Who Comprises CGC's restoration detection division? Where are Friesen & Brevard?

[FFB]

Graphic should be resized. Need to scroll lessens the impact and the ironic content.

 

But it increases the annoyance factor, and there's a chance that this was the point all along.

[Red Hook]

Eh..nice try...but I don't believe you.

[Ze-man]

Scooter.. too funny.

 

 

 

That shadow line is Key's worthy.. nice.. you have a future on Ebay .

 

Ze-

[esquirecomics]

Steve Borock called me yesterday and we discussed my questions. I will post them tomorrow once I ensure the accuracy and contents of his comments and my quoting of them.

[Ze-man]

Steve Borock called me yesterday and we discussed my questions. I will post them tomorrow once I ensure the accuracy and contents of his comments and my quoting of them.

 

Steve has been very busy it seems, offline anyways.

 

I thought you said you were not a gopher Mark? Stick to your guns and tell Steve to get his butt in here and post what he told you was ok to post.

 

Better yet, I will call him, and ask him what you two talked about. And then post those results. If my decoder ring is working properly.

 

 

This is beyond silly

 

Ze-

[THE_BEYONDER]

Now I feel left out....

[awe4one]

Steve Borock called me yesterday and we discussed my questions. I will post them tomorrow once I ensure the accuracy and contents of his comments and my quoting of them.

 

I'll say it again...CGC allowing their information to be released second-hand isn't very professional in my opinion. In the time it took to call, Steve could have posted the info here. I'm not sure what the secret is here on their resto division that they wouldn't want to tout the info publicly...

 

And again, CGC needs to have a person, with authority to speak for CGC, to makes announcements and clarify policy publicly. On a regular basis and willing to engage a discussion more than a couple posts. Not this back room, call-me, one-on-one stuff.

 

CGC wonders why people question their motives...maybe it's because they don't make those motives clear by preferring the one-on-one vs. mass dessemination so everyone is on the same page.

 

Jim

[Red Hook]

As far as PR goes......CGC is starting to resemble PGX.

[Flaming_Telepath]

As far as PR goes......CGC is starting to resemble PGX.

 

Well, albeit for differing reasons, they both seem to miss resto?

[tth2]

Steve Borock called me yesterday and we discussed my questions. I will post them tomorrow once I ensure the accuracy and contents of his comments and my quoting of them.

So if you don't lay some real bombshell on us as a result of your diligent "digging", will you admit that this was all a lot of ado about nothing?

[Red Hook]

I still remain highly skeptical of the whole setup, especially the way information is disseminated.

[esquirecomics]

As I said, Steve B. called me on Tuesday and we discussed my questions (among other matters). Following the conversation I typed up the responses and sent them to Steve so that he could check them for accuracy. Therefore, the comments below have been verified and constitute "official" CGC responses. I guess.

 

Frankly, this is what I wanted to avoid in the first place. I saw no reason why I had to call CGC to get policy questions answered. That is not to say that I could not have chose that course of action. Of course I could. Steve is always responsive to my calls, as I am with his. That is not the point. I am not CGC's messenger service. I am not their PR spokesperson. I see little difference between my talking to Steve, or any other CGC employee, and typing up the responses for posting and their doing it themselves, which is how it should be. Were I to have a very sensitive topic to discuss with CGC I would not hesitate to call, as I have done so in the past and no doubt will do in the future.

 

QUESTIONS

 

(1) Does CGC actually have a "restoration detection division"?

 

BOROCK: Yes, but it is not really a "division", i.e., separate entity within the organization. It is a title distinction for our own use if anything.

 

(2) If so, who are the experts that operate within this division?

 

BOROCK: Chris Friesen is the only person. Canti Brevard moved to grading when PCS shut down, but he actually left the employ of CGC a week or so ago. Chris views every book for possible restoration, but they are also reviewed by others at CGC (such as myself and/or Haspel, for example) before a final decision is reached regarding restoration. At least two restoration expects will have reviewed each book.

 

(3) It was stated that "many of [PCS's] key personnel" were moving to CGC. How many people were employed by PCS and who were they?

 

BOROCK: PCS had three employees: Brevard, Friesen and Joe Pierson. Each moved to CGC. Brevard is gone. Friesen is handling restoration detection and Pierson has moved to pre-grading.

 

(4) Specifically, where is Chris Friesen and what is he doing for CGC/CCG? Why all the mystery? Why is it we can't get a straight answer from anyone at CGC?

 

BOROCK: Chris is only performing restoration detection for CGC/CCG. He is not performing any type of restorative work, whether that is our definition of restoration or that adopted by others (i.e., pressing). Of course there also may be instances where Chris is involved in crafting policy decisions that impacts his area of expertise.

 

(5) Who is Cantie Brevard? I've asked Steve B. this before and only received a very basic answer. What is his background? What does he do now?

 

MZ: As Brevard has left CGC's employ this question really bears no relevance so I have withdrawn it (no offense to Cantie).

 

While communicating with Steve to check on the accuracy of the above I also posed the following question: Why aren't you touting Friesen anyway? Is he going to be denoted on the website anytime soon?

 

BOROCK: Since I stated on the boards when PCS shut down that Chris was back at CGC, we thought that was enough.

 

We never felt we had to still "tout" Friesen. He will however be listed on the new updated website and updated boards (Coming soon, but not soon enough ). nothing is really being done to up date the site much until then. He is THE best in our business, ask those that used his services (Metropolis, Harley, Graham Crackers, Showcase, etc) if that is true or not. They will also tell you that he never called himself the best and never :touted" himself. His work was so good, they just came to him. His restoration detection blows away anyone else doing it in this business today. This is why he was my first choice when I could no longer keep up with the work load of finalizing, doing PR, helping set policy as new scenarios arouse, and doing the final restoration check. Back then it was only Haspel, Lithc, and myself.

 

END OF QUESTIONS

 

Steve also requested that I post the following (yes, master )

 

“Why all the mystery? Why is it we can't get a straight answer from anyone at CGC? "

 

This is what I mean by you stirring up controversy. You never said that to me on the phone and anyone could have got a straight answer by calling or asking me (or any other CGC employee) directly on the phone or at shows. Awe4One and Beyonder called recently about unrelated topics and neither asked this question. I get at least one PM a day from board members and none of them have asked me that question.

 

These were basic and straightforward questions. The "mystery" I spoke of lay not necessarily in the answers but in the conduct that led up to the need for me to ask them in the first place. These questions had been percolating on the boards for months. I merely compiled them at a particular time because I happened to think about them just then. I have as much a right to simply post them in writing as I do to verbally seek responses. That someone may believe it to have been more appropriate to have simply called is not my concern. Why I am even posting CGC responses is beyond me. I will likely have to start charging CGC for my time!

 

As far as the other CGC forumites who spoke with Steve while this "controversy" was ongoing and yet didn't say anything, I'll let you guys respond to that.

 

In my opinion, those of you who were posting in this thread showing concern for the topic should have said something to Steve if you had the opportunity. These are not "hit-and-run" issues, and it is not fair to treat them or CGC in that manner. If you believe an issue has merit - and not one person who posted in this thread said otherwise to my knowledge - than others should have followed up if you believed that strongly that a phone call or direct communication should have been made. I made it perfectly clear why I did not feel that way nor was I going to do so. However, given Steve called me I made sure the opportunity was not wasted.

[drbanner]

Thanks Mark!

[Aman619]

yeah. But thats what we pay YOU for Mark! : )

[Red Hook]

Thanks to both Mark and Steve.

[esquirecomics]

yeah. But thats what we pay YOU for Mark! : )

 

[Rocketeer]

Steve Borock called me yesterday and we discussed my questions. I will post them tomorrow once I ensure the accuracy and contents of his comments and my quoting of them.

 

I'll say it again...CGC allowing their information to be released second-hand isn't very professional in my opinion. In the time it took to call, Steve could have posted the info here. I'm not sure what the secret is here on their resto division that they wouldn't want to tout the info publicly...

 

..if the specifics of how the patented Trimcrometer ever got out to the enemy it would be disastrous to the hobby as we know it....it's CGC's only defense in the war against trimming and it's details must remain a secret...

 

And again, CGC needs to have a person, with authority to speak for CGC, to makes announcements and clarify policy publicly. On a regular basis and willing to engage a discussion more than a couple posts. Not this back room, call-me, one-on-one stuff.

 

...you never know who is lurking on these boards....there could be agents for the enemy waiting to swoop down and steal CGC's secrets on how they determine trimming....if they unveil these methods they could turn use it to thwart CGC's only line of defense in the war against trimming....

 

CGC wonders why people question their motives...maybe it's because they don't make those motives clear by preferring the one-on-one vs. mass dessemination so everyone is on the same page.

 

....we must hold on and continue to keep blind faith,...just imagine what would happen if president Bush revealed his plans to everyone on his strategies on the war against terrorism,....never, ever question authority....

[sterlingcomics]

I remember some some time back that there would be some sort of advisory committee to give feedback from the community to CGC. If they have not instituted this, I think this would be a great time. We can use this great resource (the boards) to consolidate and provide feedback for suggested improvements in CGC's process.

 

I agree with others with the following:

 

[*]CGC needs a PR represenative to funnel these concerns so that they are addressed in a public venue. Simply updating the website with a FAQ may even be sufficient. "Ask CGC" is a way CGC is currently addressing customer questions and concerns, but since so many questions go unanswered many consider it a debacle. No offense to Gemma and those who man it, but it remains idle.

 

[*]I totally appreciate the ability to call and get answers, but larger issues need to be addressed in a more efficient manner. If CGC simply doesn't want to do this, at least communicate this so everyone on the boards can move on instead of continuing to moan on this topic.

 

Jim's anniversay thread on the Ewert fiasco reminded us of what was going to happen, yet we don't know the results. I understand we are not shareholders and that they don't technically need to answer to us, but if they are truly following their mission statement as shown on their web site then I urge them to provide some balance to this equation, as currently we feel somewhat isolated. Providing a committee that has ownership of some of the PR that can remain proactive would be a great improvement.

[esquirecomics]

I remember some some time back that there would be some sort of advisory committee to give feedback from the community to CGC. If they have not instituted this, I think this would be a great time. We can use this great resource (the boards) to consolidate and provide feedback for suggested improvements in CGC's process.

 

I was wondering when someone was going to finally recall this alleged endeavor! As far as I know it never materialized, and that is a real shame. I do think a consumer advisory board would be helpful and beneficial to everyone.

[FFB]

That someone may believe it to have been more appropriate to have simply called is not my concern. Why I am even posting CGC responses is beyond me. I will likely have to start charging CGC for my time!

 

Dude, get over yourself!

 

But apart from that snarky comment, thanks for finally getting off your arse and calling and getting the information.