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

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

Earlier I posted an  on another board members sales thread for this book. ( I did mention the mistake before which he didn't notice until I pointed it out. ) 

[Funnybooks]

8 minutes ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Earlier I posted an  on another board members sales thread for this book. ( I did mention the mistake before which he didn't notice until I pointed it out. ) 

West coast offices of Marvel Comics at the time

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

Just now, Funnybooks said:

West coast offices of Marvel Comics at the time

 labeled as 12/82  #1 . When this is the March of 1985 #1. 

[Point Five]

I mean, if they can't get the sig series books right then truly we are all doomed.

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

2 hours ago, comicdonna said:

My dog is filling out an application for the QC position.

Meet Sasha   Link

Edited May 28, 2021 by BlowUpTheMoon
greggy is a dork

[Qalyar]

1 hour ago, kav said:

The thought here is that things have worsened considerably and rapidly recently.

It's tough to know for certain, because of confirmation bias. Also, if the volume of submissions has spiked recently, but the percentage of QA failures has remained constant, then the number of slabbing problems entering the community at one time will also spike in terms of raw numbers. I do think that's a lot of what we're seeing here, but...

...this also isn't an apologia for CGC QA. It's one thing to hold error rates constant, but my biggest concern is the type and severity of errors. I'm not deeply distraught over a scuffed case or a missing artist or first-appearance note. I'm more concerned, but not extremely dismayed, over typographical errors like that 158/168 book; that should be caught by QA, but is admittedly the type of error that I can see occasionally evading human detection. But some of these mechanical failures of the slabbing process -- unsealed inner wells, books caught in the slab, corners mangled -- shouldn't ever happen, or if they do, shouldn't evade QA and shouldn't be repeated (because there had better be an immediate performance intervention).

[HotKey]

2 hours ago, KryptoMayor said:

It’s been said before that mistakes happen and every time I’ve contact CGC with an issue, they’ve made it right by me. Of course you can do business with whom you choose to, but why does CGC have to make a public admission that mistakes happen? Does that mean all companies must do the same? 

Nah you're right they should just announce another signing and ignore the issue.

[Funnybooks]

5 minutes ago, HotKey said:

Nah you're right they should just announce another signing and ignore the issue.

First CGC In-House Private Signing with .5   Acclaimed CGC Boardie

[kav]

9 minutes ago, Qalyar said:

It's tough to know for certain, because of confirmation bias. Also, if the volume of submissions has spiked recently, but the percentage of QA failures has remained constant, then the number of slabbing problems entering the community at one time will also spike in terms of raw numbers. I do think that's a lot of what we're seeing here, but...

...this also isn't an apologia for CGC QA. It's one thing to hold error rates constant, but my biggest concern is the type and severity of errors. I'm not deeply distraught over a scuffed case or a missing artist or first-appearance note. I'm more concerned, but not extremely dismayed, over typographical errors like that 158/168 book; that should be caught by QA, but is admittedly the type of error that I can see occasionally evading human detection. But some of these mechanical failures of the slabbing process -- unsealed inner wells, books caught in the slab, corners mangled -- shouldn't ever happen, or if they do, shouldn't evade QA and shouldn't be repeated (because there had better be an immediate performance intervention).

One boardie showed me 3 damaged books out of 4 submitted.  This has me concerned.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

11 minutes ago, Funnybooks said:

First CGC In-House Private Signing with .5   Acclaimed CGC Boardie

They would probably get a bunch of Strawberry Shortcake if they booked Greggy for an in house signing.. 

[Galen130]

1 hour ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Earlier I posted an  on another board members sales thread for this book. ( I did mention the mistake before which he didn't notice until I pointed it out. ) 

[Qalyar]

40 minutes ago, kav said:

One boardie showed me 3 damaged books out of 4 submitted.  This has me concerned.

I feel like this sort of thing likely represents a single encapsulation tech making a consistent mistake due to a mechanical issue or inadequate training. That's an explanation, not an excuse of course. The reality of human operated anything is that such situations aren't completely avoidable.

The concern remains twofold. Not that an event like this could happen, but rather: 1) that QA missed multiple instances of post-grading damage and 2) that there's not a lot to convince us that the problems are being corrected. Obviously, I don't expect CGC to rake an employee over the coals publicly. That's neither necessary nor appropriate. But some sort of announcement -- even (as is realistic) one that doesn't directly admit previous faults -- might help. Proudly announce an "updated QA process" or something like that (assuming that steps to mitigate these problems and QA misses are actually implemented).

[Point Five]

1 hour ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Earlier I posted an  on another board members sales thread for this book. ( I did mention the mistake before which he didn't notice until I pointed it out. ) 

By the way, off-topic but can I just say this is the best sig placement ever... it looks like Groo has a badass tattoo! Stan Lee should have been taking notes here.

[kav]

1 minute ago, Point Five said:

By the way, off-topic but can I just say this is the best sig placement ever... it looks like Groo has a badass tattoo! Stan Lee should have been taking notes here.

StanLee would have signed right over the eyes.

Edited May 28, 2021 by kav

[greggy]

Just now, kav said:

StenLee would have signed right over the eyes.

That's what she said. 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

1 minute ago, Point Five said:

By the way, off-topic but can I just say this is the best sig placement ever... it looks like Groo has a badass tattoo! Stan Lee should have been taking notes here.

I thought so as well. It was one of the reasons I took it. 

[kav]

Just now, greggy said:

That's what she said. 

@greggy

[kav]

33 minutes ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

I thought so as well. It was one of the reasons I took it. 

That's what greggy said.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

3 minutes ago, kav said:

That's what greggy said.

Yeah, but QC let it slide because it was Greggy.

If you keep it up though they may decide to have Board Quality Control evaluate your posts though.. 

 

[Buzzetta]

3 hours ago, Qalyar said:

It's tough to know for certain, because of confirmation bias. Also, if the volume of submissions has spiked recently, but the percentage of QA failures has remained constant, then the number of slabbing problems entering the community at one time will also spike in terms of raw numbers. I do think that's a lot of what we're seeing here, but...

...this also isn't an apologia for CGC QA. It's one thing to hold error rates constant, but my biggest concern is the type and severity of errors. I'm not deeply distraught over a scuffed case or a missing artist or first-appearance note. I'm more concerned, but not extremely dismayed, over typographical errors like that 158/168 book; that should be caught by QA, but is admittedly the type of error that I can see occasionally evading human detection. But some of these mechanical failures of the slabbing process -- unsealed inner wells, books caught in the slab, corners mangled -- shouldn't ever happen, or if they do, shouldn't evade QA and shouldn't be repeated (because there had better be an immediate performance intervention).

I agree with you.  The more books submitted the more errors on labels as the whole relationship is proportional.  However, if the guys in the slabbing room are overwhelmed and not feeding books in the slab correctly or are plain incompetent then an intervention needs to occur as that is costing CGC money.   If a book is graded as a 9.8 but is clearly mangled in the slab, then CGC is responsible.   They just forked over the money to make it right.