Where in the world was the Quality Control at CGC??? 45 45

[mattn792]

On 3/3/2023 at 5:56 PM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Swapped labels.

Give ‘em credit, they didn’t swap the signatures.

[ExNihilo]

I stepped away from this thread because it was overwhelming following along with all these simple issues.  Also, about 100 pages back when Mike said they were making changes it seemed like a win.  Yet now I See we still have upside down, mislabeled books.  This s#its easy for anyone with eyes and a brain.

Edited March 5, 2023 by ExNihilo

[Domo Arigato]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:26 AM, ExNihilo said:

Also, about 100 pages back when Mike said they were making changes it seemed like a win.  Yet now I See we still have upside down, mislabeled books.  This s#its easy for anyone with eyes and a brain.

I see eveidence of CGC taking steps to correct mistakes after they've made them.....which still costs their customers additional time, hassles, and headaches.

I've seen no evidence that they've made any progress in preventing the mistakes from happening in the first place.

If anything.......it only seems to be getting worse. 

 

[Gaard]

On 3/5/2023 at 4:06 AM, Domo Arigato said:

I see eveidence of CGC taking steps to correct mistakes after they've made them.....which still costs their customers additional time, hassles, and headaches.

I've seen no evidence that they've made any progress in preventing the mistakes from happening in the first place.

If anything.......it only seems to be getting worse. 

 

+1

It's apparent that CGC is, and has been, lying to us. It's so obvious. These shards have been getting into the cases for years (yes, YEARS) yet CGC hasn't fixed it. Those scratches/smudges have been on the slabs for years (yes, YEARS) yet CGC hasn't fixed it. Newton Rings? All I'll say about that is that CGC has redesigned it's cases multiple times in the past, yet not now? Upside down books/swapped labels/ wrong issue number, etc. This is someone's job, right? To make sure this kind of stuff doesn't go out? I think it's safe to say that, whoever this person is,  they really sukk at their job. I think it's also safe to say that that hiring of the new QC guy back in May was a total bust.. Like @Domo Arigatosaid, I see nothing to indicate that CGC is/has tried to fix these problems before they happen.

Proactive vs Reactive.  CGC's reactive response is to rectify the problems as cheaply as possible, with absolutely no regard to it's customers. As far as proactive, yeah right.

 

        or

 

On 3/5/2023 at 1:26 AM, ExNihilo said:

This s#its easy for anyone with eyes and a brain.

+1

Question...

At what point does CGC say to it's QC manager/people "This is unacceptable. You're not meeting the job's requirements."?   Or do you think CGC has implemented a "speed over quality'  environment over there, and quality be damned as long as they meet their deadlines?

 

[jcjames]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:02 AM, Gaard said:

 

At what point does CGC say to it's QC manager/people "This is unacceptable. You're not meeting the job's requirements."?   Or do you think CGC has implemented a "speed over quality'  environment over there, and quality be damned as long as they meet their deadlines?

 

^^^^ 

 

 

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/5/2023 at 7:02 AM, Gaard said:

Question...

At what point does CGC say to it's QC manager/people "This is unacceptable. You're not meeting the job's requirements."?   Or do you think CGC has implemented a "speed over quality'  environment

I stand by what I've said for a couple years now....  CGC has clearly decided it's cheaper to fix the problems they created, for the percentage who care enough to return them, than it is to teach, train, oversee, and double check the product they are sending out.

It doesn't matter what some moderator who claims CGC is "working on it" has to say, or how many supposed "meetings" take place, or what they tell you on the phone.  The problems we see are 100% avoidable.  They simply choose not to.

 

[kprime]

Is it normal for the inner well to move slightly?

It doesn't seem to be loose enough to cause damage to the book. But... just curious if it's normal for their to be a slight shift.

Edited March 5, 2023 by kprime

[StillOnly25Cents]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:26 AM, kprime said:

Is it normal for the inner well to move slightly?

It doesn't seem to be loose enough to cause damage to the book. But... just curious if it's normal for their to be a slight shift.

normal as of fairly recently

I believe this is one of their stealth fixes for preventing Newton Rings, less tight seal allowing the book to shift slightly

[Gaard]

@kprimeIt might not be normal, but it's certainly not uncommon. Just so you know, just because something might be normal, doesn't make it right.

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 3/5/2023 at 1:41 PM, StillOnly25Cents said:

On 3/5/2023 at 12:26 PM, kprime said:

Is it normal for the inner well to move slightly?

It doesn't seem to be loose enough to cause damage to the book. But... just curious if it's normal for their to be a slight shift.

Expand  

normal as of fairly recently

I believe this is one of their stealth fixes for preventing Newton Rings, less tight seal allowing the book to shift slightly

Wait.  Is the well loose in the slab causing it to clank around,  or is the book loose within the inner well allowing it to smack up against the edges more easily?

[zzutak]

Here's another type of Quality Control issue that has nothing to do with holder defects or Encapsulation Room gaffs, but which definitely affects the accuracy of the CGC certification label. @CGC Mike, feel free to bring this up at your next meeting with the Powers-that-Be. 

Damn!  If I have my Uncanny Tales #40 (Atlas, Feb 1956) certified, I'll have the Top Census copy!    Amazing, since CGC has been in biz for 23+ years! 

Hey, wait a minute.    I've been collecting Atlas since the 1950s; in my experience, none of the post-code fantasy issues are particularly rare.  Let's look at this again ......

Let's see what's up with the Marvel (Bronze Age) version of the title:

Well what d'ya know -- there's issue #40 (Atlas, Feb 1956), right at the very top of the list!    Let's see how many copies CGC has encountered to date:

Sure enough, CGC has already certified/encapsulated 12 copies of this issue!  Bummer, my own copy is still worth squat!    However, looking at the bright side, my personal experience is accurate: Uncanny Tales #40 (Atlas, Feb 1956) is as common as all of the neighboring issues of the title! 

Which leads me to ask (considering that CGC has been in biz now for over 23 years): Does anyone at CGC ever correct the obvious errors in their drop-down menus? 

[zzutak]

Perhaps I'm the first to bring this up you say?  Twelve previous anal-retentive, eagle-eyed collectors/submitters who typically complain about every instance of poor centering in the holder, tiny shard of stray plastic, strand of hair, and/or Newton ring?  What are the chances that nobody else has ever brought this up to CGC? 

And the Uncanny Tales "anomaly" is not a one-off.    This very issue has previously been raised in conjunction with other titles (such as Katy Keene, to name just one).  I know next to nothing about Katy Keene, but one quick glance at this panel tells me that something here is way off! 

Edited March 6, 2023 by zzutak

[Gaard]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:33 AM, Sigur Ros said:

It doesn't matter what some moderator who claims CGC is "working on it" has to say, or how many supposed "meetings" take place, or what they tell you on the phone.  The problems we see are 100% avoidable.  They simply choose not to.

Exactly. It's nice that there is a CGC employee who is dedicated to helping customer's get their slabs/labels fixed. You know what would be even better though? If they didn't have to be fixed in the first place.

It's a darn shame that these mistakes are not only so ridiculously easy to prevent, but that some of these easily fixable problems have been going on for years. I know It's probably naive of me to ask that CGC just come right out and tell us that they choose, for whatever reason (although there can only be one reason), not to prevent these mistakes from happening. But is it too much to ask that they stop lying to us? - "We're working on correcting the problem." (We've been hearing that same thing for years)

[CGC Mike]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:09 AM, zzutak said:

Here's another type of Quality Control issue that has nothing to do with holder defects or Encapsulation Room gaffs, but which definitely affects the accuracy of the CGC certification label. @CGC Mike, feel free to bring this up at your next meeting with the Powers-that-Be. 

I will pass of of the info you have provided along to upper management.  Thanks a bunch for providing it.

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/6/2023 at 11:56 AM, Gaard said:

 there is a CGC employee who is dedicated to helping customer's get their slabs/labels fixed. 

Who?

[Qalyar]

On 3/6/2023 at 9:26 AM, zzutak said:

Perhaps I'm the first to bring this up you say?  Twelve previous anal-retentive, eagle-eyed collectors/submitters who typically complain about every instance of poor centering in the holder, tiny shard of stray plastic, strand of hair, and/or Newton ring?  What are the chances that nobody else has ever brought this up to CGC? 

And the Uncanny Tales "anomaly" is not a one-off.    This very issue has previously been raised in conjunction with other titles (such as Katy Keene, to name just one).  I know next to nothing about Katy Keene, but one quick glance at this panel tells me that something here is way off! 

This one is not actually an error, because title shenanigans.

Katy Keene (Archie Publications) ran from 1949 until its final issue, #62, in 1961. Archie Publications began printing a revival title -- Katy Keene Special -- in the 1980s. The first such book is Katy Keene Special #2 in 1983. That run has all been slabbed:

If you're wondering where Katy Keene Special #1 is (because let's face it, I know everyone is very concerned), it's listed separately because it was published under the Red Circle Comics Group imprint.

So that takes care Katy Keene Special, right? Of course not. Starting with #7, Archie decided that Katy Keene wasn't really that Special after all and dropped the final word from the title but retained the numbering. Katy Keene then ran from #7 (in late 1984) allll the way to #33 in 1990. MCS lists all the 1980s issues under the Katy Keene Special title despite the change. I've seen other sites index it as Katy Keene (2nd series), a title that simply begins with #7; this is essentially what CGC has opted to do. Your mileage may vary.

[Timmay]

Just got back 12 Standard books, and 8 are going back for scuffing on the INNER well.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 3/6/2023 at 1:57 PM, Timmay said:

Just got back 12 Standard books, and 8 are going back for scuffing on the INNER well.

 

Don’t be sad....

 

[zzutak]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:46 AM, Qalyar said:

This one is not actually an error, because title shenanigans.

I absolutely hear what you're saying about the Katy Keene example (and I appreciate your detailed explanation).     

I guess my response would be this: if Overstreet can clearly distinguish between the 1949 Series and 1983/1984 Series in his Comic Book Price Guide, and the Grand Comics Database can clearly distinguish between them in their online listings (without mixing images from one series into the cover gallery of another), why should we expect any less from CGC?    After all, CGC was the last of these three sources to be established.

Where there's a will, there's a way!    Especially considering that CGC's current "policy" regarding the Katy Keene title occasionally leads to labeling/mislabeling gaffs like this 

Edited March 6, 2023 by zzutak

[Qalyar]

On 3/6/2023 at 3:11 PM, zzutak said:

I absolutely hear what you're saying about the Katy Keene example (and I appreciate your detailed explanation).     

I guess my response would be this: if Overstreet can clearly distinguish between the 1949 Series and 1983/1984 Series in his Comic Book Price Guide, and the Grand Comics Database can clearly distinguish between them in their online listings (without mixing images from one series into the cover gallery of another), why should we expect any less from CGC?    After all, CGC was the last of these three sources to be established.

Where there's a will, there's a way!    Especially considering that CGC's current "policy" regarding the Katy Keene title occasionally leads to labeling/mislabeling gaffs like this 

CGC's Census is not an extremely sophisticated creature. If books have the same name and the same publisher, they're going to be appear listed together. In part that's because CGC doesn't (generally) invent distinguishing clauses (like [2nd series], [5th series], whatever) when they're not actually part of the book's publication title. Most of the time, that's fine. It's not ideal, but it's fine.

Books like that one you pictured are, of course, glorious failures of QA.