books will give buyers the impression that EVERY book is pressed, it introduces doubt into the graded market. As a buyer you are forced to believe the dealer and you know what a STERLING REPUTATION OF HONESTY dealers have.

 

Lastly, not every book can be upgraded. In fact very few books can be upgraded based on the defects they exhibit. If a book has stress lines breaking color than your shot at getting that 9.0 to 9.6 upgrade are pretty minimal. However, as shown on a AF #15 it is possible to squash a 5.5 into a higher grade. So for all of you that are now going to be running around buying lower grades in the hope of using CGC's new service I suggest that you come by my office with your microscope or eye loop and start picking out those pressing candidates. Remember CGC doesn't care if you get the grade or not, it's how many times you submit the book that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted
It is just ink on paper if you just step back and look at it. That is what comic books are just ink on paper.

 

Wow, that's some heavy insight Tracy. Money is just ink on paper as well. So what's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted
Well, let's see CGC started in 1999, Chris has been doing restoration CHECKS, NOT restoration WORK since 1999. Amazing that somebody can still be "great" after not doing restoration work for 5 years.

 

That indeed is an interesting observation...maybe he has a portfolio of pressed comics that's passed around? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
Well, let's see CGC started in 1999, Chris has been doing restoration CHECKS, NOT restoration WORK since 1999. Amazing that somebody can still be "great" after not doing restoration work for 5 years.

 

That indeed is an interesting observation...maybe he has a portfolio of pressed comics that's passed around? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Jim

 

That is an observation that was raised in another thread which I found not only interesting, but also logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntboy

burntboy

Posted
Posted
I never said that this whole issue dosen't concern me, but I'm not yet at the point where I think the sky is falling. I understand you have books that have reverted back, but I have no clue how wide-spread this problem is, nor do I have any idea how many(if any) of my books have even been pressed in the first place.

 

My above post was in response to MK's cookie-cutter description of CGC buyers. As for the rest of this issue, I'll say it again: I don't have enough data to make any conclusive decisions, so until I get the full scoop I will not be altering my collecting habits. We still don't know how common pressing is, nor do we know the likelyhood that books that are already pressed will revert, so I'm not quite ready to liquidate my slabs. If half my collection suddenly started exhibiting defects that were not there, or if fellow collectors started complaining in droves(with proof) that their books were reverting and that this is a huge problem, I would stop buying CGC graded books. Until then, I'm not going to make any drastic changes. If that means I get burned, so be it, but I will not react without proof and I will not quit collecting out of fear.

 

i like your stance on this , especially that last sentence........ thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
You're right, wasn't intending to be a plaguerist.

 

That thought had never even crossed my mind, and in fact, in many ways your candidness on this issue has brought not only a degree of cred to the discussion, but also brought to light many important considerations that prior to you making them, were dismissed as theories put forward by the delusional, the hysterical and conspirators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Brain

The Brain

Posted
Posted
what if you only paid what others have paid for the same book, and , as a result of pressing, more copies in grade appear and your books are less valued?? Thats not overpaying but you still get the shaft.

 

What if you buy a top census copy and the next day, Chuck finds the Mile High 4 collection that has a box full of NM/MT copies of the issue you just bought? It's all a gamble. Anyone who guys a top census copy for an insane price takes the risk that this could happen.

 

Not that I like the fact that it could happen artificially, but I really don't think that there are too many books that can be pressed from a 9.6 to a 9.8, so it isn't the top of the census that will take the hit. I firmly believe that the books that will see the largest increases in population are those in the 5.0 to 9.0 category, which tend to have non-color-breaking defects that can be pressed out and upgraded. Most 9.4s, 9.6s, and 9.8s have the kind of wear that can't just be pressed out. I am talking slightly blunted corners, small bindery tears, and maybe a flaked spine stress. NDP doesn't fix any of this.

 

 

Oh this is to good to let go

Anyone who"guys"a top census copy for an insane price takes the risk that

 

this could happen

. Nice to see that you are just like the rest of us FFB you too make mistakes. 27_laughing.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
Sometimes I like to light my farts on fire.

 

1961 was the most recent year that could be written both upside-down and rightside-up and appear the same. The next year that this will be possible will be 6009!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
Sometimes I like to light my farts on fire.

 

1961 was the most recent year that could be written both upside-down and rightside-up and appear the same. The next year that this will be possible will be 6009!

 

Does 2002 count? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
Sometimes I like to light my farts on fire.

 

1961 was the most recent year that could be written both upside-down and rightside-up and appear the same. The next year that this will be possible will be 6009!

 

Does 2002 count? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif Nope, 2 upside down looks a bit like a 7 but nothing like a 2...anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
Sometimes I like to light my farts on fire.

 

1961 was the most recent year that could be written both upside-down and rightside-up and appear the same. The next year that this will be possible will be 6009!

 

Does 2002 count? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif Nope, 2 upside down looks a bit like a 7 but nothing like a 2...anyone else?

 

On a calculator a 2 is the same both ways. sumo.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DawgPhan

DawgPhan

Posted
Posted
Sometimes I like to light my farts on fire.

 

1961 was the most recent year that could be written both upside-down and rightside-up and appear the same. The next year that this will be possible will be 6009!

 

Does 2002 count? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

yep...at least I think so...Also I think that 2112 is a lot closer than 6009...but that might just be me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garthgantu

garthgantu

Posted
Posted

 

Well, let's see CGC started in 1999, Chris has been doing restoration CHECKS, NOT restoration WORK since 1999. Amazing that somebody can still be "great" after not doing restoration work for 5 years.

 

Good point, Bob, and one that I made some 25 pages ago in this thread and was summarily mocked by Lord Rahl. I too think it's odd that his expertise would be in such demand after sitting on a shelf for 5 years. Of course, the aspect of his expertise that is 'freshest' - and coincidentally, most in demand, I believe - is in the area of "non-detectable restoration" such as pressing.

 

Chris is moving from a monotonous job to a boring one - only explanation is, "there's gold in them thar 7.5s !"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illiterati-migration

Illiterati-migration

Posted
Posted
Sometimes I like to light my farts on fire.

 

1961 was the most recent year that could be written both upside-down and rightside-up and appear the same. The next year that this will be possible will be 6009!

 

Does 2002 count? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

yep...at least I think so...Also I think that 2112 is a lot closer than 6009...but that might just be me...

 

foreheadslap.gif Not the same backwards and forwards, but the same UPSIDE-DOWN as it is RIGHTSIDE-UP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing