Follow up response from Steve Borock

[marvelcollector]

I had mentioned this in another thread, with less traffic... I'm reposting

it here...maybe some might not have considered...

 

 

 

Has anybody noticed that CGC has always marketed the resto check as being

"free"?

 

It seems that was done for liability purposes from the start...It defuses, to some extent, any claim that customers didn't get what they paid for. (I'm NOT agreeing with that; just trying to "get in their heads"...)

 

If all you are technically charging for is the grade ; well, that's just an opinion,

you can't really be raked over the coals for that. But with resto, either there is or

there isn't; either it's caught or it's not...

 

I wonder how much of the decision to "throw it in for free" was based on legal advice and how much was based on their confidence to catch a reasonable percentage of resto....

[nearmint]

Has anybody noticed that CGC has always marketed the resto check as being "free"?

 

I've never noticed that. Can you provide examples?

 

In the current Overstreet, their ad simply says "CGC provides an expert restoration check for each book submitted." There's no mention of it being free.

[QuasarComics]

I forgot about that book being upgraded. I was one of the ones on the Sothebys committee that graded that book and, I do not precisely remember, but I am confident my grade was less than what it was assigned in the Sotheby's auction (Sotheby's used a system of throwing out the higest and lowest grade and averaging the rest).

 

The signature book is a nice book but no where near any claims to Near Mint.

[marvelcollector]

When I went to look at the ad in this year's OPG, I see it doesn't say that.

 

However, I looked in the OPG #32 and 33 and the ad(s) say "restoration check

included in grading fee" and goes on to say similar service (resto check) elsewhere

"costs as much as $100"...

 

Even in these ads, this implies the resto check is free (or not the prinary service you are paying for), but I know I've seen even less subtle wording in their ads (probably from about the same time frame) that stated the resto check was "free".

[nearmint]

Even in these ads, this implies the resto check is free (or not the prinary service you are paying for),

 

I agree that grading is the primary service a customer is paying for, but I don't agree that the ad implies that the resto check is free.

[UnDeadChihuahua-migration]

From the CGC FAQ:

 

Q: When I submit my books, what assurances can you offer with regard to confidentiality and anonymity for my books?

 

A: CGC will discuss the details of each transaction only with the original submitter, in order to provide complete confidentiality for all parties. CGC will not release any information concerning the certification of your comics without permission ...

 

Q: How will I know if a comic has had restoration?

 

A: CGC has the industry's top team of restoration detection experts, led by Chris Friesen, Steve Borock, Mark Haspel and Paul Litch. The restoration check is an integral part of the CGC expert grading team's review of your comic book, and unlike other professional services which charge up to $100 for this service, it is included at NO EXTRA CHARGE in the CGC tier price you choose. When detected, restoration is specifically noted on the grading label, and is visible through a different colored label. CGC will assign restored books an apparent grade, which includes a description of light, moderate, or heavy restoration. This way a buyer will always know what they are getting with a CGC graded comic that has been restored.

 

Q: Does CGC offer a grading guarantee?

 

A: Due to the fragile nature of comic books, CGC does not offer a grading guarantee. However, CGC does offer the following guarantee: ......c) CGC guarantees that all books it certifies are authentic as described on the CGC grading label.

 

So if the grading label indicates it is not restored, doesn't that mean CGC is guaranteeing that the book is not restored?

 

It seems like the FAQ makes promises that contradict the disclaimers on the backs of the labels.

[duncan36]

You going to answer my question? If you're happy with the new scanning system at least have the courtesy to explain it to me(and others I'm sure). Thank you.

[nearmint]

You going to answer my question? If you're happy with the new scanning system at least have the courtesy to explain it to me(and others I'm sure). Thank you.

 

Duncan, take another look at your post. You didn't ask a question.

 

I don't have anymore knowledge of the scanning system than anyone else that read Steve's initial post. I responded to yours because you described the idea of CGC starting a scanning system as "throwing us a bone", when that's exactly what many board members have been screaming for for quite some time. It's hardly throwing us a bone.

 

So why didn't you answer MY questions? What exactly do you expect from CGC? 100% accuracy? Where else in life do you get that?

 

If you don't expect 100%, what's an acceptable level to gain your trust?

[lou_fine]

Q: Does CGC offer a grading guarantee?

 

A: Due to the fragile nature of comic books, CGC does not offer a grading guarantee. However, CGC does offer the following guarantee: ......c) CGC guarantees that all books it certifies are authentic as described on the CGC grading label.

 

So if the grading label indicates it is not restored, doesn't that mean CGC is guaranteeing that the book is not restored?

 

It seems like the FAQ makes promises that contradict the disclaimers on the backs of the labels.

 

No, I do not think this statement shows that CGC offers a guarantee when it comes to detection of restoration. The guarantee that is being referred to on the label and in the above Q&A appears to be talking about grading only.

 

Their earlier answer seems to actually give them a loophole if grading is missed as based upon their statement: WHEN DETECTED, restoration is specifically noted on the grading label...........".

 

To me, the above statement from CGC implies that if they do FAIL TO DETECT restoration, restoration will not be noted on the grading label. Doesn't sound like a guarantee to me with respect to the restoration check.

[UnDeadChihuahua-migration]

Q: Does CGC offer a grading guarantee?

 

A: Due to the fragile nature of comic books, CGC does not offer a grading guarantee. However, CGC does offer the following guarantee: ......c) CGC guarantees that all books it certifies are authentic as described on the CGC grading label.

 

So if the grading label indicates it is not restored, doesn't that mean CGC is guaranteeing that the book is not restored?

 

It seems like the FAQ makes promises that contradict the disclaimers on the backs of the labels.

 

No, I do not think this statement shows that CGC offers a guarantee when it comes to detection of restoration. The guarantee that is being referred to on the label and in the above Q&A appears to be talking about grading only.

 

Their earlier answer seems to actually give them a loophole if grading is missed as based upon their statement: WHEN DETECTED, restoration is specifically noted on the grading label...........".

 

To me, the above statement from CGC implies that if they do FAIL TO DETECT restoration, restoration will not be noted on the grading label. Doesn't sound like a guarantee to me with respect to the restoration check.

 

"...a buyer will always know what they are getting with a CGC graded comic that has been restored."

 

That really sounds like a guarantee to me.

 

It says that if a comic has been restored and it has been checked by CGC then the buyer will always know exactly what they are getting. In effect, they are guaranteeing that they will always label a restored comic as being restored.

 

There is a big difference is saying "a CGC graded comic that has been restored" and "a CGC graded comic where restoration was detected."

[UnDeadChihuahua-migration]

Q: Does CGC offer a grading guarantee?

 

A: Due to the fragile nature of comic books, CGC does not offer a grading guarantee. However, CGC does offer the following guarantee: ......c) CGC guarantees that all books it certifies are authentic as described on the CGC grading label.

 

So if the grading label indicates it is not restored, doesn't that mean CGC is guaranteeing that the book is not restored?

 

It seems like the FAQ makes promises that contradict the disclaimers on the backs of the labels.

 

No, I do not think this statement shows that CGC offers a guarantee when it comes to detection of restoration. The guarantee that is being referred to on the label and in the above Q&A appears to be talking about grading only.

 

Their earlier answer seems to actually give them a loophole if grading is missed as based upon their statement: WHEN DETECTED, restoration is specifically noted on the grading label...........".

 

To me, the above statement from CGC implies that if they do FAIL TO DETECT restoration, restoration will not be noted on the grading label. Doesn't sound like a guarantee to me with respect to the restoration check.

 

"...a buyer will always know what they are getting with a CGC graded comic that has been restored."

 

That really sounds like a guarantee to me.

 

It says that if a comic has been restored and it has been checked by CGC then the buyer will always know exactly what they are getting. In effect, they are guaranteeing that they will always label a restored comic as being restored.

 

There is a big difference is saying "a CGC graded comic that has been restored" and "a CGC graded comic where restoration was detected."

 

Even more interesting is that if this is a guarantee, it is a guarantee for buyers of CGC comics - not just the person submitting the comic for grading.

[marvelcollector]

I agree that grading is the primary service a customer is paying for, but I don't agree that the ad implies that the resto check is free.

 

I think there's a subtle difference (at best) between "included at no extra charge"

(as the CGC FAQ says; posted just above) and "free"...

 

Again, I also know that I've seen more explicit wording in their marketing (probably

from the same time frame; 2002, 2003) ; I just can't put my finger on it at the moment.

 

(Btw, OT: how's the cat? )

[AtlasT]

We are starting to put together a CGC advisory board and many forum members have asked to be on it. It will be made up of some forum members, some hobbyists from outside our boards, and a few dealers. This will help us continue to make policy as new things come up as well as having input from them during times like the Ewert situation. The forum members on the advisory board will also act as a liaison at times so the forum and the collecting community will be kept up to speed as to what is going on, while waiting for a situation to be resolved or while changes are being made to our certification process.

 

ALL RIGHT!! NOW we're GETTING somewhere!

 

When the (expletive deleted) really hit the fan the government would pull this one out. We would call it the committee of the many, with the ability to influence the none. I can't even begin to tell you how many Advisory Boards like this that are linked to the government were created to appease a crisis situation. I used to call then the free coffee, lunch and donuts b-i-t-c-h, whine and leave the government alone committees.

 

They would meet and discuss the minutia of events ad-nauseum and then faithfully submit their recomendations to that government's departmental paper shredder.

 

...oh ...that's different! ...Never mind....

[marvelcollector]

A: Due to the fragile nature of comic books, CGC does not offer a grading guarantee. However, CGC does offer the following guarantee: ......c) CGC guarantees that all books it certifies are authentic as described on the CGC grading label.

 

 

I think "as described on the CGC grading label" could be construed as meaning

the book is circa a particular year, the stated title, the stated issue number, etc.

 

(Not that CGC hasn't ever erred in these areas either.....)

[trevorlsmith]

IHas anybody noticed that CGC has always marketed the resto check as being "free"?

 

It seems that was done for liability purposes from the start...It defuses, to some extent, any claim that customers didn't get what they paid for. (I'm NOT agreeing with that; just trying to "get in their heads"...)[...]

 

I wonder how much of the decision to "throw it in for free" was based on legal advice and how much was based on their confidence to catch a reasonable percentage of resto....

 

Whether or not the resto check is marketed to customers as "free" is irrelevant (imo).

 

If cgc had set up their operation, whereby a resto check was an ancillary service they provided upon request for an additional cost, and then, every now and again, offered it as a free service in conjunction with grading and slabbing I could maybe see some liability loop holes for those free resto checks.

 

However, the resto check has been, from the beginning, a service that cgc provides for every book they grade. Not only that, they have marketed their resto check as the best in the business. Any legalese they may have attached to their service description is a fiction and about as shallow as a puddle.

 

It's like a lunch special where you get a free soda with your sandwich. The deli is still liable if you cut your lip on the glass.

[duncan36]

I don't have anymore knowledge of the scanning system than anyone else that read Steve's initial post. I responded to yours because you described the idea of CGC starting a scanning system as "throwing us a bone", when that's exactly what many board members have been screaming for for quite some time. It's hardly throwing us a bone.

 

So why didn't you answer MY questions? What exactly do you expect from CGC? 100% accuracy? Where else in life do you get that?

 

If you don't expect 100%, what's an acceptable level to gain your trust?

 

You're happy about a scanning system but you dont know what it does, then you get angry at me for not being thrilled about it. Thats funny

 

I dont expect perfection, but I do expect an organization whose credibility in the hobby depends on being seen as one that is committed to identifying restoration to approach this problem with more gusto. I dont expect to be called 'paranoid' by the head of that organization when restored books turn up in blue holders. I expect to be at least told: We're going to put our considerable resources, expertise, and knowledge into combatting this restoration that is sending chills through the hobby. I at least expect that.

 

Obviously I expect too much, the writing on the wall was there when CGC invited restorers into their midst and gave pressing the green light.

[Sal]

couple of things;

 

Steve gave out the name of Friesen's company in the thread that announced PCS's formation in the first place.

 

here's the quote:

Not really going to get into a big Q & A about this because I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS NEW COMPANY. But if I know you all as well as I think I do, without any answer, we will just have more "yadda yadda yadda" and CGC/CCG haters will have more misinformation to spread until others believe it as fact.

 

Yes, Chris is one of my best friends and we do talk at dinner (though, believe it or not, we don't talk that much about business) so from my understanding, the "official announcement" that will come from either the CCG (Certified Collectibles Group) or the PCS (Paper Collectibles Services, the new service) will probably be sent out in a form letter to the clients who PCS wants to "invite" to become customers because, if I understand it correctly, Friesen does not want to take in too much work at the begining so that he does not get overwhelmed with work. This way his work will be up to the high standards he has always held himself to by not having to rush his work and so that he can get books back to his customers in a reasonable amount of time.

 

just to clear that up.

 

 

secondly, all CGC needs to do is "leak" the Ewert sub #s to a reporter with one of the comic-related publications, and voila. this would work best if there was a stolen file or two, or if someone left said file in an auspicious area for some enterprising person to find. but that's probably not going to happen.

 

honestly, the idea that CGC wouldn't release the #s for a few hundred SCRewert submissions to protect dealers is ludicrous. NOT releasing the numbers puts a ton more books into play, and anyone who has a HG slab submitted in the last ten months who can't prove provenance is potentially holding onto a Restored book. so, wtf, CGC? out with it already, by hook or by farking crook

[Flaming_Telepath]

As Red already brought up...when did Chris start pressing or providing other resto services for clients?

 

Jim, I think you'll find that Chris started offering pressing and resto removal services to select clients before 'leaving' CGC.

 

But if you think they're going to confirm that little nugget at this rather low moment, you're going to be disappointed.

[Foolkiller]

If you have been waiting for answers, the post by Steve Borock likely did not answer any of the important questions that have been posed. As others have already suggested, waiting for those answers will not bear any fruit. Those answers will likely never come, because they cannot be given to you, because I am quite certain that Steve Eichenbaum and the other corporate heads of CCG are not going to allow any uncensored further commentary from Borock.

 

Let’s be clear: The post adds nothing that we do not already know (unless you count the fact that real names are now required to register). I can’t thank Steve for coming on here and just restating in chronology what we already know, and what he has already told us. I cannot thank Steve for telling us he banned Jason Ewert, and summarizing the facts about what CGC has done in response. CGC has already gotten credit for that. I cannot thank Steve for again defending Chris Friesen, yet failing to truly address Friesen’s role in selective offers of pressing for select customers (though I do not believe he would trim a book for a customer and not disclose that information). I cannot thank Steve for not providing the information regarding the numbers regarding trimmed books that they DID catch. Except, I never expected him to come on here and to make that information public. Unfortunately, the reality is from a corporate standpoint, I doubt that they can provide any more than they have done.

 

The statement actually dances around several issues and never directly addresses them. It certainly makes the answers to the questions, did Friesen do pressing, or, paranoia about books in blue labels, ambiguous at best. How many books specifically did CGC catch in the current submission of Ewert books that were still raw? Did they look at them? Because it gives you an idea of the scope that Ewert probably submitted in the past. It’s been caught now because CGC now knows what it is looking for.

 

I believe that Steve Borock, Mark Haspel and Paul Litch are all very passionate about the hobby, and would never do something they believe would harm the hobby in the long run. But certification and official grading, while having benefits, is also something that in my mind has been geared towards one thing: the bottom line.

 

I don’t believe there’s been a big profit at CGC to this point. I think the company might have finally turned a profit last fiscal year. I highly doubt they were making a profit before that, perhaps very minor, if at all (this is based partially on outside data, but also relying on statements Steve has made to me regarding the fact that they haven’t been a booming financial success – yet). But – there is definite plan in place, when you look at the chain of events.

 

CGC was conceived with the idea that it would one day enter the pressing services field (or some other form of restoration service). I don’t think grading alone is going to make it profitable enough. Encapsulation and certification has been going for 5 years now, and I’m not sure you’re going to see a much wider scope of books being graded than you have now. Maybe a slight increase. So without a drastic increase in fees (which would then make it less accessible to people), it makes it difficult to turn a profit – unless you find another means of income.

 

When pressing was first announced awhile back as being “acceptable” to CGC because if done professionally, it cannot be detected on a consistent basis the first shot was fired over the bow. The practice has been around for quite some time. In fact, books have been pressed, and it has not been disclosed, well before CGC. But – with the inception of CGC, you can slowly change the minds of collectors everywhere to accept pressing as a practice that is not harmful to the books, or something that collectors will simply accept because so many pressed books will already be out in blue labels. Prior to CGC, why was pressing not disclosed to most customers? Because I believe most collectors (I was one of them) believed pressing WAS a form of restoration, and thus should be disclosed. I simply accepted as something that I could live with (I still maintain that there’s no proof that pressing damages a book if done properly).

 

Regardless of my feelings on pressing, the idea was to get people to accept pressing as a technique, and to put pressed books onto the market. In order to do this, CGC has to adopt the official policy of pressing is not restoration. Allegedly, pressing is offered to “select” customers, and not made available to the public, nor disclosed to them. After some time, and certain dealers engaging in this practice, a new company is announced: Friesen is leaving CGC to start his own business, pressing services included. And who would you go to? The guy who works down the hall from CGC, or Matt Nelson or Tracey Heft? Even if there is no collusion, the company is clearly banking on the fact that there will be some perception of a helpful grade or insider knowledge in the marketing of their product. Is their guy THAT much better? Doubtful. But pressing IS a profitable service, and when you combine it with grading, you get a profitable product. And one that will turn a profit on a yearly basis.

 

Of course, the framework was laid with coins. Read the NCS website. Toning is bad, but cleaning, once thought to be a no-no for coins, is just fine for coins when done professionally (i.e. our service) through the techniques and technology offered through NCS. Some collectors like toning, and I spoke to an old time coin collector who was shocked that cleaning was now an accepted practice (he’s been out for awhile) and a service offered by NCS. Of course, times change, but why do they change? Because we as collectors make it possible. We allow for this type of change in the marketplace because ultimately, we have already accepted pressing. It is here to stay, and it is on books you likely own, whether or not you know or not. And now, no worries, because CGC has told you it’s ok, and dealers have said it’s ok. Even though for years it’s been hidden, now it can be disclosed – why? Because it’s going to become an accepted practice. It is a manufactured high grade product that is not real. If you buy high grade for something more than aesthetic appeal, actual historical preservation, then I think you will be disappointed with today’s product of books encapsulated.

 

Trimming is an over the line next logical step. As I’ve seen others posit, what’s the big deal if the book is trimmed? I mean 1/32nd of an inch? It doesn’t detract from the eye appeal, it’s still a great looking 40 year old book! Of course, it looks nice, but I don’t think collectors want that… They want a book that’s been naturally preserved and was on the racks – the value is NOT in aesthetic appeal alone. Perhaps one day for comic books it will be true, but that day has not come. Conservation is the next step in the acceptance process, and you will again be asked to make that choice. And more conservation services for CGC to offer the consumer.

 

Also consider this: the logic behind pressing being declared as not restoration was that CGC could not detect it on a consistent basis if done properly. Yet they did PLOD books where the pressing was done poorly because it was evident. How about if they were pressing the books themselves? I guess they could detect the pressing, so why weren’t the books they pressed PLODs? Following their logic, pressing either is or is not restoration. A bad press job simply results in a lower grade NOT a PLOD. But of course, that logic would detract from CGC’s ability to market their own service.

 

This is not meant as an indictment to never use CGC’s service. It is meant to serve as a statement that we the collecting community have allowed it to happen. We wanted to believe in CGC so badly that we think that the reason for this service was to help collectors first. It is not. It is to make money first, and to provide the collectors a service second. And frankly, there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

What the Ewert scandal has illustrated more than anything else is not to accept apathy and history as our drop back for what will result going forward. In essence, we must take a more proactive role in ensuring that dealers will act honestly and fairly when dealing with us. The truth is that they some of taken advantage of us, and too little has been done to rid the hobby of these frauds. In order to do that, when a fraud is uncovered, it is incumbent on us not simply to move beyond it, and forget it, and say these guys will be back, what can we do? The idea is to continue fighting for integrity in the comic book hobby. There is plenty of money to be made for dealers without them resorting to undisclosed restoration. And the goal is to collect evidence and prove that they have been frauds. Today it was Ewert, perhaps in staying vigilant, it will be someone else.

 

CGC has taken a number of steps in the Ewert situation that have been aimed at reassuring consumer confidence in their product. That’s what the purpose of the statement was. Don’t worry, we’re watching. While I like Steve Borock, while I consider him a friend, I cannot rely on him to be the person policing the hobby. Frankly, it’s not their job to do that. Their interest is the advancement of CGC first and that is why I rambled on above about what the framework of the CGC system has been from the start. A system set up to make money.

 

Is the hobby better off with CGC? Yes. A grading company has helped to fix a number of problems and brought us a whole host of new ones.

 

Some of the board members may say, lighten up, it’s only comics. Why worry when there’s not much you can do, just keep looking for books. I don’t think we ought to bury our heads in the sand and allow the status quo to continue. I hope that in the coming months, as more proactive plans are announced to address some of these concerns, we will use these boards as a tool not to tear apart CGC, but rather as a force where dealers and collectors alike begin dealing with each other honestly and openly. While the bottom line is always key, character and integrity need not be sacrificed in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

I believe we can make the comic book hobby more honest (and integrity IS a problem in our hobby), and I refuse to surrender to cynicism and believe that nothing will ever change. And I know there are a lot of you who continue to believe as I do.

[Rip]

Also consider this: the logic behind pressing being declared as not restoration was that CGC could not detect it on a consistent basis if done properly. Yet they did PLOD books where the pressing was done poorly because it was evident. How about if they were pressing the books themselves? I guess they could detect the pressing, so why weren’t the books they pressed PLODs? Following their logic, pressing either is or is not restoration. A bad press job simply results in a lower grade NOT a PLOD. But of course, that logic would detract from CGC’s ability to market their own service.

 

As far as I know CGC only PLOD's pressing if a book was disassembled.

Do you have an example of something other than this?