CGC’s OFFICIAL Mechanical Errors / Returns Policy 11 11

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Newton rings stink, scratched cases stink, label errors stink, finding a half eaten pastrami sammich encased with your gold foil whogivesaratsarse #1 also stinks. They are errors. Many had a chance to speak with their wallets, you didn't because CGC fills said wallet. This is classic you cannot have your cake and eat it too. the only way to get anything changed is to speak with your wallets.

[Stefan_W]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:02 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

I am trying to get a feel for how you as collector.  You come off as a collector not a dealer. 

I think its odd when people have major OCD.

So would agree there is some wiggle room in disclosure or the case must be 100% perfect no matter what year it was graded.

Example below.  Is that acceptable or you would disclose that? (top right corner small scratch)

 

A small scratch does not bother me personally and I have some silvers in cases with scratches on them in my PC, almost all from auction houses where they did not list the slab flaws. However, when I buy comics though I understand that nothing is forever and eventually I will move on from them. I try to avoid future selling headaches by making sure the cases are fine for resale if one day I need to do a quick sale to buy something I want more. 

[manetteska]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:40 AM, NewWorldOrder said:

On 5/18/2023 at 11:15 AM, manetteska said:

That's because submitting to CGC and opening CGC boxes (and subsequently selling CGC slabs) is your job, or at least a very sizeable portion of income.

For, I would think, the majority of submitters, it is a hobby and rushing to get the box (maybe no one was home and it's at the PO or an off-site UPS office or through a comic shop), opening the box, and closely inspecting every book is not at the top of their list.

The vast majority of people are usually anxious with excitement to get their books back.

Yes, a percentage are "anxious with excitement" to get their books. That doesn't necessarily mean they can easily access the books; see my examples above.

Also, your experience is not everyone's experience.

On 5/18/2023 at 11:45 AM, NewWorldOrder said:

On 5/18/2023 at 11:33 AM, manetteska said:

So you'd rather jump to fraud and lying on an imaginary submitter than hold the original company responsible for their own product and their own QC department? Even with a 14-day window the same lying and fraud can happen; give me a break.

For someone with a well-documented symbiotic relationship with CGC it shouldn't come as a surprise the ways you continue to contort yourself to accept whatever CGC feeds you.

So you are telling me only a small percentage of people would take advantage of a 30-day window?

Now throwing insults at me I think is unwarranted for a reasonable conversation no?

Of course none of us have hard numbers here, but I would say the same percentage (or relatively similar numbers) who would take advantage of a 30-day window would also take advantage of a 14-day window.

In either case you are arguing for a customer, anxious with excitement to get his/her books books, knowingly lying and damaging his/her own books (or cases) as opposed to the company itself doing what it is paid to do.

[I like pie]

On 5/18/2023 at 12:07 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Can you see the small scratch?

This is example of a book I would NOT send back for ME.  This to me is not a big deal.

I also think CGC would not consider this to be ME either.  Now you would have to ask CGC for an official ruling, so don't quote me.

Again for me there is a reasonable parameter I personally am okay with to sell and or keep in my collection.  This is the best example of one them. 

I can agree with you here but only because it's on the back cover. If it was on the front cover and obstructed the art, it's getting sent back.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 5/18/2023 at 1:26 PM, Old Fashion PB and J said:

gold foil whogivesaratsarse #1

My Grail! 

[Sigur Ros]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:20 PM, Old Fashion PB and J said:

So why are you taking place in a discussion regarding a product or service you dont use? 

Because it's part of the reason I stopped.

Regardless, I'd hardly call making fun of "naturally occuring"... "partaking".

[NewWorldOrder]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:27 AM, manetteska said:

Yes, a percentage are "anxious with excitement" to get their books. That doesn't necessarily mean they can easily access the books; see my examples above.

Also, your experience is not everyone's experience.

Of course none of us have hard numbers here, but I would say the same percentage (or relatively similar numbers) who would take advantage of a 30-day window would also take advantage of a 14-day window.

In either case you are arguing for a customer, anxious with excitement to get his/her books books, knowingly lying and damaging his/her own books (or cases) as opposed to the company itself doing what it is paid to do.

I get what you are saying, but again you now know all of this before you submit your books to CGC so you as the customer or dealer are agreeing to these company guidelines beforehand.  Personally I think 14-days is beyond reasonable, and that is their right as a company to set forth those return guidelines.  So either you can accept them or take your business elsewhere.

Should a eBay customer have the option to return CGC book for buyers remorse after 14 days?  I had a guy last month return a book 13 days after receiving it in the mail.  They said they just didnt want it anymore.     I mean I think that is unreasonable for any seller to have to take a collectible that for that reason, no?

[NewWorldOrder]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:31 AM, I like pie said:

I can agree with you here but only because it's on the back cover. If it was on the front cover and obstructed the art, it's getting sent back.

Yes I understand that.  It's a case by case basis (pun intended lol)

[NewWorldOrder]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:38 AM, Sigur Ros said:

Because it's part of the reason I stopped.

Regardless, I'd hardly call making fun of "naturally occuring"... "partaking".

Curious how many books were you usually submitting per year?

[Sigur Ros]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:40 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Curious how many books were you usually submitting per year?

Cool story.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:41 AM, Sigur Ros said:

Cool story.

You have not told your story yet.

You keep coming on the CGC boards but yet you dont use their services anymore.

That's like stalking your Ex's on social media.

Edited May 18, 2023 by NewWorldOrder

[Sigur Ros]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:44 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

You have not told your story yet.

You keep coming on the CGC boards but yet you dont use their services.

That's like stalking your Ex's on social media.

I guess if you have any power at all, you could ban me.

Otherwise you're stuck whining about me.  🤷

 

[NewWorldOrder]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:45 AM, Sigur Ros said:

I guess if you have any power at all, you could ban me.

Otherwise you're stuck whining about me.  🤷

 

I thought we were having a civil discussion.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:26 AM, NewWorldOrder said:

First, I totally get your initial reasoning, trust me I do.

However, IMO 14 days is a perfectly reasonable time frame for CGC to give me the customer time to inspect my books after grading and inform them there is a problem.  I think we can agree most people are excited to get their books back from CGC and open up the box like its Christmas Day the same day they receive the package.  So 14-days to complete the online paperwork, package the books up, and drop them off at Fedex seems like a reasonable time frame to me.

Now here is a good example of why 30-day return window is a bad time frame for them. Lets say a reseller gets a CGC box back on May 1, 2023.  Reseller sells 2 of them to the same customer from an eBay auction.  eBay buyer gets the box and USPS now damaged the CGC cases or the books in shipping.  Ebay buyer then returns the CGC books back to the reseller by May 20, 2023.  So reseller can literally get the books back from that buyer and make a fraud claim that they got them in the mail like that from CGC, and get them re-holdered free of charge or credit from the damage of the books. 

30-days is way too long to give the customer time to take advantage of enacting a fraudulent lie.  I can give other examples, but that one came me to me right away.  I mean you could literally take your books to a friends house and you alone could drop the books and crack the case and just say they came like that from CGC.  See what I mean?

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion and just like you I get it.

CGC has to evaluate what is the best option for them, but really should consider its customers as well. 

Sure there are going to be those who try to take advantage of the system.  Scammers are going to scam regardless of time frame. 

Do I really think they should offer more days? Depends.  14 days under most circumstances would be fine. However life can get in the way and for some it may not be enough.  Especially when they have been all over the place themselves.  Some submissions can take over a year to process.  Get sent to old address, fall off the tracking pages, international customers, etc. There are many things CGC needs to take into account why 14 days may not be long enough.  

Really most of this boils down to CGC realizing they have not been doing a good job as of late and it has been costly.  They are just trying to mitigate these costs. 

One of my last submissions (last year) had to make 3 round trips on some Signature Series books. Since this fiasco I have did not renew my membership and not sent anything else to them. 

[Sigur Ros]

On 5/16/2023 at 5:42 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

What I don't understand is how shards are ok if original submitter and within 14 days, but if not?

For problems they created I agree the 14 days is a bit unreasonable.  But.. I found it's flexible.  Had a couple books come back a few months ago, separate shipments.  Obvious problem on one so I contacted CS. Was another week before I sent it in, I noticed the same issue on one of the the earlier arrivals. Had had it a few weeks at that point. Took both slabs and sharpied the problems and sent them both in.  They fixed both.

[skypinkblu]

On 5/18/2023 at 1:40 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

I mean don't you have the choice to just not buy the book.

I just dont understand why people keep bringing this up when everyone knows CGC doesnt consider it to be a big deal. So move on...

Newtons rings personally dont bother me that much, but I get why it can bother others.

So if you got back a book that looked like this, you'd be fine with it?  Because I'm not all that fussy about grades, but I sent this one back. If it came like this now, I would have to pay to have it reslabbed, with no guarantees I suppose.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 5/18/2023 at 1:50 PM, Sigur Ros said:

For problems they created I agree the 14 days is a bit unreasonable.  But.. I found it's flexible.  Had a couple books come back a few months ago, separate shipments.  Obvious problem on one so I contacted CS. Was another week before I sent it in, I noticed the same issue on one of the the earlier arrivals. Had had it a few weeks at that point. Took both slabs and sharpied the problems and sent them both in.  They fixed both.

I hope this will stay . (On a case by case basis) 

I fear the reason for the announcement is that it gives them hardline deniability. 

[Tcarroll17]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:02 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

I am trying to get a feel for how you as collector.  You come off as a collector not a dealer. 

I think its odd when people have major OCD.

So would agree there is some wiggle room in disclosure or the case must be 100% perfect no matter what year it was graded.

Example below.  Is that acceptable or you would disclose that? (top right corner small scratch)

 

To me, that's acceptable.  I have a number that have come back with a comparable scratch, as have I bought them at shows or online, and really am fine with it.  I think there's a middle ground here too.  Minor flaws, I am in total agreement not necessarily an ME.  It's still nice to have it disclosed as a buyer.  I actually am MORE LIKELY to buy secondary if someone says "small scratch top right corner," than if I think there is a scratch, but can't tell and not disclosed.  Many sellers simply don't respond when asked, and have gotten slabs with very severe scratches, one even with a chip out of the side that was not disclosed.  

However, that's going to be the rub.  In between the very minor issues like you posted, and the very egregious as others have posted including myself, the policy is ambiguous enough to put the onus further on the customer than on the business providing the service.  If there is a tiny scratch or 1mm newton ring, that's silly and they should reject it as ME.  But my concern is that will not be the case.  I could see them getting books like my Hulk 181 back I just posted, and saying "ahh, this is acceptable, it's not THAT bad.  I mean, it made it out of QC, so someone else thought it was fine too.

Again, my frustration is more with the QC, as Stefan_W said. I could send back a true ME, but frankly it's a lot of energy sending back, waiting, asking why it's so delayed, then praying it's actually corrected upon receipt (after 3 months).

The policy would be acceptable if were rarely needed.  Currently, it is not rare, even when taking out the "OCD ME."

[Tcarroll17]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:21 PM, ramrodcar said:

Somewhat analogous, if you were purchasing new windows for your house it would be unreasonable of the supplier to expect you the customer to accept say glass scratches, scuffs, and fogging in between the glass panes. There is an expectation of CLARITY when buying windows, as well as part of CGC's product offering.

 

On 5/18/2023 at 2:21 PM, ramrodcar said:

All the other stuff about age of slabs, would you buy this or that, disclosure as a seller, etc... is irrelevant to the complaints in this thread and the new policy

This, yes.  I have had eyeglass lenses remade for the same reason.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/18/2023 at 8:14 PM, skypinkblu said:

Because I'm not all that fussy about grades, but I sent this one back. If it came like this now, I would have to pay to have it reslabbed, with no guarantees I suppose.

That's my understanding of the revised policy Sharon. In theory, you could keep paying to send it back over and over again and keep getting it back each time with rings still showing. Who'd have thought that when that 2018 poll went up in response to CGC's "normal and acceptable" statement, and the members made their feelings (sorry) crystal clear - which, unsurprisingly, they've been doing ever since - that five years later we would not be celebrating the elimination of the problem via a revised case design, but being told to "lump it" regardless of the severity.

You pay for this:

You get this:

And that is normal and acceptable.

Shameful really, isn't it.