Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[Ze-man]

So the book is being damaged is your argument then, not who CGC has actually recommended?

 

K - I will not humiliate you with the details of your pre-edit. I quoted CGC when I said CGC has an obligation to promote the services where customers will receive the best product, and in this case, that means pressing without damaging the book. So is CGC saying Susan cannot press a book without damaging it? Tracey Heft? Who? And why "pressing without damagingthe book"? Why push the "pressing" which folks here KNOW can glean, in some cases, a tidy profit when selling slabbed?

 

Come on, those kids at school they DID tease you, Kenney.

 

Humiliate away pov, I only changed minor fluff to better reflect our converstion.

 

But I suggest you talk to Steve in regards to why they do not think Tracey or Susan are not worth mentioning in their PSA FAQ given their history with CGC, and or why CGC might want people to resub books after they had them pressed to promote revenue.

 

But you already know these things and are just making sure everyone else does too I assume

.

 

No harm no foul bro,

 

Take care

 

Kenny

[PovertyRow]

2) The FAQ is specific about pressing/dry cleaning, so they clearly cannot recommend someone who does not perform those procedures separately from any other restoration. There is nothing in the FAQ which endorses anyone for restoration in general (although it does mention that Matt performs other work as well).

 

But it makes little sense to me. The definition of restoration is perfect up to this point: "Restoration is treatment intended to return a comic book to a known or assumed state for aesthetic enhancement" yet loses credibility when the remainder is added: "by adding non-original material." Restoration is, indeed, treatment intended to return a book to a known state for aesthitic (and I would also add, for structural) enhancement. Why must this REQUIRE adding non-original material. And, if this is definition so strict, why does a trimmed book get the Purple label? " Trimmed books are given an apparent grade, and, in accordance with CGC's policy, encapsulated with CGC's restored label." Where is the "non-original material" in a trimmed book?

[FFB]

Hypothetically, if Susan Cicconi was promoting CGC certification and were still doing pressing or dry cleaning and we could verify she was doing high quality work, CGC would be MORE than happy to add her name to Matt's as someone CGC could point collectors to.

 

Well this is the conundrum for me. Is CGC recommending a restorer of quality or a restorer of quality that 1) promotes CGC certification and 2) will do clean/press apart from a more major restoration job (she won't now.)

 

CGC has an obligation to promote the services where customers will receive the best product, and in this case, that means pressing without damaging the book. Without singling out names, in our experience, currently there are no other people who are trustworthy enough and/or provide very competent service that CGC feels confident in recommending.

 

Does the criteria used by CGC to recommend a restorer require, ultimately, that they will do simply basic restoration (clean/press) that will not be either detected by CGC or, if it is, will still not glean a purple label?

 

Or to put it more bluntly: Is CGC really interested "promoting the best product" to the collector? If they truly have the collectors' interests at heart, why would they not recommend Susan? She has been restoring for well over 20 years (not sure how many years but easily more than 20) and is a superb artist and restorer. Her work is easily verifiable. In the old days of the Sotheby auctions her restoration was actually a selling point before the restoration knee jerk reaction became prevelant (a reaction that often, not always but often) is rooted in ignorance of the various restoration processes. Now CGC is talking about her as an unknown quantity in the field of restoration?

 

I really do not get this. What I WOULD recommend is that CGC simply state "If you want a book to be cleaned and pressed but retain the Universal Blue Label then use so and so." But restoration is a lot more than cleaning and pressing. And to recommend someone simply because they are willing to do good clean/press as separate procedures? It genuinely makes no sense.

 

Pov, it's not clear to me whether you actually read the FAQ in question before posting this. Matt is recommended in the "Does CGC Perform Pressing or Dry Cleaning" section, not in the section on restoration. Since Susan publicly proclaims that she does not perform pressing or dry cleaning except in conjunction with other restoration procedures, it's not like they could recommend her in the section on pressing and dry cleaning (which CGC does not consider to be restoration and deals with in a separate section).

[FFB]

 

Fool - the main point I am trying to make is that CGC will not recommend a restorer who 1) is not "promoting CGC certification " .

 

 

To be fair Pov, That is it in a nutshell isn't it?

 

Is that such a bad business move? To not support those who do not support you?

 

Call me crazy..but cmon.. you answered your own question my friend.

 

Ze-

 

No, Buckaroo,...my good friend. To quote CGC "CGC has an obligation to promote the services where customers will receive the best product, and in this case, that means pressing without damaging the book." I thinki THAT answers, neh? If you don't get that then I will be more than happy to go on a classic POV debate until you drop from exhaustion or boredom!

 

Seems like a week ago that I asked this question (with not a single answer given), but for those who think CGC should recommend someone else for pressing, who else should they recommend? It seems like a significant number of people think that CGC should recommend more than one person, but no one can give a name of someone they know from experience who can press a book safely. Doesn't that need to come first, before people tell CGC that it should recommend others?

[FFB]

2) The FAQ is specific about pressing/dry cleaning, so they clearly cannot recommend someone who does not perform those procedures separately from any other restoration. There is nothing in the FAQ which endorses anyone for restoration in general (although it does mention that Matt performs other work as well).

 

But it makes little sense to me. The definition of restoration is perfect up to this point: "Restoration is treatment intended to return a comic book to a known or assumed state for aesthetic enhancement" yet loses credibility when the remainder is added: "by adding non-original material." Restoration is, indeed, treatment intended to return a book to a known state for aesthitic (and I would also add, for structural) enhancement. Why must this REQUIRE adding non-original material. And, if this is definition so strict, why does a trimmed book get the Purple label? " Trimmed books are given an apparent grade, and, in accordance with CGC's policy, encapsulated with CGC's restored label." Where is the "non-original material" in a trimmed book?

 

I just realized that you missed the entire debate on Overstreet's new definition of restoration in the new grading guide. It was a few months ago and Gemstone invited commentary via email from anyone in the hobby who wanted to be heard on the issue. This issue was talked to death last year.

[PovertyRow]

Pov, it's not clear to me whether you actually read the FAQ in question before posting this. Matt is recommended in the "Does CGC Perform Pressing or Dry Cleaning" section, not in the section on restoration. Since Susan publicly proclaims that she does not perform pressing or dry cleaning except in conjunction with other restoration procedures, it's not like they could recommend her in the section on pressing and dry cleaning (which CGC does not consider to be restoration and deals with in a separate section)

 

I did read the faq. In my own way I am approaching the entire resto issue yet again for the thousandth time. Text does not a fact make, nor does a faq. You can slice it any way you want but I totally and completekly and whoeheardetly disagree with the sentiment that c&p does not equal resto. It is ridiculous to even imply that a process designed to return a book to its previous condition is NOT resto.

 

I actually DO understand the basic premise here. but it is the basic premise I have real issues with. hence a slightly backhanded approach.

[Harvey Dude]

Interesting how opinions have changed now that CGC has explained their position:

 

Now that you know what CGCs reasons are for endorsing Matt Nelson in the FAQ, what is your opinion?

 

Users may choose only one (38 total votes)

 

I agree with CGC and their stance. 39%

 

I really don't care one way or another. 29%

 

I disagree with CGC and their reasons. 26%

 

I really need some 'crack' right now... 05%

 

Population of votes is too low to be meaningful. Another way to locate at it is that 15 people agreed with CGC's stance. 16 people disagreed (based on info as of this writing).

[Scheradon]

...

 

Just starts a slippery slope and I see no responsible need for CGC to address anything beyond what they as a company perform or offer.

 

To what end though?

 

Kind of my point about suggesting anyone for any service outside of CGC. They're a grading service, nothing more. Will there be future FAQs suggesting who to go to to buy books, or have different types of resto work done? Are they going to diligently research these types of suggestions? Will these suggestions be the best options out there or just the best options of CGC promoting clients? I could go on and on, hence the slippery slope they are treading IMO.

 

 

 

Steve said that they still grade the book in front of them like they always have. That they hold themselves to their own high standards in the grading room. We can either believe them or not regarding impartiality. Not to mention the fact there have always been gumblings about "in deals", and collusion.. Just because now all of a sudden there are addvertisemts or FAQ's does not mean CGC has turned to the dark side.

 

Now, just so we are not confusing anything here, I believe the adds are one thing and the FAQ section is another. I'm just commenting on the FAQ section in my statements. I'm also not claiming any grading impartiality whatsoever.

 

If they choose to single out a few businesses to recommend because they feel them to be the best .. so be it. As Steve said.. people are now looking to them for advice not only with what CGC does, but the hobby in general. So I do not see what is wrong with CGC pointing out to those seeking advice who CGC would recommend without reservation. If it came to light that these business were getting preferential treatment when others were not.. the *spoon* storm would be so deep it could bury them.

 

They singled out one business, not a few. I think it's a bad decision for them to name any. I find it unfortunate really that CGC is taking a public stance and basically endorsing for books to be pressed and dry cleaned in their FAQ.

 

I know they aren't against these procedures, but with the issue still contraversial amongst collectors, I'd rather they took a more neutral stance.

 

If anything perhaps it will make dealers up their game to get on CGC's "A" list if they really care about it, or buy more adds.. or whatever. CGC may or may not recommend those who place adds.. but they will most likely never recommend anyone who they feel is not up to par.. even if they took out an add or not.

 

When does it start to look like people can buy their way in? I just don't like the appearence this starts to give. Again, the adds are one thing, but I'd hate for people to start to think businesses can buy their way into the FAQ recommnedations.

 

My initial reaction to the banner adds was knee jerk..I did not like them.. it invaded a place I have grown used to being add free, but after hearing all the reasons of how and why it came to be I realized I just had to get over it because it was all part of them evolving and growing as a business. CGC's product has not changed, nor have their standards. They are not doing anything any other business would do to get ahead. Again, if people think CGC is doing this so a chosen few can gain from it, then you are missing the big picture. This hobby is a big chess game, a racket and CGC is playing their part well.

 

Again, not trying to make this about the adds. I don't care for them all that much, but they are not really the issue I'm at odds with. When I saw the adds, my first thought was, "Is CGC hurting for money?" Maybe they are, I don't know. Maybe they just want to up their profits more. I wondered why CGC chose to accept adds now and hadn't been going that route all along.

 

What I do believe, is that there is a level playing field when it comes to the adds though. Anyone can have an equal opportunity to buy add space. How does one get the opportunity that they deserve recognition in the FAQ section though? Did CGC run an open invitation for restorers to submit pressed/dry clean work for their stringent inspection on a blind submittal basis, then choose work that would qualify to meet those standards and award those submitters FAQ recommendation? NO. They chose someone who A) Is known to have quality work and B) Has a very close personal relationship with CGC and it's staff. Now, does B have anything to do with it, or is it all A? Since there was no open invitation for others to compete, it leaves the perception of B being a factor. (and I am NOT saying that it is a factor, we're talking perception here).

 

So should it be a matter of us rethinking the role that CGC play's in our hobby? Or them constantly catering to what WE think they should be doing as a business?

 

I think it is more the former.

 

Ze-

 

 

We are the customers and it's in our and CGC's best interest to know what we think they should be about and/or doing.

[Midnightowl-migration]

And to keep this on topic: 2 questions...

 

1) Will CGC ever again include the alpha grades along with the numerics?

 

2) Will CGC ever revert to a single label color for Universal, Restored and Qualified and simply include sufficient notes on the label?

 

I would like to see these questions asked in the next meeting as well.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Seems like a week ago that I asked this question (with not a single answer given), but for those who think CGC should recommend someone else for pressing, who else should they recommend? It seems like a significant number of people think that CGC should recommend more than one person, but no one can give a name of someone they know from experience who can press a book safely. Doesn't that need to come first, before people tell CGC that it should recommend others?

 

Tracey Heft will do it, and there is no evidence that his work is poor or damages the book.

 

However, alledgedly there has been a 'falling out' with CGC.

 

So both he and Matt will offer the service.

 

But only Matt is recommended.

 

The same man who is the only one that CGC are close with.

 

That is at odds with CGC's argument that they are simply offering the collector the best advice in the FAQ. If they are being altruistic, both men would be named. If they are 'playing favourites', Matt would be the only one named.

 

Seems clear to me.

[Aman619]

did I have a post removed??? just before this one... at 11:31 AM. Anyone see it?

 

[mica]

I just realized that you missed the entire debate on Overstreet's new definition of restoration in the new grading guide. It was a few months ago and Gemstone invited commentary via email from anyone in the hobby who wanted to be heard on the issue. This issue was talked to death last year.

Keep in mind, POV wandered off from his keepers for a few months last year. The Gemstone stuff might have happened during this "alleged" absence.

[Flaming_Telepath]

did I have a post removed??? just before this one... at 11:31 AM. Anyone see it?

 

 

It was not a figment of your imagination.

[mica]

did I have a post removed??? just before this one... at 11:31 AM. Anyone see it?

Hopefully you didn't say anything about how perception is important.

[Aman619]

I thought it was funny.. Like a John Stewart observation, in the vein of "truth to power." I guess power wins.

[FFB]

Seems like a week ago that I asked this question (with not a single answer given), but for those who think CGC should recommend someone else for pressing, who else should they recommend? It seems like a significant number of people think that CGC should recommend more than one person, but no one can give a name of someone they know from experience who can press a book safely. Doesn't that need to come first, before people tell CGC that it should recommend others?

 

Tracey Heft will do it, and there is no evidence that his work is poor or damages the book.

 

How do you know this? Have you ever had a book pressed by him? Has anyone here ever had a book pressed by him, who would recommend him for pressing?

 

However, alledgedly there has been a 'falling out' with CGC.

 

So both he and Matt will offer the service.

 

But only Matt is recommended.

 

The same man who is the only one that CGC are close with.

 

That is at odds with CGC's argument that they are simply offering the collector the best advice in the FAQ. If they are being altruistic, both men would be named. If they are 'playing favourites', Matt would be the only one named.

 

Seems clear to me.

 

Except that you have no idea whether Tracey's pressing techniques do or do not damage books. Seems like you need to answer that question first before you can say everything else you've said here.

[esquirecomics]

Seems like a week ago that I asked this question (with not a single answer given), but for those who think CGC should recommend someone else for pressing, who else should they recommend? It seems like a significant number of people think that CGC should recommend more than one person, but no one can give a name of someone they know from experience who can press a book safely. Doesn't that need to come first, before people tell CGC that it should recommend others?

 

Tracey Heft will do it, and there is no evidence that his work is poor or damages the book.

 

However, alledgedly there has been a 'falling out' with CGC.

 

So both he and Matt will offer the service.

 

But only Matt is recommended.

 

The same man who is the only one that CGC are close with.

 

That is at odds with CGC's argument that they are simply offering the collector the best advice in the FAQ. If they are being altruistic, both men would be named. If they are 'playing favourites', Matt would be the only one named.

 

Seems clear to me.

 

For whomever is interested, here is some of the history between CGC and Tracey Heft which may contribute to CGC's current position:

 

Tracey Heft & CGC History

[Red Hook]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[Davenport]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

That is interesting. Thanks for the link. It probably ties in with a proposed grading system article (a year later) Quantifying a Quality of Restoration by Matt Nelson

 

[drice6900]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

 

Yes, thank you! This explains things a bit more