CGC 3, Ewert 0

[tth2]

and the apparent lack of 'checked and approved' documentation

See Nick, that's the kind of unfounded speculation that is driving me nuts here. You raised the issue, which as I said was a great point, but there has been no response yet, from either Paperheart or CGC. For all you know, CGC could have issued a signed and notarized letter to PH certifying that no trimming was found, and then you'd have to make another "I was wrong" post.

 

Why not give PH a day to answer before saying something like this, because perhaps he wasn't checking these boards this evening. If we haven't heard anything from him or CGC by tomorrow (US time), or if he provides a negative response, then by all means let your wildest paranoid fantasies run wild.

[Red Hook]

and the apparent lack of 'checked and approved' documentation

See Nick, that's the kind of unfounded speculation that is driving me nuts here. You raised the issue, which as I said was a great point, but there has been no response yet, from either Paperheart or CGC. For all you know, CGC could have issued a signed and notarized letter to PH certifying that no trimming was found, and then you'd have to make another "I was wrong" post.

 

Why not give PH a day to answer before saying something like this, because perhaps he wasn't checking these boards this evening. If we haven't heard anything from him or CGC by tomorrow (US time), or if he provides a negative response, then by all means let your wildest paranoid fantasies run wild.

 

Where's Scott Schechter? If you're seriously waiting for an answer from CGC Tim, I'd turn off the computer and go read a good book. The tooth fairy will place the information you want under your pillow tonight.

 

Jeez!

[Red Hook]

And Tim.....believe it or not, I am a pretty trusting individual. And I want to believe the best of people. But there's a difference between that and being in denial and outright gullible.

 

Get off it. I'm going to start calling you guys the Muffle Mob.

 

Get my copy of the Schechter email?

 

 

Red

[Flaming_Telepath]

and the apparent lack of 'checked and approved' documentation

See Nick, that's the kind of unfounded speculation that is driving me nuts here. You raised the issue, which as I said was a great point, but there has been no response yet, from either Paperheart or CGC. For all you know, CGC could have issued a signed and notarized letter to PH certifying that no trimming was found, and then you'd have to make another "I was wrong" post.

 

Why not give PH a day to answer before saying something like this, because perhaps he wasn't checking these boards this evening. If we haven't heard anything from him or CGC by tomorrow (US time), or if he provides a negative response, then by all means let your wildest paranoid fantasies run wild.

 

Tim, please note the use of the word 'apparent' in my sentence...quite deliberate, that. As in 'seeming'. As in, neither paperheart, nor CGC, at any point have mentioned any form of documentation, so it 'appears' at this point, from the facts that we have, that there isn't.

 

Not that there is no such thing, but that there 'appears' to be no such thing.

 

So if there actually is, I've covered myself.

 

But if there's actually ISN'T any documentation, I assume that it will be you who will be making a board apology for giving me sh!te when none was deserved?

[awe4one]

OK...now speak in language the common man can understand...what point were you trying to make?

 

Jim

How's this:

 

1. CGC are being held to an impossibly high standard.

 

2. People need to reset their expectations to something more realistic and realize they've got to watch out for their own backs.

 

3. People need to stop seeing a conspiracy or intent to generally f--k collectors in every action that CGC takes.

 

Much better...

 

Jim

[paperheart]

One question, though...

 

Is there any documentation being provided with the reassessed books to say precisely that?

Now THIS, gentlemen, is an excellent question! Given that the serial number is staying the same, what can the owner now show to demonstrate that his Ewert book, the SN of which is in a public database and therefore branded with a scarlet letter, has now been given a clean bill of health. Paperheart, did you get anything from CGC in this vein?

 

i did get correspondence but it was inadequate in my opinion. was a generic letter stating that the books had been checked and no trimming or resto had been found. now, while this may seem perfectly adequate there was no actual mention of which books or serial #'s in the body of the letter. the letter was simply accompanied by the invoice. this seems like it can easily rectified but i was unable to get someone on the phone yesterday. will let you know what comes of this. guinea pig signing off.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Thanks for the update, paperheart.

 

Yes, the flaw in this system is that the letter you received could be applied to any book, as there is no serial number-specific proof.

 

Tim, I await your apology for giving me a public bollocking....

[paperheart]

Thanks for the update, paperheart.

 

Yes, the flaw in this system is that the letter you received could be applied to any book, as there is no serial number-specific proof.

 

 

 

exactly. again, easily rectified in my opinion.

[tth2]

Where's Scott Schechter? If you're seriously waiting for an answer from CGC Tim, I'd turn off the computer and go read a good book. The tooth fairy will place the information you want under your pillow tonight.

Yes, but even if you know someone is not going to respond, you still have to give them an opportunity to respond before you can criticize them for not responding.

 

Otherwise, how about if I make a post at 4:30 pm my time, 3:30 am your time, saying that if Brad Hamann doesn't respond within 1 hour of from my post, he's a loser and must be hiding from me because he's so slow in responding? Seems kind of ridiculous, and unfair, doesn't it?

[tth2]

Get off it. I'm going to start calling you guys the Muffle Mob.

Oh please, it's unseemly to play the victim card here. I'm just trying to establish a reasonable middle ground between those who would sanctify everything that CGC does/would do, and those who howl over everything that CGC does and want to tear it all down. I'm not trying to muffle anyone, just trying to point out when extremists are being, well, extreme.

 

Get my copy of the Schechter email?

Yes, thanks. And I need to get one off too. You'll probably be disappointed in what I say, though.

[tth2]

Tim, please note the use of the word 'apparent' in my sentence...quite deliberate, that. As in 'seeming'. As in, neither paperheart, nor CGC, at any point have mentioned any form of documentation, so it 'appears' at this point, from the facts that we have, that there isn't.

 

Not that there is no such thing, but that there 'appears' to be no such thing.

 

So if there actually is, I've covered myself.

I'm well acquainted with the rhetorical tactic of seeming to say something accusatory but covering yourself by using the word "apparently" or "possibly", thank you very much!

[Flaming_Telepath]

Tim, please note the use of the word 'apparent' in my sentence...quite deliberate, that. As in 'seeming'. As in, neither paperheart, nor CGC, at any point have mentioned any form of documentation, so it 'appears' at this point, from the facts that we have, that there isn't.

 

Not that there is no such thing, but that there 'appears' to be no such thing.

 

So if there actually is, I've covered myself.

I'm well acquainted with the rhetorical tactic of seeming to say something accusatory but covering yourself by using the word "apparently" or "possibly", thank you very much!

 

Well, there's a surprise....

 

I get something wrong, and immediately apologise, in public, on the boards.

 

You get something wrong (there is no specific documentation) and you're still throwing that damned rattle out of your pram.

 

And I do not like being branded an 'extremist', no more than you like being accused of having your head stuck firmly up CGC's arse. Here's a post from last week that you might have missed, in which my position is made very clear.

 

Steve, my problems with CGC are that they are not all that they seem.

 

That they are not here to 'clean up the hobby', but rather are here to 'clean up'.

 

That they are owned by a gentleman 'known to the authorities'.

 

That they are unwilling to help the collecting community to clean house.

 

That they take no notice of the feelings of collectors e.g. the new labels, but would rather pander to the dealers.

 

That they have for a long time offered a two-tier service, without the knowledge of the bottom tier.

 

That they have used the services of their 'restoration expert' to work on books for the BSDs in the industry whilst he was employed by CGC.

 

That their grading is more 'inconsistant' than the 'human error' defence should allow e.g. GS X-Men #1.

 

That they have attempted a 'gag order' on the posters here, via a tactless suit.

 

That they continue to draw a veil over what is precisely going on to save their own arses, not to help the community regain confidence and make educated decisions.

 

And there's more, but it's late here and I'm tired.

 

Point is...and I need people to understand this about me...I want there to be an independent, third-party, transparent grading service in the business.

 

It's just that this one isn't it, and until they get their house in order and start paying at least some attention to the long-term health of the hobby/business, I will hit them where it hurts...in their pockets...and I encourage anyone who feels the same way to cease and desist from having books graded at this time.

 

If things turn around and we see what we need to see from CGC, well, have them graded then. But what's the rush now?

 

Bear in mind that CGC is apparently not running at a sizeable profit, and also bear in mind that the high grade, big ticket items is where the money is for them (grading a book should take much the same time, but the fee is the difference. They could not survive simply on Moderns.)

 

Given all of that, if enough people stopped sending books for grading for a period of time, TATs would improve to the point where Steve et al, would be sitting next to the post box waiting for the next book to arrive. I guarantee you that then we'd see a change in attitude.

 

The bit in bold is, to my mind anyway, crystal.

 

Although, I'm sure you'll see it as some sort of 'tactic'.

[tth2]

Thanks for the update, paperheart.

 

Yes, the flaw in this system is that the letter you received could be applied to any book, as there is no serial number-specific proof.

 

Tim, I await your apology for giving me a public bollocking....

My bollocking, as you put it, related to the premature timing of your statements rather than the substance of your speculation. Having now seen PH's reply, I certainly agree with you that the documentation provided by CGC is wholly inadequate. Even a child could figure out how to exploit their letter in a fraudulent manner.

 

In an era of easy word processing, there is simply no excuse for not taking the time to put the referenced books, with serial numbers, into the body of the letter itself to avoid any easy fraud. This is a typical problem of CGC--they have a fundamental inability to look at a situation from a third-party viewpoint, as well as a sinister viewpoint, and see the flaws in their approach.

 

I have tried to approach this constructively and have just sent an email to Steve Borock and Scott Schechter, with a copy to Brad, pointing out the flaws in their so-called certification of the re-review process and making some recommendations how they could tighten it up. Nick, if you can provide me with your email address, I'd be happy to forward you a copy too.

[Red Hook]

Get off it. I'm going to start calling you guys the Muffle Mob.

Oh please, it's unseemly to play the victim card here. I'm just trying to establish a reasonable middle ground between those who would sanctify everything that CGC does/would do, and those who howl over everything that CGC does and want to tear it all down. I'm not trying to muffle anyone, just trying to point out when extremists are being, well, extreme.

 

 

 

Um, I was just seeing how you liked being referred to as a "mob". That was your original choice of word, which I think is really over the top, don't you?

[tth2]

Get off it. I'm going to start calling you guys the Muffle Mob.

Oh please, it's unseemly to play the victim card here. I'm just trying to establish a reasonable middle ground between those who would sanctify everything that CGC does/would do, and those who howl over everything that CGC does and want to tear it all down. I'm not trying to muffle anyone, just trying to point out when extremists are being, well, extreme.

 

Um, I was just seeing how you liked being referred to as a "mob". That was your original choice of word, which I think is really over the top, don't you?

Oh, I thought you were trying to accuse me of trying to muffle you. I don't really care about the "mob" distinction, to be honest. Actually, it'd probably be okay because "mob" would imply there's at least a few other people who share my opinions.

[Red Hook]