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

[wombat]

Its mind boggling that CGC hasn't implemented controls over labels. Can't print out a label without PQ being noted. 

[jcjames]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:25 AM, wombat said:

Its mind boggling that CGC hasn't implemented controls over labels. Can't print out a label without PQ being noted. 

[Gaard]

I think it's safe to say that if you use CGC's services, you are a gambling man. Whenever you send them your comics, you're basically rolling the dice.

[Beastfeast]

On 6/25/2023 at 9:53 AM, Gaard said:

I think it's safe to say that if you use CGC's services, you are a gambling man. Whenever you send them your comics, you're basically rolling the dice.

I don't remember if I've asked you this but have you ever submitted to CGC?  Or do you own/buy graded books? 

[Gaard]

On 6/25/2023 at 3:44 PM, Beastfeast said:

I don't remember if I've asked you this but have you ever submitted to CGC?  Or do you own/buy graded books? 

I've sent dozens of submissions to CGC over the last decade. I stopped a while back due to all their shenanigans. I still buy graded books.

[Beastfeast]

On 6/25/2023 at 12:57 PM, Gaard said:

I've sent dozens of submissions to CGC over the last decade. I stopped a while back due to all their shenanigans. I still buy graded books.

The only reason I ask is because it's not at all like gambling and MOST of the time, you know exactly what you're going to get.  I feel like a broken record by saying that this thread is NOT the reality for most submitters.  It serves two purposes.  1) To highlight the actual terrible QC issues when they come up, and 2) A gathering for confirming bias.  

Did you stop submitting because you personally were having too many QC issues or did you stop because you started reading about more QC issues?  

[Gaard]

On 6/25/2023 at 4:09 PM, Beastfeast said:

The only reason I ask is because it's not at all like gambling and MOST of the time, you know exactly what you're going to get.  I feel like a broken record by saying that this thread is NOT the reality for most submitters.  It serves two purposes.  1) To highlight the actual terrible QC issues when they come up, and 2) A gathering for confirming bias.  

Did you stop submitting because you personally were having too many QC issues or did you stop because you started reading about more QC issues?  

One of the reasons for making the decision to stop, was not so much because of the errors being made, but more so because of the obvious (to me) "we don't care" attitude exhibited by CGC. 

[I like pie]

On 6/25/2023 at 3:09 PM, Beastfeast said:

 I feel like a broken record by saying that this thread is NOT the reality for most submitters.

Absolutely disagree. The majority of CGCs revenue comes from flippers, online stores and brick & mortar. 

Most of them don't check for all the these QC issues, falsely assuming CGC is doing their job.

By the time the books get into the hands of the end buyer, it's too late to do anything about it.

[Beastfeast]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:33 PM, I like pie said:

Absolutely disagree. The majority of CGCs revenue comes from flippers, online stores and brick & mortar. 

Most of them don't check for all the these QC issues, falsely assuming CGC is doing their job.

By the time the books get into the hands of the end buyer, it's too late to do anything about it.

You're making an unquantifiable claim.  I guess so was I.   

Any of you prolific submitters want to weigh in?  @greggy? @NewWorldOrder? @mycomicshop? 

I can speak from my narrow point of view that I've only had to send 1 book back for being mislabeled and had maybe 3 books with puddling?  Out of maybe 200 books.  

[I like pie]

On 6/25/2023 at 10:57 PM, Beastfeast said:

You're making an unquantifiable claim.  I guess so was I.   

Any of you prolific submitters want to weigh in?  @greggy? @NewWorldOrder? @mycomicshop? 

 

Correct. It's only unquantifiable because it won't be admitted to. 

[THE_BEYONDER]

So....have QC issues ease up a bit?

[I like pie]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:59 AM, THE_BEYONDER said:

So....have QC issues ease up a bit?

To be fair, my last 25 books received were good. Some very minor scuffing but acceptable to me.

[Beastfeast]

On 6/26/2023 at 4:57 AM, I like pie said:

Correct. It's only unquantifiable because it won't be admitted to. 

That’s not what makes it unquantifiable. Sorry if I’m being pedantic but your gut feeling about something doesn’t make it true (or false, in my case). The only way to get even slightly usable numbers is if CGC gives us their monthly submission numbers AND their ME return numbers to compare it to.
 

That’s obviously not perfect because - like you said - some people are not paying super close attention to the QC of the books returned. But that’s another variable that we can’t know except for our own anecdotal experiences and the (hopefully true) anecdotal experiences from other submitters. 
 

Hopefully it’s not sounding like I’m Stan-ing for CGC.  Their track record over the last 5+ years has been a bit wobbly to say the least.  It just bugs me when people make super hyperbolic statements. 

[bc]

On 6/26/2023 at 1:41 PM, Beastfeast said:

That’s not what makes it unquantifiable. Sorry if I’m being pedantic but your gut feeling about something doesn’t make it true (or false, in my case). The only way to get even slightly usable numbers is if CGC gives us their monthly submission numbers AND their ME return numbers to compare it to.
 

That’s obviously not perfect because - like you said - some people are not paying super close attention to the QC of the books returned. But that’s another variable that we can’t know except for our own anecdotal experiences and the (hopefully true) anecdotal experiences from other submitters. 
 

Hopefully it’s not sounding like I’m Stan-ing for CGC.  Their track record over the last 5+ years has been a bit wobbly to say the least.  It just bugs me when people make super hyperbolic statements. 

CGC should be tracking those metrics and adjusting accordingly. Also, they should also be tracking the number (or percentage) of issues caught by their internal QC processes. But that requires documentation and efficient systems.

Doubtful that info will ever be made publicly available. The only public facing option is what is reported by customers.

Maybe that's why the "QC Hot Dog" left? Hopefully the new "Director of Operational Excellence" has a plan that management actually gets behind.

-bc

[wombat]

I think the problem is some of the examples we continue to see are so blatant. It just makes you question the entire process. 

[Beastfeast]

On 6/26/2023 at 10:58 AM, wombat said:

I think the problem is some of the examples we continue to see are so blatant. It just makes you question the entire process. 

That’s another problem with the confirmation bias we see in this thread. We see the most egregious examples mixed in with things like scuffing. They’re both QC problems and are examples of systematic issues but they’re not really comparable. Damaging a book, loosing a book, and freakishly bad grading shouldn’t be lumped into a case with a hair. They both suck for the customer but aren’t the same things and create false equivalency’s that make it all seem like the Wild West. 
 

I definitely think the biggest problems are not paying people enough to attract decent talent that care and a culture of profit above all else that magnifies these QC problems. They existed before Blackrock took over but they’ve really ramped up since. I’d imagine the massive uptick in submissions over the last few years hasn’t helped. If your QC failure rate is 2%, we’re going to see A LOT of examples when the submission numbers jump 500% (I made those numbers up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Beastfeast

[greggy]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:57 PM, Beastfeast said:

You're making an unquantifiable claim.  I guess so was I.   

Any of you prolific submitters want to weigh in?  @greggy? @NewWorldOrder? @mycomicshop? 

I can speak from my narrow point of view that I've only had to send 1 book back for being mislabeled and had maybe 3 books with puddling?  Out of maybe 200 books.  

To answer your question, this is how I check my books when I receive them.

1) Check for case integrity - Cracks, etc

2) Check for if the books are undamaged

3) Check for labelling errors

Of the above three, it's pretty rare for me to have any issues with it.

As I tend to sell all my stuff with ComicLink, and that I don't want to deal with a few ME issues that I would have to send back and deal with myself, I just bite the bullet and have ComicLink do the work for me and I'll accept the charge of around $20 per book so they can send it to CGC to get it fixed.  

With respect to other issues like streaks, minor scratches, minor newton rings, etc, they really don't bother me so I'm not going to care about these even if I was to keep them for myself.  They just aren't that important to me.

I understand that some are more picky and care more about certain items but it just doesn't matter that much to me.

I also understand that the issues posted here would generally be of the more egregious type so there is a form of confirmation bias if that's all you see here.  People are generally not going to complain about some minor issues that most people won't care about at the end.

I don't dispute that certain items bother some people but I have way more issues to worry about most of the time.

 

[Gaard]

On 6/26/2023 at 3:35 PM, greggy said:

 

I understand that some are more picky and care more about certain items but it just doesn't matter that much to me.

 

I applaud you sir. I don't know how many times I've read on these very boards a variation of "I don't care about xxx, so you shouldn't either".

[Gaard]

On 6/14/2023 at 7:23 PM, c_mkv said:

Had this book graded earlier this February and just noticed the book was severely damagaed in slab. Called CGC today who advised they can't help as this is well past the "2 week timeframe for mechanical errors" and to speak with the dealer I submitted the book  to assist me. This doesn't look like a mechanical error to me. Help @CGC Mike

 

Whatever happened with this?

[DougC]

I just received grades back from a Pedigree submission (all had Heritage certs: Savannah). I was told through CS that at least #1 & #4 would receive it, but the others were "up to the graders", which is a terrible system.

All of the issues were pressed and cleaned by the same person and I have every confidence in their ability. Half of the order came back 9.6 or below with the exact same problems "light scuffing and bends to cover". I have never seen 9.6 grades consistently get grader notes (all of them had notes) like this and these were absolutely given additional "attention" due to a couple emails between CS, Graders, and myself.

The graders notes seem to be consistent with damage that comes from handling when removing the books from the bags without care or repeatedly doing so. I know this isn't punishment for trying to push the issue of CGC recognizing moderns in the Savannah pedigree but man it sure feels like it (especially going back on what was previously stated about #1 & #4).