CGC 3, Ewert 0

[goldust40]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

[greggy]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

Say that to me in person in SD 2006!

[goldust40]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

Say that to me in person in SD 2006!

 

I'll bring my megaphone.

[Red Hook]

Or maybe the 'witchhunt' that occured regarding that strange F.F. #3 that appeared at a different grade, in a different colour slab?

 

Another waste of everyone's time perpetrated by 'conspiracy theorists'.

 

I figure we haven't done our job until someone coughs up the phrase "witchhunt" in a thread. Then I know we're definitely hitting a nerve!

[greggy]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

Say that to me in person in SD 2006!

 

I'll bring my megaphone.

I'll find your lemony arse before you can attempt your cowardly act!

[goldust40]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

Say that to me in person in SD 2006!

 

I'll bring my megaphone.

I'll find your lemony arse before you can attempt your cowardly act!

 

Oh dear, that sounded iffy. Anyway, this is a cool thread - don't derail it!!

[greggy]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

Say that to me in person in SD 2006!

 

I'll bring my megaphone.

I'll find your lemony arse before you can attempt your cowardly act!

 

Oh dear, that sounded iffy. Anyway, this is a cool thread - don't derail it!!

K, I'm gone but not because of you.

[Norrin_Radd]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

 

Your breadth of intellect astounds me.

Say that to me in person in SD 2006!

 

I'll bring my megaphone.

I'll find your lemony arse before you can attempt your cowardly act!

 

Oh dear, that sounded iffy. Anyway, this is a cool thread - don't derail it!!

 

Too late.

[BassGMan]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Look guys, sure some suspicions have turned out to be true, no doubt about it. But my comment was directed at the way we focus on every little detail that comes up and how it might be tainted with some kind of conspiracy, hidden agenda, coverup or scam. I guess we've read too many comics, mysteries and detective stories. Sometimes there are no alterior motives or story behind the story. Sometimes it just is what it is. Always keep a watchful eye out, but don't cry wolf every time you see a dog walk by.

[Red Hook]

Sid, I've said for quite a while now, that conspiracy theories abound when there is no information coming across from the other side. Even before the legal action started to unroll, CGC had been playing their cards way too closely and it just looked bad!

 

Maybe they thought it was good business strategy, but I think it backfired. I think they really underestimated the level of scrutiny that PCS would be put under.

 

Now, if anyone wants to personally unplug from all the controversy, it's easy to do...just avoid certain threads and put guys like me on ignore. And go about enjoying your hobby. It won't bother me.

 

Red

[joe_collector]

Always keep a watchful eye out, but don't cry wolf every time you see a dog walk by.

 

Too bad this *dog* already ate the sheep, the hens, the cows, the horses, and even the other dogs... If it ain't a wolf, it's probably something worse.

[BassGMan]

 

Now, if anyone wants to personally unplug from all the controversy, it's easy to do...just avoid certain threads and put guys like me on ignore. And go about enjoying your hobby. It won't bother me.

 

Red

 

I've never put anyone on ignore and there are no Forumites that I would not want to read contributions from, but yes I do refrain from reading certain threads. I guess I just pipe up sometimes after being humoured by what I've read. And this is not to say that there are not alot of good thoughts and ideas out there, there are. I just find it funny the way EVERY LITTLE FRIGGIN' DETAIL about just about everything is micro-analyzed. Go ahead and analyze away, I'll read some of it here or there, just find it funny is all. Reminds me of how some of the people at my job gossip about everyone else. Often making statements about people that are often ridiculous just because of a "feeling" they have, or a few words they overheard. Funny there, and funny here. But this is not a criticism, go right on ahead as I do know that some of it is real, just not most of it.

[mica]

Now, if anyone wants to personally unplug from all the controversy, it's easy to do...just avoid certain threads and put guys like me on ignore. And go about enjoying your hobby. It won't bother me.

 

Red

Agreed, do we really need yet another post saying "Hey you guys are getting too interested in things"

 

I think we got the point that nothing bothers certain people.

 

.

[Red Hook]

Often making statements about people that are often ridiculous just because of a "feeling" they have, or a few words they overheard. Funny there, and funny here. But this is not a criticism, go right on ahead as I do know that some of it is real, just not most of it.

 

A new avatar for you Sid.......

 

[Aces]

Re: CGC 3, Ewert 0

just got back 3 books sent in for review purchased from JE- no missed trimming on these three: batman 236 9.6, detective 379 9.6, detective 334 9.6. for whoever's keeping score at home- please make note of these.

 

Wrong score:

CGC: 3

Ewert: 3

You: Lucky as Hell!

[tth2]

Sid, I've said for quite a while now, that conspiracy theories abound when there is no information coming across from the other side. Even before the legal action started to unroll, CGC had been playing their cards way too closely and it just looked bad!

 

Maybe they thought it was good business strategy, but I think it backfired. I think they really underestimated the level of scrutiny that PCS would be put under.

 

Now, if anyone wants to personally unplug from all the controversy, it's easy to do...just avoid certain threads and put guys like me on ignore. And go about enjoying your hobby. It won't bother me.

 

Red

 

Brad, and Nick and others,

 

First, I agree that many conspiracies discussed on these boards have come true, often much worse than just about any of us imagined. The whole PCS thing, and Friesen providing services while still employed by CGC (if true), still have me shaking my head.

 

However, from a lawyer's point of view (and therefore hopefully from the cold business analytical view of those who own and run CGC), the above actions, while exhibiting poor business judgment, aren't really actionable. I'd be hard pressed to figure out how anyone could claim to be damaged as a result of those actions.

 

Intentionally identifying trimmed books as not trimmed, in order to preserve CGC's reputation, is a whole different ball game however. For one thing, it's something where CGC's second check can easily be refuted by someone showing a scan of the before book. Second, the intent makes it actionable fraud, both from a criminal and civil basis.

 

Finally, Brad, you talk about CGC making a mistake by playing its cards too close to its chest all the time, which I agree with. But how is that the case here? Borock offered to check every Ewert book and re-certify it. CGC did, and gave them a clean bill of health (for anything CGC considers PLOD-able, anyways). Paperheard reported the results. Seems like a pretty open process to me, short of having a video camera in their grading room transmitting their inspections of PH's books to the world.

 

Just how many trimmed books would CGC have to find in order to mollify the mob?

[jkrk]

Three books sent in: None trimmed. The sample is a bit small.

 

In the meantime, my intuiition tells me that CGC will find additional trimmed books but not that many. The goal is to find enough to prove that Ewert indeed was trying to pass trimmed books through but not enough to show that CGc was incompetent. In addition with all the "guarantees issued", how many books value can be refunded? In addition if the trimmed numbers prove to be too large will the buyers once again walk away?

 

I suspect CGC will be completely honest in their review of Ewert's books unless the numbers begin to show real liability for CGC and the industry. So my conclusion is reached by assuming that:

 

A)If the numbers (of trimmed books) are relatively low then CGC will be truthful

B)If the numbers are too high CGc will slant the numbers.

 

The question I have is whether Ewert's trimming can be detected beyond a shadow of a doubt without referring to a prior picture?

 

[Red Hook]

Oh, yeah. The other word besides "witchhunt" that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside is "mob".

 

You're seriously asking me to rehash all my criticisms of how CGC has handled both the Ewert situation and the rollout/non-rollout of PCS? I don't have the time and no one really wants to hear all of it again.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Perhaps somebody would fully explain the American concept of 'taking the 5th'?

 

From my woefully inadequate knowledge, it usually is used when the giving of details is likely to implicate the person giving those details?

 

And it usually indicates that the person taking the 5th has something to hide?

 

If this is about right...why has CGC, on all manner of topics, chosen to adopt the message board equivalent of 'taking the 5th'?

[Aces]

Perhaps somebody would fully explain the American concept of 'taking the 5th'?

 

From my woefully inadequate knowledge, it usually is used when the giving of details is likely to implicate the person giving those details?

 

And it usually indicates that the person taking the 5th has something to hide?

 

If this is about right...why has CGC, on all manner of topics, chosen to adopt the message board equivalent of 'taking the 5th'?

 

5th Amendment:

 

"No person... ...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."