CGC v CBCS v PGX 1 1

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

8 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Let's not make this personal, please. I want to keep this on the topic of all 3 brands. Both RMA's and Logan's comments are valid. I may have to temper my inference of RMA's comments based on the fact that he was banned from their forums. That doesn't make his opinion any less valid, but I now understand that they could be manufactured or fabricated based on a potential spite factor. Other users' feedback will help me determine if his opinion is legitimate or vengeful.

I think it was already personal. Mr. Logan can address that. I do not find the comments of Mr. Logan valid, and have stated why. i do not know or have personally met either Mr. Logan or RMA. I have never read any post by RMA that transmits negative information based on spite or retribution. Maybe you should read the post history of both members, before stating that you will have to re-evaluate the comments of RMA based on being banned. That would be your choice.

Maybe your request to not make it personal should have been addressed to the post by Mr. Logan, as opposed to implying I am making it personal. I am not.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Let's not make this personal, please. I want to keep this on the topic of all 3 brands. Both RMA's and Logan's comments are valid. I may have to temper my inference of RMA's comments based on the fact that he was banned from their forums. That doesn't make his opinion any less valid, but I now understand that they could be manufactured or fabricated based on a potential spite factor. Other users' feedback will help me determine if his opinion is legitimate or vengeful.

You will have to come to that determination on your own. 

Things to consider: is what I stated factual? You will notice...there's no response to the substance of my comments, no attempt to refute them...just a "consider the source" comment. And, by all means, you should absolutely consider the source, for all things.

As far as me being banned goes, that's absolutely true, and I've not said otherwise. That was, for me, the "straw that broke the camel's back", after attempting to dialogue with upper management about the situation on their boards and other issues with the company, and getting absolutely nowhere. I tried, in good faith, to appeal to upper management, and, while I appreciate the time I was given, it didn't result in any substantive changes. Things only got worse. I am only one of multiple people they have banned, and/or suspended, (as Logan510, himself, has been.) 

As another example: if someone or something is moderated on the CBCS board, and anyone even hints that they might not agree with the decision...whether they were involved or not...that has been interpreted as "questioning moderator decisions", and that person has received an instant suspension. That's not a sober, reasoned response. 

So, obviously my direct experience with them is going to affect my opinion of them, as it would anyone. After all...if someone reports that they had a bad experience with a seller on eBay, for instance, and they go into detail about that experience, noting that it upset them, and finding out in the course of their experience that the seller has done the same sort of thing to others...is that report legitimate or vengeful...? If it's all true, if it's all factual...does it matter the motive? And wouldn't "vengeance" be seeking to do something in kind...? Do I get "revenge" by reporting these true things, or am I simply reporting what is, from my perspective, and letting others decide for themselves...?

Interesting questions, I imagine.

Do understand, TwoPiece, that there are bad actors on this board, who act in bad faith. Who that is is up to you to determine. Long boards have long memories, not all of it good.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I’m not saying all his opinions are invalidated because he was banned from their forums. I will say that I’ve noticed that since the banning he has been more vocal in his criticism of the other company and it’s only human nature to be a little bitter when something like that happens.

Then it may have been better to have posted your own opinion about the business entity, instead of remarking on the possibly suspicious post by another member. You would be then be presenting a fair and balanced opinion...the most desirable method of evaluation of a subject, instead of posting what can be interpreted as, and has the appearance of, negation of what may be a valid assessment, by using accusatory commentary...re-direction, if you will. What is your opinion of the entities? That is what the original question is. You have not offered one, as of now.

[namisgr]

3 hours ago, 1Cool said:

CGC = Lexus (Great product - Great re-sale - Great Customer Service)

CBCS - Hyundai (Just Fine product -  Ok Resale - Good Customer Service)

Regarding 'great re-sale' versus 'Ok re-sale':  I've seen this claimed based on a belief that CBCS grading is more loose than CGC grading.  But I take that to mean a comic that would be graded 9.2 by CGC is likely to be graded 9.4 by CBCS.  What I've not seen is tangible evidence that a book graded 9.2 by CGC will fetch more money in the marketplace than if it were graded 9.4 by CBCS.

[RockMyAmadeus]

26 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

That doesn't make his opinion any less valid, but I now understand that they could be manufactured or fabricated based on a potential spite factor.

That is always true, of everyone, all the time, regardless of the circumstances. 

However, being the vocal loudmouth that I am, I am under closer scrutiny than others...and rightly so...and would do serious damage to whatever credibility I may (or may not) have by manufacturing or fabricating information...about anything.

I would be tarred and feathered...again, rightly so.

[theCapraAegagrus]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I think it was already personal. Mr. Logan can address that. I do not find the comments of Mr. Logan valid, and have stated why. i do not know or have personally met either Mr. Logan or RMA. I have never read any post by RMA that transmits negative information based on spite or retribution. Maybe you should read the post history of both members, before stating that you will have to re-evaluate the comments of RMA based on being banned. That would be your choice.

Maybe your request to not make it personal should have been addressed to the post by Mr. Logan, as opposed to implying I am making it personal. I am not.

Well, you're asking him to expand on his comment, which I don't think is necessary and doesn't make any progress in this particular subject. His information was valid. I don't want this conversation to continue on this thread. It doesn't provide any additional information for me or any other newer users IMO.

[RockMyAmadeus]

59 minutes ago, JollyComics said:

CGC = Lexus (same as usual)

CBCS = 1970's to 1980's Ford car (any model)

PGX = Yugo

I loved my 1985 Mustang, ugly little sucker that it was. My first manual transmission!

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is always true, of everyone, all the time, regardless of the circumstances. 

However, being the vocal loudmouth that I am, I am under closer scrutiny than others...and rightly so...and would do serious damage to whatever credibility I may (or may not) have by manufacturing or fabricating information...about anything.

I would be tarred and feathered...again, rightly so.

Regardless of you being banned elsewhere, I thank you for the information. It would be nice to know what, if any, of that information is agreed upon by other members. I don't have much information on CBCS in particular.

[JollyComics]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I loved my 1985 Mustang, ugly little sucker that it was. My first manual transmission!

I had 1973 Gran Torino with only 41k miles until my little brother wrecked it. Surprisedly it ran great before it was suddenly gone to the junkyard.

Edited August 31, 2018 by JollyComics

[1Cool]

13 minutes ago, namisgr said:

Regarding 'great re-sale' versus 'Ok re-sale':  I've seen this claimed based on a belief that CBCS grading is more loose than CGC grading.  But I take that to mean a comic that would be graded 9.2 by CGC is likely to be graded 9.4 by CBCS.  What I've not seen is tangible evidence that a book graded 9.2 by CGC will fetch more money in the marketplace than if it were graded 9.4 by CBCS.

That is the big debate.  If you believe a CGC 9.2 will get a CBCS 9.4 then you will be making quite a bit of money on key books.  I typically see a general 10 - 15% discount for CBCS slabs but when the price for a 9.4 is double a 9.2 then the math works out well.  I've not heard of someone cracking out CGC books and sending them in the CBCS to see if there is a grade bump but I have heard the rumor that CBCS is typically looser especially on SIlver / Golden Age books.

Edited August 31, 2018 by 1Cool

[JollyComics]

5 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Regardless of you being banned elsewhere, I thank you for the information. It would be nice to know what, if any, of that information is agreed upon by other members. I don't have much information on CBCS in particular.

CBCS has a forum like here.

[namisgr]

11 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Well, you're asking him to expand on his comment, which I don't think is necessary and doesn't make any progress in this particular subject. His information was valid. I don't want this conversation to continue on this thread. It doesn't provide any additional information for me or any other newer users IMO.

Some posters can't forego an opportunity to start an argument.

[1Cool]

Just now, JollyComics said:

CBCS has a forum like here.

That is like comparing a JV high school basketball team to the Golden State Warriors.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, JollyComics said:

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I loved my 1985 Mustang, ugly little sucker that it was. My first manual transmission!

I had 1973 Gran Torino with only 41k until my little brother wrecked it. Surprisedly it ran great.

Only 41k? That's brand spankin' new!

My mom (yes, my mom!) had a '71 Mach 1. My sister had a '68 Firebird, my older brother had a '71 Challenger, my little brother had a '72 'cuda, and I had a '72 Valiant.

Yeah...we were a family of muscle cars, fo sho.

 

[JollyComics]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Only 41k? That's brand spankin' new!

My mom (yes, my mom!) had a '71 Mach 1. My sister had a '68 Firebird, my older brother had a '71 Challenger, my little brother had a '72 'cuda, and I had a '72 Valiant.

Yeah...we were a family of muscle cars, fo sho.

 

Holy Smokes!

[namisgr]

5 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

That is the big debate.  If you believe a CGC 9.2 will get a CBCS 9.4 then you will be making quite a bit of money on key books.  I typically see a general 10 - 15% discount for CBCS slabs but when the price for a 9.4 is double a 9.2 then the math works out well.  I've not heard of actual people are cracking out CGC books and sending them in the CBCS to see if there is a grade bump but I have heard the rumor that CBCS is typically looser especially on SIlver / Golden Age books.

I know for certain that books have been cracked out of CGC slabs in order to be sent to CBCS and have received higher grades.  I've seen comics I used to own show up on dealer websites having gone through that cycle.  I had a certain pedigree comic graded by CGC as a 9.0, then after being sold it showed up on the site of a dealer well known to press anything and everything that moves first in a CGC 9.2 holder, then later in a CBCS 9.4 one.

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by namisgr

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

11 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Well, you're asking him to expand on his comment, which I don't think is necessary and doesn't make any progress in this particular subject. His information was valid. I don't want this conversation to continue on this thread. It doesn't provide any additional information for me or any other newer users IMO.

I do think it is necessary. He stated the subject of 'fair and balanced" being of importance. Why would you not want his opinion about the question you presented?

I think it does make progress, and I think it does add additional information, in that now you are not just assuming it is valid that a member is possibly spiteful and suspect in stating truthful comments. After all, he was banned, according to some members, by the same entity. That is a valid consideration that is equal to the weight you have given to the commentary about RMA, is it not? That does provide new information for you to consider, i would think.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

5 minutes ago, JollyComics said:

CBCS has a forum like here.

That is like comparing a JV high school basketball team to the Golden State Warriors.

This is quite true. The CGC forums are one of the finest, if not THE finest, comic book message boards on the entire internet. 

The CBCS forums...? Not so much, right out of the gate.

Many people here gave it a shot, discovered it wasn't ready for prime time, and never went back.

[JollyComics]

7 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

That is like comparing a JV high school basketball team to the Golden State Warriors.

That is a lovely idea!

Edited August 31, 2018 by JollyComics

[spidermanbeyond]

This is a CGC forum so the site does not allow discussion of other grading companies. Recommend  you do a general search to draw your own conclusions.