CGC Common Sense Defense

[4GEMWORKS]

Last night, for the first time in many months, I finally got sick of listening to all the negative commentary being directed at CGC, a company that has done good by me for 5+ years. The original subject was authored by Esquirecomics.

 

I spent a while crafting what I thought was a reasonable answer to the well meaning but what I considered wrong conclusions of the post. As usual, the type of stuff that origionally led me to leave the boards happened. A) No responses to any of the intellectual comment and B) It becomes buried in nonsensical posting which should be offensive to the sensibilities of anybody following the thread in addition to wasting common folks time.

 

I like many have been drawn in by the Ewertt controversy. While my post was a direct response to Esquire comics, it represents a broad line of reasoning that applies to the CGC and their base usefulness to collectors like me.

 

Maybe out of ego, maybe because I hate to see a post "buried" I decided to repost it where it will at least get the decency of an initial read by a few board members.

 

You can view the entire initial post under:

 

"Commentary - CGC Should Change Its Name To 'Comics Grading, LLC' "

 

 

Etymology: Middle French garantie, from Old French, from garantir to guarantee, from garant warrant, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werento guarantor -- more at WARRANT : an undertaking to answer for the payment of a debt or the performance of a duty of another in case of the other's default or miscarriage

2 : GUARANTEE

3 : GUARANTOR

4 : something given as security : PLEDGE

5 : the protection of a right afforded by legal provision (as in a constitution).

 

Essentially, in layman’s terms, to provide a “guaranty” means to stand behind your work or services. Does CGC do that? The uniformed might think so. But from what I can tell the only guarantee that CGC provides is to advertise its promotional rhetoric. Why do I proclaim that? Let’s examine CGC’s statements and claims.

 

 

I left these boards long ago under another name and not only have been away for a long time, but haven't really missed the boards much at all. What brought me back was the newsletter from GPA that linked to the Jason Ewertt story, which I did find interesting. I think it is to the credit of many that much was uncovered. The episode as a whole will undoubtedly benefit the commerce in the comic book trade where graded books are concerned.

 

Sometimes, though, I think things go further in a direction than is either needed or warranted. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the core reputation of CGC is being questioned by many. That is the prerogative of any consumer. That being said, I had found, during my period on these boards that many posting members were critical of CGC from the start, on the very boards that CGC put up for their use with no censorship of any consequence that I could ever determine.

 

This particular thread, questioning the "guarantees" provided by CGC, I find particularly troubling as it implies that not only does CGC not actually guarantee anything, it promotes the idea that it guarantees that which it does not.

 

I disagree quite strongly. Let me enter an alternate definition of guarantee from Merriam-Webster on-line unabridged dictionary:

 

>> 3 a : an agreement by which one person undertakes to secure another in the possession or enjoyment of something b : an expressed or implied assurance of the quality of goods offered for sale or the length of satisfactory use to be expected from a product <<

 

This is what I believe CGC guarantees. I think it easily falls within the scope of the above definition.

 

1) They will guarantee to have your comic book, graded by at least three individuals that they deem "expert".

2) They will guarantee a "best efforts" process of detecting restoration.

3) They will guarantee the quality of the holder. I believe if they damage the comic in the process of encapsulation, they do guarantee to make the submitter financially whole.

 

 

What they do not guarantee is just about everything else. Among other things they do NOT guarantee are the following

 

1) They don't guarantee that restoration will never be found on the book after it leaves CGC

2) They do not guarantee that a market will exist for CGC graded books

3) They do not guarantee that you or anybody else will agree with the grade they assign

4) They do not guarantee that unscrupulous buyers or sellers will not crack slabs, try to doctor, resubmit or otherwise try to lie cheat and steal their way into higher graded blue universal label books.

 

I think the entire post misses the mark with respect to the utility of CGC. I for one think they have done an excellent job of grading books and have actually brought Overstreet standards to life, versus the ungraded market on places like eBay where 20-25% overgrading is run of the mill.

 

I think what you need to ask yourself is this: Is the comic book market place better with or without a place like CGC?

 

One can bring up restoration as an issue and make that their siren song for the unreliability, rise and fall of CGC.

 

The facts, as I under stand them, (I must emphasize that much of my understanding is anecdotal in nature) is that prior to CGC restoration was not only relatively widespread, but it went almost entirely undetected.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that CGC only caught 70% of restoration and I will say I think they catch a LOT MORE, would one argue that CGC is now providing a disservice since they missed 30% where nearly 100% previously went undetected? Heaven forbid.

 

I think if folks have a problem with CGC they should simply exercise their right as a consumer not to participate in this particular market. Perhaps prices will drop and I'll benefit from the comics I will certainly be willing to continue to buy.

 

Let's summarize the options for collectors:

 

1) Understand that CGC cannot guarantee everything that some collectors would like and continue to utilize the services of this 3rd part grading service

2) Discontinue using the services of CGC in favor of competitors like PGX

3) Deal exclusively in ungraded comics...plenty of sellers of ungraded comics on eBay do offer a 100% no questions asked return policy, if a solid guarantee is something you like.

4) Get out of the hobby

 

Lastly on the question of a restoration service like PCS, I simply have to ask...So what? For years if you have had a question about restoration or providers of restoration, Steve Borock has been happy to refer to folks the names of folks that will help you out. I had several comics "unrestored" and got the names from Steve. If Friesen wants to go out on his own and perform restoration that is his prerogative. If CGC continues to feel it is in their interest to contract with him, why would anyone care?

 

The answer is simple. What folks might really fear is that CGC itself might send books to PCS , have them "restored" and then issue a restored book with a universal label, where somebody, perhaps CGC itself could fraudulently benefit.

 

CGC is not the only restoration detection business in town. IF this ever happened and IF it were discovered, by alternate restoration experts, that CGC did anything even remotely shady and in a detectable pattern, their business would be in ruins overnight

 

I don't think anything even remotely close to this has been suggested as actually occurring. I happen to think the guys at CGC are good guys. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. If so it will be to the financial ruin of my collection, I am sure. As of now, I, at least, am willing to give CGC the benefit of the doubt.

 

That being said, I do believe that CGC should be forthright in explaining the exact relationship that PCS has and will have with CGC in the future. Transparency here would, of course be important. Ultimately the consumer will rule. If folks decide they do not like this type of combination they will stop doing business with CGC. Ultimately CGC would have to decide if the added business from PCS was with the loss of grading submissions.

 

One brief analogy would be that of an automobile dealership that sells used cars. Does the fact that the dealer has an onsite repair facility, create a conflict of interest? One could infer that the dealer expected their cars to have problems once sold. One might even infer that the repair shop doctored problems so as not to be evident when cars were sold.

 

This analogy certainly is not exact and many will have a field day with it, I’m sure. But the fact is that many business’s have both sales and service. One cannot neccassarily infer that the existence of a “service” center implies wrongdoing at the “sales” center.

 

I'm not saying that important points which contradict my viewpoint do not have merit. All I'm saying is let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

But in summary: Let's not try and discredit the word guarantee in the name of CGC. They offer several guarantees, as noted above, which make the submission fee I pay with each comic value added.

 

Not an apologist, just a realist.

 

Glenn E. Malloy…4Gemworks Comic Book Emporium

 

PS the post by PCS today confirmed to me that the tranparancy we would have hoped for is indeed present. What else does anybody expect now? If anything the playing field has now been leveled, by a company non other than CGC..

[deathlok]

 

I read a couple paragraphs of your post when you first posted it, but found it boring and decided to play graemlin war instead.

 

Probably because you responded to Mark's post after it was several days old and wasn't worth discussing any further.

 

Kudos to you for starting a new thread on it, though.

[sfilosa]

There's a few of on these boards that agree with you 100%.

[whetteon]

I found the read rather enjoyable and a breath of fresh air from all the chicken little post lately.

[FlamingCarrot]

[Alex DeLarge-migration]

I read a couple paragraphs of your post when you first posted it, but found it boring and decided to play graemlin war instead.

 

[tb]

[Aman619]

One brief analogy would be that of an automobile dealership that sells used cars. Does the fact that the dealer has an onsite repair facility, create a conflict of interest? One could infer that the dealer expected their cars to have problems once sold. One might even infer that the repair shop doctored problems so as not to be evident when cars were sold.

 

This analogy certainly is not exact and many will have a field day with it, I’m sure. But the fact is that many business’s have both sales and service. One cannot neccassarily infer that the existence of a “service” center implies wrongdoing at the “sales” center.

 

 

do you realy want to even IMPLY a parallel between CGC and a used car dealer? Are you high?? Perhaps one of the CGC denigrators you refer to might make that connection, but not a defender.

 

 

CGC was supposed to be impartial and perform a profitable service to the hobby. They claimed to want to clean it up. But perhaps absolute power corrups absolutely, because it is more and more apparant (!) that what they really seek is pure profits via our trust which allows them (in their minds) to do anything they deem fit for their business. So you can still argue that on the whole, they have been more GOOD than BAD... but continuing in the direction they are now headed, it will only be a matter of time before that equation is upside down... and the majority no longer support their selfi-dealing business ethics.

[Silver Surfer]

Than you Aman, I was beginning to worry that this thread was turning into a CGC apologist hug fest.

[Foolkiller]

on the whole Glenn, I actually think it's a pretty decent post.

[VintageComics]

I think it is a great post myself. I agree with it 100% and ALSO agree with the automotive analogy. There are many businesses that complement each other and operate under the same roof. Why does this have to mean collusion? Great Post.

[drbanner]

Good post Glenn...there are many here who are complimentary of CGC on the whole, but have problems with a few of the "parts". There is also a vocal minority who have problems with CGC on the whole, feel there are no good parts, and have sufficient free time to tell us that over and over!

 

Don't know about the car analogy though.

[The Black Hand ®]

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. I think CGC has problems and I think this thread is turning into an apologist thread. I think that CGC has been bad for the hobby as a whole which is why I won't be sending any books to CGC.

[Silver Surfer]

Goat - First off if your going to generalize and suggest that board members who speak out against CGC have an agenda then I'm going to label you as just another CGC apologist. I do not wish to wade into the name change debate and split hairs at this time. On paper I like what CGC brings to the hobby, always have. However, there is much that CGC does that begs questioning and I really hate it when people have to arrogance to suggest that if they don't like they can "leave the hobby". I seem to recall Red Hook being called a "jerk off forum member" for making a suggestion about Ewart serial numbers only to find out afterwards that he was correct. CGC is not the be all and end all of the hobby even though they like to present themselves as such.

 

I have said it many times before and I will say it again, the official response to the Ewart situation was bunk. The continued silence on various other questions that have arisen is always met with excuses and supporters who seem to side step and fail to address the foundation of many of our concerns-trust. The various issues of perceived conflicts of interest, transparancey of grading standards, preferred treatment, pedigree verification, restoration detection, etc are all valid questions. For example when CGC states that they don't consider pressing restoration because they can't detect it 100% of the time they may be correct but to use that as a basis to justify why "pressing is not restoration" is ridiculous. I'm not making this up, this is coming straight from senior management.

 

It was a board member who exposed the Ewart fiasco not CGC, yet they act as if they uncovered it because "certification works" - more nonsense. Steve alluded to the fact that what he had uncovered in the Ewart situation was "very bad". That was the last we heard on the situation. Well thank you for nothing.

 

You can stick your head in the sand all you want but maybe when CGC adopts a policy of addressing important issues with a little more thought and timeliness instead of threats of legal action and censorship then they maybe they can get more people behind them in a time of crisis. Until that happens I will continue to ask questions.

[The Black Hand ®]

Goat - First off if your going to generalize and suggest that board members who speak out against CGC have an agenda then I'm going to label you as just another CGC apologist. I do not wish to wade into the name change debate and split hairs at this time. On paper I like what CGC brings to the hobby, always have. However, there is much that CGC does that begs questioning and I really hate it when people have to arrogance to suggest that if they don't like they can "leave the hobby". I seem to recall Red Hook being called a "jerk of forum member" for making a suggestion about Ewart serial numbers only to find out that he was correct. CGC is not the be all and end all of the hobby even though they like to present themselves as such.

 

I have said it many times before and I will say it again, the official response to the Ewart situation was bunk. The continued silence on various other questions that have arisen is always met with excuses and supporters who seem to side step and fail to address the foundation of many of our concerns-trust. The various issue of perceived conflicts of interest, transparancey of grading standards, preferred treatment, pedigree verification, restoration detection, etc are all valid questions. For example when CGC states that they don't consider pressing restoration because they can't detect it 100% of the time they may be correct but to use that as a basis to justify why "pressing is not restoration" is ridiculous. I'm not making this up, this is coming straight from senior management.

 

It was a board member who expose the Ewart fiasco not CGC, yet they act as if they uncovered it because "certification works" - more nonsense. Steve alluded to the fact that what he had uncovered in the Ewart situation was "very bad". That was the last we heard on the situation. Well thank you for nothing.

 

You can stick your head in the sand all you want but maybe when CGC adopts a policy of addressing important issues with a little more thought and timeliness instead of threats of legal action and censorship then they maybe they can get more people behind them in a time of crisis. Until that happens I will continue to ask questions.

 

Great post! It was board members who uncovered this and let me ask this question, Seeing that it was beginning to find a lot of trimmed books, would CGC have done anything about it if the board members who discovered this hadn't discovered it?

[jediknight]

Stalking goat, Get your frikken' behind back in here! I need all the help I can git!

[Forbush-Man]

One brief analogy would be that of an automobile dealership that sells used cars. Does the fact that the dealer has an onsite repair facility, create a conflict of interest? One could infer that the dealer expected their cars to have problems once sold. One might even infer that the repair shop doctored problems so as not to be evident when cars were sold.

 

This analogy certainly is not exact and many will have a field day with it, I’m sure. But the fact is that many business’s have both sales and service. One cannot neccassarily infer that the existence of a “service” center implies wrongdoing at the “sales” center.

 

 

do you realy want to even IMPLY a parallel between CGC and a used car dealer? Are you high?? Perhaps one of the CGC denigrators you refer to might make that connection, but not a defender.

 

 

CGC was supposed to be impartial and perform a profitable service to the hobby. They claimed to want to clean it up. But perhaps absolute power corrups absolutely, because it is more and more apparant (!) that what they really seek is pure profits via our trust which allows them (in their minds) to do anything they deem fit for their business. So you can still argue that on the whole, they have been more GOOD than BAD... but continuing in the direction they are now headed, it will only be a matter of time before that equation is upside down... and the majority no longer support their selfi-dealing business ethics.

 

 

My feelings mirror your's, Aman! Nicely put.

[4GEMWORKS]

Goat - First off if your going to generalize and suggest that board members who speak out against CGC have an agenda then I'm going to label you as just another CGC apologist. I do not wish to wade into the name change debate and split hairs at this time. On paper I like what CGC brings to the hobby, always have. However, there is much that CGC does that begs questioning and I really hate it when people have to arrogance to suggest that if they don't like they can "leave the hobby". I seem to recall Red Hook being called a "jerk of forum member" for making a suggestion about Ewart serial numbers only to find out that he was correct. CGC is not the be all and end all of the hobby even though they like to present themselves as such.

 

I have said it many times before and I will say it again, the official response to the Ewart situation was bunk. The continued silence on various other questions that have arisen is always met with excuses and supporters who seem to side step and fail to address the foundation of many of our concerns-trust. The various issue of perceived conflicts of interest, transparancey of grading standards, preferred treatment, pedigree verification, restoration detection, etc are all valid questions. For example when CGC states that they don't consider pressing restoration because they can't detect it 100% of the time they may be correct but to use that as a basis to justify why "pressing is not restoration" is ridiculous. I'm not making this up, this is coming straight from senior management.

 

It was a board member who expose the Ewart fiasco not CGC, yet they act as if they uncovered it because "certification works" - more nonsense. Steve alluded to the fact that what he had uncovered in the Ewart situation was "very bad". That was the last we heard on the situation. Well thank you for nothing.

 

It has recently been reiterated that most posters here are anonymous. CGC staffers like Steve Borock are not. I'm no attorney, but I'm guessing that any legal counsel they have would advise them not to respond to anonymous posts, accusations, questions etc, unless absolutely necessary. They have very little to gain from doing so in most cases.

 

As far as Ewertt, it was not that long ago that Ewertt was practically worshiped by more than a few on a few threads here and there. I can tell you that my primary reaction to seeing his high grade books was envy. I always wondered how he managed to find such great stuff. I had heard speculation that he pressed books. I never had a real problem with that and more than once I told myself that I should look into the process to see what it was all about. I guess Jason couldn't leave well enough alone though and thus the trimming. While pressing as restoration may be debatable, trimming is universally recognized as unacceptable "restoration".

 

 

You can stick your head in the sand all you want but maybe when CGC adopts a policy of addressing important issues with a little more thought and timeliness instead of threats of legal action and censorship then they maybe they can get more people behind them in a time of crisis. Until that happens I will continue to ask questions.

 

It seems to me that there is really one major bone of contention with individuals and CGC-Restoration. I agree that this is a reasonable point of contention that should be subject to ongoing debate. One thing about the boards that is annoying at times is that there is plenty of complaining, but few propose realistic solutions Rather than simply argue, I'll propose a solution.

 

I know grading standards are questioned by some. I have read the Overstreet definitions and it is my simple opinion that the standards are almost an exact interpretation of the Overstreet definitions. If somebody wants to know the CGC standards, I suggest they re-read Overstreet.

 

Going back to restoration, I think this is one area where CGC has probably over promised. Currently, unless I am mistaken, a modern book gets as much attention with respect to restoration as a Golden Age gem.

 

I thought I heard that they go through something like 500-1000 books per day at CGC. I have to be honest. I never figured out how one person could actually do the full restoration check required on that many books a day. I can grade a single book on my own in 20-30 seconds. I should think a full restoration check would take a lot longer than that.

 

In any case, I should think that a more valuable book would be put through a more significant restoration analysis. If I am buying a book in CGC 6.0 which cost me $100, I am probably not going to be nearly as concerned about a pin point speck of color touch as I am with a CGC 9.4 book that I paid $5,000. On the other hand a restoration check on an ASM 1 in 6.0, costing 5-6K would be a lot more important to me than a restoration check on a modern age book in 9.4 costing $100.

 

The point is that right now all books are treated equally and, just like socialized medicine it results in a misallocation of assets, I'm guessing.

 

CGC should grade the books first and then, based on a grid of some sort determine what restoration checks are cost effective at that point.

 

If a person submitting a comic wanted a full restoration check on every book, they could pay an additional fee of some sort.

 

Setting aside the fact that resources may not be properly deployed, and I don't know that for a fact, I think there is a relatively easy solution that would make everybody satisfied that restoration was being taken seriously and that a more significant guarantee could be offered.

 

While there might be some complications, CGC could for an added fee, lets just say 1% of the value of the comic, offer a lifetime guarantee on the comics checked for restoration, based on the value of the comic at time of submission.

 

This could be an optional fee would have the effective backing of an insurance policy, backed by CGC Maybe even CGC has it underwritten by a 3rd party. If the comic book were ever found to be restored, despite a label proclaiming otherwise, CGC would buy it back at the market value, at time of submission, or subsequent "upgrade", as mentioned later.

 

This could be am optional service, or perhaps CGC could raise prices a bit and make it universal. A money back guarantee on the value of the comic book would certainly make the guarantee on the restoration side one that had a good deal of bite.

 

If made optional, the guarantee could be made transferable and sold with the book. CGC could keep track using the current serial number system already in place. If a submitter chose not to pay for the guarantee, any future buyer could buy the guarantee by paying the 1% at the time they bought it. As values increased overtime, owners could pay additional fees to keep the guarantee up to current market values.

 

I am not saying that everybody would either need or want such a guarantee. But if this is a legitimate concern and not just a red herring being waved by the standard anti-CGC crowd, a lot of problems could be solved.

 

Naturally, a new element of crime might develop from folks that want to somehow defraud CGC. Insurance companies regularly deal with folks trying to defraud them. Why would this be different?

 

Anyway, I only used 1% because I figured that this would allow them to be right 99% of the time and still have enough to pay any claims that might arise if they were wrong on 1% of the books and they came back.

 

Some might say CGC already charges enough and could already make victims whole. They have certainly said they will make good on the Ewertt problem. Maybe they could...I don't know.

 

Considering that I think CGC probably catches nearly all restoration now, this would be a bid win win for everybody. By simply doing their job, CGC could potentially increase profits. For an added fee market place consumers could buy with confidence, knowing that their hard earned money would not go down the drain in the event CGC made a mistake on a restoration check.

[esquirecomics]

Glenn, I had not seen your original post on my thread or else I would have unquestionably responded directly to your comments. As you noted, disappointedly, there are some users on this board who seem to relish the opportunity of turning very serious discussions into childish gibberish. Unfortunately they began to do so in response to my commentary which is why I missed your post. Ironically it is some of those users who seem to have rallied around in support of your post.

 

First, I appreciate your substantive comments and your effort to continue my discussion in an intellectual manner. This is the type of discussion I hoped to engender with my posting, whether it be in support or contradictory to what I wrote.

 

That being said, with respect to your comments specifically in response to my posting I could not disagree more with what you wrote. Interestingly, there is a great deal that we do seem to agree on, particularly from what you wrote in your follow-up posts later on in this thread. I don't have a lot of time to continue this post now, so let me just hit some highlights and I will be more than willing to return to the discussion.

 

With all due respect, I view your discussion of the CGC guarantee as elementary in thought. You have described a guaranty that guarantees nothing of substance. Any comic book dealer provides the exact guarantee, other than encapsulating the book in a plastic holder, as CGC does. But dealers will provide much more and, generally, though I am sure there are exceptions, will stand by their grading and restoration detection. What CGC has done is shifted that burden back to the dealer/seller without due regard. Indeed, they have increased the burden on sellers because we have no ability to verify the interior contents of the book as being what CGC states without ruining the reason why the book is in the CGC holder to begin with.

 

The problem with CGC is that it holds itself out to be an expert. An expert in grading, which is subjective, and an expert in restoration detection, which should not be subjective. Yet it will not stand by its work. This is unacceptable.

 

Now, you and others, if you desire, can say all you want about my alleged motives, and criticize me for being critical of CGC, but you have little basis to do so given the involvement I maintain with CGC books. I sell them. I buy them. I collect them. I have not in any way pulled back on the amount of money I am willing to spend on them, and I can tell you that the amount is a lot. I have a great deal of money invested in CGC.

 

I have no desire for CGC as a company to be harmed. I have no desire for the CGC market to go down. I like CGC. I like the people who work there. And I want it to become better than it is now, which is why I am so critical of certain policies.

 

My posting said nothing of the utility of CGC. The utility is clearly there. Is it as good as you painted. I don't think so, but that is certainly open for interpretation. Nor is the question is our world better now with CGC than it was before CGC. I am sure many Germans thought 1933 was a darn good year - certainly better than the preceding ones - and we know what happened after. While I am by no means drawing that specific analogy of course, my premise is that just because CGC has moved the ball forward doesn't mean we accept every step it takes.

 

With respect to the PCS/CGC issue, your used car dealer analogy is off. My father is a used car dealer. I've worked in the business. They provide guaranties on their work. They warranty their services and sales. As do many if not most businesses that provide a type of service similar to that performed by CGC. Yet CGC declines to do so.

 

I don't need to discredit the word guaranty in CGC. They are doing just fine themselves. I stand by my assessment that the "guaranty" in CGC is nothing but an attempt to portray an image that simply does not exist.

 

You and I do, however, fully agree on the issue of forthcoming disclosure, and I hope we can join forces to further that objective.

[Aman619]

good reply Mark! If the CIA ever catches up with me, Im definitely writing you a big check to argue me out of trouble!!

 

 

CGCs stated mission is fine. No, its been great. But of late, they are turning the corner and bringing their market influence and power around to line their own pockets. Running a restoration/conservation etc shingle inhouse while maintaining their integrity and "Independent Third Party Graders" is just ridiculous. Pushing the community to accept undisclosed pressing ar "okay" is to MANY of us reprehensible.

 

Helll of a bunch of nice guys at CGC. And they love comics too! But theyre taking the community in the wrong direction. Ask yourselves, is this where you want the hobby to go? CGC grades consistently well, and catches near all the restored books they see. And that should be enough, especially cause thats ALL they promised us! WE CAN LIVE WITH 99% ACCURACY. But they pollute their mission by trying to do more than that.

 

I said this a few months ago about PCS venture: If CGC needs more income, raise the prices across the board. Add more expensive quicker turnaround times. Maximaize your CORE business! Dont pervert it and taint it cause you will kill it. Unless CGC was always a short-sighted endeavor, they are ensuring it will be.