Label Modifications

[nearmint]

Not disingenuous at all. People weren't reading PURPLE labels. I think everyone reads blue labels.

 

What information about the book's condition are we supposed to read today? CGC removed the label notes and the alpha grades?

 

Do you even buy CGC comics?

 

Who said I only read notes about condition? Beyond the obvious numeric grade and page quality, I read notes about artists, notes about the story, date of publication. I read the whole label.

 

[lou_fine]

 

Decided to give this thread a timely bump since the deadline for submitting our feedback on the new CGC label proposals is now less than a week away.

 

Are you guys planning to submit your feedback to CGC or do you feel that it would just be a waste of time since everything is pretty much of a done deal at this point in time? I was talking to my LCS owner who has an extensive personal GA and SA collection and he basically feels that this is really nothing more than a PR spin by CGC. CGC will now be able to claim that their new label modifications were done with full feedback and support from the collecting community.

 

My personal point of view is that all of the major decisions have already been made. This includes critical items such as the one colour label, pressing is nothing, separation between restoration and conservation, etc. No matter what we say, CGC will not deviate from their planned long-term course which was probably already in place a long time ago.

 

The biggest change that we could have has probably already been implemented with 10 being the highest form of restoration instead of the lowest as Steve B had originally envision the system. Probably nothing more for us except for minor fine-tuning of the restoration level breakdowns and a bit on the issue of deacidfication.

 

Hmmmm........should I take the time to send in my feedback or am I just wasting my time?

[nearmint]

If people don't send their feedback, then CGC will certainly proceed with the changes as presented, and will be able to say that no one disagreed with what they proposed.

 

If people do send their feedback, and CGC goes ahead with the changes as proposed, at least you'll be able to say "I sure as hell didn't agree that these labels were the right way to go, and I told them so."

 

I definitely think it's worth your time to send feedback. Even if it's just cut and pasting what you've said in this thread.

[joe_collector]

Definitely send it in, but if you think your opinion is actually going to change anything major, you're dreaming.

[sterlingcomics]

Definitely send it in, but if you think your opinion is actually going to change anything major, you're dreaming.

 

Time will tell....time will tell.

[tth2]

Hmmmm........should I take the time to send in my feedback or am I just wasting my time?

Everyone should send in feedback and post a copy here on the boards so we`ll have a record what was suggested to CGC. If no one sends in anything, then there`s really no basis for complaining afterwards, is there? If people send in comments, and CGC disregards everything, then there will be a legitimate cause for complaint.

[Aman619]

you know, aside from suggesting that they abandon PCS and advocating work done to comics...... I cant think of anything else to tell them. Im not interested in slightly modifying their new plans... only convincing that they STOP messing with the syatem in place. So, does anyone still suggest I write this to them? Will my "feedback" make any difference??

[tth2]

you know, aside from suggesting that they abandon PCS and advocating work done to comics...... I cant think of anything else to tell them. Im not interested in slightly modifying their new plans... only convincing that they STOP messing with the syatem in place. So, does anyone still suggest I write this to them? Will my "feedback" make any difference??

In the time you took to write this, you could have said the same thing in an email and copied it here.

 

To you and everyone else that is thinking of not emailing comments to CGC because you're afraid your comments won't make any difference anyways: JUST DO IT!

 

What have you got to lose?

[Red Hook]

Email sent to Scott....with copies sent to Tim, BBruce and BrianK. Included are suggestions for slight modification to front labels and addition of grading chart to back of label.

 

Brad Hamann

[baklo]

Well, here's the letter I finally sent today (thanks for the image and grading guide suggestion, Red Hook).

 

To CGC:

 

I'd like to start out by saying that I've been collecting comics since 1984. I faded out of the hobby in the 90's due to the frustration I experienced in trying to attain accurately graded, high grade silver and bronze age Marvels. More often than not, I'd have to send books back to dealers due to overgrading on their part. CGC brought me back to the hobby in a big way about five years ago. I appreciate what CGC has been able to do for me and other collectors in regard to actually being able to consistently attain accurately graded comics with the added benefit of a restoration check. Although some 9.4's can be more appealing than others (same goes for any books in the same grade level), on the whole I usually agree with CGC's grading assessment and have found it infinitely easier and more enjoyable to collect truly high grade comics. Thank you for that.

 

What follows are my thoughts on the proposed label modifications.

 

1. Label color:

Although I realize that you may be attempting to lessen the stigma that's been attached to PLOD's, I prefer the existing label color format. It's easier to quickly see at a glance whether a book's been altered or not. I prefer not to purchase altered books, hence my opinion. However, this is not a sticking point for me. As long as details are clearly noted on the CGC label, I don't care too much about the color.

 

2. Date of encapsulation:

Not sure why this isn't placed on the label. It only makes sense. I may be wrong, but I don't believe the CGC case is archival material and I've heard that books should be re-holdered every 5 years or so. If true, both of these points make it seem like a no-brainer to add the encapsulation date to the label.

 

3. Categorization of Deacification:

I strongly believe that any book that has had only deacidification performed to it should be classified under the CGC Apparent label with the conservation designation. Deacidification fits perfectly within your definition of conservation--no need to confuse the issue by placing a deacidified book in a CGC Certified label.

 

4. 10 point scale:

Moving in the right direction as far as providing a buyer with more information on the label with regard to the level of restoration/conservation, but seems a bit ambiguous to me. For example, let's say a book is deemed "P level 8, restored". That could mean it's a professionally restored book with moderate/extensive restoration and poor aesthetic appearance OR a professionally restored book with extensive restoration and excellent aesthetic appearance, right? Seems like a pretty big difference. If this example is correct, why not just add the e, a, and p to the label? Or just make it a 15 point scale (1-15) to eliminate the ambiguous overlaps as in the example here?

 

5. More label info:

If you're going to use something like the 10 point scale, I really believe you should explain what it means on the label with a legend. Someone posted a decent suggestion on the boards with the following image:

 

 

6. Pressing:

Honestly, I cannot fathom how anyone doesn’t consider pressing a form of restoration. From your own definition, restoration is “treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state…”. The latter part of your definition seems to qualify things a bit too much in favor of pressing conveniently not falling under the restoration banner: “…through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement”. I simply don’t agree with your essential non-categorization of pressing. I’ve heard some suggest that keeping books in vertical stacks or straightening a blunted corner is essentially no different than pressing (as in, where do you draw the line?), but, let’s be real here: NDP is restoration. Pure and simple. I can understand your stance on not wanting to note treatments that cannot be consistently detected on the CGC label. Obviously, I do wish pressing could be detected accurately and included on the CGC label. Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution for you, but do wish that you would acknowledge that professional pressing is a treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state, i.e., it’s restoration. I can live with you not being able to detect it consistently, but something about acting like it’s not restoration just doesn’t seem right. Hopefully, dealers and sellers will continue to embrace a full disclosure policy with regard to pressing to assist buyers who prefer to purchase unaltered books.

 

In summary, I feel that CGC has been and will continue to be a great thing for this hobby. I do appreciate the chance to offer my opinions on the potential label modifications.

 

Thanks,

Eric

[Aman619]

nice letter Eric. I finally sent mine to Scott, but I wish I included many of your points as well!

[lou_fine]

6. Pressing:Honestly, I cannot fathom how anyone doesn’t consider pressing a form of restoration. From your own definition, restoration is “treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state…”. The latter part of your definition seems to qualify things a bit too much in favor of pressing conveniently not falling under the restoration banner: “…through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement”. I simply don’t agree with your essential non-categorization of pressing. I’ve heard some suggest that keeping books in vertical stacks or straightening a blunted corner is essentially no different than pressing (as in, where do you draw the line?), but, let’s be real here: NDP is restoration. Pure and simple. I can understand your stance on not wanting to note treatments that cannot be consistently detected on the CGC label. Obviously, I do wish pressing could be detected accurately and included on the CGC label. Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution for you, but do wish that you would acknowledge that professional pressing is a treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state, i.e., it’s restoration. I can live with you not being able to detect it consistently, but something about acting like it’s not restoration just doesn’t seem right. Hopefully, dealers and sellers will continue to embrace a full disclosure policy with regard to pressing to assist buyers who prefer to purchase unaltered books.

 

Eric;

 

I also forwarded my comments to CGC in the end and I also voiced my strong displeasure with respect to their stance on pressing. Unfortunately, I feel that even if over 90% of the response is strongly against CGC on this particular issue, this is a policy decision made by CGC that is already set in stone.

 

There is absolutely no way they are going to change their minds on this particular issue since this has been a key part of their pre-determined long-range business model right from the start, along with restoration removal and conservation services. It's really all about the additional streams of revenue, and the collectors and the good of the hobby is just going to have to take a back seat when it comes to money.

[tth2]

I also forwarded my comments to CGC in the end and I also voiced my strong displeasure with respect to their stance on pressing. Unfortunately, I feel that even if over 90% of the response is strongly against CGC on this particular issue, this is a policy decision made by CGC that is already set in stone.

 

There is absolutely no way they are going to change their minds on this particular issue since this has been a key part of their pre-determined long-range business model right from the start, along with restoration removal and conservation services. It's really all about the additional streams of revenue, and the collectors and the good of the hobby is just going to have to take a back seat when it comes to money.

Lou, I think you're absolutely right on this, unfortunately. As a result, my email to CGC won't touch upon it at all, as I want to keep it focused on things that CGC might actually be flexible on for this situation. My concern with people who are using this comment process to send in their laundry list of grievances with CGC is that any good points they make about the new labels will get lost in the static, and CGC will just tune it all out.

[Aman619]

but but b b b TTH - - - you should have written about that stuff anyway!! Thats what you told me last week, and you were right! Why NOT remind them again stuff we both know they wont change?? It was good advice... take it!

[tth2]

If I recall, I think what you asked was whether it was worthwhile to send anything to CGC, and my response was "yes, it couldn't hurt". My intent though, was for people to address the question that had been asked, namely their opinion of the new labels, and I don't think what I said above was inconsistent with that.

 

So consider my post above to be a supplemental note to my original post, to keep the response limited to issues raised by Scott Schechter in his announcement regarding the new labels, and not turn it into a huge laundry list of all of CGC's perceived failings, which will just be tuned out. If people want to address the issue of pressing, I guess that's fair game since it was addressed in Scott's post, but I think there are more productive areas for people to focus on in their email to CGC.

 

So, where's a copy of the email that YOU sent to CGC?

[tth2]

In case anyone cares, here is what I just sent in an email to Scott Schechter, cc to Steve Borock, posted to these boards for the record:

 

Scott,

 

Responding to your request for feedback on the proposed label modifications that you had posted on the boards:

 

1. My main suggestion would be for CGC to do whatever it can to make it easy to tell that a book has been restored/conserved, particularly in small or dim scans. I therefore strongly support a proposal CGC has received from Brad Hamann/Redhook to put the notation at the very top of the label (e.g., "CGC Certified Grade", "CGC Qualified Grade", "CGC Apparent Grade", etc.) into the largest black letters possible, contained in a white box.

 

2. The restoration scale should start at 1.0. As others have said, 0 should be understood to mean unrestored.

 

Those are the main items that I definitely think should change.

 

In addition, I just wanted to provide some thoughts on some of the other proposals, even though I don't have any suggested changes in mind:

 

A. I'm not a big fan of the change from purple label to blue, but at the end of the day I don't think it will be a big deal. Perhaps we can even finally answer the question whether buyers really are so stupid that just because a restored book is in a blue label they will suddenly start paying full unrestored prices for it. I DON'T think they're that stupid and I DON't think restored/conserved prices will close the gap with clean books to the extent that some are predicting. But let the market decide, I say.

 

B. I also think creating distinctions between trimmed, restored and conserved is overly complicated and technical, particularly in creating a completely separate category for trimmed. Yes, there have been some intellectuals who have consistently tried to highlight the distinction between conservation (good) and restoration (bad). But it seems to me here that CGC is going beyond its practice of incorporating fairly well accepted practice and now is actively trying to alter standard terminology/practice in the hobby and blaze new trails. If you took a poll of collectors, I'd bet that close to 100% would currently lump trimmed in with restored. But, at the end of the day, I don't think it will make that much of a difference. I would certainly be the first to say that more information is always better than less.

 

I hope CGC will genuinely consider the feedback that has been coming in and modify its proposals accordingly.

 

-Tim

[lou_fine]

I also forwarded my comments to CGC in the end and I also voiced my strong displeasure with respect to their stance on pressing. Unfortunately, I feel that even if over 90% of the response is strongly against CGC on this particular issue, this is a policy decision made by CGC that is already set in stone.

 

There is absolutely no way they are going to change their minds on this particular issue since this has been a key part of their pre-determined long-range business model right from the start, along with restoration removal and conservation services. It's really all about the additional streams of revenue, and the collectors and the good of the hobby is just going to have to take a back seat when it comes to money.

Lou, I think you're absolutely right on this, unfortunately. As a result, my email to CGC won't touch upon it at all, as I want to keep it focused on things that CGC might actually be flexible on for this situation. My concern with people who are using this comment process to send in their laundry list of grievances with CGC is that any good points they make about the new labels will get lost in the static, and CGC will just tune it all out.

 

tth2;

 

That's the reason why I left this part of my response until the end.

 

As you you have also stated, I felt that the issue of pressing was fair game since Scott had brought it up in his original message. I just felt that to not comment on it would be viewed by CGC as tacit agreement of their viewpoint.

 

I guess if everybody took the same approach as you did, CGC would be able to rightfully claimed that an overwhelming majority of the respondents was in full agreement with their viewpoint that pressing is not restoration.

[sterlingcomics]

My comments mirrored yours, with the basic theme being that they are making it complicated, which were their original selling points when they ramped up: making it easier for the consumer. These mid stream color changes and increased information is a mixed bag at best. I'm a favor of more information, but we shouldn't need a buyer's guide to determine the information--and that information has to be relevant. Curiously this new information plays into the hands of increased services.

[Aman619]

If I recall, I think what you asked was whether it was worthwhile to send anything to CGC, and my response was "yes, it couldn't hurt". My intent though, was for people to address the question that had been asked, namely their opinion of the new labels, and I don't think what I said above was inconsistent with that.

 

So consider my post above to be a supplemental note to my original post, to keep the response limited to issues raised by Scott Schechter in his announcement regarding the new labels, and not turn it into a huge laundry list of all of CGC's perceived failings, which will just be tuned out. If people want to address the issue of pressing, I guess that's fair game since it was addressed in Scott's post, but I think there are more productive areas for people to focus on in their email to CGC.

 

So, where's a copy of the email that YOU sent to CGC?

 

I mailed it yesterday from th eoffice. Ill post it on Monday or so...

 

See - - I took your advice!

[Aman619]

but I didnt follow the rules - - I mostly told him to make APPARENT much bigger in the grade box, an dthen told them how theyre screwing up a good thing with the rest of the moves they are intent on doing to the hobby.