Fantastic Four #6 CGC 7.5 Tale Of Woe!😡 2 2

[Ghastly542454]

Once upon a time I owned a gorgeous Fantastic Four #6 7.5 with White Pages! It was immaculate! Probably could be an 8.0. 
I wanted to have my first 6 issues of Fantastic Four in holders with the new Fantastic Fantastic labels. Over the past 3-4 years I have sent back several hundred books for a new holder because I like the 3rd generation holders. Although I’ve had a few problems in the past such as scratches outside and inside the holder, I have never had a book itself actually damaged in the process until today when my Fantastic Four #6 arrived back in a new holder with the Fantastic Four label.

What was once a gorgeous book now has a large color break on it as result of very poor quality control. If it were regraded it would probably get a 6.5 and a 7.0 at best! There is no reason this should have happened!

So now CGC has hired 70 new workers, raised their pricing, and their turnaround times are terrible. Maybe 🤔 one of these new 70 workers did this? I don’t know.

I am so pissed 😡 about this and feel the only recourse I have is not to renew my premium membership  and send any books back again for new holders. Leave well enough alone! Thank god this didn’t happen on the Amazing Fantasy #15 6.0 I sent back a couple months ago for a new holder and Spiderman label!! 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Ghastly542454

[Ltpink2002]

I'm sorry to hear about the CGC mess. Having a book damaged with just a re-slab is very disturbing.  

[thehumantorch]

Oh no, that's awful.  Has CGC replied to you yet?

[Ghastly542454]

26 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

Oh no, that's awful.  Has CGC replied to you yet?

No I just received it back today. I will contact them next week.

[James J Johnson]

4 minutes ago, Ghastly542454 said:

No I just received it back today. I will contact them next week.

Too bad we are comparing images where all the details are clearly visible against an image with profound reflection right at the spot that would warrant the most direct comparison. What I could offer is thatonce the "before CGC damage" image is clarified, as much as is possible, allowing a look at the areas with minimum blurring and better resolution, the wear shown on both images are remarkably similar. If you're going by images alone, it would appear, without looking beyond the blur, that the book was worsened in image 2. But the same wear fractures do appear on both images. I see traces of all the wear from image 2, matching the traces of what can be seen before working with the images to better resolve image 1. Once image 1 is enhanced, all the wear of image 2 appears tobe present on image 1. I don't see what I would consider new damage. I just see the defects of image 1 more clearly on image 2 before working with image 1. 

[Ghastly542454]

18 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Too bad we are comparing images where all the details are clearly visible against an image with profound reflection right at the spot that would warrant the most direct comparison. What I could offer is thatonce the "before CGC damage" image is clarified, as much as is possible, allowing a look at the areas with minimum blurring and better resolution, the wear shown on both images are remarkably similar. If you're going by images alone, it would appear, without looking beyond the blur, that the book was worsened in image 2. But the same wear fractures do appear on both images. I see traces of all the wear from image 2, matching the traces of what can be seen before working with the images to better resolve image 1. Once image 1 is enhanced, all the wear of image 2 appears tobe present on image 1. I don't see what I would consider new damage. I just see the defects of image 1 more clearly on image 2 before working with image 1. 

What you see in the second photo is a light reflection. Unfortunately, that is the only photo of the book before it was sent in for a new holder. It probably won’t do any good to make a complaint about it but it was 100% damaged by CGC. You can see it here too in a group photo.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Ghastly542454

[James J Johnson]

11 minutes ago, Ghastly542454 said:

What you see in the second photo is a light reflection. 

The before photo, image 1, is the image that I stated as having an abundance of light reflection that blurs the detail, until clarified. On image 2, the wear that is partially obscured in image 1, due to said reflection, can clearly be seen in stark detail.  But in my estimation, once image 1 is "cleaned up", all the wear from image 2 can be seen clearly on the blurry image 1. I just don't see much f a difference in the wear and its severity, if any at all. And I took the time to manipulate image 1, making a concerted effort to try to find a difference. I see the same wear, same severity on both images, once the reflection and poor resolution of image 1 is cleaned up.. No  change in amount or severity of the vertical or the transverse color-breaking creases at the highlighted area. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by James J Johnson

[Ghastly542454]

16 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

The before photo, image 1, is the image that I stated as having an abundance of light reflection that blurs the detail, until clarified. On image 2, the wear that is partially obscured in image 1, due to said reflection, can clearly be seen in stark detail.  But in my estimation, once image 1 is "cleaned up", all the wear from image 2 can be seen clearly on the blurry image 1. I just don't see much f a difference in the wear and its severity, if any at all. And I took the time to manipulate image 1, making a concerted effort to try to find a difference. I see the same wear, same severity on both images, once the reflection and poor resolution of image 1 is cleaned up.. No  change in amount or severity of the vertical or the transverse color-breaking creases at the highlighted area. 

Manipulate? What does that mean? Image 2 is not a different shot from image 1. I took image 1 and cropped it. There was no color break, albeit a large one, on the book before it was sent in for a new holder. Take a good look at the group shot. There is NO color break!!!

Edited April 25, 2021 by Ghastly542454

[James J Johnson]

2 minutes ago, Ghastly542454 said:

Manipulate? What does that mean? Image 2 is not a different shot from image 1. I took image 1 and cropped it. There was no color break, albeit a large one, on the book before it was sent in for a new holder.

Manipulating; as in I took the images and manipulated them to see if I could detect differences in defects between the two. I was notable to. I was under the assumption that image 1 was an image of the book taken prior to sending to CGC (the blurry image with light reflecting off the well),and that image 2, the clear, higher resolved image without the blurry light reflection, was taken upon its return. If that's not the case, why is the quality of the resolution of the first image so murky and the second image so clear? 

 

[James J Johnson]

12 minutes ago, Ghastly542454 said:

Manipulate? What does that mean? Image 2 is not a different shot from image 1. I took image 1 and cropped it. There was no color break, albeit a large one, on the book before it was sent in for a new holder.

I'll make it even simpler. If in your first post, if image 2 is a closeup of the book with the old label, and image 4 is a closeup of the book returned from CGC with the new label, I see no difference in wear and severity in the defects visible on both scans. Image 2 is blurry and light reflective, so the defects are not easily seen, but they are there and fully visible on image 4, the return. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by James J Johnson

[Ghastly542454]

2 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

I'll make it even simpler. If in your first post, if image 2 is a closeup of the book with the old label, and image 4 is a closeup of the book returned from CGC with the new label, I see no difference in wear and severity in the defects visible on both scans. Image 2 is blurry and light reflective, so the defects are not easily seen, but they are there and fully visible on image 4, the return. 

Original image 1 was too dark. I fixed it.

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, Ghastly542454 said:

 

 

OK, correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Image 1 is the slab you sent to CGC for the new holder

2) Image 2 is a close up of image 1

3) Image 3 is the book reholdered with the new label

4) image 4 is a close up of image 3, the book returned to you, now with added damage

Is this correct? 

[Ghastly542454]

4 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

OK, correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Image 1 is the slab you sent to CGC for the new holder

2) Image 2 is a close up of image 1

3) Image 3 is the book reholdered with the new label

4) image 4 is a close up of image 3, the book returned to you, now with added damage

Is this correct? 

Yes that is correct the difference being on image 4 is an actual close up photo of the damage whereas image 2 is just a cropped photo of image 1.

[Hulksdaddy1]

I'm with JJJ on this. While the damage may have "worsened" upon reholder, the lack of a clear pic of it before doesn't make that clear. What I can make out is that the damage looks the same, in size and shape, in both full images. Unless we had a closeup of the same spot, with the same resolution, it's impossible to tell what was there, and what has been added, defect-wise.

Sorry brother, just calling it how I see it.

[Ghastly542454]

Just now, Hulksdaddy1 said:

I'm with JJJ on this. While the damage may have "worsened" upon reholder, the lack of a clear pic of it before doesn't make that clear. What I can make out is that the damage looks the same, in size and shape, in both full images. Unless we had a closeup of the same spot, with the same resolution, it's impossible to tell what was there, and what has been added, defect-wise.

Sorry brother, just calling it how I see it.

No problem!

[KCOComics]

 

I'm sorry your frustrated with CGC.  The damage looks worse to me in the 3rd and 4th picture.

And knowing you (from your post) I imagine you had a good idea of what that comic looked like before it was sent down.  So I imagine that damage was at a minimum enhanced during reslabbing. 

If it's any consultation, the book is beautiful. Colors pop and I wouldn't hesitate to buy that as a 7.5 

[thehumantorch]

It is tough to see what's going on in the first couple pics because of light reflection but it does look worse to me.

[zzutak]

I'm 100% convinced that both scans are of the same book (the color break above the apostrophe in WORLD'S is one tell), so I guess the blemish above the ¢ was just a stray piece of debris on/in the original holder or the scanner.

 

[Ghastly542454]

55 minutes ago, zzutak said:

I'm 100% convinced that both scans are of the same book (the color break above the apostrophe in WORLD'S is one tell), so I guess the blemish above the ¢ was just a stray piece of debris on/in the original holder or the scanner.

 

 

 

Yes they’re the same book but it was damaged during reholder.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Sadly, this can occur when a book is handled. It looks like the area was already flawed, and the additional handling resulted in making the damage more noticeable.