I'd say it's fun starting these new threads calling out CGC's quality control, but it really isn't. CGC claims no liability on book they improperly encased to begin with. 0

[Math Teacher]

4 hours ago, Jeffro. said:

I don't think anyone expects perfection but some of the egregious issues we've recently seen should never have left their facility. It seems plausible that in some cases, the slabs were not inspected before they left Sarasota. What's even more disturbing is their lack of accountability in fixing those things that go wrong.

What @Jeffro. said. From his mouth to God's ear.

[William-James88]

On 5/28/2021 at 8:28 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Then their "older business model" was flawed. I think it's ridiculous to allow people to re-holder an item for free that has changed hands.

They still do if they made a mistake on the label. Anyways, as far as the scuffing condition, I thought it was just par for the course, like newton rings. It makes for an ugly case, sure, but it doesnt bring damage to the book, right?

For the specific walking dead book presented, I would do what Lions Den said and remove it from the case since the scuffing is not the main issue here but rather that the comic has sunk down. That could have damage in the long run that i'd want to avoid at all cost.

Edited June 3, 2021 by William-James88

[theCapraAegagrus]

12 hours ago, Math Teacher said:

It's all right to have that as an expectation, but, as you mentioned, 100% is an awful high bar to reach. But it is then the company's responsibility to make things right. That is not what is happening here.

The OP didn't get the slab from CGC. It's unreasonable to expect CGC to do something for free when it was already 'approved' by their direct customer.

[Math Teacher]

43 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

The OP didn't get the slab from CGC. It's unreasonable to expect CGC to do something for free when it was already 'approved' by their direct customer.

Agreed.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the person who sent in Avengers #4. It was damaged while in CGC's hands.

[Phill the Governor]

15 hours ago, Jeffro. said:

I don't think anyone expects perfection but some of the egregious issues we've recently seen should never have left their facility. It seems plausible that in some cases, the slabs were not inspected before they left Sarasota. What's even more disturbing is their lack of accountability in fixing those things that go wrong.

Exactly: While there is technically some responsibility of the original submitter of the book, none of that responsibility falls on me, and ultimately it falls on CGC.  A reasonable person would think a company would go out of their way (as they did in the past) to remove examples like this from the marketplace (on their dime) because examples like this removes confidence from clients (and new potential clients) for fear of having books damaged. This is why car companies instigate recalls- because they don't want faulty products out in the marketplace: they cause problems and make the company look bad (aside from killing/injuring people or in this case damaging an otherwise undamaged book).

 

2 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

The OP didn't get the slab from CGC. It's unreasonable to expect CGC to do something for free when it was already 'approved' by their direct customer.

It is not unreasonable; see above comment. The book was not dropped or mishandled by any owner post encapsulation: it was never encapsulated correctly to begin with, still resulting in damage. This book, like many others in recent time, survived the duration in nice condition up until CGC touched and damaged it through carelessness, their lack of oversight and poor quality control. I find myself not even wanting a complimentary re-holdering here because the sad truth is that CGC already damaged this book by improperly encapsulating it.

 

2 hours ago, Math Teacher said:

Agreed.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the person who sent in Avengers #4. It was damaged while in CGC's hands.

I am the same person who had my Avengers 4 damaged by CGC. I was not happy with how they addressed the problem. And as far as I can tell the publicity created on this forum and elsewhere already cost them thousands and thousands of dollars from cancelled submissions from myself (and others) and that only extrapolates moving forward.

 

The customer is not always right.

 

But in this case, I stand by my convictions and say to CGC-  you have a disappointed customer who expects a higher degree of professionalism and customer satisfaction.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

It is not unreasonable; see above comment. The book was not dropped or mishandled by any owner post encapsulation: it was never encapsulated correctly to begin with, still resulting in damage. This book, like many others in recent time, survived the duration in nice condition up until CGC touched and damaged it through carelessness, their lack of oversight and poor quality control. I find myself not even wanting a complimentary re-holdering here because the sad truth is that CGC already damaged this book by improperly encapsulating it.

It is, though. CGC's direct customer 'approved' its condition by not bringing it to their attention at any point of his/her possession.

[comicginger1789]

I think that, this past year, CGC had a record level of submissions in the history of its existence. Like the world, they were unprepared for what the pandemic brought them.

With this record number of submissions comes a record number of flaws, problems and errors and we see them all as we should, as people share them here and on social media. There is also a liklihood that the quality of the grading on books in the past year has much more variance that before. Graders feeling the pressure to get books graded perhaps grade harsher or more lenient than before. Add to it the company taking on more than they can handle (with in person signings...great idea, poor time to execute) and you have all the makings for problems. Sure they are trying to adjust on the fly but reality is this year will see problems on a level unseen and is probably the worst time to submit books for that reason (says the guy who made his first submission ever and is still waiting  but I expected a 6-8 month turnaround when I did so I just hope CGC is patient with my books and does them right). 

Alas, other companies are starting to get more business and now they too are feeling the strain. Eventually it will even out and to be honest, it is best to wait until that happens before sending in your books. Especially those trying to sub books for a quick flip. Can't tell you how many briefly hot books I have seen people sharing coming back from CGC that are now cold. 

[Phill the Governor]

22 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

It is, though. CGC's direct customer 'approved' its condition by not bringing it to their attention at any point of his/her possession.

By your own definition of "approved", CGC "approved" the encapsulation and shipping it back to the original submitter, despite the unequivocal fault in the case. They are the first line of defense, and bc of that responsibility falls back on them. This book, as it is, should never have been shipped back to the original submitter to begin with. 

This isn't even contestable considering CGC used to offer "complimentary" reholders for books with really bad newton rings or inner well scuffs. 

The entire inner well on my book here was never sealed to begin with and their response now is "sorry, not our problem". 

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

By your own definition of "approved", CGC "approved" the encapsulation and shipping it back to the original submitter, despite the unequivocal fault in the case. They are the first line of defense, and bc of that responsibility falls back on them. This book, as it is, should never have been shipped back to the original submitter to begin with. 

This isn't even contestable considering CGC used to offer "complimentary" reholders for books with really bad newton rings or inner well scuffs. 

The entire inner well on my book here was never sealed to begin with and their response now is "sorry, not our problem". 

Yes, and the submitter accepted their mistake. If you do not like the submitter's choice, then you can choose to return the item to them, correct?

[Phill the Governor]

4 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Yes, and the submitter accepted their mistake. If you do not like the submitter's choice, then you can choose to return the item to them, correct?

No it was purchased on ebay several months ago and the return window is closed. You are making an assumption that the mistake was "accepted". I myself deal with slabbed books regularly and didn't even notice it until I diligently went back over all my graded books.

Your point defeats the purpose of holding CGC accountable for their mistake. Personally, I want that accountability because despite all their problems lately,  CGC is still the best grading service. But I want them to work for their reputation, not just for their bottom line. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

No it was purchased on ebay several months ago and the return window is closed. You are making an assumption that the mistake was "accepted". I myself deal with slabbed books regularly and didn't even notice it until I diligently went back over all my graded books.

Your point defeats the purpose of holding CGC accountable for their mistake. Personally, I want that accountability because despite all their problems lately,  CGC is still the best grading service. But I want them to work for their reputation, not just for their bottom line. 

Can I make any other assumption...?

If CGC makes a mistake and does not catch it, it is the submitter's responsibility to bring it to their attention. CGC is not infallible and I am not absolving them of their duty.

[Phill the Governor]

4 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Can I make any other assumption...?

If CGC makes a mistake and does not catch it, it is the submitter's responsibility to bring it to their attention.

Unfortunately this is not an assumption, this is more or less their current policy (with the addition of a very small window).  If CGC wants to act in their own best interest, they will deal with these issues the way they used to.

4 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

CGC is not infallible and I am not absolving them of their duty.

Glad we finally agree!

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

Unfortunately this is not an assumption, this is more or less their current policy (with the addition of a very small window).  If CGC wants to act in their own best interest, they will deal with these issues the way they used to.

Glad we finally agree!

My comment was about the assumption that CGC's direct customer 'approved' the product. I cannot assume otherwise.

[Phill the Governor]

5 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

My comment was about the assumption that CGC's direct customer 'approved' the product. I cannot assume otherwise.

Then you need to do two things:

1. broaden your perspective

and

2. go back and re-read what I stated about how it's irrelevant compared to CGC's initial approval of a defective product.

[theCapraAegagrus]

5 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

Then you need to do two things:

1. broaden your perspective

and

2. go back and re-read what I stated about how it's irrelevant compared to CGC's initial approval of a defective product.

1. This makes no sense. Either the seller approved of CGC's mistake, or they ignored it.
2. It's not irrelevant, because CGC should have never re-holdered for free if you were not the submitter.

[Phill the Governor]

16 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

1. This makes no sense. Either the seller approved of CGC's mistake, or they ignored it.
2. It's not irrelevant, because CGC should have never re-holdered for free if you were not the submitter.

It doesn't make sense to you because you still haven't broadened your perspectives. I'll help you to see another scenario, and the most likely one: the seller did not notice the mistake to begin with, especially since it's a problem with the internal well, not a more common cracked exterior case.

Whether the seller approved of the mistake, ignored it, or didn't even see it to begin with - does not matter to me because CGC should reholder it for free, as they have in the past. They set that precedent because they acknowledged causing the problem to begin with, and I expect them to stand by that precedent. Which they are not doing here by hiding behind some legal stipulation. 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

It doesn't make sense to you because you still haven't broadened your perspectives. I'll help you to see another scenario, and the most likely one: the seller did not notice the mistake to begin with, especially since it's a problem with the internal well, not a more common cracked exterior case.

Whether the seller approved of the mistake, ignored it, or didn't even see it to begin with - does not matter to me because CGC should reholder it for free, as they have in the past. They set that precedent because they acknowledged causing the problem to begin with, and I expect them to stand by that precedent. Which they are not doing here by hiding behind some legal stipulation.

Um, no, that's not true. There is not an infinite amount of options. There are 2, and I am aware of both.

CGC corrected their mistake of offering free re-holders after items have changed possession. They moved in the correct direction.

[Phill the Governor]

Just now, theCapraAegagrus said:

Um, no, that's not true. There is not an infinite amount of options. There are 2, and I am aware of both.

CGC corrected their mistake of offering free re-holders after items have changed possession. They moved in the correct direction.

I never said there were an infinite amount of options, I presented another option you did not consider because of your (continued) ignorant perspective.

For someone who is active on here (over 20k posts in just a few years) you would do better to read more and think before replying to posts.

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

I never said there were an infinite amount of options, I presented another option you did not consider because of your (continued) ignorant perspective.

For someone who is active on here (over 20k posts in just a few years) you would do better to read more and think before replying to posts.

No you didn't. Quoting myself:

Quote

Either the seller approved of CGC's mistake, or they ignored it.

Yeah, I read and reply perfectly fine. Let's not resort to ad hominem, Phill.

[Number 6]

53 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

It doesn't make sense to you because you still haven't broadened your perspectives. I'll help you to see another scenario, and the most likely one: the seller did not notice the mistake to begin with, especially since it's a problem with the internal well, not a more common cracked exterior case.

Whether the seller approved of the mistake, ignored it, or didn't even see it to begin with - does not matter to me because CGC should reholder it for free, as they have in the past. They set that precedent because they acknowledged causing the problem to begin with, and I expect them to stand by that precedent. Which they are not doing here by hiding behind some legal stipulation. 

 

Setting aside the option of simply wanting a new generation case/special label, it seems that, generally speaking, there would be 3 reasons to seek a reholder:  damage to the case from external factors 2) cosmetic blemishes such as scuffs, scratches and “Newton Rings” and 3) a defective case.  
 

On the first two, I can see why CGC would only offer a free reholder to the actual submitter.   But the 3rd option, a case that is clearly defective to the point of actually damaging the book inside (not just an aesthetic scruple) I would think would something they should take responsibility for regardless of who the current owner of the book is.