C2E2 Variant Drama 25 25

[Le Chat Noir]

On 8/23/2022 at 12:46 PM, Buzzetta said:

Earlier this year Mike gave a response that it was more of an authentication issue. 

"So, the general consensus from the graders as to grading these is a hard no.  The reason given is:

They are unidentifiable as to origin and date. They are often hand made. As ambiguous as these are, we just refrain from authenticating them."

 

 

I'm curious where the actual line is on what they will/won't authenticate. There's some Counterpoint/Indie comics with nudity that are on the registry, so I'm assuming the line is when there's actual sexual acts. Tijuana bibles differ on the fact there's no artist or publisher, so there's nothing to identify/validate.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Baka_Oni

[Ares]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:35 AM, jsilverjanet said:

you can now say crap

Can we Say Dick?

[F For Fake]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:03 PM, Ares said:

Can we Say Dick?

Indeed! The great Mr. Sprang has finally been freed!

[MrBedrock]

On 8/22/2022 at 9:16 PM, CGC Mike said:

To those that have asked me questions.  I will not be able to answer any of them. Sorry.

This would have been the ultimate bad-arse reply if you had simply added "You Suck" ... as in "To those that have asked me questions.  I will not be able to answer any of them. Sorry. You Suck."

Edited August 23, 2022 by MrBedrock

[jsilverjanet]

On 8/23/2022 at 1:07 PM, F For Fake said:

Indeed! The great Mr. Sprang has finally been freed!

I've updated my location to reflect the changes

[F For Fake]

I feel like the powers that be must have a weekly meeting to discuss this, realize people are still talking about it, and then brainstorm some new response. They are (very) slowly getting to the "right" response, but it's insane how long it's taken them to get there, and how much pressure had to be applied to even get this far. Like, just do the right thing, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Instead it's these baby steps, where they draft a statement, say "Here, see if this shuts them up," and then make Mike come out and catch all of the heat. Then he has to go back and say "Hey, uh, lots of people are still really mad." And then they think it over for a few more days.

This is a step in the right direction, for sure, so I'm glad they finally got there. But there are still questions about Pay to Play and the fishy grades, that need to be addressed directly and transparently. 

Also, Mike, I hope you're getting hazard pay these days. No way you should have to be the mouthpiece for this stuff.

[F For Fake]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:15 PM, jsilverjanet said:

I've updated my location to reflect the changes

A place where you can say dick and crap, indeed. It's the American dream!

[jsilverjanet]

On 8/23/2022 at 1:17 PM, F For Fake said:

I feel like the powers that be must have a weekly meeting to discuss this, realize people are still talking about it, and then brainstorm some new response. They are (very) slowly getting to the "right" response, but it's insane how long it's taken them to get there, and how much pressure had to be applied to even get this far. Like, just do the right thing, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Instead it's these baby steps, where they draft a statement, say "Here, see if this shuts them up," and then make Mike come out and catch all of the heat. Then he has to go back and say "Hey, uh, lots of people are still really mad." And then they think it over for a few more days.

This is a step in the right direction, for sure, so I'm glad they finally got there. But there are still questions about Pay to Play and the fishy grades, that need to be addressed directly and transparently. 

Also, Mike, I hope you're getting hazard pay these days. No way you should have to be the mouthpiece for this stuff.

I blame the lawyers

[F For Fake]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:18 PM, jsilverjanet said:

I blame the lawyers

I'm sure you're right. The responses have all been very specifically worded.

[kav]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:33 AM, JC25427N said:

@kav Is that...?

yep

[Ed Hanes]

On 8/23/2022 at 4:37 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Are you really saying that you don't understand why 99.9% of the comic book collecting community has a problem with the leading third-party grading company telling consumers that it's "authentic" to add an acetate cover with 2 additional staples and call it a "variant" without the publisher's consent...?

pretty much...I also don't understand how you came up with 99.9 % 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Ed Hanes

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:25 PM, Ed Hanes said:

pretty much...I also don't understand how you came up with 99.9 % 

Simple statistical analysis for the latter.

As per the former, I'll clarify as much as I can: CGC is the leading 'authority' on third-party grading for comic books. They knew that they had counterfeit comic books in their possession (meaning: not approved by Marvel [who owns the IP]). They graded said counterfeit comic books under the Universal label in some sort of deal with Black Flag and Clayton Crain. This is a classic "conflict of interest", because the comic book is not authentic, and the public is supposed to be able to trust CGC's judgment.

Hopefully that brings you up to speed.

[Buzzetta]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:32 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Simple statistical analysis for the latter.

As per the former, I'll clarify as much as I can: CGC is the leading 'authority' on third-party grading for comic books. They knew that they had counterfeit comic books in their possession (meaning: not approved by Marvel [who owns the IP]). They graded said counterfeit comic books under the Universal label in some sort of deal with Black Flag and Clayton Crain. This is a classic "conflict of interest", because the comic book is not authentic, and the public is supposed to be able to trust CGC's judgment.

Hopefully that brings you up to speed.

Yup.

Regardless of whether or not a deal was made... that is speculation.

However the books have been revealed to be unauthorized.

I still say that while the green label is a step in the right direction, the books should receive a "No Grade (NG)" designation especially since CGC has already designated a grade of NG when an artist had attached white paperstock to a comic to effectively create a blank for him to do a sketch on. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:44 PM, Buzzetta said:

I still say that while the green label is a step in the right direction, the books should receive a "No Grade (NG)" designation especially since CGC has already designated a grade of NG when an artist had attached white paperstock to a comic to effectively create a blank for him to do a sketch on. 

I agree with you here, I just didn't want to overwhelm the user who hasn't yet grasped our most basic criticism of CGC regarding this fiasco.

[awakeintheashes]

On 8/22/2022 at 4:57 PM, CGC Mike said:

We appreciate everyone being patient with our follow-up regarding the Clayton Crain acetate covers. After discussions this past week, CGC will assign a Qualified Signature Series label to comics that contain an acetate cover by Mr. Crain, as well as his signature that has been witnessed by a CGC representative. This also applies to the Ultimate Fallout: Facsimile Edition #4 that sold in C2E2. The grade assigned will take into consideration the grade of the acetate cover as well as the interior book.  For members who have already submitted copies of the Ultimate Fallout issue to CGC, we will extend an opportunity to have Mr. Crain’s signature applied to their copies so they receive the Qualified Signature Series label. If a copy does not exhibit Mr. Crain’s witnessed signature, the book will receive a qualified grade. 

Going forward, CGC will only certify artist-created covers that are first approved by CGC, and those covers must be signed by the artist through the Signature Series program to receive the Qualified Signature Series label. The cover must be created by a published artist.

Thanks for moving in the right direction on this. And, thank you for not saying "bro."

[Ares]

Will this affect future frankenbooks made by Blackflag?

[Ninja0215]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:53 PM, Ares said:

Will this affect future frankenbooks made by Blackflag?

it should 

[Ed Hanes]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:32 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Simple statistical analysis for the latter.

As per the former, I'll clarify as much as I can: CGC is the leading 'authority' on third-party grading for comic books. They knew that they had counterfeit comic books in their possession (meaning: not approved by Marvel [who owns the IP]). They graded said counterfeit comic books under the Universal label in some sort of deal with Black Flag and Clayton Crain. This is a classic "conflict of interest", because the comic book is not authentic, and the public is supposed to be able to trust CGC's judgment.

Hopefully that brings you up to speed.

well, you would have to take an extensive poll to apply a statistical application (probably a gaussian distribution and adjust for major bias, it would be difficult given the amount of feedback bias exhibited on this thread), and one of the raw only comic collecting community too (which would help with bias)...as well as those who don't have anything to do with these boards. My sense is that you used 99.9% the way people use the word 'most'..but still without any substantial evidence/data and more as anecdotally

as per the latter...the problem I see with your argument is that CGC is a grading company, they hand out grades and hence, you are trusting 'their grade' ..whether or not they choose to grade a 'counterfeit' or non authentic (BTW, these terms are subject to bias too) has no bearing on the grade of a say,  an Amazing Spiderman 14 with no acetate cover . The only thing that is called into question is what they choose to grade.  Now, I understand the problem with the 9.9, 10.0 grading..considering how cincy they are with these grades. But if they wanted to start grading high school reproductions of classic comics and put them in a slab,  I still don't see the conflict of interest.

 

But to be clear, I also don't understand why CGC would want to expose themselves to this aggravation ...it's an extremely niche component..and by doing this service it still has no effect on their bottom line (financially) 

 

and also, I don't understand the appeal of acetate covers 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Ed Hanes

[Buzzetta]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:57 PM, Ed Hanes said:

If they wanted to start grading high school reproductions of classic comics and put them in a slab I still don't see the conflict of interest.

Because the "conflict" is that it goes against prior grading precedent.  Again, in the past, comics altered to this degree were given a grade designation of NG.

@theCapraAegagrus I see what you mean now. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Buzzetta

[Ed Hanes]

On 8/23/2022 at 12:06 PM, Buzzetta said:

Because the "conflict" is that it goes against prior grading precedent.  Again, in the past, comics altered to this degree were given a grade designation of NG.

@theCapraAegagrus I see what you mean now. 

Okay, I understand using precedent ( I apologize for being ignorant of this fact)..I suppose if CGC wants to change their policy, then there will be growing pains associated with this (a lot of backlash, change does that).....it still doesn't diminish the quality of my CGC 4.5 on my ASM 14 or its value 

Now , maybe if one of my prescreens came back a 9.9 ?

Edited August 23, 2022 by Ed Hanes