CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[TheLiamSturgess]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

[mschmidt]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

 

After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too.

 

But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened

[TheLiamSturgess]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

 

After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too.

 

But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened

 

That makes absolutely no sense. My agreement with Brittany was such that I was allowed to share every element of my findings with the boards and my fellow collectors, and the only way to do that fairly was to publicly acknowledge my affiliations and business with both CGC and Voldemort. Are you suggesting I shouldn't have? Please, explain to me in what way I was promoting Voldemort over CGC. Did I at any point suggest that collectors should use Voldemort over CGC? No, because that was entirely not the point of my post.

 

Are you telling me that every thread in which "Voldemort" is mentioned gets yanked, with no explanation? I guess we've sunk this ship now, too.

 

I hate to state the obvious, but correlation does not equal causation.

 

I'm glad you have a theory, Michael.

[comicwiz]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

 

After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too.

 

But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened

 

I nominate you for the Rick Jeanneret award, for being CGC's and the forums biggest homer!

[mschmidt]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

 

After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too.

 

But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened

 

That makes absolutely no sense. My agreement with Brittany was such that I was allowed to share every element of my findings with the boards and my fellow collectors, and the only way to do that fairly was to publicly acknowledge my affiliations and business with both CGC and Voldemort. Are you suggesting I shouldn't have? Please, explain to me in what way I was promoting Voldemort over CGC. Did I at any point suggest that collectors should use Voldemort over CGC? No, because that was entirely not the point of my post.

 

Are you telling me that every thread in which "Voldemort" is mentioned gets yanked, with no explanation? I guess we've sunk this ship now, too.

 

No explanation? This seems pretty straight-forward to me:

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

 

I read your thread, dude - you didn't just disclose your "affiliation" with Voldemort, you had multiple comparisons between them and CGC.

 

If you truly just wanted your questions answered, why didn't you follow the advice of the people who posted in the first thread and simply repost the thread with all the Voldemort references scrubbed?

[seanfingh]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

 

After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too.

 

But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened

 

I nominate you for the Rick Jeanneret award, for being the boards biggest homer!

 

So what?

 

You are the good guy because you beat the anti-CGC cataclysmic drum, and Mike is a bad guy because he stands up for a company with a product/service that he enjoys and appreciates?

 

Oh, heaven forfend someone stand up for CGC!!

 

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[comicwiz]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input.

 

Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

 

After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too.

 

But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened

 

I nominate you for the Rick Jeanneret award, for being the boards biggest homer!

 

So what?

 

You are the good guy because you beat the anti-CGC cataclysmic drum, and Mike is a bad guy because he stands up for a company with a product/service that he enjoys and appreciates?

 

Oh, heaven forfend someone stand up for CGC!!

 

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

I'm surprised you even know who Rick Jeanneret is

[Transplant]

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

With due respect, Mark, that is only half the story on why threads get deleted around here. Yes, some critical threads don't get deleted. Many get stopped, but stay around. Others go poof for reasons other than violating the board standards.

 

While I'm not asking for a response to every example, that would be better served from the mods who appear to not be involved in a public fashion in any meaningful manner nowadays. I would point to one example in particular. This community continued to post examples of puddling in old cases and, later on, in new cases. In both instances, numerous posts with photographic evidence of the puddling were deleted without explanation. It culminated in a post now stickied, which is IMHO quite funny:

 

 

We made the decision to close the thread about the new CGC holder. While we welcome an open dialogue that includes constructive criticism, we will not allow people to use the CGC message boards to make posts that are misleading, malicious and untrue. After many people provided legitimate feedback, which we acknowledged and addressed, some continued to use this thread to post claims that were completely false. CGC Customer Service attempted to follow up on these claims and complaints only to find that the poster could not substantiate them. This has included numerous posts with images of fabricated holder damage and book damage, as well as claims about books supposedly holdered in Philadelphia with certification numbers that prove otherwise.

 

The vast majority of feedback that CGC has received about its new holder has been positive. As we stated previously, there were a few relatively minor issues with the new holder, particularly an issue that resulted in a slight wavy appearance. Immediately upon hearing this feedback, CGC conducted a thorough investigation, determined the causes and took corrective action. We reached out -- and continue to reach out -- to customers who we believe may have been affected and offer a solution.

 

We are not aware of a single book that was damaged as a result of any of these issues with the new holder. We realize, however, that these issues can be an inconvenience for those affected. If anyone thinks they have a holder that exhibits a slight wavy appearance, CGC would be happy to evaluate it and, if we agree with your assessment, reholder your book at no charge, as well as cover your shipping expenses. If we feel that reholdering is not warranted, we will still cover your shipping expenses. Any such returns will receive Fast Track service.

 

It is no surprise that a few minor issues would be found after a major update to CGC's holder. The overwhelming response has been positive, however, and this has resulted in record-breaking submissions for CGC at recent shows. At our recent Philadelphia on-site grading event, thousands of newly graded books were returned to customers without issue. Reholder submissions to move books from our old holder to our new holder continue to arrive at CGC in large numbers.

 

CGC will always stand by its product and services. We listen to our customers and if there is an issue, we will act quickly to address it. We have done that here and we will continue to do it as we build upon our position as the world's first, largest and most trusted third-party comic book grading service.

 

We sincerely appreciate your feedback and support.

 

Thank you,

CGC

 

 

I didn't participate in the thread you referenced and didn't care much about who the specific presser of choice might be, but the insinuation that the only reason threads go poof is because they violate the board standards is baloney.

 

I'd also welcome a response to this post in the CCS announcement thread:

 

 

 

One major change is the screening service. I’ve discontinued my pro-screens for raw books, due to the conflict of interest arising by setting peoples’ expectations with grade estimates before they are graded by CGC. With CGC graded books there is a grade basis to work from, making it easier to determine if a book would benefit from pressing. We have not ruled out the idea of a pre-screen service for raw books down the road, similar to what CGC offers.

 

Seems like a good decision. I've thought it was one of the biggest possible sources for a potential conflict.

 

There was a great deal of discussion and thought put into the creation of CCS and its now functioning working relationship with CGC, particularly with respect to any potential or actual conflict of interests. I spent two full days with CCS/CGC last month to go over all the details. At some time in the future the plan is to issue a report to the community on the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts.

 

I do believe the overwhelming vast majority of the community will believe the right steps were taken.

 

Did I miss a later report back to the community on "the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts"?

 

I'm happy for you in your role working for CGC, but I'm not sure we've seen the outsider intervention we were led to believe would be forthcoming. Maybe I've missed it? If so, my apologies.

For example:

 

A thread about the threads that no one can remember being deleted at the time, but which are now "gone".

 

They were ultimately restored, but that was only after a public outcry.

 

[Timmay]

[Transplant]

Should I use the alternate spelling of bologna, instead?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I want to know why Zaid's name is in (Everton) blue?

 

I want that.

[TheLiamSturgess]

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

With due respect, Mark, that is only half the story on why threads get deleted around here. Yes, some critical threads don't get deleted. Many get stopped, but stay around. Others go poof for reasons other than violating the board standards.

 

While I'm not asking for a response to every example, that would be better served from the mods who appear to not be involved in a public fashion in any meaningful manner nowadays. I would point to one example in particular. This community continued to post examples of puddling in old cases and, later on, in new cases. In both instances, numerous posts with photographic evidence of the puddling were deleted without explanation. It culminated in a post now stickied, which is IMHO quite funny:

 

 

We made the decision to close the thread about the new CGC holder. While we welcome an open dialogue that includes constructive criticism, we will not allow people to use the CGC message boards to make posts that are misleading, malicious and untrue. After many people provided legitimate feedback, which we acknowledged and addressed, some continued to use this thread to post claims that were completely false. CGC Customer Service attempted to follow up on these claims and complaints only to find that the poster could not substantiate them. This has included numerous posts with images of fabricated holder damage and book damage, as well as claims about books supposedly holdered in Philadelphia with certification numbers that prove otherwise.

 

The vast majority of feedback that CGC has received about its new holder has been positive. As we stated previously, there were a few relatively minor issues with the new holder, particularly an issue that resulted in a slight wavy appearance. Immediately upon hearing this feedback, CGC conducted a thorough investigation, determined the causes and took corrective action. We reached out -- and continue to reach out -- to customers who we believe may have been affected and offer a solution.

 

We are not aware of a single book that was damaged as a result of any of these issues with the new holder. We realize, however, that these issues can be an inconvenience for those affected. If anyone thinks they have a holder that exhibits a slight wavy appearance, CGC would be happy to evaluate it and, if we agree with your assessment, reholder your book at no charge, as well as cover your shipping expenses. If we feel that reholdering is not warranted, we will still cover your shipping expenses. Any such returns will receive Fast Track service.

 

It is no surprise that a few minor issues would be found after a major update to CGC's holder. The overwhelming response has been positive, however, and this has resulted in record-breaking submissions for CGC at recent shows. At our recent Philadelphia on-site grading event, thousands of newly graded books were returned to customers without issue. Reholder submissions to move books from our old holder to our new holder continue to arrive at CGC in large numbers.

 

CGC will always stand by its product and services. We listen to our customers and if there is an issue, we will act quickly to address it. We have done that here and we will continue to do it as we build upon our position as the world's first, largest and most trusted third-party comic book grading service.

 

We sincerely appreciate your feedback and support.

 

Thank you,

CGC

 

 

I didn't participate in the thread you referenced and didn't care much about who the specific presser of choice might be, but the insinuation that the only reason threads go poof is because they violate the board standards is baloney.

 

I'd also welcome a response to this post in the CCS announcement thread:

 

 

 

One major change is the screening service. I’ve discontinued my pro-screens for raw books, due to the conflict of interest arising by setting peoples’ expectations with grade estimates before they are graded by CGC. With CGC graded books there is a grade basis to work from, making it easier to determine if a book would benefit from pressing. We have not ruled out the idea of a pre-screen service for raw books down the road, similar to what CGC offers.

 

Seems like a good decision. I've thought it was one of the biggest possible sources for a potential conflict.

 

There was a great deal of discussion and thought put into the creation of CCS and its now functioning working relationship with CGC, particularly with respect to any potential or actual conflict of interests. I spent two full days with CCS/CGC last month to go over all the details. At some time in the future the plan is to issue a report to the community on the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts.

 

I do believe the overwhelming vast majority of the community will believe the right steps were taken.

 

Did I miss a later report back to the community on "the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts"?

 

I'm happy for you in your role working for CGC, but I'm not sure we've seen the outsider intervention we were led to believe would be forthcoming. Maybe I've missed it? If so, my apologies.

For example:

 

A thread about the threads that no one can remember being deleted at the time, but which are now "gone".

 

They were ultimately restored, but that was only after a public outcry.

 

 

Don'y worry, Michael should be around soon enough with an answer.

[PovertyRow]

One of the interesting paragraphs is the claim that "before a book is sold, it must be graded." That is not true in any regard.

 

If you are talking about item #13, the actual quote is "Before a restored comic can be sold it must be graded."

[shadroch]

No one buys an upgraded book. They often buy non Lambertville, but someone graded it.

[Sqeggs]

One of the interesting paragraphs is the claim that "before a book is sold, it must be graded." That is not true in any regard.

 

If you are talking about item #13, the actual quote is "Before a restored comic can be sold it must be graded."

 

Which is clearly untrue. I've bought raw books where the resto has been disclosed. The auction houses list raw books with resto noted.

[kav]

"Before a restored comic is graded and sold it must be graded. Then sold.'

[Doohickamabob]

"Before a restored comic is graded and sold it must be graded. Then sold.'

Before a graded comic is restored to a grade worthy of restoration, restoration must be sold to the grader whose restoration has been graded restorable within its given grade, otherwise restoring the grade to a sellable grade of restorative gradability will prevent the resale of the restorable grading that can be restored to a grade of selling and grade restore sell before sell and after grade restore sale.

[kav]

Prior to restoration a pre-restoration grade should be given that grade to then be restored prior to the restoration grade which will then experience a final restored grade which will then be sold in the restored grade then further restoration can occur. Not before.

[roulette44]

[seanfingh]

No one buys an upgraded book. They often buy non Lambertville, but someone graded it.

 

You need to punch your autocorrect in the taint.