Newton rings! 6 6

[Mr. Lady Luck]

< googles "ameliorated" >

[Cat-Man_America]

5 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

I know they were pretty discontented.  How can they not have been given the volume of books they both slab themselves and sell for consignors?  I'm not sure whether the recent adjustments to the slabbing techniques -- or whatever it is that seems to have ameliorated the problem -- have entirely satisfied them, but my impression is that they may not yet be entirely back on board.  Interesting, given the connections between the two companies. 

I understand discontent.  I'm still discontented about buying a book from an eBay seller that has Newton Rings.  However, it's not the sellers fault.  The close up images in an eBay thumbnail only go so far and the BIN price for a second highest graded copy of this gem was quite reasonable.  In a larger scan, like an official HA scan or one I've imaged from my HP Scanjet, the oil slicks show up clearly.  It's entirely possible that my second HIT #18 is in an older "creep engine" holder from two years ago, but I don't know that.  The book came up for sale late one night several weeks back.  I'd never seen this copy offered before, so as far as I know, it was recently encapsulated.  Anyway, my solution isn't to send it back to the grading service which screwed it up in the first place. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Cat-Man_America

[buttock]

9 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

I understand discontent.  I'm still discontented about buying a book from an eBay seller that has Newton Rings.  However, it's not the sellers fault.  The close up images in an eBay thumbnail only go so far and the BIN price for a second highest graded copy of this gem was quite reasonable.  In a larger scan, like an official HA scan or one I've imaged from my HP Scanjet, the oil slicks show up clearly.  It's entirely possible that my second HIT #18 is in an older "creep engine" holder from two years ago, but I don't know that.  The book came up for sale late one night several weeks back.  I'd never seen this copy offered before, so as far as I know, it was recently encapsulated.  Anyway, my solution isn't to send it back to the grading service which screwed it up in the first place. 

Why don't you just look at it to see if it is in a creep engine holder?

[Cat-Man_America]

8 hours ago, buttock said:

Why don't you just look at it to see if it is in a creep engine holder?

Does the label say creep engine on it? 

The obvious reason is the simplest one, ...all of the current CGC holders look the same to me because of the label.  Until recent purchases I've managed to avoid new label CGC holders.  I haven't examined any new label holders since the original creep engine & Newton Ring fiasco.  The label is a red flag.

I only have two books in new label holders, both acquired in the last month, which is a situation I intend to remedy at the earliest opportunity. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[N e r V]

45 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Does the label say creep engine on it? 

The obvious reason is the simplest one, ...all of the current CGC holders look the same to me because of the label.  Until recent purchases I've managed to avoid CGC holders.  I haven't examined any new label holders since the original creep engine & Newton Ring fiasco.  The label is a red flag.

I only have two books in new label holders, both acquired in the last month, which is a situation I intend to remedy at the earliest opportunity. 

You can look up when it was slabbed however (the date) online.

Can anyone else chime in to the actual months the “old” new holder was in production before the updated changes? 

Having a range of dates (months) of the original production period could be super useful for estimating the chances of it being in the “old” new design holders.

[Mr. Lady Luck]

The new (third generation) holder design was launched on April 4, 2016. There were several problems with the new holder including creep engine and excessive newton rings. In the summer of 2016, CGC went back to using inner-wells in the new holders, and this... ameliorated... the problems. The new holder fixes were a work in progress, so it's hard to pinpoint an exact date, But by August of 2016, everything seemed to be fine. I submitted many comics for both grading and reholdering between September 2016 thru April 2018 without any issues. During this time I've been extremely pleased with the new holders. Occasionally there were minor newton rings, but this has always been the case - even with the old holders.

Sometime around May or June of this year (2018), something started happening to make the newton rings excessively worse. i don't know whether it was a change in personnel, a change in process, a change in materials or something else. But I think it's important to keep this timeline in mind because it should help in finding a fix (assuming it hasn't been fixed already).

Edited September 9, 2018 by Mr. Lady Luck

[Kevin76]

NR's is plastic on plastic but I think they must have had a change in materials since it has gotten worse. Anyone ever ask them directly what they are doing to fix it?  Unless getting free reholders is the solution?  

[Get Marwood & I]

8 minutes ago, Kevin76 said:

Anyone ever ask them directly what they are doing to fix it? 

Yes, me.

Their full response is below. The extract from it which deals with the fix says:

Behind the scenes, we are constantly working to improve the CGC holder. Most recently, we have made a slight modification to the inner dimensions of our standard holder to accommodate the increasing variety of comic book sizes and paper stocks. In our testing, this minor modification was also shown to reduce the presence of the rainbow effect for many books. We did not want to share our findings until our thorough testing was complete, and now that it is, we are pleased to report that these modified holders have been fully integrated into our encapsulation process with very positive results.

Only time will tell if this 'most recent' change will reduce the presence of the rings. 

 

On 8/31/2018 at 9:13 PM, CGC Comics said:

Thank you for your feedback.

 

 

The “rainbow effect” or “Newton rings” are a normal occurrence when two different plastics (which have different refractive indexes) are placed together. It’s what you sometimes see on a smartphone screen protector or on the edges of an LCD screen. 

 

 

 

The rainbow effect has been seen in CGC holders since our first-generation holder was introduced nearly 20 years ago. This is a result of the inner sleeve (which holds the book) contacting the hard-plastic outer shell; the two different plastics have different refractive indexes and that sometimes creates a rainbow effect when they come into contact. A minor rainbow effect has always been within our tolerance. If anyone feels that they have a book that exhibits an extreme rainbow effect, however, we encourage you to contact our Customer Service at submissions@cgccomics.com.

 

 

 

Behind the scenes, we are constantly working to improve the CGC holder. Most recently, we have made a slight modification to the inner dimensions of our standard holder to accommodate the increasing variety of comic book sizes and paper stocks. In our testing, this minor modification was also shown to reduce the presence of the rainbow effect for many books. We did not want to share our findings until our thorough testing was complete, and now that it is, we are pleased to report that these modified holders have been fully integrated into our encapsulation process with very positive results.

 

 

 

CGC continues to research enhancements to its holders, including ones that may further reduce the rainbow effect, and we will keep you updated with any noteworthy developments.

 

 

 

Thanks again.

 

 

 

Example of extreme rainbow effect:

 

 

[Sqeggs]

3 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Yes, me.

Their full response is below. The extract from it which deals with the fix says:

Behind the scenes, we are constantly working to improve the CGC holder. Most recently, we have made a slight modification to the inner dimensions of our standard holder to accommodate the increasing variety of comic book sizes and paper stocks. In our testing, this minor modification was also shown to reduce the presence of the rainbow effect for many books. We did not want to share our findings until our thorough testing was complete, and now that it is, we are pleased to report that these modified holders have been fully integrated into our encapsulation process with very positive results.

Only time will tell if this 'most recent' change will reduce ameliorate the presence of the rings. 

 

 

FTFY 

I think that we're probably back to the status quo ante -- NRs will still be there on some books, but the ghastly problem we had for a while is behind us.

Of course, there are still a lot of books out there with unsightly NRs that need to be reholdered.  The volume of books CGC slabs these days means any glitch results in a lot of flawed books being sent out.

[Sqeggs]

9 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

15 hours ago, buttock said:

Why don't you just look at it to see if it is in a creep engine holder?

Does the label say creep engine on it? 

The obvious reason is the simplest one, ...all of the current CGC holders look the same to me because of the label.  Until recent purchases I've managed to avoid new label CGC holders.  I haven't examined any new label holders since the original creep engine & Newton Ring fiasco.  The label is a red flag.

I only have two books in new label holders, both acquired in the last month, which is a situation I intend to remedy at the earliest opportunity. 

It's pretty easy to see whether the slab has an inner well holding the book in place.  The creepy creep engine slabs didn't.  Of course, it doesn't much matter if you're going to get the book reholdered (or unholdered?) anyway. 

[buttock]

10 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Does the label say creep engine on it? 

The obvious reason is the simplest one, ...all of the current CGC holders look the same to me because of the label.  Until recent purchases I've managed to avoid new label CGC holders.  I haven't examined any new label holders since the original creep engine & Newton Ring fiasco.  The label is a red flag.

I only have two books in new label holders, both acquired in the last month, which is a situation I intend to remedy at the earliest opportunity. 

Look and see if it's in a well.  If you're going to eliminate a product entirely, you should at least know what it is that you're eliminating.  

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

FTFY 

I think that we're probably back to the status quo ante -- NRs will still be there on some books, but the ghastly problem we had for a while is behind us.

Of course, there are still a lot of books out there with unsightly NRs that need to be reholdered.  The volume of books CGC slabs these days means any glitch results in a lot of flawed books being sent out.

I dare you to change the thread title to 'The Amelioration of Newton Rings'. Go on Sqeggs......do it! 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Get Marwood & I
Spelleded it rong ?

[N e r V]

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen one of the early new problem cases but back in 2016 this was posted on BleedingCool with a side by side from BlazingBob (Highgradecomics) to compare.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/06/27/cgc-modifies-new-holder-to-address-concerns/

 

 

 

 

If I remember correctly the early problem cases had a floating appearance to the comic vs a clear inner well on the corrected versions.

[Cat-Man_America]

5 hours ago, buttock said:

Look and see if it's in a well.  If you're going to eliminate a product entirely, you should at least know what it is that you're eliminating.  

To be crystal clear on this, even without the potential damage from creep engine effect, the new holders had three strikes against them. Newton Rings are unacceptable, period. Secondly, the redesigned label is an eyesore that takes focus away from the encapsulated book.  Finally, the thicker holder presents storage and scanner imaging problems, both undesirable, unaddressed issues, but less relevant to the topic under discussion here.

If my observations aren't in sync with the prevailing viewpoint, that's perfectly fine with me.  For those who've come to accept what I perceive as a decline in service quality as the new normal, just let me add this: if there's a viable alternative to the current CGC product, that's where I'll be focusing my attention.

Should I have been aware that I might be buying a creep engine book? That's a fair question.  Probably, but since I couldn't see the Newton Rings clearly in the eBay scan then it seems unlikely that I would be capable of examining the holder seal or a wavy book edge in the image provided.  

On the plus side, at least this book and the one purchased at Chicago Wizard will receive proper attention now regardless of when they were holdered. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
Sin taxes. ;0)

[N e r V]

I thought the redesigned label was an improvement...

The original label when CGC was starting out is the one I find awful in appearance.

I understand why some chase after the original labels but it’s still an ugly label.

[Kevin76]

8 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

To be crystal clear on this, even without the potential damage from creep engine effect, the new holders had three strikes against them. Newton Rings are unacceptable, period. Secondly, the redesigned label is an eyesore that takes focus away from the encapsulated book.  Finally, the thicker holder presents storage and scanner imaging problems, both undesirable, unaddressed issues, but less relevant to the topic under discussion here.

If my observations aren't in sync with the prevailing viewpoint, that's perfectly fine with me.  For those who've come to accept what I perceive as a decline in service quality as the new normal, just let me add this: if there's a viable alternative to the current CGC product, that's where I'll be focusing my attention.

Should I have been aware that I might be buying a creep engine book? That's a fair question.  Probably, but since I couldn't see the Newton Rings clearly in the eBay scan then it seems unlikely that I would be capable of examining the holder seal or a wavy book edge in the image provided.  

On the plus side, at least this book and the one purchased at Chicago Wizard will receive proper attention now regardless of when they were holdered. 

If anyone has a better idea for a redesigned label, I'm sure CGC is all ears. Please, post it here first if anyone comes up with something better.  Second, I scan books all the time, I don't have scanner problems.  Third, What storage problems are you referring to?  Thicker case means you can't squeeze an extra book in the box?  Talk about having 1st world problems.  No case or label will ever be perfect.  

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, Kevin76 said:

If anyone has a better idea for a redesigned label, I'm sure CGC is all ears. Please, post it here first if anyone comes up with something better.  Second, I scan books all the time, I don't have scanner problems.  Third, What storage problems are you referring to?  Thicker case means you can't squeeze an extra book in the box?  Talk about having 1st world problems.  No case or label will ever be perfect.  

I like the new design but if they were to ever tinker with it again I would like to see the title font size with issue number increased so that it’s more dominant when viewing. Also the publisher font should be increased as well with the dates being written out (Mar 1966 instead of the current 3/66). Also they need to re-evaluate what they include of issue information. A lot of books should have more info. included on that label description. I see a lot of important things missing there at times. Finally I’d include the grade above the number (there’s room there). For example if it’s a 9.0 I’d have the VF/NM written above the number.

 

Not sure CGC is all ears but that’s my opinion on the design. 

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, Kevin76 said:

If anyone has a better idea for a redesigned label, I'm sure CGC is all ears. Please, post it here first if anyone comes up with something better.  Second, I scan books all the time, I don't have scanner problems.  Third, What storage problems are you referring to?  Thicker case means you can't squeeze an extra book in the box?  Talk about having 1st world problems.  No case or label will ever be perfect.  

I doubt CGC would be interested in my label suggestions as I liked the old label just fine.  Trust me, my scanner normally takes great images.   A couple of pages back I compared an old label/holder scan with a new label/holder scan (complete with Newton Rings), both imaged on my HP Scanjet 8300.

Kevin, my world doesn't revolve around comic boxes because neither my business nor my collecting involves setting up at a lot of shows.  However, as a high grade collector space is a first world concern.  Folks around here who know me and my method of storage can vouch for that.

 

5 hours ago, N e r V said:

I thought the redesigned label was an improvement...

The original label when CGC was starting out is the one I find awful in appearance.

I understand why some chase after the original labels but it’s still an ugly label.

The first version label has nostalgic value, but I do get your meaning.  The best CGC label ...from my perspective... was the version prior to the big change-up 2 1/2 years ago.  Besides the creep engine and Newtonian oil slicks things went south with the oversized glow in the dark grade box and solid black grade number which overshadows the encapsulated book.  Mr. Magoo could see the grade across a dealers room, but it so visually dwarfs the book that the comic seems like a perfunctory inclusion.

My concerns notwithstanding, most dealers seem to like the change and many collectors have apparently grown accustomed to it.

 

45 minutes ago, N e r V said:

I like the new design but if they were to ever tinker with it again I would like to see the title font size with issue number increased so that it’s more dominant when viewing. Also the publisher font should be increased as well with the dates being written out (Mar 1966 instead of the current 3/66). Also they need to re-evaluate what they include of issue information. A lot of books should have more info. included on that label description. I see a lot of important things missing there at times. Finally I’d include the grade above the number (there’s room there). For example if it’s a 9.0 I’d have the VF/NM written above the number.

 

Not sure CGC is all ears but that’s my opinion on the design. 

I agree about providing more information, but I think a smaller grade box and lighter grade tone would be more aesthetically pleasing.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[walclark]

Got to the office this morning and had a 10 book value submission from June waiting for me.  These were slabbed last week.  The Newton ring effect is present in most of the books (7 of 10), but is certainly reduced from previous submissions.  The effect is still most noticeable on lighter colored covers.

I believe Sharon mentioned an issue with scratches on the inside of the slab.  There are scratches on 8 of the 10 slabs in this submission.  Like the ring effect, the scratches can only be seen when viewing the slabs at an angle to catch the light.  I would add photos, but I don’t think any of these defects will photograph or scan well.

Overall, I would say that, at least with this batch, there seems to be some improvement in regards to the ring effect.

@Sqeggs Ameliorated!

[Sqeggs]

2 hours ago, walclark said:

Got to the office this morning and had a 10 book value submission from June waiting for me.  These were slabbed last week.  The Newton ring effect is present in most of the books (7 of 10), but is certainly reduced from previous submissions.  The effect is still most noticeable on lighter colored covers.

I believe Sharon mentioned an issue with scratches on the inside of the slab.  There are scratches on 8 of the 10 slabs in this submission.  Like the ring effect, the scratches can only be seen when viewing the slabs at an angle to catch the light.  I would add photos, but I don’t think any of these defects will photograph or scan well.

Overall, I would say that, at least with this batch, there seems to be some improvement in regards to the ring effect.

@Sqeggs Ameliorated!

Amelioration rulz!