|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 28, 2019 8:41:15 GMT -8
Hard to know if this means they've done a great job all these years so it doesn't matter what they do now, or if it's forecasting all the outstanding work they haven't done yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffro on May 28, 2019 8:57:49 GMT -8
Hard to know if this means they've done a great job all these years so it doesn't matter what they do now, or if it's forecasting all the outstanding work they haven't done yet. Well of course, if I've never had a problem with CGC then they must be flawless, right? That basically translates to = I haven't been screwed over by them....yet
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 28, 2019 9:26:46 GMT -8
Hard to know if this means they've done a great job all these years so it doesn't matter what they do now, or if it's forecasting all the outstanding work they haven't done yet. Well of course, if I've never had a problem with CGC then they must be flawless, right? That basically translates to = I haven't been screwed over by them....yet A very odd devotion, for sure- Considering the $$$ involved.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 28, 2019 9:44:09 GMT -8
Don't bother. 99.999% of what is posted on this topic ( especially on the CGC forum) is incorrect. People who have invested in graded comics don't want to believe that there is a systemic problem. Cognitive dissonance prevents them from accepting the obvious. They attribute the damage to everything and anything other than a poorly designed plastic case. I'll give you an example (and one of the reasons why I don't bother trying to educate anyone anymore): HERE, I'm explaining exactly what happened to Kimik's books. HERE, Kimik (a member since 2003) refuses to believe it; and, instead, states that it must have occurred during encapsulation. This is patently absurd. First, the evidence is as plain as day that the damage occurred from SCS - the book clearly blew through the bottom seal, which pealed back the pages. Second, there's no way the operator of the sealer would not notice that he's clamping down on a book, nor would even a partial seal be possible under those circumstances. I didn't even bother to respond. This is the kind of brain damage that only occurs after years and years of tongue-darting the CGC anus...you become invested...you become one with the problem... and you become an obstacle to improvement. Awesome!Bravo! I did give up half way through the thread. I assume you're referring to the ' Outbreak of Shaken Comic Syndrome' thread at CGC? I read it every day to get a belly laugh. The brainiacs in that thread understand science like a dog understands Sunday. Here's a few recent examples that made me laugh out loud... link Every single sentence is incorrect. He's completely clueless with regard to how slabs are constructed. But my favorite part is that he believes there is no variation in comic book dimensions. linkHe thinks the damage occurred because of vibrations from 'high friction micro fusion.' He obviously heard somewhere that CGC uses an ultrasonic welder and then misunderstood what he read on Wikipedia. He's also obviously unaware that the inner core is heat sealed.
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on May 28, 2019 10:24:51 GMT -8
Once again, be on the lookout for specific generation slabs If it hasn't happened yet, I expect people will add a premium to their Pre- slabs. "Slabbed before [whenever the Newton/Puddling/SCS Outbreak began]. Book is undamaged."Would this be books graded prior to 2016-ish? Edit: I've been looking at a book slabbed 8/19/14. The seller has a very good rating, but I'm not familiar with them.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 28, 2019 10:42:28 GMT -8
Once again, be on the lookout for specific generation slabs If it hasn't happened yet, I expect people will add a premium to their Pre- slabs. "Slabbed before [whenever the Newton/Puddling/SCS Outbreak began]. Book is undamaged."Would this be books graded prior to 2016-ish? Edit: I've been looking at a book slabbed 8/19/14. The seller has a very good rating, but I'm not familiar with them. Steve, There's a couple problems with this. 1) CGC has always had SCS and newton ring problems, but the frequency and severity increased with the new case. So you can't rule out the problems. 2) Reholders keep the original grade date. So, you could have a book that was graded on 8/19/14 sitting in the new frankenholder.
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 28, 2019 10:56:55 GMT -8
Another good one! Would this be books graded prior to 2016-ish? Edit: I've been looking at a book slabbed 8/19/14. The seller has a very good rating, but I'm not familiar with them. Steve, There's a couple problems with this. 1) CGC has always had SCS and newton ring problems, but the frequency and severity increased with the new case. So you can't rule out the problems. 2) Reholders keep the original grade date. So, you could have a book that was graded on 8/19/14 sitting in the new frankenholder. What I meant, in a nutshell. If I see the page quality under the grade, I hesitate. More so, now.
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on May 28, 2019 11:19:27 GMT -8
Would this be books graded prior to 2016-ish? Edit: I've been looking at a book slabbed 8/19/14. The seller has a very good rating, but I'm not familiar with them. Steve, There's a couple problems with this. 1) CGC has always had SCS and newton ring problems, but the frequency and severity increased with the new case. So you can't rule out the problems. 2) Reholders keep the original grade date. So, you could have a book that was graded on 8/19/14 sitting in the new frankenholder. I realize SCS can occur anytime. I maybe misunderstood there's a time frame wherein we've seen more issues than with other time periods. I didn't really consider the possibility of a reholder for a couple reasons, one of which is it's an SS book, although that doesn't guarantee it wasn't reholdered(since the SIG).
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 28, 2019 11:30:28 GMT -8
Another good one! Steve, There's a couple problems with this. 1) CGC has always had SCS and newton ring problems, but the frequency and severity increased with the new case. So you can't rule out the problems. 2) Reholders keep the original grade date. So, you could have a book that was graded on 8/19/14 sitting in the new frankenholder. What I meant, in a nutshell. If I see the page quality under the grade, I hesitate. More so, now. Right. In other words, if you see the old CGC label you feel more comfortable. I agree, although, as I mentioned, it doesn't rule out the problems; but statistically you stand a better chance of avoiding them. I don't usually say this, but statistically-speaking, if you are buying a graded comic for your collection, CBCS is probably the best choice right now. Why do I say this? 1) The grading is essentially the same. As we've seen from the CBCS to CGC crossover grade results, they are almost identical - certainly well within CGC's normal standard deviation of precision. 2) Statistically-speaking, CBCS cases are even less prone to SCS and newton rings than old-label CGC slabs. 3) CGC slabs command a premium on the open market, therefore the same book in a CBCS slab can be purchased at a relative discount. Something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 28, 2019 11:35:39 GMT -8
Steve, There's a couple problems with this. 1) CGC has always had SCS and newton ring problems, but the frequency and severity increased with the new case. So you can't rule out the problems. 2) Reholders keep the original grade date. So, you could have a book that was graded on 8/19/14 sitting in the new frankenholder. I realize SCS can occur anytime. I maybe misunderstood there's a time frame wherein we've seen more issues than with other time periods. I didn't really consider the possibility of a reholder for a couple reasons, one of which is it's an SS book, although that doesn't guarantee it wasn't reholdered(since the SIG). Yes, the frequency and severity has definitely increased with the advent of the frankenholder.
|
|
|
Post by Bats on May 28, 2019 12:23:52 GMT -8
I have this theory that Stu secretly works for the case design team...
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 28, 2019 13:26:41 GMT -8
Another good one! What I meant, in a nutshell. If I see the page quality under the grade, I hesitate. More so, now. Right. In other words, if you see the old CGC label you feel more comfortable. I agree, although, as I mentioned, it doesn't rule out the problems; but statistically you stand a better chance of avoiding them. Total agreement. One of the first slabs I purchased turned out having SCS, discovered [didn't show signs until] long after purchasing. I was moving it to a different box, and the SCS was revealed by slipping away from the spine. I'm 99.99% sure I didn't do it when switching from hand to hand. I'll have to look again to see if my novice eyes at that time missed any staple signs.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on May 28, 2019 16:26:52 GMT -8
I have this theory that Stu secretly works for the case design team... I'm not that patient, I couldn't pull off a long con like this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 8:35:27 GMT -8
www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/450827-cgc-needs-to-modify-its-stance-on-color-touch/?do=findComment&comment=10744045This is, as usual, an incomplete, inaccurate argument, made by someone who does not submit comics to CGC at all and thus has zero experience with which to comment. It's not merely "frustration over them (sic) 9.6's (sic) they keep getting." It's a recognition that the more valuable the comics become, the pickier the buyers become, and the more precise they want grading to be. Nobody cared about the difference between Fine and VF when the book was worth $2 in "Mint." But make the difference between a 6.0 and 8.0 be $20,000...and all of a sudden, people start to care a tremendous amount. There's a place between 9.8 and 9.6...and 9.6 and 9.4...anyone with a ton of experience dealing with these grades is going to be able to demonstrate a relatively large range of condition within those "grades." There are weak 9.8s, typical 9.8s, and strong 9.8s...all of which can be easily demonstrated. Same with 9.6, and all the way down the scale. Interestingly, VintageComics' replies are spot on on this case: the grading system started at "Good/Fine/Mint", and continued to expand as comics got more and more valuable. Were "speculators" the cause of the addition of VG..."cuz they were frustrated at all the 'Goods' they were getting?" Of course not. It's the expansion of the market. Did the coin market expand from "Uncirculated/BU" to MS60-MS70 because "people were frustrated over them MS63s they were getting"? No. And, of course, the possibility that there's frustration over a loosely graded 9.8 that really should be a 9.7. That really does exist, amazing though it may seem to some. No, what the REAL issue is are buyers who are frustrated that they have to pay more for better quality, that they can't just cherrypick the best looking one anymore for the same price as the rest. That's the resentment that drives these comments. When an immovable meets an irresistible blowhard.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 1, 2019 8:12:16 GMT -8
|
|