New CGC Newton rings policy 2 2

[Walter Homayoon]

It’s a shame and says quite a lot that CGC changed their Newton Ring policy from what was the previously established policy from 2018. Another way to have many more dissatisfied customers while increasing fees and delivering less.

[theCapraAegagrus]

What policy?

[SpineTic]

On 5/17/2023 at 6:47 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

What policy?

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 5/17/2023 at 7:59 AM, ak47po said:

Time for the customer to put their money where their mouth is, to get CGC to change plastics again.

[dbcn]

It’s a shame - at the end of the day there are really only 2 grading services, and CGC is widely regarded as the ‘best.’ 

At a high level, as a customer, when I look for the best, not only do I look for reputation, but the quality of the service provided. If the market deems your service ‘the best,’ I expect the service to be untouchable - sure, there will be a few edge cases, but the end product produced by the service should be above and beyond expectation. If something does go wrong with the end product, the company should proactively work to resolve the issue; not dismiss it.

I’ve had several issues with slabs I’ve received recently - glaring Newton Rings, debris in the slabs. I’m not the only one - there are lots of pictures on social media of users who have issues with slabs - scrapes, large pieces of plastic inside the holder, etc.

CGC even has a ‘Grading/Quality Control’ status - if glaring issues like debris in slabs are going to be ignored, they might as well cut that step of the process and save a day or two in turn around time.

I do feel like CGC is being aggressive with the ‘not our problem’ policy, which is unfortunate, as it seems like the vast majority of the issues could be resolved with a simple replacement holder - would you stake your entire reputation on simply not willing to occasionally go the extra mile to keep your customers happy? Personally that would not be my business model. (Unless, of course, it’s happening a lot more than we’re seeing reported, and it would be prohibitively cost effective to have thousands of books returned for reholders - but that would imply that you have pretty low confidence in your QA team…)

It honestly doesn’t seem like much of an ask for CGC to live up to their reputation.

(And fwiw, overall: personally, I’m reasonably satisfied with CGC’s performance, but the updated policy is pretty clear statement that gives the CGC a greenlight to deliver a sub-standard product and provide the end customer with little to no recourse, and that I totally disagree with)