Where in the world was the Quality Control at CGC??? 44 44

[jcjames]

On 3/7/2023 at 9:46 AM, godzilla43 said:

 

 

 

 

Also... I want that Hulk shirt. 

 

[zzutak]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:24 AM, CGC Mike said:

Here's a note from the team:

We just changed the Uncanny Tales from Marvel to Atlas. This mistake was made a very long time ago, and should be a one-off.

That was quick!  Many thanks, Mike. 

[zzutak]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:24 AM, CGC Mike said:

Here's a note from the team:

We just changed the Uncanny Tales from Marvel to Atlas. This mistake was made a very long time ago, and should be a one-off. But if you see anything else like this, please let us know and we’ll fix.

The transition from Marvel (pulps) to Timely (comics) in 1939, then back to Marvel (in 1946?), then to Atlas (in 1951), and finally back to Marvel (in 1961, where MC on the cover begins) is confusing to many.  Heritage Auctions, for example, has never been able to decide whether Venus is an Atlas or a Timely title (link).  So I've become accustomed to a lack of consistency when dealing with Atomic Age issues by this publisher.

@CGC Mike, for what it's worth, here goes:

 

 

You'll notice several inconsistencies in these listings (identical to what I pointed out about Uncanny Tales #40).  There really is no rhyme or reason to whether a pre-1961 issue is classified as Marvel or Atlas.  For example, issues #1, #9, and #25 are deemed to be Atlas (  ), whereas all other pre-1951 issues are classified as Marvel (  ).  Issues #27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 44. 45, 47, 48, 49, 64, and 81 are all listed as Marvel, despite the fact that all (or nearly all) are from the Atlas Era (1951-60).  Yikes!        CGC's treatment of this particular title is a hot mess.

It's clear (to me, at least) that CGC accepted whatever publisher was attached to the very first submission of each issue.  In my opinion, that's not the most well thought out plan for building a correct and consistent database.  So let's have no more "optimistic" declarations from upper management about "one off" gaffs.  

As an aside, Marvel's "red circle" logo (which was a hold-over from the pulp days) first appeared on the cover of Millie #16, and last appeared on the cover of Millie #22.  The Atlas globe logo first appeared on the cover of Millie #31.  Thanks for playing.  That is all.   

     

Edited March 8, 2023 by zzutak
HA Link Fixed

[zzutak]

Between what two Millie issues should the boundary between Marvel and Atlas be drawn?  I can't say.  Should a distinction even be made?  That's not my call.  I will say this, though: as an outsider, I get the impression that CGC has never had a firm/consistent "policy" in place regarding the late-1940s Marvel to early-1950s Atlas transition.  Just compare CGC's treatment of Millie (as noted above) with their treatment of Venus (which also includes both Marvel Era and Atlas Era issues):

[CGC Mike]

On 3/7/2023 at 11:12 PM, zzutak said:

@CGC Mike, for what it's worth, here goes:

I will pass this data along to the team.  Thanks!  

[Stefan_W]

Does anyone know if CGC does ME returns on books if you are not the person who submitted the book to begin with? I bought this Strange Academy 1 at Comic Link which had "Ramos Variant" on the slab, and CL also repeated that in the description since they pull their info off of the slabs. However, I just realized that although this cover is by Ramos it is actually the wraparound Variant and the Ramos variant has a different cover. I already overpaid thinking this book had a much higher value point, and I am hoping to avoid sinking even more cash into it from having to pay for the reholdering myself. 

 

 

[CGC Mike]

On 3/8/2023 at 11:04 AM, Stefan_W said:

Does anyone know if CGC does ME returns on books if you are not the person who submitted the book to begin with? I bought this Strange Academy 1 at Comic Link which had "Ramos Variant" on the slab, and CL also repeated that in the description since they pull their info off of the slabs. However, I just realized that although this cover is by Ramos it is actually the wraparound Variant and the Ramos variant has a different cover. I already overpaid thinking this book had a much higher value point, and I am hoping to avoid sinking even more cash into it from having to pay for the reholdering myself. 

Currently, we only allow label errors for ME "no time limit/don't have to be the submitter".  So, I believe in this case, the answer is yes.

[Stefan_W]

On 3/8/2023 at 12:11 PM, CGC Mike said:

Currently, we only allow label errors for ME "no time limit/don't have to be the submitter".  So, I believe in this case, the answer is yes.

Thank you, much appreciated! I just called and they are sending me a label. 

[CGC Mike]

On 3/8/2023 at 12:34 PM, Stefan_W said:

Thank you, much appreciated! I just called and they are sending me a label. 

Awesome!  

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 3/8/2023 at 12:11 PM, CGC Mike said:

Currently, we only allow label errors for ME "no time limit/don't have to be the submitter".  So, I believe in this case, the answer is yes.

And debris....no?

[CGC Mike]

On 3/8/2023 at 12:57 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

On 3/8/2023 at 12:11 PM, CGC Mike said:

Currently, we only allow label errors for ME "no time limit/don't have to be the submitter".  So, I believe in this case, the answer is yes.

And debris....no?

That is correct.  

[CGC Mike]

On 3/7/2023 at 11:12 PM, zzutak said:

The transition from Marvel (pulps) to Timely (comics) in 1939, then back to Marvel (in 1946?), then to Atlas (in 1951), and finally back to Marvel (in 1961, where MC on the cover begins) is confusing to many.  Heritage Auctions, for example, has never been able to decide whether Venus is an Atlas or a Timely title (link).  So I've become accustomed to a lack of consistency when dealing with Atomic Age issues by this publisher.

@CGC Mike, for what it's worth, here goes:

 

 

You'll notice several inconsistencies in these listings (identical to what I pointed out about Uncanny Tales #40).  There really is no rhyme or reason to whether a pre-1961 issue is classified as Marvel or Atlas.  For example, issues #1, #9, and #25 are deemed to be Atlas (  ), whereas all other pre-1951 issues are classified as Marvel (  ).  Issues #27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 44. 45, 47, 48, 49, 64, and 81 are all listed as Marvel, despite the fact that all (or nearly all) are from the Atlas Era (1951-60).  Yikes!        CGC's treatment of this particular title is a hot mess.

It's clear (to me, at least) that CGC accepted whatever publisher was attached to the very first submission of each issue.  In my opinion, that's not the most well thought out plan for building a correct and consistent database.  So let's have no more "optimistic" declarations from upper management about "one off" gaffs.  

As an aside, Marvel's "red circle" logo (which was a hold-over from the pulp days) first appeared on the cover of Millie #16, and last appeared on the cover of Millie #22.  The Atlas globe logo first appeared on the cover of Millie #31.  Thanks for playing.  That is all.   

     

 

On 3/8/2023 at 4:41 AM, zzutak said:

Between what two Millie issues should the boundary between Marvel and Atlas be drawn?  I can't say.  Should a distinction even be made?  That's not my call.  I will say this, though: as an outsider, I get the impression that CGC has never had a firm/consistent "policy" in place regarding the late-1940s Marvel to early-1950s Atlas transition.  Just compare CGC's treatment of Millie (as noted above) with their treatment of Venus (which also includes both Marvel Era and Atlas Era issues):

Here is a message from the team:

Recognizing that the delineation between Timely/Marvel/Atlas/Marvel is murky based on changing cover emblems and publisher information listed in each indicia, CGC has decided to simplify things by establishing the following parameters:

 

1939 through October 1951 – Timely

November 1951 to May/June/July 1961 – Atlas (beginning with the first appearance of the common Atlas globe)

June/July/August 1961 to present – Marvel (beginning with the first appearance of the “MC” box)

 

The month when “MC” began to appear on a cover varied between the handful of titles Marvel was producing at that time.

The run of Millie the Model has been changed in CGC’s database to follow these parameters. There are a few other issues that need to be changed to follow the Atlas/Marvel delineation, and more for Timely/Atlas, which will be completed in the coming weeks. These changes will appear online as the CGC census updates each week. We’re aware the census has not updated since mid-February, which we’re working to rectify now.

[zzutak]

On 3/8/2023 at 10:35 AM, CGC Mike said:

Here is a message from the team:

Recognizing that the delineation between Timely/Marvel/Atlas/Marvel is murky based on changing cover emblems and publisher information listed in each indicia, CGC has decided to simplify things by establishing the following parameters:

• 1939 through October 1951 – Timely.  A reasonable decision, given the fuzzy nature of the post-war transition from Timely to Marvel, and CGC's desire to "simplify things" 
• November 1951 to May/June/July 1961 – Atlas (beginning with the first appearance of the common Atlas globe).  Historically accurate.   
• June/July/August 1961 to present – Marvel (beginning with the first appearance of the “MC” box).  Historically accurate.   

The month when “MC” began to appear on a cover varied between the handful of titles Marvel was producing at that time.  Historically accurate.   

I've included my comments within the quote (in boldface red).
Many thanks, @CGC Mike, for carrying my observation forward.  And many thanks to CGC for their decision to institute a well-defined, reasonable, and simple-to-consistently-apply policy regarding one of the most prolific comic book publishers of all time.   

[Beige]

I'll give credit where it's due.

Without @CGC Mike there would be a whole heap of stuff not getting corrected.

Whatever they are paying you - it ain't enough.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

I really hope the buyer of this book is a fan of CGC error labels.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/155437391350?mkpid=0&emsid=e11010.m1951.l7533&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=256ff01cfb3e45c78672c8376cbcb17f&bu=43524605054&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20230308141908&segname=11010&autorefresh=true&nma=true&si=jo7yz8r7%2BIKXoBhxF4e4QqtXsp4%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/8/2023 at 8:27 PM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I really hope the buyer of this book is a fan of CGC error labels.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/155437391350?mkpid=0&emsid=e11010.m1951.l7533&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=256ff01cfb3e45c78672c8376cbcb17f&bu=43524605054&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20230308141908&segname=11010&autorefresh=true&nma=true&si=jo7yz8r7%2BIKXoBhxF4e4QqtXsp4%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

What's the error?

[AceHazard]

On 3/8/2023 at 7:47 PM, Sigur Ros said:

What's the error?

The book is a reprint and the label is for the original pressing. 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:11 PM, AceHazard said:

The book is a reprint and the label is for the original pressing. 

Correct. I saw copies of this facsimilie still on the shelves today. It was just released a few weeks ago, not 30 years ago. The seller called out the correct publication year in the listing, but not that it was a facsimilie. The label is for the original version, which sells for between 150-200 in 9.8 right now.

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:11 PM, AceHazard said:

The book is a reprint and the label is for the original pressing. 

Ah..  thank you.

[Mrtombs]

Just got an email this morning stating these defects fall into the acceptable range and dont qualify for ME reholder. 

Quote