CGC misses married wrap & other work on $10,000+ book, designates professional Conservation work done with all archival, reversible materials as "C" level resto. This is a HUGE problem... 5 5

[KCOComics]

On 7/26/2021 at 7:15 PM, Phill the Governor said:

 

Unless CGC would like to chime in, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the note you included was promptly thrown away when the book was received, and that the reason it was graded properly with the Conserved label is because the work in question was indeed Conservation under their old rubric. This ongoing issue started in 2021. All books submitted prior are exceptions and were consistently graded accurately as far as I personally experienced. We (the clients) are not suppose to tell them (the graders) how to grade, that is literally the job they are paid to do.

It very possibly was thrown out.  I just figure at a time when CGC is backed up and has allot of new people, it probably doesn't hurt to disclose the work done and how its intended to be classified. If a grader reads the note and checks with someone more experienced, it would be worth the time. 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/26/2021 at 3:22 PM, Phill the Governor said:

Incorrect.

While wheat paste can also be classified as restoration... if you keep reading on that page you will see "Wheat glue" otherwise known as wheat paste is listed under "Materials used for conservation repair" as well. 

Since they have been doing this, I expect at the very least for it to continue. My argument is that I shouldn't have to have books looked at twice - either before being graded to ensure the correct label type, or after a book was incorrectly labeled to begin with. In both cases my time is being wasted.

I have a direct line of communication with them, as well as through colleagues. Unfortunately while that is the best course of action I feel compelled to address this publicly as well.

No, not "incorrect". It's specifically listed on their own website as a restoration material.

You would have to ask CGC what the difference is.

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/27/2021 at 6:47 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

No, not "incorrect". It's specifically listed on their own website as a restoration material.

You would have to ask CGC what the difference is.

It's a nuanced situation, involving overlap of wheat paste being acceptable in both A quality restoration, and by nature, conservation. The semantics of "wheat paste" vs "wheat glue" have already been discussed, but to be clear they are referring to the same thing. There is no asking CGC what the difference is, this is a standard conservation practice.

Every single book I submitted with conservation prior to 2021 received a Conserved label- they all included work done with wheat paste.

Now all of a sudden CGC is labeling the work done with wheat paste as "C" quality work. Notice on CGC's website, the Restoration grading scale lists "glue" under "C" level quality work, not "wheat glue". Because there is a discernible difference. They are incorrectly categorizing the wheat paste I use as glue, the graders need to be properly trained how to ID this, and it needs to stop

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:18 AM, Phill the Governor said:

It's a nuanced situation, involving overlap of wheat paste being acceptable in both A quality restoration, and by nature, conservation. The semantics of "wheat paste" vs "wheat glue" have already been discussed, but to be clear they are referring to the same thing. There is no asking CGC what the difference is, this is a standard conservation practice.

Every single book I submitted with conservation prior to 2021 received a Conserved label- they all included work done with wheat paste.

Now all of a sudden CGC is labeling the work done with wheat paste as "C" quality work. Notice on CGC's website, the Restoration grading scale lists "glue" under "C" level quality work, not "wheat glue". Because there is a discernible difference. They are incorrectly categorizing the wheat paste I use as glue, the graders need to be properly trained how to ID this, and it needs to stop

It seems to me that your work doesn't meet the criteria in every instance:

Quote

All conserved grades must satisfy the CGC quality scale of "A" and quantity scale of "1".

 

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:25 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

It seems to me that your work doesn't meet the criteria in every instance:

 

Incorrect.

This is clearly a problem with the graders, since I have re-subbed books to be re-evaluated and they have come back conserved in every instance.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:31 AM, Phill the Governor said:

Incorrect.

This is clearly a problem with the graders, since I have re-subbed books to be re-evaluated and they have come back conserved in every instance.

Incorrect.

Marrying a cover is not a "Slight" amount of restoration to meet conservation criteria. Read the rules.

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:34 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Incorrect.

Marrying a cover is not a "Slight" amount of restoration to meet conservation criteria. Read the rules.

You are incorrect, again.

But that's okay-- because it's actually likely that some people here don't even know about this conservation standard CGC has been using.

Any book with a married piece, that has conservation, will garner a Conserved label and make note of the marriage on the label.

This is one of my specialities. I get books into Conserved holders. I have countless examples to back up what I'm talking about:

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:55 AM, Phill the Governor said:

You are incorrect, again.

But that's okay-- because it's actually likely that some people here don't even know about this conservation standard CGC has been using.

Any book with a married piece, that has conservation, will garner a Conserved label and make note of the marriage on the label.

This is one of my specialities. I get books into Conserved holders. I have countless examples to back up what I'm talking about:

You are incorrect, again.

According to CGC's publicly-published standards:

Quote

All conserved grades must satisfy the CGC quality scale of "A" and quantity scale of "1".

I'm glad that they are not giving you any more free passes.

[Phill the Governor]

The books I just posted prove otherwise. The Detective 40 was approved by Matt Nelson himself only a few months ago.

Unless you work on books yourself, or can provide examples backing up what you're stating like I have, it's likely your contributions to the thread will lend to more confusion than education. It may be more beneficial to the discussion if you sit this one out.

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/27/2021 at 11:24 AM, Phill the Governor said:

The books I just posted prove otherwise. The Detective 40 was approved by Matt Nelson himself only a few months ago.

Unless you work on books yourself, or can provide examples backing up what you're stating like I have, it's likely your contributions to the thread will lend to more confusion than education. It may be more beneficial to the discussion if you sit this one out.

You mean like the standards published on CGC's own website? Yeah, done.

You only get a Conserved label if your work contributes to A-1 quality restoration.

[vheflin]

On 7/26/2021 at 2:41 PM, Phill the Governor said:

The bigger problem book that I will mention had a married wrap, spine split seals, small piece re-attached to the cover and cover reinforcement. This was graded and put (incorrectly) into a Restored A-1 level slab with a single notation of "cover reinforced". No mention of any of the other work - including the married wrap. This is not a slight oversight - this is completely unacceptable coming from a company that's job it is to accurately assess and grade the condition of these books. 

Was the small piece no larger than two bindery chips?  If not, it doesn't meet the quantity scale = 1 rule.

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/27/2021 at 11:37 AM, vheflin said:

Was the small piece no larger than two bindery chips?  If not, it doesn't meet the quantity scale = 1 rule.

You are confusing two different terms: piece fill & piece reattached.

The only note CGC gave on that particular book was "cover reinforced", which means they missed the married wrap, spine split seals and the small piece re-attached.

But to push it further - as of Dec/2020 I was able to (according to CGC's own consistent rubric at the time) add virtually any structural pieces at the spine area only, not just bindary chips.

This stance has shifted starting in 2021 to allow any size piece fill on a cover if it is leafcasted, and a book will get a Conserved label. But the piece(s) in question can not be added through standard, conventional archival means, which translates to CGC adopting/creating an inconsistent stance on Conservation based solely on preference.

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/27/2021 at 6:50 PM, Bonger said:

Does all this affect more than a handful of Restoration people? Does it affect anyone who's not trying to get a Purple book into a "Blue" label?

As I can tell, grading standards/ quality control across the board are at an all time low at CGC- correlating to their current diminishing reputation.

 

I am currently on the fence with accepting color touch removal jobs from clients. Prior to 2021, I never had a single submission come back with CT after removal. Now in 2021 I've had several come back. You don't have to be conspiratorial to see that CCS is an obvious conflict of interest- and if CGC flags books with obvious CT removal and grades them as restored- it is suspect that I have clients receiving emails back from CGC advising using their in house company CCS to "remove the remaining resto". 

So to reiterate- the problems at CGC right now are across the board and include but are not limited to: dropping submissions/damaging books, incorrectly categorizing conservation/restoration, over and under grading in general, flagging books that can graded as restored that aren't, overgrading books with tape, incorrectly encapsulating books causing damage and lastly (and the thing bugging most people) unbelievably inconsistent graders notes- especially on books 9.0 and above. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Phill the Governor

[MatterEaterLad]

@Phill the Governor -- I've been saying this all year. CGC's resto check and notation needs to be readdressed. 

 

Is a small bit of mending paper added to the spine:

A) Cover reinforced

B) Pieces added

C) All of the above

CGC sometimes goes with A, sometimes B, sometimes both. And it can vary when resubmitting the same book. 

 

If a corner piece is replaced with leaf casting is the book:

A) Trimmed on two edges

B) Trimmed on one edge

C) No trimming at all

CGC sometimes notates the removal of the excess paper as trimmed. Sometimes they don't. And again, it changed when resubbing the same book.

 

This has happened twice on two $10,000+ books and the answer I was given was "The first grade was wrong, this new grade is right." 

Hero Restoration (which does fine work) also resubbed a Batman 1 and the trimming magically disappeared. 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by MatterEaterLad
typo

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/28/2021 at 11:57 AM, MatterEaterLad said:

@Phill the Governor -- I've been saying this all year. CGC's resto check and notation needs to be readdressed. 

 

Is a small bit of mending paper added to the spine:

A) Cover reinforced

B) Pieces added

C) All of the above

CGC sometimes goes with A, sometimes B, sometimes both. And it can vary when resubmitting the same book. 

 

If a corner piece is replaced with leaf casting is the book:

A) Trimmed on two edges

B) Trimmed on one edge

C) No trimming at all

CGC sometimes notates the removal of the excess paper as trimmed. Sometimes they don't. And again, it changed when resubbing the same book.

 

This has happened twice on two $10,000+ books and the answer I was given was "The first grade was wrong, this new grade is right." 

Hero Restoration (which does fine work) also resubbed a Batman 1 and the trimming magically disappeared. 

 

 

This guy gets it.

Prior to 2021, 100% consistency in rubric, at least from my end. They had it figured out before which allowed me to have the utmost confidence in getting specific label types.

Now in 2021 I have to re-sub a book a second time because the first label/grade was wrong and the new one is right after re-evaluation...? That's horrendous quality control.

As it is, the community is dealing with receiving books right back from grading with tons of scuffs on innerwells, inner wells not sealed all the way, inner wells sealed too tightly, cracked cases, etc... 

I don't care if they need to hire new employees, part of the problem is that the current employees are either not being trained properly or being paid enough not to be apathetic.

 

[MatterEaterLad]

I don't necessarily think this is all CGC's fault. Restorationists have developed new techniques that are virtually beyond detection. Or at least to where it's causing some serious grading headaches. And I understand the hesitancy of certain restorationists to divulge their trade secrets to CGC, which also has CCS under it's roof. It's a tangled skein at the moment. 

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/28/2021 at 3:58 PM, MatterEaterLad said:

I don't necessarily think this is all CGC's fault. Restorationists have developed new techniques that are virtually beyond detection. Or at least to where it's causing some serious grading headaches. And I understand the hesitancy of certain restorationists to divulge their trade secrets to CGC, which also has CCS under it's roof. It's a tangled skein at the moment. 

This is where I would disagree. 

There have been developments in paper restoration/conservation to be sure. But there is realistically only so much that can and is being done and of it can easily fall into a standard that every book would go by. 

On 7/28/2021 at 4:32 PM, Bonger said:

Oh I understand what you're complaining about, but it just seems like sour grapes to me. It's hard to feel sympathy for people who appear to be gaming the system. 

Since you're new here, welcome to the boards!

To be clear, I was not insinuating others here have not "got it", merely that he was talking specifics. 

If you view my sole intention here as complaining I would politely advise you go back and re-through the thread again; perhaps you just skimmed the discussion/didn't actually read it to begin with. Two pages of information can be intimidating after all, so no sweat.

The purpose of the thread is: to inform and also try and shake things up institutionally and get some positive movement forward on this part of the business.

Unfortunately for my energy, which I am not being compensated for (I am okay with this), complaining does lend a hand since CGC is indeed behaving in a way that would make customers (including myself) unhappy.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Phill the Governor

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/28/2021 at 5:55 PM, Bonger said:

The positive movement I see is the move towards clamping down on loopholes that allow PLOD books to get Conserved labels 

Since this affects so few people, people who are doing sketchy things in the first place, I think CGC should just ignore your whining 

I have been very transparent in divulging what I am doing, and most importantly what I am trying to understand not just for myself but for the community.

By incorrectly stating that there is a desire to go through/figure out loopholes, it's likely your contributions to the thread will lend to more confusion than education. It may be more beneficial to the discussion if you sit this one out. 

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 7/28/2021 at 6:14 PM, Phill the Governor said:

I have been very transparent in divulging what I am doing, and most importantly what I am trying to understand not just for myself but for the community.

By incorrectly stating that there is a desire to go through/figure out loopholes, it's likely your contributions to the thread will lend to more confusion than education. It may be more beneficial to the discussion if you sit this one out. 

I’m finding it hard to have sympathy for a paper mechanic.  Should I sit this one out too?

[Phill the Governor]

On 7/28/2021 at 7:30 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

I’m finding it hard to have sympathy for a paper mechanic.  Should I sit this one out too?

I'm starting a gofundme for myself to pay for therapy.