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

[jcjames]

On 7/5/2022 at 6:50 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

This was mislabeled, it should have a mark jewelers notation. The only proof I have with the slab is the star stamp in the price box by the character.

I filled out the mechanical error form and added one I had from a long time ago, that I had been meaning to send ( is labeled a variant but is the regular cover, but it was from a while ago.)

You can usually tell there's an insert without opening the book from looking at the edge of the pages.

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by jcjames

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 7/5/2022 at 9:32 PM, jcjames said:

You can usually tell there's an insert without opening the book from looking at the edge of the pages.

 

True, and I've recently noticed from "odd staple placement or only 2 staples" or something like that, which this has

[Stefan_W]

So this is really cool. A Spawn 119 in my last shipment had a crack on the bottom of the slab so it is heading back for an ME submission, but when I looked at the book again I noticed it also had newton rings. Then when I checked it out I saw that the rings actually made the face of Spawn! If it was not for the big crack this book would probably be a keeper because this is so cool. 

 

[Stefan_W]

On 7/4/2022 at 11:44 AM, Stefan_W said:

Ug. So I had a shipment of 25 books come back a few minutes ago. This was the one I complained about in another thread where the grading was ridiculously harsh to the point where it is an automatic re-sub on at least 5 of the books. 

The tape on the top and bottom of the box was torn which was a bad sign, and the box looked pretty rough. I had this before where the books were ok so I just took a deep breath and went through them. Without looking too carefully yet I found 6 books where the cases had large cracks and crushes and two other books with very large newton rings. 

The worst part? None of the books I was going to crack myself were the ones crushed. Oh well, looks like I will be on the phone with customer service again tomorrow. At least CGC is good about fixing such problems. 

I cracked open the case on the ASM 315 graded 8.0 with notes saying "moderate staining to cover." There is absolutely no staining and the book should have gotten a 9.0 or 9.2.

I think what happened is the grader mistook some of the design from the inside cover showing through on the outside as staining. These covers are thin and white, and all the copies I see out there have the same thing. If this is the case it is an honest mistake when moving quickly with grading, although the financial hit for the mis-grade is the same for me either way. 

[Iceman399]

What's the verdict on when you finally get your econ sub back from CGC after over a year and a few of the slabs are cracked from shipping?
Is this a sucks to be you fight with Fedex or does CGC fight with Fedex?

[littledoom]

Just got this back from CGC. The comic is so tightly packed into that inner well .. the big issue is the small black hair strand 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 7/7/2022 at 5:34 PM, littledoom said:

Just got this back from CGC. The comic is so tightly packed into that inner well .. the big issue is the small black hair strand 

Yes I noticed the same tightness in the book i received today, but not my submission but just a slab I bought. I thought at first that it had scs @CGC Mike I was curious if this was the new norm, but idk, if it used to be with ones that did have shaken comic syndrome,

Lol idk if now, all it takes one good jolt or not. Just amazingly tight, like I thought it was pinched or almost a bent under the edge. It isnt but it buckles in that area to where I noticed it was tight.

I'm being as specific  as I can, cause. @littledoom has a pic, I'm not by my new slab to take a pic.

Edited July 7, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[jsilverjanet]

here;s a suggestion, CGC graders should provide notes on anything less than a 9.8. I need to understand why they gave a book a 9.6 vs 9.8. This should be documented and frankly required by their manager/dept. Not providing facts for the grades given, allows their staff to continually be inconsistent (no accountability) and allows for the consumer to lose faith in the existing process.

 

[joeypost]

On 7/11/2022 at 4:04 PM, jsilverjanet said:

here;s a suggestion, CGC graders should provide notes on anything less than a 9.8. I need to understand why they gave a book a 9.6 vs 9.8. This should be documented and frankly required by their manager/dept. Not providing facts for the grades given, allows their staff to continually be inconsistent (no accountability) and allows for the consumer to lose faith in the existing process.

 

They also need to show the encapsulation room that it is OK to have a little room in the inner well. A too tight inner well is, at a minimum, the same as the creeper case they put out years ago, and at the worst, will cause damage to the edges of the book while being encapsulated. 

[Gaard]

I was just reading Joey's post where he mentions the creep engine case. That was what...5 or 6 years ago? So lets roll back the submission numbers to what they were 7 years ago, when confidence in CGC was high, relatively speaking. Would all these QC (and nonQC) issues not occur? Scratches, smudges, hairs, damaged comics, phantom flaws, incorrect labels, upside down books, swapped labels, on and on and on. Sure, you can blame some (if not most) of the problems on increased submissions, but ALL of them?

[MetalPSI]

I have an Aliens 4 that I cracked out of a 2nd gen case that has a "post" dimple that goes through several layers of the book

I recently got a book back with the exact same damage

So, no, all these issues are not a new thing, I think they just didn't happen as often

Honestly the data points to volume. More volume, more defects

So, whats the acceptable tolerance for such defects. Well of course zero is the ideal, but realistically, it takes a lot of work to get to that zero

All companies strive for a incident and injury free workplace. But guess what, none of them have it. So its factored in, and while they preach saftey ad nauseum, and the goal for each year is zero, they will tolerate a certain number, and they will create a realistic target number.

Maybe that number is 3. 3 bandaids issued for papercuts, or 3 hospitalizations. Depending on the industry, you have different risk factors.

You can burn a company down for killing someone, but you can't for an upside down book in a case.

You can return and demand better, which is the right way to deal with it. In fact, returns should be priority, always, and if they are the reason for books taking 2 years to return to owners, then people should stop submitting. 

See how that circles around to YOU?

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

I love Batnan! 

[grendelbo]

On 7/17/2022 at 10:31 AM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

I love Batnan! 

Bat nana

[Qalyar]

On 7/17/2022 at 11:31 AM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

I love Batnan! 

This hasn't shown up in the census yet (either as Batman or Batnan), and I'm very interested to see if the census entry for this book is spelled wrong too. I assume it will be, because I think the label should match the electronic record for the book (which the census queries). It's actually better if that's the case. Otherwise, it's another way the electronic record can be desynced from the physical book, and there are already too many of those.

 

EDIT: Ah, but the cert lookup does have this book already. Batnan. So that's good, in a way, even though this never should have happened in the first place....

Edited July 17, 2022 by Qalyar

[Galen130]

On 7/17/2022 at 10:31 AM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

I love Batnan! 

Naw

[BigLeagueCHEW]

On 7/4/2022 at 3:56 PM, WilliamLunt said:

@CGC Mike Were you looking for examples of recent QC issues? I received a shipment of books today with some issues. 

2 books came back 9.8 WP with a bent corner and a pinched lower cover edge.
(I'm hesitant to raise the issue to customer service as I don't want to risk a lower grade)

2 books came back 9.6 WP came back a little loose.

1 9.4 came back with an enclosed hair.

The other three issues don't present well in photos.
 

Good luck getting that fold fixed. 2 ME resubs and they send it back with the same fold. Here is my 9.8 Shazam!

I gave up

 

[Gaard]

you - "I gave up ."

 

CGC -

[kav]

[BigLeagueCHEW]

On 7/17/2022 at 1:16 PM, kav said:

QA has to exists, it can't go straight from encapsulation to the shipping department. 

[joeypost]

On 7/12/2022 at 2:02 AM, The Meta said:

I have an Aliens 4 that I cracked out of a 2nd gen case that has a "post" dimple that goes through several layers of the book

I recently got a book back with the exact same damage

So, no, all these issues are not a new thing, I think they just didn't happen as often

Honestly the data points to volume. More volume, more defects

So, whats the acceptable tolerance for such defects. Well of course zero is the ideal, but realistically, it takes a lot of work to get to that zero

All companies strive for a incident and injury free workplace. But guess what, none of them have it. So its factored in, and while they preach saftey ad nauseum, and the goal for each year is zero, they will tolerate a certain number, and they will create a realistic target number.

Maybe that number is 3. 3 bandaids issued for papercuts, or 3 hospitalizations. Depending on the industry, you have different risk factors.

You can burn a company down for killing someone, but you can't for an upside down book in a case.

You can return and demand better, which is the right way to deal with it. In fact, returns should be priority, always, and if they are the reason for books taking 2 years to return to owners, then people should stop submitting. 

See how that circles around to YOU?

 

Most companies will try to make sure their process work as flawlessly as possible. Six sigma works across many industries and platforms. In CGC’s case it may not have to be applied across the board but in the most strategic of mechanical processes, like encapsulation, storage and shipping.