Promise Whiz #2 has the wrong back cover 7 7

[The Lions Den]

On 12/17/2021 at 6:23 PM, catman76 said:

Yeah so? All their auction previews always say that and always have. Has nothing to do with cgc making a huge mistake like that.

It all makes me not trust cgc even more. Why I do not understand people that buy slabs and then keep them sealed up and never see what the comic looks like inside. I could never own something that I never have seen what the most important part of the comic looks like. If they miss huge things like a wrong back cover, what could they have missed on the insides before? Especially these promise comics that seem to be all a mess grading wise and now them not even noticing a wrong back cover on one.

One of the things that used to be standard procedure at CGC was to double check the authenticity of books that had detached covers or completely split spines, especially if extensive tape repair or restoration were involved. There've been numerous examples of this over the years, and most of the time CGC catches it the first time around. Unfortunately, this time they missed it...  

[jimbo_7071]

On 12/17/2021 at 8:28 PM, CGC Mike said:

Seems it is open now, I am not sure it matters why it was locked.  

It matters because closing it seems like an underhanded move that may have been the beginning of a cover-up—until CGC realized that a cover-up couldn't be pulled off.

The reason for the closure of the thread is of massive import in terms of assessing CGC's integrity under it's new ownership—which is a concern to many board members, especially in light of what many feel has been the shockingly lax grading of the books in the Promise Collection.

Complete forthrightness about why the thread was closed would help allay the fears of those board members who have misgivings about the direction in which things have been headed lately.

Edited December 19, 2021 by jimbo_7071

[szav]

On 12/17/2021 at 7:18 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

Complete forthrightness about why the thread was closed would help allay the fears of those board members who have misgivings about the direction in which things have been headed lately.

Normally I wouldn't think to find myself on this side of the argument, but I'll give them a pass and I don't think any explanation is necessary.  It's their board and they're never under any obligation to let people sit here and bash them.  I'll assume they quickly realized that it was a bad look to close it up, and they've reopened it now after a short lock.  They've acknowledged the error on the book and its a really bad one, but they said thank you for catching and that they're going to correct it, and it's not like the thread was ever deleted or hidden, or that anyone was forbidden to discuss it.  Not sure what else could be reasonably asked of them.

[rjpb]

On 12/13/2021 at 7:49 AM, szav said:

If this is the original owners copy what incentive did a kid that age have to marry the wrong back cover to a book like that?  Seems a bit odd and out of place to me.  Or maybe it was common practice for kids to cut things up just to keep the cover attached to the book dunno.  Kinda cool to see the ‘tape’ has the faint image that says eagle stamps.  That’s a real makeshift patch up anyway.

Also yes, shame on CGC… again.

I've seen some pretty crazy wrong back covers. I once had a Tec 225 with what was clearly a 1970s back cover taped on to the thin strip of what remained from the original, so it would have been clear to anyone that it wasn't correct. It obviously was done no earlier than the 1970s when the book had some minimal value, and perhaps not by the original owner, but hard to imagine it was done to deceive. Some collector probably just thought it could use a back cover and applied whatever loose one they had. It's no weirder than some of the other stuff you see, like ad pages deliberately removed, or colored tape run along the spine, or crudely hand drawn replacement pieces taped or glued to the inside of a cover with pieces missing. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by rjpb

[The Lions Den]

On 12/18/2021 at 11:18 AM, rjpb said:

I've seen some pretty crazy wrong back covers. I once had a Tec 225 with what was clearly a 1970s back cover taped on to the thin strip of what remained from the original, so it would have been clear to anyone that it wasn't correct. It obviously was done no earlier than the 1970s when the book had some minimal value, and perhaps not by the original owner, but hard to imagine it was done to deceive. Some collector probably just thought it could use a back cover and applied whatever loose one they had. It's no weirder than some of the other stuff you see, like ad pages deliberately removed, or colored tape run along the spine, or crudely hand drawn replacement pieces taped or glued to the inside of a cover with pieces missing. 

Sometimes I feel like a crime scene detective...pretty scary stuff...  

[Jimmy Linguini]

On 12/14/2021 at 5:26 PM, skypinkblu said:

CGC Pedigree Status Criteria

The collection must be original owner.
This means that the books must have been bought off the newsstand as they came out. For example, a collector cannot buy a high-grade run of 1940s comics from various sources and expect it to be considered a pedigree. The original owner need not currently own the comics for the collection to be considered for pedigree status.

The collection must be of vintage material.
This means that a large collection consisting of comics from the 1970s to present cannot be considered a pedigree. In fact, until the sale of some key White Mountain books in a Sotheby’s auction in the early 1990s, Silver Age comics were not accepted as pedigree collections. Comic books from 1966 and after are relatively common in high grade compared to earlier issues. This occurred as a direct result of a tremendous explosion in the number of collectors in fandom in the mid-1960s. Collections that are primarily from 1966 and after must have average grades of at least 9.4 to be considered a pedigree.

The collection must consist of a considerable number of comics.
Most pedigree collections consist of at least 1,000 books and some number over 10,000 comics. The collections that consist of fewer books, such as the Allentown and Denver collections, must include extremely rare, important, and/or key material.

The collection must be high-grade.
Comics from the Silver Age in general would have to be 9.2 and higher, and a collection of exclusive Silver Age material must have an average grade of 9.4. Golden Age comics would have to be high-grade as well. For example, the Lost Valley collection consisted of many golden age books from before 1941 that were technically mid-grade, but were almost across the board the highest graded copy for that book. Page quality must be nice as well.

 

I thought CGC said they weren't going to do any more Pedigrees. Why did that change for the Promise collection?

is this connected to that video game grading company that HA bought? Weird.

[Superman2006]

I don't recall CGC saying they weren't going to "do" any more Pedigrees; I'd be surprised if they would say something like that, as I don't see any basis for saying something like that. 

 

[Jimmy Linguini]

On 12/20/2021 at 4:34 PM, Superman2006 said:

I don't recall CGC saying they weren't going to "do" any more Pedigrees; I'd be surprised if they would say something like that, as I don't see any basis for saying something like that. 

 

I was under the impression that is why the "Miser Magik Woo" collection ended up where it did. Probably just conjecture.

[Superman2006]

On 12/20/2021 at 4:46 PM, Jimmy Linguini said:

On 12/20/2021 at 4:34 PM, Superman2006 said:

I don't recall CGC saying they weren't going to "do" any more Pedigrees; I'd be surprised if they would say something like that, as I don't see any basis for saying something like that. 

 

I was under the impression that is why the "Miser Magik Woo" collection ended up where it did. Probably just conjecture.

I'm not really that familiar with Mister Magik Woo or his collection, but I did a search and found that his Suspense #3 was a Pennsylvania Pedigree copy, so it sounds like he wasn't the original owner for his collection (or at least part of it), and so I suspect that is why it got a "from the collection of" notation, rather than a pedigree notation.

[Aman619]

I think the thread was closed while they looked into the issue, and to protect the usual bunch of over zealous CGC bashers who love taking potshots at CGC  from making fools of themselves for a while with their conspiracy theories etc…. 

[JollyComics]

I tried to fathom why Slobodian collection is still not recognized for Pedigree Collection.  All I found the information about the collection is CGC found one book was restored in the collection. They dropped it right away.  Those books are in pristine condition unlike Promise collection with some tattered books with some repairs.

I do own few copies are real nice with white pages.

Edited December 20, 2021 by JollyComics

[jimbo_7071]

On 12/14/2021 at 5:26 PM, skypinkblu said:

CGC Pedigree Status Criteria

The collection must be original owner.
This means that the books must have been bought off the newsstand as they came out. For example, a collector cannot buy a high-grade run of 1940s comics from various sources and expect it to be considered a pedigree. The original owner need not currently own the comics for the collection to be considered for pedigree status.

The collection must be of vintage material.
This means that a large collection consisting of comics from the 1970s to present cannot be considered a pedigree. In fact, until the sale of some key White Mountain books in a Sotheby’s auction in the early 1990s, Silver Age comics were not accepted as pedigree collections. Comic books from 1966 and after are relatively common in high grade compared to earlier issues. This occurred as a direct result of a tremendous explosion in the number of collectors in fandom in the mid-1960s. Collections that are primarily from 1966 and after must have average grades of at least 9.4 to be considered a pedigree.

The collection must consist of a considerable number of comics.
Most pedigree collections consist of at least 1,000 books and some number over 10,000 comics. The collections that consist of fewer books, such as the Allentown and Denver collections, must include extremely rare, important, and/or key material.

The collection must be high-grade.
Comics from the Silver Age in general would have to be 9.2 and higher, and a collection of exclusive Silver Age material must have an average grade of 9.4. Golden Age comics would have to be high-grade as well. For example, the Lost Valley collection consisted of many golden age books from before 1941 that were technically mid-grade, but were almost across the board the highest graded copy for that book. Page quality must be nice as well.

"Page quality must be nice as well." That's a bit vague; the Savannah Pedigree has below-average pages for the era that its books are from.

"Page quality must be nice as well." That's a bit vague; the Savannah Pedigree has below-average pages for the era that its books are from.

Edited December 21, 2021 by jimbo_7071

[Superman2006]

On 12/21/2021 at 6:24 PM, BottomFeeder said:

On 12/20/2021 at 4:53 PM, Superman2006 said:

I'm not really that familiar with Mister Magik Woo or his collection, but I did a search and found that his Suspense #3 was a Pennsylvania Pedigree copy, so it sounds like he wasn't the original owner for his collection (or at least part of it), and so I suspect that is why it got a "from the collection of" notation, rather than a pedigree notation.

I agree. I think any new pedigree would be a pedigree at either company if it was truly a pedigree. Especially since the president of CBCS was the president of CGC when their pedigree criteria was adopted. I'd guess Mr. Woo chose CBCS because they either charged him less or CGC wouldn't give him a "from the collection of" label.

Does CGC have any published requirements for granting a "from the collection of" label? I don't recall seeing or hearing about any published requirements, so perhaps it is left to the judgement of whoever is in charge (i.e. Matt at this time)?

[Superman2006]

On 12/21/2021 at 6:51 PM, BottomFeeder said:

On 12/21/2021 at 6:45 PM, Superman2006 said:

Does CGC have any published requirements for granting a "from the collection of" label? I don't recall seeing or hearing about any published requirements, so perhaps it is left to the judgement of whoever is in charge (i.e. Matt at this time)?

I've never seen any published requirements. The only requirement I've heard of is "spend a LOT of money with CGC". One exception to the $$$ requirement I think is the labels with the name of a CGC employee who passed away.

I suspect that depending on who is in charge at the time "spend a LOT of money with CGC" may be enough to get you a "from the collection of" label. In general though, I think the "from the collection of" labels have more commonly been granted in the past to collections that have come from someone very well known (whether a comic creator, or otherwise), such as Jerry Robinson and Nic Cage.

[jimbo_7071]

On 12/21/2021 at 7:32 PM, BottomFeeder said:

that CGC employee

Do you mean Phil Kaltenbach? Maybe that one was just a way to pay respect after his untimely demise.

(I personally couldn't care less who owned a comic book before I did unless that person was the original owner—and even then I don't care much.)

[PovertyRow]

On 12/20/2021 at 2:37 PM, Aman619 said:

I think the thread was closed while they looked into the issue, and to protect the usual bunch of over zealous CGC bashers who love taking potshots at CGC  from making fools of themselves for a while with their conspiracy theories etc…. 

I agree there is a CGC Bashing Conspiracy: anytime someone points out legitimate flaws with CGC they must be a part of it.

Edited January 8, 2022 by PovertyRow
spelling