Reholder20671
 It was a one trick pony show but always hilarious.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Why would the reholder fiasco/9.9 reholder change that response from 4 years ago....if anything the current events just re-inforce it and prove it's the right thing to do. Plain and simple....in a reholder situation, CBCS is saying: we will correct the grade if we believe the initial grade was inaccurate. This is the right thing to do, full stop. Now, what that means for the customers who went down from a 9.9 or 10 to whatever...that's an entirely different question....that question merits discussion in my opinion. Correcting grades is not debatable in my opinion...they should 100% do that...everytime. EDIT: I recognize the re-grade potentially opens up a can of worms for CBCS. This should be written into their T&C and I'd be shocked if it's not there already. A re-grade is an admission of error..but no one ever talks about if the re-grade is in the customers favour...a grade bump. Its only a problem for CBCS/client if the grade goes down. |
||
| Post 101 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
GIJFan123 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Not a 9.8 (and certainly not a 9.9), but here's my Spider-Man 2099, signed by Rick Leonardi and Tom Smith |
||
| Post 102 • IP flag post | ||
|
It was a one trick pony show but always hilarious.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I will add this....if it's true that a Customer Service rep wrote/verbalized, whatever, to a client that there was a "rogue" grader handing out gift grades....that person needs to be re-trained to never divulge the "inner goings-on" of the company. Also, by doing the re-grade from a 9.9 to a 9.6 then pressed to a 9.8...you have to commend CBCS for at least following their own rule. You know, CBCS must have known, the client is not going to like this at all....and in the social media age...CBCS still did what they thought was right.....all knowing that the very simple and easy way out is to keep the 9.9....especially after pressing. If CBCS does that, this thread and outrage doesn't exist....but they did it anyway....probably because it's what they should have done. |
||
| Post 103 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Rafel private msg quote post Address this user | |
| What do the graders notes say for both 9.8 and 9.9 grades and what made CBCS regrade it? | ||
| Post 104 • IP flag post | ||
 I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers).Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @GAC I understand the position. Truly I do and it makes sense. But when I turn to @poka response to me late last night he wrote: "if you watch the video the word basically is explained - as the only difference is that for reholder there is an additional step to assess whether slab has been tampered and remove the book from the exiting holder - so no wordsmither" I certainly didn't need to hear "so no wordsmither", but his point was from the video that there is no difference for how reholders are handled except for an assessment of tampering. In other words regardless if raw book or slabbed book they are handled the same. To me that means they are to be regraded regardless. That's the piece in this whole thread that is bothering me significantly. We have those that believe one policy and are adamant and clear about the policy and then there is at least 1 who believes from the Ricketts video that all reholders are "handled the same" as raw books. So which is it? |
||
| Post 105 • IP flag post | ||
 I’m not an ant. I’m a rootin tootin Hornet!
|
Zombie_Head private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I agree they look over it for tamper evidence and glance at the book to make sure no damage has happened since grading. Like being dropped or damaged from shipping. In the video if so a quick press will most the time fix that. Reholder to CBCS isn’t a big deal I’ll be reholding my books with no worries. |
||
| Post 106 • IP flag post | ||
|
It was a one trick pony show but always hilarious.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Nuffsaid111 This is what I've always understood the rule to be...for the past several years regarding reholdering...and it's been unchanged, again, from what I've always understood. If someone sends in a slab to reholder, CBCS will: - Examine the slab/case for any damage. - Assess magnitude of damage to case and determine if said damage could have caused damage to book. - If damage to slabs is severe enough to have caused damage....book is re-graded. - Examine slab/case for any damage - Determined case is damage free - Visual examination of book through case/slab to ensure in line with grade given on label. - If clear signs grade on label does not match grade of book....book is re-graded. Re-grade is the same grading scrutiny as if it came raw. This is what I've always believed it to be based on the multiple threads on this topic over the years. The current reholder fiasco should only reinforce that this is the correct procedure. |
||
| Post 107 • IP flag post | ||
|
I’m not an ant. I’m a rootin tootin Hornet!
|
Zombie_Head private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @figment that looks a lot better with that new label. I do like the old label but the new one brightens up the case. Doesn’t look as dark and miserable. lol | ||
| Post 108 • IP flag post | ||
 " . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GAC Unfortunately the passage you quote doesn’t clear anything up. It first states “as long as the case and book do not show any signs the grade is incorrect” and then raises a conditionality “if the case is badly damaged it will be evaluated”… So, which is it? Does the case need to show evidence of damage, tampering or the book has clear signs of post-grading damage to cause a re-grade? Or does it (strangely) go through a full grading any time you reholder? The latter suggests you cannot rely on a CBCS grade in any way. We all know there is an element of subjectivity but the grade is meaningless if that subjectivity is itself subject to constant re-evaluation. The video presented as evidence of CBCS policy had conversation within a specific context. Tampering, damage, and other post-grading issues. It seems clear there is a benefit to some intelligent review during a reholder to check for signs the book wasn’t somehow manipulated post-grading. But a full regrade? The language and context suggests that is not what is done. It also wouldn’t make any sense. Of course if there was an exception to the reliability of the initial grading process that warrants a regrade (as apparently the case here) that is different. Unfortunately it is also the worst case outcome for CBCS. It suggests several possibilities, none of which are good. First, that a single bad grader could have evaluated and (“incorrectly “ based on standards) given a book a 9.9… this calls into question process. Second, the number of books impacted… and third, the treatment of CBCS graded books even by CBCS… that is, confidence in grades given. As for CBCS doing the right thing and in turn that integrity causing blowback… they are aware that a badly graded 9.9 may bite them in other ways. Others in this thread pointed out they could see clear defects. Of course this is a bit more ambiguous (and CGC faces the same issues) but it is still a risk, especially as the #2 player in the market. As for what CBCS should do. That is easy, though hard to say if they can do it and what the outcome will imply re: cost to correct. They should be able to know the universe of books graded by this grader and their cert numbers. The impact will depend (obviously) on number of books, value of those books and whether there was bias in this example of bad grading (skewed consistently higher?) and/or if the process gap was limited in any way. Unfortunately, the hint of this being an issue at all, without any way to understand scope of potential impact, is the big problem… The notion that every book “should” be re-evaluated in the same was as an originally graded book will just compound these issues… |
||
| Post 109 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
SpiderTim private msg quote post Address this user | |
| what if encassing the book with either CGC/CBCS is going to damage the book overtime? Grading companies have now been operating for some time now and have we ever assesed if encassing the books is not producing damages to the book itself overtime? | ||
| Post 110 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by SpiderTim There will be many reasons to reholder books. Case damage, passage of time’s impact on MC paper and plastic, preference for display/aesthetic. |
||
| Post 111 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Despite my long post above, none of this scares me away from CBCS books. But I don’t play in that segment of the market of very high grade books dependent on small grade differences for majority of their values… But for those who do (and general logic of grading overall) this does look (and is) very bad. |
||
| Post 112 • IP flag post | ||
|
I’m not an ant. I’m a rootin tootin Hornet!
|
Zombie_Head private msg quote post Address this user | |
| What it kinda seems to me is CGC is feeling the heat on all their mess ups and they want to try and spread to CBCS. nothing new with CBCS except nicer labels and superior slabs and grading. If one of the CGC fan boys can put doubt about CBCS grading then it might help save some of CGC profits. I have no worries about CBCS doing the right thing when it comes to reholdering or any other issue. That’s why I use them and not CGC. Everyone needs to think about what was said and posted and think why? That video about reholdering has been out for a while now someone wants to try and cause some turmoil in the boards. I’m not biting on it. |
||
| Post 113 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @GAC Got it. Thank you. All those bullet points make total sense and are appropriate. Companies are notorious for weasel words in their policies and this one puts me on alert. - Visual examination of book through case/slab to ensure in line with grade given on label. What is "in-line". Who does this? And how is this assessed? I don't like that phrase at all. If we play this game that grading is some mystical, detailed, professional, highly trained activity, then what is "in-line"? This whole grading thing is subjective and that phrase adds another level of subjectivity. If there is no damage, and no evidence of tampering (which I agree they should do) then stick it in a reholder without that "in-line". Stating "in-line" to me, could mean, my 9.6 gets knocked down to 9.4 because the re-holder individual sees something they don't particularly like that day. And when money is involved for me which is the only reason I'm in this grading game, then I cannot submit books for reholdering when I know for sure my books have not been tampered with and have not been damaged; yet are subject to the reholder guy having a bad day. Edit: We all know the 0.2 differential is often a load of sh*t depending on the day and on the individual. So I don't need to lose 0.2 on a book because of these reasons. Yea - an actual 7.0 that was graded as 9.4 would be "in-line", but 0.2 (and even 0.4) should not. That is my stance. And yet it is not clear that 0.2 difference is on the table within their "in-line" standard. I am an auditer by trade and have been trained to look for for weasel words in corporate policies & procedures that offer them an "out". This is one them. |
||
| Post 114 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
SidTheSquid private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Poka , I watched that video when it was published. I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. I believe what they're implying about books "basically going through the same process" is; they give the books a once over, make sure everything looks as it should, crack it out, print a new label and put it in a new case. They are not giving it to three graders to do a page count, check for restoration and assign a new grade without knowledge of the original grade. And they've never said they did. I sent in a "raw grade" book that was given what I felt was a gift grade of 7.5 for encapsulation. And this was sent just as a new submission, not a reholder. I fully expected at LEAST two grade drops. Guess what it came back? 7.5. In other words, they're just being efficient with their grading. Now, I also had a 9.8 that I thought was a gift grade that I wanted a new holder for. I never sent it, because I knew the risk was too big that they'd look at it and say "this never should have gotten a 9.8, we can't send it back out like this...9.6". The whole thing's a crapshoot and we really have no information about who is looking at reholders and for how long. |
||
| Post 115 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by SidTheSquid BINGO!!! 100%!!! |
||
| Post 116 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
BrashLimburg private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Zombie_Head That’s some Grade A conspiracy theorizing there. No CGC fans are out to get CBCS, I don’t think they take it seriously enough to bother. The main issue here is transparency and community engagement. Shit happens, we all get it, but this is a business built entirely on trust and having a customer service rep make an admission like that and then zero communication around it is just incompetence. |
||
| Post 117 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
BrashLimburg private msg quote post Address this user | |
| And by all means look at my posts on CGC. I’m just as tough on them if not tougher. As collectors we need to hold these companies accountable to protect this hobby. Being a “fan” of either makes no sense. | ||
| Post 118 • IP flag post | ||
|
" . "
|
Davethebrave private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by BrashLimburg Well said. |
||
| Post 119 • IP flag post | ||
 would be nice to have a snugger fit.
|
Sigur_Ros private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GAC Well.. since everything they do is so perfect, I'm looking forward to the reports that CBCS communicated with the buyer and reimbursed him the difference between what he paid for their sloppily graded product and what it's FMV is now, since they misled the buyer big time. Because that's what they should have done. |
||
| Post 120 • IP flag post | ||
|
It was a one trick pony show but always hilarious.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Sigur_Ros This was my post 17hours ago. Do you just pick selective posts to justify your opposing or smartass responses or do you actually read all the posts of the person you're responding to?  |
||
| Post 121 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Imagine a company that intercedes with an update on the singular situation and on their policy to provide clarity and avoid inner conflict within a forum; that is borne out of frustration from lack of answers? Nahhh... I can't imagine that. This is on them. |
||
| Post 122 • IP flag post | ||
|
would be nice to have a snugger fit.
|
Sigur_Ros private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GAC I guess you can choose to take my comment personally but I'm not sure why one would do so, unless they already had an issue with me, which is fine. I'm just looking forward to them doing the right thing, if they haven't already. But, to answer your questions: 1) Yes, I pick selective posts to reply opposing viewpoints. Would be weird to just pick random comments and reply to them with something completely unrelated. 2) No, I don't read all posts by a specific user before responding to a single point. Whatever was said previously is irrelevant, since as I implied already.. it wasn't personal. Don't get so triggered. |
||
| Post 123 • IP flag post | ||
|
would be nice to have a snugger fit.
|
Sigur_Ros private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Davethebrave Amen. |
||
| Post 124 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
When getting a reholder, it has to pass this guys inspection first. And nothing gets by him. |
||
| Post 125 • IP flag post | ||
 Please continue to ignore anything I post.
|
southerncross private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth  |
||
| Post 126 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Drogio private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I see it in simple terms. If CBCS is regrading every book they ever assigned a grade to, essentially calling o to question all books they ever graded at any point in time, then the whole “guarantee” promise in their process means absolutely nothing. The grade they assigned the book means absolutely nothing. That being said, I don’t think that’s what they are doing. Mostly because it is time consuming and thus costing them money to perform a full regrade yet charging less than what the normal grading cost is. Similar to where they won’t add graders notes to higher grades when they have a lot of volume to push through, it doesn’t make sense to “waste time” regrading everything that comes through. However They reserve the right to dive deeper or skimp depending on the amount of backlog they have and what they see. And as long as their posted policies are “vague” and not too rigid, they’ll adjust as they feel is necessary. That being said, it may be best to send in reholders when their backlogs are the longest (e.g., con season) as they’re less likely to spend more time staring at your books if they’ve got a quota to meet and move things along. What bothered me most is they acknowledged they were responsible for the error but offered no compensation. That is 100% wrong for a company that uses a big words like “guarantee”. What bothers me second most is that if they know certain books by ID that were graded by this rindividual, they should be putting that out there so whomever has those books can return them for proper compensation if the grade is determined to be lower. Again, where is the guarantee???? I’ve been the biggest CBCS supporter, but the two points above are whats really shaking me to my core about CBCS right now. Look at your books before sending in…if you agree with the grade, it’s likely not changing if reholdered. However I have a Spawn 1 9.8 CBCs with a few spine ticks…in an older slab…I’ll sell that book before having it reholdered… |
||
| Post 127 • IP flag post | ||
|
I’m not an ant. I’m a rootin tootin Hornet!
|
Zombie_Head private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Drogio has anyone verified that e-mail as real? Anyone can doctored anything. | ||
| Post 128 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
SidTheSquid private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Zombie_Head That would be bizarre to photoshop an email- the claim that they were told "This was the work of one bad grader, who is no longer with the company" is the part that we should probably take with a grain of salt. If they DID say that...it was definitely oversharing! lol Should have just said "Upon closer inspection, this book was evaluated to be lower than a 9.9. We had it pressed by our team of top tier pressing experts, but were not able to get it above a 9.8. We accept responsibility for the grading error and are open to providing compensation for the value difference between a 9.9 and 9.8 in the current market." If they'd put it like that, this thread probably wouldn't exist. |
||
| Post 129 • IP flag post | ||
|
I’m not an ant. I’m a rootin tootin Hornet!
|
Zombie_Head private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @SidTheSquid see it all the time. Won’t be the first won’t be the last. Not believing any of it. | ||
| Post 130 • IP flag post | ||