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

[Yorick]

Personally, I'm excited to see the move towards two sets of the same title.  "All Star Superman" and "All Star Superman (with Variants)"...  or something along those lines.  The first would JUST be ANY copy of issue 1-12 to fill the spots, and then the "With Variants" including anything and everything (The Newsstand issues, the German Variants, The Neal Adams terrible cover, the Free Comic Book edition, the Sears Edition, the DVD edition, etc).

[jimbo_7071]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:27 PM, joeypost said:

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

I had an unpleasant taste of that when I went to a carnival in the South Dakota back in '93. Suffice to say I no longer play carnival games. (I was 19 at the time and not as good at standing up for myself as I am now; a carny would be ill advised to pull that stunt on me now—but then those guys seem to have a knack for picking easy marks.)

[MAR1979]

^Carneys call 'em Rubes

[DougC]

On 10/27/2023 at 2:46 PM, Yorick said:

and then the "With Variants" including anything and everything (The Newsstand issues, the German Variants, The Neal Adams terrible cover, the Free Comic Book edition, the Sears Edition, the DVD edition, etc).

This is incorrect under the new rules; the "all variants" tag only applies to books printed within a certain frame of time after the original printing (determined by CGC's magic 8-ball). FCB, Sears, and DVD copies would all be considered "reprints" now (judged in a case-by-case basis of course). The foreign variant would also not be included in the variants set, newsstands are now not included as variants just "options" to be selected for the book slot in the registry. I actually fully support the newsstand idea; just not how it has been implemented per below:

Newsstand quotes and arguments:

Quote

 

Newsstand Editions are available as a slot option, but will not have required slots. Newsstand Editions are recent recognitions and it's unfair for people who've been working on their sets for years to require them to collect Newsstand Editions to complete the set.  -jstam

When I first started collecting Batman Rebirth and the Batman (New 52) set I was required to get those newsstand variants if I wanted to complete those sets. I also paid good money for those Newsstand Variants and every time I found and graded a new one a slot was added. Not only that but there are specific requirements regarding the newsstands which is what makes them variants. The price is different on every newsstand as compared to the direct edition which is why it was made a variant. Just like your 35 cent variants you have in other sets. They are true variants. It is unfair that you remove those slots. -TDKR

 

 

On 10/27/2023 at 12:41 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

@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.

These books haven't moved to a set and from my understanding the set they will move into will be cluttered with orphan's. Using my X-Men (1991) set as an example the La Mole Comic Con variants will be included with EVERY X-Men (1991) book now considered a reprint, not just the Jim Lee (variant) set it was originally in. These books are not being moved to a "set" just dumped into a loosely affiliated grouping of everything.

Custom set quote from jstam:

Quote

For those who want to collect those tertiary books alongside an original run competitively, they will have multiple sets to represent their collection. Or, they can put everything together in a Custom Set. 

The above was in a PM but I don't think posting it is negative. For context the "multiple" sets representation is the Main registry set (books are being removed from), the registry set were every variant/reprint (here called tertiary) books has been dumped into, and a custom set created by the user mimicking the original competitive set.

I know this is going to happen regardless of what I or anyone wants; it was just handled so poorly with a dash of "do not question/criticize my authority" that I have to express complete disbelief of the management ability of CGC representatives.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by DougC

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/28/2023 at 1:46 AM, DougC said:

I know this is going to happen regardless of what I or anyone wants; it was just handled so poorly with a dash of "do not question/criticize my authority" that I have to express complete disbelief of the management ability of CGC representatives.

Put yourself in the shoes of some of the staff trying to manage this change Doug. It must be an enormous, extremely tedious, time consuming task and some of them may not even agree with the management-set principles, or the communication strategy. Speaking from experience, it doesn't pay to get too emotionally involved in these things. CGC are a private company, and they can operate how they please. All you can do is decide whether you want to be involved anymore as a paying customer. On the flip side, they will have to accept that they may lose previously engaged customers by changing things in this way, at this stage of the game. At the end of the day, it gets dark, and you've played your part with the feedback you've given. You've kicked the tyres, as they say, and you can't do anymore than that (unless you get very rich suddenly, and buy them out).

Companies will always try to put themselves in the best possible light of course. One person's "thing's have evolved" is another person's "they got it wrong from the outset". I'd actually prefer for CGC to change course rather than stick with an ill judged strategy though, if that is what is happening here. My interest is how they are defining variants and reprints, as I have put a lot of clarifying effort into those areas down the years. I don't use the CGC service, and therefore the Registry, but I'd like to see CGC promote reasonable definitions as they are increasingly influential in the hobby and others will follow them and use their definitions.

Would someone tag me when the final communication lands please? 

[Gaard]

On 10/27/2023 at 4:08 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

I had an unpleasant taste of that when I went to a carnival in the South Dakota back in '93. Suffice to say I no longer play carnival games. (I was 19 at the time and not as good at standing up for myself as I am now; a carny would be ill advised to pull that stunt on me now—but then those guys seem to have a knack for picking easy marks.)

 

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

Three of my comic books gut' dan' vanished.

[Yorick]

On 10/28/2023 at 12:42 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

unless you get very rich suddenly, and buy them out and create a new grading company.

There you go!

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/28/2023 at 7:12 PM, Yorick said:

There you go!

It could be done. In fact, I reckon half a million would do it. If I sell the Charltons, I'll only need to raise another £499,998.50.

[Yorick]

On 10/28/2023 at 11:37 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I sell the Charltons, I'll only need to raise another £499,998.50

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

On 10/27/2023 at 2:56 PM, valiantman said:

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.

It's not strange to not allow a variant to fill the registry slot of a book that's not worth grading, if it gets people that are trying to complete the registry to submit a book that they otherwise wouldn't have; from the perspective of CGC's balance sheet, anyway.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Based on the discussion earlier, I wonder if CGC intends on relabeling the Comic Bug Edition of Edge of Spider-verse 2 a reprint. That seems logical; printed 6 months later, and after the popularity of Spider-Gwen had taken off.

[HowardHughes]

my opinion is that they should not come in years later and say "Well folks now its going to be done like this"

my question is are there that many people on the registry they need to appease or is it just a handful of people that they are doing this for?

My guess is that there are maybe 5 or 6 people that most likely complained because they do not want to have their 100% sets brought down a notch because they themselves did not find the variant first.

sounds more like the admin gave in to some cry babies.

[Gaard]

On 10/29/2023 at 2:37 PM, HowardHughes said:

my question is are there that many people on the registry they need to appease or is it just a handful of people that they are doing this for?

"Based on feedback from prominent members of the collecting community..."

[HowardHughes]

Like I said just a few people crying about the fact they didnt get those variants first. 

[DougC]

On 10/29/2023 at 1:37 PM, HowardHughes said:

My guess is that there are maybe 5 or 6 people that most likely complained because they do not want to have their 100% sets brought down a notch because they themselves did not find the variant first.

They would have to be silent complainers who do not participate in the forum. Just five years ago there was a lot more conversation between registry owners and which books should/should not be added to sets. The overall fix was creating two different sets, one with variants (or what was considered a variant at the time), and one with no variants for those who didn't want to feel forced to 100% something the didn't like.

Now though, there are maybe 4-6 people who post in the sub-forum; none of which were bringing this up as an issue (that I saw). This feels more like a regime change in registry staff and someone with no real idea how to implement change that took charge mandating the "This will be fixed my way" and when questioned "I cannot be wrong, it is the customer who buys the product that is wrong". After all it is the CGC registry, not the customers registry, we can only collect books how CGC has deemed appropriate for us to collect/showcase them.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Well, I saw today some of the changes that are coming. My Milestone Registry set was just broken up into a number of different sets; one each for the ongoing series, and then one for all of the miniseries and one-shots.

[DougC]

I was crying about this in another forum (I am a multi-talented whiner) and was told if these changes are real CGC would have updated the rules. Yesterday I PM'd the mod to see if they could amend/remove the CGC Registry Set & Slot Guidelines post that was made in 2020 and pinned as it contains incorrect information that they totally are not changing because they have always followed the same rules, etc, etc...

Quote

Hello Everyone,

As the size and scale of the CGC Registry continues to grow exponentially (All thanks to you!) I would like to clarify some of the guidelines below. We want the collecting community to enjoy the camaraderie and competitiveness of the registry while keeping things as fair as possible. Hopefully these guidelines will streamline some request and eliminate some gray areas for everyone. Please feel free to DM me if you feel that something needs to be changed or added as there are many unique scenarios that we may encounter. Thank you for your participation!

Set Creation Guidelines

Set requests will be approved based on collecting interest and census totals. CGC encourages the use of the custom set functionality to create sets that are considered more esoteric in nature.

To qualify for a set creation request, there must be at least 3 total issues (not 3 different variants of issue #1) published. At least one of the issues must be listed in the CGC Census to be considered for a set creation. For sets with more than 3 eligible books, at least 25% of the issues should already appear in the CGC Census.

Modern Sets (1990-Present) will default to “Complete with Variants,” unless requested otherwise.

Vintage Sets (Pre-1990) will default to single slots unless requested otherwise. Vintage sets will only include books that share the specific title and will exclude books with a "character" reference.

Artist Cover Sets to include U.S. standard and variant covers for the specific artist. Excludes reprints, compilations books, foreign editions/reprints, and artwork references contained in the interior pages.

Complete with Variant sets will include any book that contains the specific titled character. This includes cameo appearances, crossovers, etc. 

Slot Requests

Foreign Price Variants will receive their own slot in “Complete with Variants” sets but will share a slot in all other sets.  

Foreign Editions must be placed into their own sets. Collectors can request a “Foreign Edition/Variant” set if it qualifies for the parameters above.

Numbered Sets (Ex. Action Comics #1-#100), "Complete Sets", Specialty Sets (Marvel Copper Age Set), Master Sets and Appearance Sets - Variants and additional prints (2^nd, 3rd, etc.) will share a slot.

One-shot Sets, "Complete with Variants," and Artist Cover Sets- Variants and additional prints receive their own slot. 

Reprints are only accepted in “Complete with Variants” sets. (Some modern reprints are technically foreign editions)

Annuals and Giant-Size issues can be added to sets that share the same story line, title, and/or date range.

Comics and Magazines should only be combined in 1st Issue/1st appearance sets and Artist Cover Sets, where applicable. 

One-shot comics are only eligible for applicable one-shot set and "Complete with Variant" sets.

Trade Paperback books are no longer eligible to be added to sets. Any current TPB's are grandfathered in and will not be removed.

"Free Comic Book Day" comics are only eligible for Complete with Variant Sets, Character sets, or One-shots (when applicable). These do not always follow the storylines of individual sets. 

Not much of the information under the Slot Requests guidelines is currently valid (highlights are mine) under the new rules... that totally didn't change!

[HowardHughes]

I guess to some degree the changes make sense so that sets are there for people who do not collect variants can actually have the ability to complete the set without buying all of the money grabbing variants.

then for the people who do collect the variants there is a set for them.

but does this mean they will be changing every set like the sets with the 35 cent variants?

if you are going to do it might as well do it for every set. 

[DougC]

I am no doubt treading on thin ice making this post as I have been banned/restricted from even viewing the registry subforum.

This post is not made in retaliation against that action but to add context to the changes being made to the registry as I believe the statement provided to me by Mike sums up CGC's stance and is what should have been stated when this started so there would not be any questions:

 

The Registry is a free resource, operating at the discretion of the company, and it is at the company's discretion to make any changes as it sees fit. It is also at the company's discretion as to how and when any changes are announced and implemented.

Edited November 9, 2023 by DougC