CGC changing the registry (new definition of a variant) 2 2

[DougC]

After the last awards cycle CGC decided to start implementing changes to the registry and how books would be pointed, which set they belong to, and increasing the overall amount of awards. Initially this was met with praise, any type of update or even consistent attention to the registry should be a good thing...

spoiler warning; it was not.

There was an initial thread were we offered feedback and what we would hope to see going in to the future and what the mod's (at the time) thought process was for the future of the registry. This drastically changed in September when books began being deleted from registry sets and it took two weeks for anyone from CGC to reply (Stop deleting our books). Which was at the time still hopeful:

Quote

There is clean up coming, so don’t be alarmed if you see some things changing. I’ll be posting other threads to make everyone aware of the broader work that’s upcoming once the necessary tools are updated and other processes are in place.

The deleting of books persisted without any real reason given and CGC only wanted you to "DM" them if you had questions; I did this and had a long and unproductive conversation which resulted in the underlying tone of "We are changing the registry, your opinion is irrelevant" -my interpretation.

Finally on the 11th of this month a new thread was created (HERE) which began well enough, but I guess my criticism was not welcomed and they deleted at least one (maybe two) of my posts and locked the thread. (but you can still DM questions.. ).

I am obviously bias in this matter; a couple of my sets have been decimated with the deletions; but this is going to greatly affect every registry user as the definition of just what a "variant" is has been changed by CGC (as well as "reprint"). They have done this under the guise of "CGC has always viewed variants this way", which is absolutely false. CGC hasn't really addressed this to the community at large (and will not until completion) and since the registry sub-forum isn't well traveled they are making these changes stealthy before most will notice. If you have a registry set with any type of variant, reprint, facsimile, or generally anything not published first hand you will need to watch your sets. The new "rules" as explained are not the same for every set and will be applied on a case-by-case basis as judged by CGC (or those making the registry changes). So some sets will still have books that have been removed from other sets due to "judgement".

I believe the statement that got my post deleted was close to: "CGC will only allow you to collect their product how they want you to collect it"..."If you don't like it you can always create a custom set... "

I guess the line in the sand is you are not allowed to criticize any registry changes  or maybe it was my sticker:

 

ok, I am done crying now ; but seriously if you use the registry in any way check your books as there will be "variants/reprints/etc" deleted from your sets.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by DougC
I can't words good

[joeypost]

I just love it when the rules change in the middle of the game. 

[ganni]

The TVA (Time Variance Authority) will not allow this changes...

[mr_highgrade]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

[workingdog]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:18 PM, DougC said:

I believe the statement that got my post deleted was close to: "CGC will only allow you to collect their product how they want you to collect it"..."If you don't like it you can always create a custom set... "

 

I did see this post and when I went back a few hours later, it was gone.  I am crying with you my friend.  This new registry team totally trashed my Batman 2016 - Rebirth set by entering what were called 'stragglers.'  The majority of those stragglers were a slew of Batman 2011 - New 52 books.  I asked that they all be removed and they were except for one.  The one which wasn't removed I believe is a clerical error and am still waiting to hear back on what they are going to do.  Aye carumba.

[workingdog]

If anyone needs to find out if they've had books removed from their sets and to pinpoint which books were removed, here's what I've been doing.

1.  In your Control Panel, go to the Comic List tab and click on it.

2.  Towards the upper right, you'll see Total Number of Comics Registered and Total Number of Comics Currently in a Set.

3. If the value of the the Total Number of Comics Currently in a Set does not match (i.e. it's lower), then you have a slab or slabs in the Registry wind.

4. If you wish to find which books are in the wind, go to the In Sets tab just below.  If you click on it once, it will show you the highest number of sets a particular slab is in.  So click In Sets again, and you should then see the slab(s) which aren't in a set because they'll have a zero value.

Screen shots below for the blow by blow.  Hope this helps.

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by workingdog
Editorial Changes

[valiantman]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:18 PM, DougC said:

If you have a registry set with any type of variant, reprint, facsimile, or generally anything not published first hand you will need to watch your sets.

Does that mean a set like Ultimate Fallout was allowed to have the second print or a facsimile from ten years later for Ultimate Fallout #4 qualify to fill the empty spot, but now it doesn't? 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/27/2023 at 3:58 PM, valiantman said:

On 10/27/2023 at 2:18 AM, DougC said:

If you have a registry set with any type of variant, reprint, facsimile, or generally anything not published first hand you will need to watch your sets.

Does that mean a set like Ultimate Fallout was allowed to have the second print or a facsimile from ten years later for Ultimate Fallout #4 qualify to fill the empty spot, but now it doesn't? 

I'm always interested in fighting over the definition of variants. Has that part been locked down yet or are we still awaiting the detail (I cat-scanned the other thread and CGC seemed to keep saying "wait for the final announcement")?

[DougC]

On 10/27/2023 at 9:58 AM, valiantman said:

Does that mean a set like Ultimate Fallout was allowed to have the second print or a facsimile from ten years later for Ultimate Fallout #4 qualify to fill the empty spot, but now it doesn't? 

This should be a straight forward answer but in reality it is .... maybe?

I will try and find the exact quote from the mod (it might have been in a PM, if so I will refrain from posting it) but each set is judge separately as to what qualifies as a "second print' or "reprint" based on the book in question, an arbitrary amount of time between printings, and just CGCs judgement at the time of day.

For what it is worth I do believe the registry needs some type of clear rules for what should be added to official sets. Originally this was solved by creating two separate sets, one for all variants and one for no variants, so people didn't feel pressured to collect everything. Yoru Ultimate Fallout reference and the debacle it caused when CGC made a really bad decision is likely one of the catalysts for this very heavy handed and the customer is irrelevant approach. Although the 1000's of facsimile editions over the last 18 months didn't help either.

On 10/27/2023 at 10:10 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm always interested in fighting over the definition of variants. Has that part been locked down yet or are we still awaiting the detail (I cat-scanned the other thread and CGC seemed to keep saying "wait for the final announcement")?

Edit: to add this instead of another post.

It was stated that "variants" have always been ruled the same (despite that not being the case) and vaguely blaming the past mods for allowing additions to registry sets the current regime doesn't like. The "wait for the announcement" is the catch all answer now though, despite them deleting books first without clear explanations outside of "we do not view this as a variant, and it has never been viewed as a variant, despite being labeled a variant" ... it would appear this is a "Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia." answer that should not be questioned.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by DougC

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/27/2023 at 4:13 PM, DougC said:

The "wait for the announcement" is the catch all answer now though, despite them deleting books first without clear explanations outside of "we do not view this as a variant, and it has never been viewed as a variant, despite being labeled a variant" ... it would appear this is a "Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia." answer that should not be questioned.

I've had some experience of that 

I best keep out of it - I've already caused enough trouble battling CGC regarding their positions on variant classifications and 'foreigns'. They'll always do what they want I find, regardless of the merits of your case.

That said, civilised challenge is always a good thing, so keep at it Doug 

[DougC]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:31 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

That said, civilised challenge is always a good thing, so keep at it Doug 

On my best day, I might be considered combatively snarky to authority I disagree with (which is why I created an entirely new post after the other was locked and comments deleted..)

Just so everyone's on the same page the below is a quote from the mod who seems to be the currently in charge of the subforum:

Quote

As I mentioned before, when the guidelines are finalized, they will be posted.

To your questions, there are books for which there are grey areas. Some books have label text that was given to them at the time when they were first graded, but much has evolved and changed over they years. As an example, some books that were labeled 2nd prints years ago, would not be classed as such today. For those books, we'll do our best to judge on a case by case basis where they belong.

I'll point out here that the below are not CGC's "new definition" of what a variant and a reprint is. These criteria have always been in play when defining these books. There are some inconsistencies in label text because as I said, much has evolved over the years. 

In general, variants are published at the same time or within a reasonable timeframe as the regular issue in the title run, and usually include variant in the label text, or "edition" if they were commissioned by a comic store, for example. There is usually a change in cover art, a price difference, or occasionally, a printing error to distinguish them from the regular issue cover. They also have differences in the barcode numbering.

In general, reprints are books reprinting material some time out from when that material was originally published. There is usually an indication of the content being reprinted in the label text, or in some instances, the absence of art comments on the label text to distinguish it from the original issue.

The set guidelines are being updated, but I'll also point out that while there are some new updates to the set guidelines, much of what's happening is a return to the original intent of Competitive Sets. Competitive Sets were never meant to include every request made for any book related in some way to a particular title. They were meant to have a structure that gives everyone a clear view of the goal posts. Those goal posts should not be moved often other than to include issues of the run as they're graded/published. Unfortunately this has gotten out of hand over the years and there's been a lack of consistency in upholding the guidelines among different administrators. The cleanup will bring the Competitive Sets back to where they were meant to be.

On a first read through this all sounds good, until you really understand that the first and second paragraph contradict each other. You cannot have criteria that has always been used and labeling of that criteria that has evolved to such an extent that it doesn't mean the same today so it has to be judged case by case. Also the general questions of: What is a reasonable time frame and who defines it? Which original intent of the registry is being returned too exactly and whom determined how it was meant to be (are there stone tables from 23 years ago in the archives that have awaited to be unearthed? Why are all the examples quantified with usually, in general, some instance, instead of just showing an actual solid example with a complete explanation in layman terms?

Plus I enjoy the unashamed backhanded shade blatantly thrown at his predecessors, those dastardly fellows allowing people to have fun not authorized by CGC by daring to collect the books in sets they like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/27/2023 at 5:03 PM, DougC said:

On my best day, I might be considered combatively snarky to authority I disagree with (which is why I created an entirely new post after the other was locked and comments deleted..)

Indeed.

What I try to do, when I think I have a clear idea of what is right, is to present my rationale to those who disagree and then invite them to 'prove me wrong', so to speak. I don't mind when people give a reasonable explanation for their position on something, including when they arrive at a different conclusion to mine. Some things are clear - two plus two is four - and some things can be argued and debated. And then there are opinions of course, which some happily state in direct contravention of established fact.

For example, I know that some people disagree with the term "UK Price Variant". I can see how that term encroaches on the purity of the US Price Variants, for example. I don't mind that kind of challenge, and I can see the other point of view. In those situations it's just a case of agreeing on the best possible terminology when it's clear that there is no one size fits all, short definition. You won't please everyone, but as long as the definition is explainable, and reasonable, and intuitive, then that may be the best you can hope for.

What I can't stand is when people refuse to acknowledge fact or a water tight explanation of something. They keep avoiding the salient points that you make because they know that if they addressed them, their argument would fall apart. Once I've tried a few times, I'll admit I too can get a little snarky and that's usually the point that you lose them. So my advice - which I don't always follow myself - is to keep everything civil and, when it's clear that you aren't going to get them to respond to the central thrust of your position, give up. Life's too short to argue with CGC, a company that is full of good things, and good people, but which also has a tendency to generate an air of world domination and arrogance. CGC will do what a handful at the top of CGC have decided is the way. Sometimes, you can clearly see the influences in their decision making that go beyond doing the right thing by the hobby. By that I mean money. If CGC want two plus two to be a cat, then it will be so no matter how many calculators you put in front of them.

Let's be clear here. CGC arrived on the scene 20 or so years ago. Comics, and the hobby of collecting them, have been around quite a bit lot longer. Slowly but surely, the CGC juggernaut is taking ownership of everything to do with the hobby from terminology to grading scales to restoration definitions and so on. There are few areas that they have not taken over, and then proclaimed themselves to be the world or market leader of. If everything that they do is right - or supported by the majority - then maybe that is OK. But is everything that they do right? Do the majority support them? Is anyone ever consulted when they decide to deviate from historic precedent?

I have a very clear understanding of what a variant is, and what a reprint is. I believe it is possible to put clear blue water between them. There are those that agree with me, and those that disagree with me. I have been accused of arrogance. Why should my definition trump CGC's or anyone else's? I have never said that it does. All I do, is present my case, and invite a response. I rarely, if ever, get one. 

So it will be interesting to see how CGC are going to define variants and reprints. I may agree broadly, or disagree wildly. But it will be what it will be, because CGC always do, in the end, what suits them.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/27/2023 at 5:31 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

What I can't stand is when people refuse to acknowledge fact or a water tight explanation of something.

Here is just one example. Here is how I present an argument. CGC management refuse to address the integrity of my argument. Their position is their position - my choice, as someone who has spent years researching comics, is to like it, or lump it. They will not explain why their position is the correct one, and why the points I make are wrong:

So who is the arrogant one really? Me, or them?

[ADAMANTIUM]

@DougC @workingdog

Have you tried just creating the set the variants or books moved to?

The registry people haven't said anything like create a custom set for it, that I know of.

If the books moved and are still IN the registry, then they probably are moved to their own set. That's what I've experienced anyway, but it would be a nice thing or option in a way, or imo,  because if there a lot of books moved then you might rank higher in those designated sets?

Edited October 27, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[ADAMANTIUM]

See what I mean? If all your variants are still in the registry, then a "custom set" per SE is not needed for the 2011 and 2016 sets for variants. Otherwise I'm confused, cause sounds like they were in the main set and got moved to their own set where you still have more than others would, which would rank higher? Or are you missing more variants than regular books and it was the combination for the win? Very well could be.

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[ADAMANTIUM]

I'm failing to also see a "new definition of variant"

It looks like ALL VARIANTS in a set that contained regular and variants are getting "their own set called variant"

Instead of Batman 2011 complete with variants it is dived up into the following 2 sets:

Batman 2011 complete

Batman 2011 all variants

Hope this helps, no "custom set required"  

[valiantman]

I don't think there is an answer that can satisfy everyone. A book like Amazing Spider-Man #667 isn't really worth CGC slabbing as a regular edition. Meanwhile, the Dell'Otto variant is one of the most sought after modern Marvel books. Requiring a $30 CGC book (such as the #667 regular edition) which is barely worth the cost of grading or shipping, in order to complete a "no variants" set is strange because there are other editions with the same content printed at the same time. Allowing a book like #667 Dell'Otto variant to fill that "regular edition" slot in a no variants set would make the registry points awarded skyrocket for a set that was supposed to be regular editions. Only rewarding 30 points or whatever low value to a #667 Dell'Otto variant filling a regular edition #667 slot doesn't make any sense either. 

I understand the comic collector mentality that readers don't need variants, especially expensive variants, because readers just want to read the story.

However, CGC is involved here, this is a CGC registry discussion, and readers who only want to read the books (and still don't think slabbing is even a good idea) aren't really CGC collectors in the first place. Have a "no variants" set of CGC graded books intended to cater to those (essentially) non-CGC people seems like a marketing effort which isn't going to hit its intended audience. It's like having a program to award good driving discounts to people who don't even own a car, while purposefully offering no benefits for drivers who own many exotic cars. Those exotic car drivers have to participate in a different program altogether.

Edited October 27, 2023 by valiantman

[ADAMANTIUM]

Well  

I thought we were done with the A's in order since we were talking about Batman, but the ASM sets still include the variants.

There in lies the rub, in a "new definition?" As some sets are separated to: All Variants & Regular, and some are not?

Idk, but it doesn't sound like all that of an inconvenience, if the variants get their own set, really I thought that is what most people would have wanted.

I look at the regular books as the Main Vein, but see the variants as "additions" picked up along the way. I wouldn't have considered them as part of the main set, that seems like a seldom thing to hear: "I collect all the variants not the regular ones?"

But imo it was tagential and is the "way it looks now" but doesn't muck it up anymore than it was, just "organizes". imo  

Edited October 27, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[Yorick]

I suppose we'll all have to wait for their announcement.

I sent in a few low $ value books (as Valiant points out: "isn't worth slabbing") JUST to have the FIRST price variant issues entered into the system, and to add them into my registry set.  They were graded as "normal" US price versions and lumped together with those issues on the census.  I'm hopeful that CGC will rectify the ID-ing of these few.

There have been mistakes since the beginning.  I have collected MANY CGC mislabels over the course of the "slab collector" era.    It's not really the mistakes though.  It's how they deal with it after it's been brought to their attention that matters. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/27/2023 at 8:38 PM, Yorick said:

It's not really the mistakes that define them.  It's how they deal with them after it's been brought to their attention, that matters.  

I'm reading that in a Christian Bale Batman voice.