SHAME!!!! MG Comics in Montreal Canada.
0

8 posts in this topic

I thought I would nominate MG Comics since  Hall of Shame Rules has the following "These impact "Sales Advertising, eBay Dealers etc" as well as off-board sales between Forum Members."

MG Comics in Montreal was formally named Comicage.

https://mgcomics.ca/
https://www.facebook.com/mgcomics.ca

I know that they are most likely not a member to the boards but I think is would be good if anyone does a search.

Reason this thread and there shameful business practice.

 

 For reference as ebay listing does not last forever..

 Original listing that was later taken down for whatever reason.

Original1.thumb.jpg.6ab0c937cf59ea025b38caf2f9259f27.jpg

Then to be re-listed..

Relist1.thumb.jpg.5ab2aa4f523bbfcf6abbc786671b89bb.jpg

Relist2.thumb.jpg.cc6691807bebbb171f8fa3950a961d6e.jpg

Pictures of the 9.6 book..

1.thumb.jpg.1c289568e39a7fa49f44541f7ec18cf3.jpg2.thumb.jpg.14f0dfce5186dd0c29cb126e855ab9de.jpg3.thumb.jpg.43fd53b7e15eb21c2e1279c701259b82.jpg4.thumb.jpg.7c04aeffa4c64328040a84249093f670.jpg5.thumb.jpg.1eeaabdfa6587eae75f6532117acd69d.jpg6.thumb.jpg.4e563e01ca271e88cb937a0c6367df1c.jpg7.thumb.jpg.1444a7519b1ebc5a24e40c9dbac25f42.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to have dealt with them on this transaction to nominate them for anything. At the moment the board's well aware of them, so I wouldn't worry about notoriety. And to be fair, it still hasn't been conclusively established what happened in the situation with that book, so we can't jump to confusions with the small amount of info we've got. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 12:23 PM, pickycollector said:

I would rather nominate CGC graders for serious over-grading on this book...

No kidding! That is one ugly 9.6.

However, if you look at the title for the first listing, the book is called issue #166. In the second listing, it's noted as issue #169. That may be a reason the book was re-listed. 

I can't find any completed or sold listings on eBay for this particular copy (my search-fu may be weak sauce) so I am not sure if seller made any statements about the grade/damage in the listing itself.  However, it appears the seller has taken multiple, up close photos of the damage on this copy. The seller did not have to, they could have taken a pic of the book sitting on a chair five feet away with no way to see any of the damage, only that big 9.6 in the corner. 

There are photos of the label and photos of the book. Buy the book, not the label. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 3:23 PM, pickycollector said:

I would rather nominate CGC graders for serious over-grading on this book...

It wouldn't surprise me if someone had a slab that opened without breaking the posts and swapped out a 5.0 with the 9.6 .... I don't see how even a new grader could be that incompetent. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2021 at 8:58 AM, jimjum12 said:

It wouldn't surprise me if someone had a slab that opened without breaking the posts and swapped out a 5.0 with the 9.6 .... I don't see how even a new grader could be that incompetent. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)(thumbsu

Maybe!  That is definitely not 9.6 material.  5.5 -6.0 tops?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 12:58 PM, Bluemedgroup said:

Maybe!  That is definitely not 9.6 material.  5.5 -6.0 tops?  

Maybe the grader is dyslexic and meant 6.9 .... which would say LESS than 7.0. Typically when they have a large influx of new graders, we're more likely to see undergrading, i.e. a 9.6 in a 9.4, a 9.4 called a 9.0, that sort of thing. Me ? if it's a gloss monster and VERY supple, I could say the outer limit might be 7.0, but a 6,0 is more realistic, and with that gnarly 3/4 inch urc crease ? This is either an accidentally swapped label from a sub with more than one DS 169 or the fraudulent effort I outlined in a previous post... of which no fault of CGC's. I'm thinking clerical error, CGC doesn't usually hire graders with that degree of incompetence. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 12:18 PM, jimjum12 said:

Maybe the grader is dyslexic and meant 6.9 .... which would say LESS than 7.0. Typically when they have a large influx of new graders, we're more likely to see undergrading, i.e. a 9.6 in a 9.4, a 9.4 called a 9.0, that sort of thing. Me ? if it's a gloss monster and VERY supple, I could say the outer limit might be 7.0, but a 6,0 is more realistic, and with that gnarly 3/4 inch urc crease ? This is either an accidentally swapped label from a sub with more than one DS 169 or the fraudulent effort I outlined in a previous post... of which no fault of CGC's. I'm thinking clerical error, CGC doesn't usually hire graders with that degree of incompetence. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)(thumbsu

I would say this may be on QC.  Like the inexperienced armorer handed the prop gun over to the assistant director for the inspection then he handed it over to Alec Baldwin.  So the graders handed the graded raw copies to the encapsulaters before QC would inspect but I am not sure what is their protocol in QC/Encapsulation room. What are in the order in that room?  It has been chaos lately.

Edited by JollyComics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0