"CBCS (Comic Book Certification Service)" Grading Company

A Moment of Clarity - by Michael @cbcs

Competition is good for an industry as long as it includes fair play and honesty. When we opened CBCS, our goals were to offer a superior product and to raise the level of service in the industry. During our development, we had a few instances where false information about us was released by our competitor. In the interest of fostering mutual respect, we chose to remain silent about a couple of issues that probably should have been addressed sooner. CGC’s most recent attempt to put a positive spin on the catastrophic launch of their new case included yet another attempt to paint CBCS in a negative light; this final swing prompted us to set the record straight.

1) Contrary to what is posted on CGC’s website, CBCS did not violate any trademark held by CGC. The back story is that we decided to put a star next to some comic grades to indicate good eye appeal. Basically, an acknowledgment from our graders that a particular book was especially enjoyable to see. Shortly after implementation, we received a letter from a lawyer stating that there was a trademark on that process for comic books. Our law firm’s research found no such trademark. They did find, however, that there was a trademark on a placing a star next to a grade on coins. CGC’s lawyer would neither confirm nor deny that this trademark included comics specifically, but did say that the trademark on coins extended to comics because the coin company and CGC are basically the same company. Also, a trademark for a star on comics was filed by CGC in September, 2014 after CBCS started using the star. If they already had a trademark, then why file this? Because we didn’t care to enter into a David and Goliath court battle, we decided to change the sign to something different and leave it at that. To us, a star wasn’t worth the time, effort, or angst. Shortly thereafter, the following was posted on CGC’s forum: “The Certified Collectibles Group owns numerous trademarks that it has developed over the last 27 years. If we don’t enforce those trademarks, we risk losing our legal rights to them. In this instance, a start-up company run by a former employee knowingly infringed upon our intellectual property. We protected our rights and will continue to do so.” This statement, which remains at the top of CGC’s forum page, is simply false. Neither Steve Borock nor any former employee knowingly infringed upon intellectual property. It is debatable that the use of the star even is intellectual property. Just for fun, we sent an e-mail to CGC’s lawyer showing a bunch of comic companies using a star. His response was that they can pick and choose whom they decide to pursue. Apparently, they chose to pursue CBCS and no one else.

2) Contrary to what was insinuated on CGC’s forum, CBCS does not use the inferior plastic that is discussed in the link provided by the helpful people at CGC (we use PETG, not PET). CGC’s new case is a huge disaster. There are optical distortions caused by Newton effects in the plastic that make comics appear as if there is an oily substance in the case. We have been sent pictures of off-centered comics, Mylar sheets wrinkling, microchamber paper dents, and perhaps most alarmingly, videos showing ink transfer from the comic to the Mylar (resulting in color loss). We think we understand why CGC attempted to use the new design—to save money. At CBCS, one of the most time consuming parts of our process is securing the comics in the inner wells. We have 23 different well sizes, and we have to keep a supply of stock for each size. Each well and each front are expensive. It takes time to carefully seal each of the five lines around each comic. We have four full-time people dedicated to putting the comics into the wells and sealing them in. Based on CGC’s published numbers, no sealers, and cheaper material (Mylar sheets) the cost savings must be substantial. If CBCS changed to their design, we would save well over a quarter of a million dollars a year. I can only imagine what their savings are. The old Fortress design, to which the new CGC case seems very similar, was also a disaster. I’ve been told that Steve Borock and a current manager of CGC berated that design years ago and vowed that they would never use it. I wonder why that changed. We can all disagree about types of plastics, microchamber paper, clarity, and strength, but the new case appears to be a rushed product without proper testing that was just pushed onto the market. Throwing out smoke and mirrors to distract from the reality of this bad case while taking a dig at CBCS was a step too far. The forum post about microchamber paper and paper deteriorating was misleading; the link to the study provided looked at PET, not PETG. CBCS uses PETG which is a completely different chemical compound. We all know that an internet search can uncover faulty information as well as accurate. Those wishing to promote a particular slant many times chose the study on which they base their opinions. Leading people to read a study on a plastic CBCS doesn’t even use was misleading. When we approached plastics, we went directly to the experts to get their opinions: a vice president at Dow Chemicals, a preservation expert at the Smithsonian, and several engineers and chemists at 5 different plastics companies. These experts universally recommended PETG for our purposes. We were told specifically not to use microchamber paper since it was unnecessary with PETG and in the long term, could harm the comic. When we asked about Barex, we were told not to use it (Barex was a plastic used in the food and medical industry, not in preservation because they typically expire after 3-7 years). We were told that Barex doesn’t breathe well and it would not be good for comics in the long term. We were told that Barex plus microchamber paper is a temporary improvement but still not good for preservation. Mylar is excellent as well, but it does not heat seal. The design of the outer shell was more complicated. We needed a plastic that would break when we wanted, but not break when we didn’t want it to break. It needed to be clear and lightweight (for shipping or carrying to conventions). After months of testing, we came up with a polystyrene with a blue tint. It passed all of our parameters. The end caps are made out of polycarbonate—all made right here in the U.S.A. The only problem we were left with was a creaking noise if you bend it. Removing the creak would mean using a heavier case (which actually would have been cheaper), or a more breakable case. No plastics company was able to produce a creak-less plastic that fulfilled all of our more serious parameters: strength, breakability, clarity, eye appeal, and durability. It also needed to be lightweight and sealable. We’ve heard that some people are bothered by the creaking or feel that it makes the case seem more flimsy. We can say without a doubt that this is the best case we tested (and we tested hundreds of mixtures). Managing cost was not a factor when we chose our materials.

3) Why can’t CGC’s authorized witnesses work for more than one grading company? This final concern is not about fact or fiction—it is about right and wrong. CBCS encourages its witnesses to work with whomever they choose to support themselves and their families. If a witness has clients that want to use us and another grading company, great for them. We are always happy to see our witnesses succeed. Why is it that if an AW wants to witness for CBCS at a convention, they are prohibited from also witnessing for the other company? It just seems mean-spirited to make witnesses give up business with one company or the other, or find a way to work the system. Our witnesses are part of our family, and we are happy when they are able to find success wherever they can.

We understand that there will always be apologists for the other company who have, in their minds, invested too much time and money to ever consider a change; they accept every mistake and remain loyal. But for those of you who are troubled by CGC’s attempt at a new case, we’d like to remind you of a few things:

We have Steve Borock.

We have the most tried and tested inner well design with the best plastic for long term preservation.

Our outer shell design and materials are top-notch.

We continue to be committed to providing the best grading, the best cases, and the best customer service in the industry.

CBCS customers really are satisfied customers.