Comic pressing company recommendations

[Iqc23]

I agree. Some members love his work but I had a bad experience with him. I wouldn't recommend Joeypost.

[RockMyAmadeus]

When i found this board i read though a bunch of posts and thought it was a pretty diverse board of collecting knowledge. I don't think asking about whom you recommend for good service for you collecting needs is really a thing to be frowned upon. I don't know Matt or Joey. I have no idea of their work history. But now i know that I will look into Joey's work before Matt's because of 1) - we only talk about Matt here -type of answer. and 2) Does Matt "Really still press" rises a red flag for me - like something happened or he isn't really focused on that any longer.

 

I want honest advice not forced advice.

 

and thanks to the guys giving that advice so far.

 

M

 

I'll say this again, because I'm not sure the point was understood. I'm not trying to offend you or insult you, though many think that's the case, especially when they've said something not very appropriate and it's pointed out.

 

This board belongs to the Certified Collectibles Group. Classic Collectibles Service (Matt Nelson's "division") is a member of that group.

 

Therefore, it is not appropriate to advertise the services of other entities in competition with the CCG (that is, the Certified Collectibles Group.)

 

In fact, the Director of Operations at CGC has stated that, plainly, here:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7745023#Post7745023

 

CGC provides its message boards as a service to the comic book collecting community. Although we value an open forum where users can discuss issues that affect the hobby, we will not allow our message boards to be used to promote our competitors. Several recent posts have done this and have been pulled. Going forward, we will pull any posts that violate this policy and may also choose to suspend or ban the poster.

 

 

You are free to use whomever you choose to use. However, you're not free to ask for, and have others promote, the services of the CCG's competitors on the CCG board. That's like going to the Coca-Cola board and asking which brand of cola do people recommend.

 

The vast majority of people don't care, and won't say anything. I'm not one of those people. If you're going to become offended because someone told you the truth, you're going to have a tough time on message boards.

[MarkusVernon]

Okay

[Bomber-Bob]

I am not offended. Just disappointed that people can't stand by their product to the point they can't handle someone else's opinion. Does the dc board ban people talking about captain America? Or the marvel board ban people talking about batman? Maybe the CCG (that is the certified Collectors group - ) could learn a few things on how to make there product better , instead of oppressing the opinions of things like - long wait times , mediocre uppity service, expensive product. And a board admin that tries to belittle people.

But really it is my fault for not reading the terms and conditions. I thought it was an open board and did not realize it was a controlled opinion board, which obiviously effects what people post / say.

 

Actually CGC is very accommodating. However, I agree with RMA, we should show CGC some common courtesy and not discuss.

[MarkusVernon]

Delete this thread

[PovertyRow]

Delete this thread

 

Just so you know, no one who has posted in this thread is a board admin. Should a moderator/admin sense a violation they will take some form of action.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I am not offended. Just disappointed that people can't stand by their product to the point they can't handle someone else's opinion. Does the dc board ban people talking about captain America? Or the marvel board ban people talking about batman? Maybe the CCG (that is the certified Collectors group - ) could learn a few things on how to make there product better , instead of oppressing the opinions of things like - long wait times , mediocre uppity service, expensive product. And a board admin that tries to belittle people.

But really it is my fault for not reading the terms and conditions. I thought it was an open board and did not realize it was a controlled opinion board, which obiviously effects what people post / say.

 

Actually CGC is very accommodating. However, I agree with RMA, we should show CGC some common courtesy and not discuss.

 

 

I don't know which board admin he/she's referring to, but there aren't many to choose from, so I could probably hazard a guess. Not anyone in this thread, naturally, since, as Pov points out, there haven't been any board admins posting here, and no one has belittled anyone.

 

Keep in mind that the board admins are actually part of a company that the CCG farms out the message board hosting and administration to, and aren't actually employees of the CCG.

 

By the way, this thread shouldn't be deleted...there are several good points brought up, including the ones that zombie kitten brings up in their post here. Constructive criticism is always a good thing.

 

[Vorpal]

I think it's completely appropriate to discuss CCS competitors here on the CGC boards. Why? Because to require anything else gives credence to the concerns that there is a conflict of interest by having both CCS and CGC owned by the same parent company. CGC and CCS themselves both work hard to alleviate this concern by maintaining that they're completely separate entities. This is on the CCS website:

 

CCS and CGC are independent members of the Certified Collectibles Group.

(bolded emphasis mine)

 

This is a CGC board. As a CGC board, it must remain impartial to 3rd party services outside of its business area (grading). Otherwise there is absolutely a conflict of interest. I believe that CGC recognizes this, and that's why they've never taken issue with the discussion of 3rd party restorers/conservators/pressers, etc.

[The_SandMan]

I've tried both Joey and CCS...CCS is now my primary presser

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think it's completely appropriate to discuss CCS competitors here on the CGC boards. Why? Because to require anything else gives credence to the concerns that there is a conflict of interest by having both CCS and CGC owned by the same parent company. CGC and CCS themselves both work hard to alleviate this concern by maintaining that they're completely separate entities. This is on the CCS website:

 

CCS and CGC are independent members of the Certified Collectibles Group.

(bolded emphasis mine)

 

This is a CGC board. As a CGC board, it must remain impartial to 3rd party services outside of its business area (grading). Otherwise there is absolutely a conflict of interest. I believe that CGC recognizes this, and that's why they've never taken issue with the discussion of 3rd party restorers/conservators/pressers, etc.

 

 

Interesting analysis, but incorrect. Did you read the thread that I linked?

 

This is not the "CGC board." If you look up at the left hand corner at the top of this, and every, page, you'll see "Collectors Society." And, if you follow the board back to the root, you'll see it's called "Collectors Society Message Board." The Collectors Society encompasses all the aspects of Certified Collectibles Group. Yes, there's a CGC section, and an NGC section, and other sections, but above all that, it's the Collectors Society.

 

And yes, CGC HAS taken issue with the discussion of 3rd party restorers/conservators/pressers, etc. and they HAVE removed threads that promoted that competition. You just haven't seen them because they've been removed. In fact, some formerly regular members have left this board precisely because of promotion threads for competition being taken down, and they've left in protest.

 

They allow some discussion...as evidenced by certain kudos threads. including my own...but their official position is no.

 

[AGGIEZ]

You two must be attorneys...

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

You two must be attorneys...

 

 

 

Hi, I'm RMA. Have we met?

 

(I wish you posted more. Life's been pretty busy for you lately...?)

 

 

 

[comicdonna]

I don't think private pressing companies are even allowed to advertise in the dealers section anymore. Is that correct?

[shadroch]

Damnn the man!

[Vorpal]

Did you read the thread that I linked? This is not the "CGC board."

 

Did you read the thread you linked? It literally says "CGC provides its message boards... " - it does not mention CCG at all. Yes, I know that the entirety of the boards are CCG-owned. But that statement as written applies specifically to CGC and non-promotion of CGC's competitors. If they actually mean something different than what is being said, then the statement needs an update.

 

CCG seems to have gone out of its way to emphasize how independent CCS is, which I applaud. CCS services should stand on their own, and people should select them because they do great work and because of how easy it makes subsequent submittal to CGC. People should not select them only because there's an unwritten rule that prevents discussion of alternative options, and they don't know differently. Either allow the discussion or make it very clear as to why only CCS should be discussed. I don't think that either approach is wrong, but having an unwritten rule is. (And no, implying or inferring the rule by proxy with a similar but different rule isn't acceptable!)

 

I'm still pretty new here, only having been on the boards for about a year (I lurked for a few months before registering). I am *well aware* that other grading companies are not to be promoted, because that rule is prominently displayed. However, I seriously thought that discussion of other restoration/conservation/pressing companies was fine. Why? Because that particular rule (which apparently exists) is not clearly displayed.

[PovertyRow]

CGC provides its message boards as a service to the comic book collecting community. Although we value an open forum where users can discuss issues that affect the hobby, we will not allow our message boards to be used to promote our competitors. Several recent posts have done this and have been pulled. Going forward, we will pull any posts that violate this policy and may also choose to suspend or ban the poster.

 

Vorpal, I do see ambiguity here. Harshen's post relates directly to CGC and only references CGC. It does not reference CCG or CCS. Only references to CGC. So it should be understood as it reads: CGC competitors. AKA third party grading competitors.

 

CCS states on their web site: "CCS is an independent member of the Certified Collectibles Group (CCG)". They do not state they are a member of CGC, but of CCG. They only state that CCS "offers its services in conjunction with CGC", not "as a part of CGC".

 

Since other areas of CCG allows the discussion and even sale of other TPG competitors, one must assume that CGC is an exception and only references to direct CGC competitors (aka TPGs) have been banned.

 

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Did you read the thread that I linked? This is not the "CGC board."

 

Did you read the thread you linked? It literally says "CGC provides its message boards... " - it does not mention CCG at all. Yes, I know that the entirety of the boards are CCG-owned. But that statement as written applies specifically to CGC and non-promotion of CGC's competitors. If they actually mean something different than what is being said, then the statement needs an update.

 

CCG seems to have gone out of its way to emphasize how independent CCS is, which I applaud. CCS services should stand on their own, and people should select them because they do great work and because of how easy it makes subsequent submittal to CGC. People should not select them only because there's an unwritten rule that prevents discussion of alternative options, and they don't know differently. Either allow the discussion or make it very clear as to why only CCS should be discussed. I don't think that either approach is wrong, but having an unwritten rule is. (And no, implying or inferring the rule by proxy with a similar but different rule isn't acceptable!)

 

I'm still pretty new here, only having been on the boards for about a year (I lurked for a few months before registering). I am *well aware* that other grading companies are not to be promoted, because that rule is prominently displayed. However, I seriously thought that discussion of other restoration/conservation/pressing companies was fine. Why? Because that particular rule (which apparently exists) is not clearly displayed.

 

There was a long thread discussing -- mostly praising -- Joey Post's pressing services that got zapped a year (or maybe two) ago. Apart from that, so far as I know, they haven't been zapping posts that recommend non-CCS pressing services. Certainly not the way they zap any post that praises CBCS or displays books in their holders.

 

I imagine that if another long thread started that ended up being primarily praise for non-CCS pressers (or criticism of CCS), they might be moved to take action.

[EC ed]

There was a long thread discussing -- mostly praising -- Joey Post's pressing services that got zapped a year (or maybe two) ago. Apart from that, so far as I know, they haven't been zapping posts that recommend non-CCS pressing services.

I wonder whether that seemingly differential treatment has anything to do with the fact that CFP Comics is the official pressing service of another company who shall remain nameless.

[Sqeggs]

There was a long thread discussing -- mostly praising -- Joey Post's pressing services that got zapped a year (or maybe two) ago. Apart from that, so far as I know, they haven't been zapping posts that recommend non-CCS pressing services.

I wonder whether that seemingly differential treatment has anything to do with the fact that CFP Comics is the official pressing service of another company who shall remain nameless.

 

Seems a fair inference.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Did you read the thread that I linked? This is not the "CGC board."

 

 

This is not what I wrote.

 

I wrote:

 

Interesting analysis, but incorrect. Did you read the thread that I linked?

 

This is not the "CGC board." If you look up at the left hand corner at the top of this...

 

Which is formatted and "reads" differently that what you here quote me as saying.

 

If you're going to quote me, please quote me entirely, without changing context, or please don't quote me at all.

 

 

Did you read the thread you linked? It literally says "CGC provides its message boards... " - it does not mention CCG at all. Yes, I know that the entirety of the boards are CCG-owned. But that statement as written applies specifically to CGC and non-promotion of CGC's competitors. If they actually mean something different than what is being said, then the statement needs an update.

 

 

 

 

No need for the snide commentary; of course I red it.

 

You're grasping at straws and splitting hairs; the purpose of the non-competition thread isn't just for slabbing comics, but also pressing comics and other services provided by CCS.

 

How do I know this? Because they've already exercised it. They remove BOTH threads AND posts that promote competitors as it relates to comics (NGC does, indeed, operate differently), whether it is through CGC or CCS.

 

Harshen's post says "CGC" because CCS doesn't have its own message board, but you can be sure, by precedent, that it refers to CCS as well.

 

Come on, now.

 

 

CCG seems to have gone out of its way to emphasize how independent CCS is, which I applaud.

 

 

You mean, where they say they're independent, once, in a casual context...? That's "going out of their way"...?

 

 

CCS services should stand on their own, and people should select them because they do great work and because of how easy it makes subsequent submittal to CGC. People should not select them only because there's an unwritten rule that prevents discussion of alternative options, and they don't know differently.

 

 

There is no unwritten rule. The rule is there, plainly stated, and you're splitting hairs to say that Harshen's post doesn't apply to CCS as well as CGC.

 

After all, if you wish to focus on the language, let's do so: "CGC provides its message boards as a service to the comic book collecting community." (Emphasis added.)

 

Is CCS part of the "comic book collecting community"? Yes, of course.

 

If it doesn't explicitly say CCS, you can be sure, because of subsequent action taken, that it is meant.

 

 

Either allow the discussion or make it very clear as to why only CCS should be discussed. I don't think that either approach is wrong, but having an unwritten rule is. (And no, implying or inferring the rule by proxy with a similar but different rule isn't acceptable!)

 

I'm still pretty new here, only having been on the boards for about a year (I lurked for a few months before registering). I am *well aware* that other grading companies are not to be promoted, because that rule is prominently displayed. However, I seriously thought that discussion of other restoration/conservation/pressing companies was fine. Why? Because that particular rule (which apparently exists) is not clearly displayed.

 

 

If it needs to be clearly and explicitly spelled out...and it has not heretofore needed to be...you can be sure it will be.

 

You may be correct in your interpretation of the letter...but you completely miss the spirit. I assure you, the omission of explicit reference to CCS is not implicit approval to promote their competition.

 

Those claiming ambiguity are being disingenuous. I know it's human nature to ignore the spirit of the rule, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.