Where in the world was the Quality Control at CGC??? 43 43

[Galen130]

On 5/13/2022 at 9:01 AM, skypinkblu said:

I haven't looked at this book for a while, I was taking some pictures of the run and did a double take. I think the book was graded in 2017, I bought it slabbed. The artist is Woggins, I have no idea who John Lucas is, but he was not a Katy Keene artist that I can recall and the date should be 1954 not, 1986

Oh my!!!  I may have to check my GA/SA stuff now!!! 

[DR.X]

On 5/13/2022 at 8:01 AM, skypinkblu said:

I haven't looked at this book for a while, I was taking some pictures of the run and did a double take. I think the book was graded in 2017, I bought it slabbed. The artist is Woggins, I have no idea who John Lucas is, but he was not a Katy Keene artist that I can recall and the date should be 1954 not, 1986

So it's off a few years. Why be a sore head. 

[wardevil0]

On 5/13/2022 at 11:01 AM, skypinkblu said:

I haven't looked at this book for a while, I was taking some pictures of the run and did a double take. I think the book was graded in 2017, I bought it slabbed. The artist is Woggins, I have no idea who John Lucas is, but he was not a Katy Keene artist that I can recall and the date should be 1954 not, 1986

They think it's this one... which actually has been graded before so they probably just pulled the wrong one on the drop-down list.  Should take about 2 seconds to distinguish between a 1986 comic and a 1954 one.

[skypinkblu]

On 5/13/2022 at 11:33 AM, wardevil0 said:

They think it's this one... which actually has been graded before so they probably just pulled the wrong one on the drop-down list.  Should take about 2 seconds to distinguish between a 1986 comic and a 1954 one.

Thanks! I have not been paying enough attention to labels it seems, lol.

I don't know the modern Katy Keenes, so that was a help...

[Axe Elf]

So far, of the three words used to create CGC's business name--"Certified," "Guaranty," and "Company"--it appears that the only accurate descriptor is "Company."

[Oldman Newfie]

Last box all 25 had scratches down the center like the one in photo. Photos don't show well

Just recieved another box of 25 with 20 scratched in the same place

Box of 9 ME recieved all good 

[Axe Elf]

On 5/13/2022 at 1:00 PM, Oldman Newfie said:

Box of 9 ME recieved all good

The Case Scratching Specialist must have been out sick that day.

[MR SigS]

On 5/13/2022 at 11:13 AM, Axe Elf said:

The Case Scratching Specialist must have been out sick that day.

[Timmay]

Just got back a box of 25 moderns, and another half-assed job by encapsulation.

Scuffs, scratches, hair, etc.

@CGC Mike

Does CGC use a buffer to polish small defects out of slabs?

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Timmay

[Qalyar]

On 5/13/2022 at 10:33 AM, wardevil0 said:

They think it's this one... which actually has been graded before so they probably just pulled the wrong one on the drop-down list.  Should take about 2 seconds to distinguish between a 1986 comic and a 1954 one.

This was almost certainly the result of the staff running the labeling process being slaves to the dropdowns provided by the database, in combination with an error made when (series 1) Katy Keene #17 (and #16) were first graded.. Let's walk through the issues. If you pull up Katy Keene in the census, the top of the issue list looks like this:

See the problem? Although 16 and 17 both have their correct issue dates, they do not have any data in the Year field. This is an example of how CGC's internal software makes their jobs harder and introduces error, because there should never be a case where an issue date exists (and includes a year), but the Year field is null. Yet, here we are, showing these have to be entered manually and separately. Now let's move to the end of that list on page 3:

Here we see several of the modern Katy Keene books, including the #17 that caused all this trouble. I am willing to bet that if you try to select Katy Keene #17 in CGC's internal software, and include a date of any sort, it defaults you to the 1986 Katy Keene #17, considering that issue to better match for the provided data than the one with the null date. Alternatively, it might just present both in a dropdown, making it easy to select the incorrect book. A more fundamental problem here is that CGC tracks books exclusively by title -- in most cases -- with no means to differentiate between multiple series sharing the same title and publisher except by date. In the case of the 1980s Katy Keene series, the first six such books were published as Katy Keene Special and so those are listed separately; however, starting with issue #7 they reverted to the original 1950s-era title, placing the new books into the same block of data as the original ones. That's true of any title with multiple series. For example, here's two different runs that no one really cares about (okay, okay, a lot of these are variant covers in slabs, but still): -- A-Force. I opted to use this one as an example because there's very little to distinguish 2015 books from 2016 books on visual inspection. Correctly matching any A-Force issue numbered 5 or lower to the right series requires that you actually check the book (and realize that you need to distinguish between the two runs). And then, that you get it right in the system.

There's not really anything that can be done about the way that CGC handles revived, rebooted, or renumbered series at this point. But the rest of the problems could be -- if not remedied -- at least reduced with better-designed internal software that was created with error reduction in mind from the start. Similarly, I've found exactly this kind of error happens much more frequently when the book being graded isn't in the census at all, but something very similar is (I've had two ME returns in the last year for exactly this situation). What the errors reveal shows us that their internal system simply makes it too easy to assign books to incorrect labels when there's any possibility of confusion.

[BriD.]

On 5/13/2022 at 2:14 PM, Qalyar said:

This was almost certainly the result of the staff running the labeling process being slaves to the dropdowns provided by the database, in combination with an error made when (series 1) Katy Keene #17 (and #16) were first graded.. Let's walk through the issues. If you pull up Katy Keene in the census, the top of the issue list looks like this:

See the problem? Although 16 and 17 both have their correct issue dates, they do not have any data in the Year field. This is an example of how CGC's internal software makes their jobs harder and introduces error, because there should never be a case where an issue date exists (and includes a year), but the Year field is null. Yet, here we are, showing these have to be entered manually and separately. Now let's move to the end of that list on page 3:

Here we see several of the modern Katy Keene books, including the #17 that caused all this trouble. I am willing to bet that if you try to select Katy Keene #17 in CGC's internal software, and include a date of any sort, it defaults you to the 1986 Katy Keene #17, considering that issue to better match for the provided data than the one with the null date. Alternatively, it might just present both in a dropdown, making it easy to select the incorrect book. A more fundamental problem here is that CGC tracks books exclusively by title -- in most cases -- with no means to differentiate between multiple series sharing the same title and publisher except by date. In the case of the 1980s Katy Keene series, the first six such books were published as Katy Keene Special and so those are listed separately; however, starting with issue #7 they reverted to the original 1950s-era title, placing the new books into the same block of data as the original ones. That's true of any title with multiple series. For example, here's two different runs that no one really cares about (okay, okay, a lot of these are variant covers in slabs, but still): -- A-Force. I opted to use this one as an example because there's very little to distinguish 2015 books from 2016 books on visual inspection. Correctly matching any A-Force issue numbered 5 or lower to the right series requires that you actually check the book (and realize that you need to distinguish between the two runs). And then, that you get it right in the system.

There's not really anything that can be done about the way that CGC handles revived, rebooted, or renumbered series at this point. But the rest of the problems could be -- if not remedied -- at least reduced with better-designed internal software that was created with error reduction in mind from the start. Similarly, I've found exactly this kind of error happens much more frequently when the book being graded isn't in the census at all, but something very similar is (I've had two ME returns in the last year for exactly this situation). What the errors reveal shows us that their internal system simply makes it too easy to assign books to incorrect labels when there's any possibility of confusion.

I haven't filled out a submission form in a while but isn't all the information like year and publisher required on the form? Maybe variant and signature info as well? I can't check the online form myself since I don't have a paid CGC subscription.

While your examples could cause some confusion, a correctly filled out form matched to the book should clear that up. If they read the form they get it right. Maybe.

But I guess if they are slaves to the drop down as you say, then who has time to check the forms. 

[Qalyar]

On 5/13/2022 at 7:07 PM, BriD. said:

I haven't filled out a submission form in a while but isn't all the information like year and publisher required on the form? Maybe variant and signature info as well? I can't check the online form myself since I don't have a paid CGC subscription.

While your examples could cause some confusion, a correctly filled out form matched to the book should clear that up. If they read the form they get it right. Maybe.

But I guess if they are slaves to the drop down as you say, then who has time to check the forms. 

You can always put in that you can't find a match and enter new information, which explicitly does not need to have all the fields completed. Indeed, for some books, all the fields can't be completed. I've got a book that'll be going to CGC post-press which has no listed publisher nor publication date. Or you can accidentally pick the wrong one. Regardless, CGC shouldn't be beholden to what people enter. Otherwise, well, there'll be a lot more UF4 reprints submitted as the real book.

But it's also clear that the prepopulated list affects CGC internally. How do I know? I have a book back at CGC as a Mechanical Error. The title has never been graded before. I submitted it correctly, but it was mis-entered as an entirely different book with a similar-ish name at intake, and never corrected; not by grading, not be "QA". The only way that could happen is if the intake processor got that incorrect book title from a drop-down.

[ADAMANTIUM]

This is true I had to enter a book recently just because I wanted to note the mark jewelers, didnt appear to be a variant slot.

It doesnt ask for too much info to enter a new book, yet I'm sure cgc "verifies it."

Fwiw

[Iceman399]

CGC is really making me frustrated. 

Creep Engine reholder

grade dropped from 9.8 to 9.4.  Notes updated to include tear on back cover.  CGC never bothered to contact me saying the book was damaged, almost like they hoped I wouldn't notice it.

Looks like a screwdriver went through the back by the staple.

It's taken 6 emails to CGC and we are currently at the stage of can you send us more pictures of the book before you sent it to us (not sure why they need more photos) it was sent to CGC still encapsulated so the only and I mean ONLY place it could have been damaged was by CGC when they removed it from their already damaging holder.

@CGC Mike I know this isn't on you but this is just wrong.

CGC dun screwed up and should be like hey we dun screwed up we'll make it right.  Instead we are over a week into this saga with emails that have just asked for more and more photos to "investigate".

[Buzzetta]

 

[MetalPSI]

Build a pyramid too high and the bricks at the bottom shatter

What a shame

This coming from someone who has submitted a good number of books

Not someone who has bragged about having never sent in a single book, nor bought a graded one

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 5/13/2022 at 10:15 PM, Iceman399 said:

CGC is really making me frustrated. 

Creep Engine reholder

grade dropped from 9.8 to 9.4.  Notes updated to include tear on back cover.  CGC never bothered to contact me saying the book was damaged, almost like they hoped I wouldn't notice it.

Looks like a screwdriver went through the back by the staple.

It's taken 6 emails to CGC and we are currently at the stage of can you send us more pictures of the book before you sent it to us (not sure why they need more photos) it was sent to CGC still encapsulated so the only and I mean ONLY place it could have been damaged was by CGC when they removed it from their already damaging holder.

@CGC Mike I know this isn't on you but this is just wrong.

CGC dun screwed up and should be like hey we dun screwed up we'll make it right.  Instead we are over a week into this saga with emails that have just asked for more and more photos to "investigate".

I’m horrified it still got a 9.4 

 

about your book

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by THE_BEYONDER

[Iceman399]

On 5/13/2022 at 10:23 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

I’m horrified it still got a 9.4 

 

 

Bahaha you aren't the only one.

[MetalPSI]

On 5/13/2022 at 8:24 PM, Iceman399 said:

Bahaha you aren't the only one.

Nope has to be an awesome book and not a X force 1

[Qalyar]

On 5/13/2022 at 9:15 PM, Iceman399 said:

CGC is really making me frustrated. 

Creep Engine reholder

grade dropped from 9.8 to 9.4.  Notes updated to include tear on back cover.  CGC never bothered to contact me saying the book was damaged, almost like they hoped I wouldn't notice it.

Looks like a screwdriver went through the back by the staple.

It's taken 6 emails to CGC and we are currently at the stage of can you send us more pictures of the book before you sent it to us (not sure why they need more photos) it was sent to CGC still encapsulated so the only and I mean ONLY place it could have been damaged was by CGC when they removed it from their already damaging holder.

@CGC Mike I know this isn't on you but this is just wrong.

CGC dun screwed up and should be like hey we dun screwed up we'll make it right.  Instead we are over a week into this saga with emails that have just asked for more and more photos to "investigate".

I feel like someone inserted an object -- maybe even a screwdriver -- to pry that case open and instead slipped it against the cover. Inexcusable