Newton rings! 6 6

[Cat-Man_America]

On 7/21/2018 at 6:28 AM, Mr. Lady Luck said:

Anyone know if this has been brought up at SDCC?

It came up in conversations at the Rare High Grade Party yesterday evening as a couple of recently holdered GA books had various degrees of Newtonian nasties marring the pristine view of otherwise beautiful books.  Subjectively speaking, any examples are too many when scrutinizing high grade books.  A clearer case and bolder grade box doesn't mean much when cover art appears to have an oil slick on the surface.  

I suppose dealers & collectors can just accept this as the new normal or contact CGC for a redo.  Given turn-around times and the additional shipping costs/risks that takes a lot of patience. There are other solutions such as cracking books out and keeping the label with the book, but in one sense that kinda negates the value of third-party grading.  No other solution that comes to mind is discussable here.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[Get Marwood & I]

 

[The Lions Den]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:57 PM, szavisca said:

Hopefully people who are bidding on this and other such maligned books are asking CC about it and whether they're going to reholder them.  If people give them the impression they're not as likely to bid on books that look this bad maybe CC will pressure CGC to address it.  Granted, for an X-Men #1 9.4 it may not hurt the final hammer price, but for all their modern garbage and lesser books etc I'd think this stands to hurt the auction houses a bit.

I agree---this is pretty sad...

[Cat-Man_America]

On 7/20/2018 at 10:57 PM, szavisca said:

Hopefully people who are bidding on this and other such maligned books are asking CC about it and whether they're going to reholder them.  If people give them the impression they're not as likely to bid on books that look this bad maybe CC will pressure CGC to address it.  Granted, for an X-Men #1 9.4 it may not hurt the final hammer price, but for all their modern garbage and lesser books etc I'd think this stands to hurt the auction houses a bit.

Why would the seller have confidence that the final hammer price would reflect an honest realized price? It's an examination of the book which determines willingness to bid, the grade is just a verification of an arbitrary third party opinion. If a book looks less than desirable in the scanned auction house image, it's entirely reasonable to assume that it won't realize it's maximum potential for the seller.  That's the bottom line. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Cat-Man_America
.

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, szavisca said:

Oh it may impact price but I just think on this kind of book there are probably enough buyers out there who pay for Cgc grade and aren’t that discriminating that it won’t mater to them that the case looks like garbage.

I think it’s more likely on lower dollar more commonly available books like your  NM 98 Cgc 9.8 where you’ll really see realized prices negatively impacted.  Why would I buy a newton ring blemished NM 98 when there’s 100 clean ones instantly available.  

But X-men 1 cgc 9.4?  You may not care about the Cgc designated grade but the reality is enough other people do that I dont think it hurts this specific books final hammer price.  I could be wrong though.

I wasn't specifying any particular kind of book, because my focus is almost exclusively in terms of high grade.

We're on the same page, I think. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the Newton Ring "oil slick" appearance degrades the apparent value of every scanned auction book regardless of grade, but for the purposes of this discussion high grade should be the focus.  

Can a negative impact on realized prices be proven? Doubtful, because you can't read bidders minds.  However, if you look at books in holders while asking yourself "would I bid on a book looking like that for my collection?" the question kind of answers itself.  Since auctions usually start with multiple bidders it almost always ends up between two determined folks.  If one of those folks finds a reason not to bid, then the seller's realized price will be lower.

[Point Five]

10 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Can a negative impact on realized prices be proven? Doubtful, because you can't read bidders minds.  However, if you look at books in holders while asking yourself "would I bid on a book looking like that for my collection?" the question kind of answers itself.  Since auctions usually start with multiple bidders it almost always ends up between two determined folks.  If one of those folks finds a reason not to bid, then the seller's realized price will be lower.

Yep, exactly. Plus, it's often the case that you need to factor in a book's resale value when choosing your bid amounts. If I'm bidding on a book absolutely slathered in Newton rings with a FMV of $800, even if I can look past the issue, I may not want to chase it past (say) $600 or so... because when it's time for me to resell it, I'm either going to the trouble of getting the book reholdered, or I'm taking a chance that MY eventual bidders can overlook the problem.

 

[29dukedog]

Why get so worked up?  

"Just relax and let the hooks do their work."   

[Bumble Kitty]

On 7/21/2018 at 4:28 AM, Mr. Lady Luck said:

Anyone know if this has been brought up at SDCC?

I brought this up to Matt at CGC.  I showed him a book I recently received and he told me they (meaning CGC) are aware of the problem.  The problem is happening at Quality Control.  Apparently, they have many different size holders and the operator is not choosing the correct size.  He said the outer holder needs a little space to prevent the Newton "effect" from showing up.  I told him the one book with the thickest holder does not have the Newton ring problem, which kind of confirms what he was telling me. 

He could not confirm that a change in personnel led to this problem, but he thought it could be the reason. Steps are being implemented to prevent this from happening with future books.  He told me to submit my book (or books) for reholdering.  I told him I plan to wait until Wondercon, as I did not have all of my "problem" books with me.  Matt said CGC would honor the reholdering at that time.

So it appears the Newton ring problem was possibly caused by someone who may not have been as experienced in choosing the correct outer holder size.  If nothing else, nobody was charged extra for the "pretty" oily rings. 

[Mr. Lady Luck]

4 hours ago, Bumble Kitty said:

I brought this up to Matt at CGC.  I showed him a book I recently received and he told me they (meaning CGC) are aware of the problem.  The problem is happening at Quality Control.  Apparently, they have many different size holders and the operator is not choosing the correct size.  He said the outer holder needs a little space to prevent the Newton "effect" from showing up.  I told him the one book with the thickest holder does not have the Newton ring problem, which kind of confirms what he was telling me. 

He could not confirm that a change in personnel led to this problem, but he thought it could be the reason. Steps are being implemented to prevent this from happening with future books.  He told me to submit my book (or books) for reholdering.  I told him I plan to wait until Wondercon, as I did not have all of my "problem" books with me.  Matt said CGC would honor the reholdering at that time.

So it appears the Newton ring problem was possibly caused by someone who may not have been as experienced in choosing the correct outer holder size.  If nothing else, nobody was charged extra for the "pretty" oily rings. 

Thank you for bringing this up with CGC and letting us know!

[walclark]

5 hours ago, Bumble Kitty said:

I brought this up to Matt at CGC.  I showed him a book I recently received and he told me they (meaning CGC) are aware of the problem.  The problem is happening at Quality Control.  Apparently, they have many different size holders and the operator is not choosing the correct size.  He said the outer holder needs a little space to prevent the Newton "effect" from showing up.  I told him the one book with the thickest holder does not have the Newton ring problem, which kind of confirms what he was telling me. 

He could not confirm that a change in personnel led to this problem, but he thought it could be the reason. Steps are being implemented to prevent this from happening with future books.  He told me to submit my book (or books) for reholdering.  I told him I plan to wait until Wondercon, as I did not have all of my "problem" books with me.  Matt said CGC would honor the reholdering at that time.

So it appears the Newton ring problem was possibly caused by someone who may not have been as experienced in choosing the correct outer holder size.  If nothing else, nobody was charged extra for the "pretty" oily rings. 

Which begs the question, if CGC is aware of the problem, has undoubtedly seen the number of threads on the boards regarding the problem, has answered emails and inquiries about the problem (albeit in a somewhat unsatisfactory manner), and is actively seeking a solution, why haven’t they responded to any of the posts on the boards?  A simple “we’re aware of the isssue and are taking steps to find a solution” would go a long way towards alleviating their customers’ concerns.

[Point Five]

10 hours ago, Bumble Kitty said:

I brought this up to Matt at CGC.  I showed him a book I recently received and he told me they (meaning CGC) are aware of the problem.  The problem is happening at Quality Control.  Apparently, they have many different size holders and the operator is not choosing the correct size.  He said the outer holder needs a little space to prevent the Newton "effect" from showing up.  I told him the one book with the thickest holder does not have the Newton ring problem, which kind of confirms what he was telling me. 

He could not confirm that a change in personnel led to this problem, but he thought it could be the reason. Steps are being implemented to prevent this from happening with future books.  He told me to submit my book (or books) for reholdering.  I told him I plan to wait until Wondercon, as I did not have all of my "problem" books with me.  Matt said CGC would honor the reholdering at that time.

So it appears the Newton ring problem was possibly caused by someone who may not have been as experienced in choosing the correct outer holder size.  If nothing else, nobody was charged extra for the "pretty" oily rings. 

Thanks for the update! Hoping very much that the situation is under control as described. Fingers crossed. 

 

[Sqeggs]

On 7/23/2018 at 2:24 AM, Bumble Kitty said:

I brought this up to Matt at CGC.  I showed him a book I recently received and he told me they (meaning CGC) are aware of the problem.  The problem is happening at Quality Control.  Apparently, they have many different size holders and the operator is not choosing the correct size.  He said the outer holder needs a little space to prevent the Newton "effect" from showing up.  I told him the one book with the thickest holder does not have the Newton ring problem, which kind of confirms what he was telling me. 

He could not confirm that a change in personnel led to this problem, but he thought it could be the reason. Steps are being implemented to prevent this from happening with future books.  He told me to submit my book (or books) for reholdering.  I told him I plan to wait until Wondercon, as I did not have all of my "problem" books with me.  Matt said CGC would honor the reholdering at that time.

So it appears the Newton ring problem was possibly caused by someone who may not have been as experienced in choosing the correct outer holder size.  If nothing else, nobody was charged extra for the "pretty" oily rings. 

Thanks for letting us know his response.  I'm not sure I'm buying that Matt has correctly identified the problem.  What I think of as the regular holders -- the ones used for SA books and some GA books -- have suddenly started exhibiting extensive Newton rings. We've all had many books in those holders before that have seemed fine. Something has changed with respect to either the materials or the slabbing process for those holders. 

So, I don't think the problem is that the operator is using a regular holder when the thicker holder is required.  If this were true, then they would have to use those holders for all SA and GA books, which they pretty clearly aren't going to do.  At least, I don't think they are because I doubt they have enough of those holders in stock to accommodate all of their SA and GA submissions.

I think the problem lies elsewhere, but at least they are aware that it is a problem. 

[Bumble Kitty]

1 hour ago, Sqeggs said:

Thanks for letting us know his response.  I'm not sure I'm buying that Matt has correctly identified the problem.  What I think of as the regular holders -- the ones used for SA books and some GA books -- have suddenly started exhibiting extensive Newton rings. We've all had many books in those holders before that have seemed fine. Something has changed with respect to either the materials or the slabbing process for those holders. 

So, I don't think the problem is that the operator is using a regular holder when the thicker holder is required.  If this were true, then they would have to use those holders for all SA and GA books, which they pretty clearly aren't going to do.  At least, I don't think they are because I doubt they have enough of those holders in stock to accommodate all of their SA and GA submissions.

I think the problem lies elsewhere, but at least they are aware that it is a problem. 

I wanted to be somewhat vague in my post because I do not have direct knowledge of the problem.  But if you want more information, well, here is some more: Matt told me there are over 20 holder sizes available, not just two.  I was rather surprised by this, as my untrained eye thought there was two, thin and thick.  If (and this is an "if") a new person was assigned to select an outer holder size and that person was not given adequate training, then I can see that they default to a couple of sizes.

Matt said part of the solution was to provide more training to that new operator.

[Sqeggs]

1 hour ago, Bumble Kitty said:

I wanted to be somewhat vague in my post because I do not have direct knowledge of the problem.  But if you want more information, well, here is some more: Matt told me there are over 20 holder sizes available, not just two.  I was rather surprised by this, as my untrained eye thought there was two, thin and thick.  If (and this is an "if") a new person was assigned to select an outer holder size and that person was not given adequate training, then I can see that they default to a couple of sizes.

Matt said part of the solution was to provide more training to that new operator.

Thanks very much for the clarification.  That they have 20 different holder sizes is surprising to me, as well.  I guess it's possible that the problem is they were using thinner slabs than they typically do for GA books, but I'm still a bit skeptical.  You also wonder why, if the fix were as easy as reslabbing in a slightly thicker slab, the problem wasn't caught and corrected at the QC stage.

They might do themselves some good if they made some sort of public announcement or, at least, allowed their CS people to provide this explanation.  I was talking with someone today who wouldn't admit there was a problem, although accommodating with my reholder requests.

[walclark]

18 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

Thanks very much for the clarification.  That they have 20 different holder sizes is surprising to me, as well.  I guess it's possible that the problem is they were using thinner slabs than they typically do for GA books, but I'm still a bit skeptical.  You also wonder why, if the fix were as easy as reslabbing in a slightly thicker slab, the problem wasn't caught and corrected at the QC stage.

They might do themselves some good if they made some sort of public announcement or, at least, allowed their CS people to provide this explanation.  I was talking with someone today who wouldn't admit there was a problem, although accommodating with my reholder requests.

It will be interesting to see if your reholdered books are an improvement.

[Sqeggs]

2 minutes ago, walclark said:

22 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

Thanks very much for the clarification.  That they have 20 different holder sizes is surprising to me, as well.  I guess it's possible that the problem is they were using thinner slabs than they typically do for GA books, but I'm still a bit skeptical.  You also wonder why, if the fix were as easy as reslabbing in a slightly thicker slab, the problem wasn't caught and corrected at the QC stage.

They might do themselves some good if they made some sort of public announcement or, at least, allowed their CS people to provide this explanation.  I was talking with someone today who wouldn't admit there was a problem, although accommodating with my reholder requests.

It will be interesting to see if your reholdered books are an improvement.

I'll post the results to this thread.  They don't seem to be as zippy as they used to be when reholdering, so it may be a while. 

[Artboy99]

2 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

Thanks very much for the clarification.  That they have 20 different holder sizes is surprising to me, as well.  I guess it's possible that the problem is they were using thinner slabs than they typically do for GA books, but I'm still a bit skeptical.  You also wonder why, if the fix were as easy as reslabbing in a slightly thicker slab, the problem wasn't caught and corrected at the QC stage.

They might do themselves some good if they made some sort of public announcement or, at least, allowed their CS people to provide this explanation.  I was talking with someone today who wouldn't admit there was a problem, although accommodating with my reholder requests.

official company response so far is that all of their slabs have newton rings and that they are acceptable, so it doesn't surprise me that the guy was not willing to acknowledge.

[retrocomics]

If it all falls on a new employee then man that cat has been busy because they must have done a ton from all the rings I've seen lately.

[Black_Adam]

18 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

I'll post the results to this thread.  They don't seem to be as zippy as they used to be when reholdering, so it may be a while. 

I won't be sending any of mine in for reholdering until your replacements get the Sqeggs' Seal of Approval. 

[Sqeggs]

23 minutes ago, Black_Adam said:

I won't be sending any of mine in for reholdering until your replacements get the Sqeggs' Seal of Approval. 

A wise man!