Savage dragon 225 xxx cover 0

[JcomicJ]

3 hours ago, TheRealVenom said:

Just to update this, my buddy got an email from cgc. The book is being returned raw. Reason is explicit cover image. So no, CGC will not grade this book. At least Larson didn't charge him for a cgc witnesses signature. 

T'is a sad day for the census

[SquareChaos]

8 hours ago, TheRealVenom said:

Just to update this, my buddy got an email from cgc. The book is being returned raw. Reason is explicit cover image. So no, CGC will not grade this book. At least Larson didn't charge him for a cgc witnesses signature. 

Thanks for the update. They don't have a very logically consistent story to tell on this one.

[deadleg]

I stand corrected. 

[Spawn1709]

So this book won't be accepted by CGC? Has anyone tries to submit one? 

 

Hehehe submit... 

[Gunnz]

So, Slabbing aside. Any opinions on whether this may gain value over time? Larsen said that what happens in the book will not be undone as he had been contemplating it for years. I believe that. Thoughts?

[deadleg]

 

Spoiler

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sex-Criminals-16-Staples-variant-CGC-9-8-SSx2-Zdarsky-Fraction/302473775586?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

So CGC will slab this book but not the Savage Dragon variant? Sorry to beat a dead horse but I just thought this needed to be posted.  I put the link in spoiler tags cause it is NSFW. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by deadleg
Link should work now..........

[SquareChaos]

8 minutes ago, deadleg said:

 

  Hide contents

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sex-Criminals-16-Staples-variant-CGC-9-8-SSx2-Zdarsky-Fraction/302473775586?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

So CGC will slab this book but not the Savage Dragon variant? Sorry to beat a dead horse but I just thought this needed to be posted.  I put the link in spoiler tags cause it is NSFW. 

Like I said, they do not have a logical story on this decision. There are lots of things on the covers of many books in CGC slabs that make some people uncomfortable, but here we are.

[mschmidt]

On 10/1/2017 at 11:30 PM, SquareChaos said:

Like I said, they do not have a logical story on this decision. There are lots of things on the covers of many books in CGC slabs that make some people uncomfortable, but here we are.

Really? You see no difference between the SW #225 and the Sex Criminals cover?

CGC has never had a problem slabbing books with nudity - they draw the line at straight-up pornography.

[SquareChaos]

2 hours ago, mschmidt said:

Really? You see no difference between the SW #225 and the Sex Criminals cover?

CGC has never had a problem slabbing books with nudity - they draw the line at straight-up pornography.

I do see a difference. I don't see a massive difference, but of course that is in the eye of the beholder and is highly subjective. I think most people would consider both covers pornographic... to greater or lesser degrees. The problem is that we do not appear to have a clear definition of what they will or won't slab. Someone previous said they were verbally told it concerned penetration... something obviously directly implied by both covers, and based on that, they don't have a very logical story to tell on this.

If asked, I imagine a representative may say they do not wish to associate their brand with such imagery, but... if we step outside of graphic sexual content, there is a whole world of violence, sexism, racism, and almost any other *ism that you can think of on a comic book cover somewhere, and I've seen examples of many in CGC slabs. Again, I'm not exactly a firebrand here, but if a company is going to offer a service, it's limitations need to be better defined than this, especially if they're practicing some sort of soft censorship 

[Jimmy Linguini]

3 hours ago, mschmidt said:

Really? You see no difference between the SW #225 and the Sex Criminals cover?

CGC has never had a problem slabbing books with nudity - they draw the line at straight-up pornography.

For those unfamiliar with the Sex Criminals series, The sex criminals cover is showing both main characters going back in time by having sex.
So I'm not sure how it isn't pornography.

[mschmidt]

2 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

I do see a difference. I don't see a massive difference, but of course that is in the eye of the beholder and is highly subjective. I think most people would consider both covers pornographic... to greater or lesser degrees. The problem is that we do not appear to have a clear definition of what they will or won't slab. Someone previous said they were verbally told it concerned penetration... something obviously directly implied by both covers, and based on that, they don't have a very logical story to tell on this.

If asked, I imagine a representative may say they do not wish to associate their brand with such imagery, but... if we step outside of graphic sexual content, there is a whole world of violence, sexism, racism, and almost any other *ism that you can think of on a comic book cover somewhere, and I've seen examples of many in CGC slabs. Again, I'm not exactly a firebrand here, but if a company is going to offer a service, it's limitations need to be better defined than this, especially if they're practicing some sort of soft censorship 

I see a huge difference between the two covers - both in intent & in execution.

Which isn't meant as me passing judgement on either of them - I have zero problems with nudity, sex or NSFW art in general - but rather to point out that if you look at these covers with CGC's previously-mentioned general guidelines in mind (eg. no penetration, no hardcore pornography) it's fairly obvious why only one of these two books is sitting in a CGC slab. You may not agree with this decision, but to present it as illogical is disingenuous. 

Ultimately, it's always been up to CGC's discretion whether they will slab a book or not - there's nowhere in their terms of service that says otherwise.

[ygogolak]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Linguini said:

For those unfamiliar with the Sex Criminals series, The sex criminals cover is showing both main characters going back in time by having sex.
So I'm not sure how it isn't pornography.

Dr. Who just uses a phone booth.

[Gunnz]

35 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Dr. Who just uses a phone booth.

you dont know what goes on in that phone booth. 

[ygogolak]

1 hour ago, Gunnz said:

you dont know what goes on in that phone booth. 

Are you implying it's a hand crank start?

[SquareChaos]

2 hours ago, mschmidt said:

I see a huge difference between the two covers - both in intent & in execution.

Which isn't meant as me passing judgement on either of them - I have zero problems with nudity, sex or NSFW art in general - but rather to point out that if you look at these covers with CGC's previously-mentioned general guidelines in mind (eg. no penetration, no hardcore pornography) it's fairly obvious why only one of these two books is sitting in a CGC slab. You may not agree with this decision, but to present it as illogical is disingenuous. 

Ultimately, it's always been up to CGC's discretion whether they will slab a book or not - there's nowhere in their terms of service that says otherwise.

I'm not sure what CGC previously-mentioned guideline you're referring too... which is the problem at hand. You're focusing on something else, but I'm not sure what. My entire issue is with CGC's (habitually / chronically) bad messaging.

[mschmidt]

10 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

I'm not sure what CGC previously-mentioned guideline you're referring too... which is the problem at hand. You're focusing on something else, but I'm not sure what. My entire issue is with CGC's (habitually / chronically) bad messaging.

I asked CGC directly what their policy was on a graphic covers like this - they told me exactly what I posted above. How is that bad messaging?

[ygogolak]

13 hours ago, mschmidt said:

I see a huge difference between the two covers - both in intent & in execution.

Which isn't meant as me passing judgement on either of them - I have zero problems with nudity, sex or NSFW art in general - but rather to point out that if you look at these covers with CGC's previously-mentioned general guidelines in mind (eg. no penetration, no hardcore pornography) it's fairly obvious why only one of these two books is sitting in a CGC slab. You may not agree with this decision, but to present it as illogical is disingenuous. 

Ultimately, it's always been up to CGC's discretion whether they will slab a book or not - there's nowhere in their terms of service that says otherwise.

From the original post, it sounds like it's up to the grader who has the book in hand. Not a blanket treatment across the company.

[SquareChaos]

1 hour ago, mschmidt said:

I asked CGC directly what their policy was on a graphic covers like this - they told me exactly what I posted above. How is that bad messaging?

Whatever the stance is, they should post it on their site... even if they post 'we decide when we see it' as if they're the Supreme Court. 

I imagine such content will become more frequent, not less frequent. It seems to me that CGC may be having side conversations with different collectors. That is bad messaging for a business... We've now heard two different people state that they were told different things (I think? One said the line is drawn at penetration, and then whatever exact thing you were told - 'hardcore pornograhpy'?) about the rules governing CGC's decision on whether or not to slab covers depicting sex or covers that are considered pornographic.

So... I don't know, if a new 'pornographic' cover comes out next week, I would have trouble determining if they'd slab it, but lucky for me I'm not impacted directly since I don't collect these books. Not real sure how I can be more clear about how I think this is bad messaging, I can't think of much else to say. I respect your personal experience with them, I'm not trying to denigrate that, and I appreciate you coming to the thread and sharing what you were told - willingness to share is the reason we know anything about this, because collector's have passed on their experiences about this topic here on the boards 

[mschmidt]

1 hour ago, SquareChaos said:

Whatever the stance is, they should post it on their site... even if they post 'we decide when we see it' as if they're the Supreme Court. 

I imagine such content will become more frequent, not less frequent. It seems to me that CGC may be having side conversations with different collectors. That is bad messaging for a business... We've now heard two different people state that they were told different things (I think? One said the line is drawn at penetration, and then whatever exact thing you were told - 'hardcore pornograhpy'?) about the rules governing CGC's decision on whether or not to slab covers depicting sex or covers that are considered pornographic.

So... I don't know, if a new 'pornographic' cover comes out next week, I would have trouble determining if they'd slab it, but lucky for me I'm not impacted directly since I don't collect these books. Not real sure how I can be more clear about how I think this is bad messaging, I can't think of much else to say. I respect your personal experience with them, I'm not trying to denigrate that, and I appreciate you coming to the thread and sharing what you were told - willingness to share is the reason we know anything about this, because collector's have passed on their experiences about this topic here on the boards 

The two different people you mention are both me ...

I posted in the beginning of this thread:

CGC won't grade books that feature penetration or explicit pornography on the cover - nudity, however, is fine.

At WW Chicago, one guy tried to submit this book and was told they wouldn't slab it.

[SquareChaos]

On 9/15/2017 at 7:03 PM, TheRealVenom said:

Just to update this, my buddy got an email from cgc. The book is being returned raw. Reason is explicit cover image. So no, CGC will not grade this book. At least Larson didn't charge him for a cgc witnesses signature. 

 

1 minute ago, mschmidt said:

The two different people you mention are both me ...

I posted in the beginning of this thread:

I was confused as to what the second person said, but see the 'second person' quote I was referencing above. For some reason I thought they were told something about penetration as well, but their point was that they were told it was up to individual graders.