What do you think of the new CGC holder?234

Originally Posted by blazingbob
plus 1[/quoteQuote:

Originally Posted by blazingbob
Oh I'm very aware of thread bashing going on in both forums.

And yes I agree you won't be seeing CBCS is a great grading company on the CGC boards.

It is CBCS's choice to allow their forum to discuss the competition.

But what exactly gets accomplished about the issue in a CBCS thread? And what would get accomplished about an CBCS issue in a CGC thread?

Nothing much. People just like to talk. About the hobby, the comics, the grading companies. Those that sell bags and boards and whatever. But you are right. I'm sure this thread doesn't make CGC move along any faster in fixing the problems.

I send in a fair number of books for slabbing - mostly a result of my retail cleaning/pressing service. Some books of my own. I send customers books wherever they want. CGC actually gets more books from me than CBCS as a result. I personally use both grading companies. My OWN books aren't going to CGC until these issues get sorted out. Behind every Newton ring (prism effect) is a pressure ridge. Uneven pressure is being applied to the book. That's what's wrong with the DD pictured here as well. There is less pressure on the top edge of the book than everywhere else. Uneven pressure cannot be a good thing - though I admit to not knowing to what degree it is a bad thing.

But looking at the DD 181, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the book is going to be just as wavy out of the slab as it is in the slab - if left in the slab for a year or two.

Originally Posted by blazingbob
And yes I agree you won't be seeing CBCS is a great grading company on the CGC boards.

It is CBCS's choice to allow their forum to discuss the competition.

But what exactly gets accomplished about the issue in a CBCS thread? And what would get accomplished about an CBCS issue in a CGC thread?

Originally Posted by MR_SigS
I'm sure they're looking into it also. It would just be nice if they addressed it instead of appearing to avoid it. Seems easy enough as apposed to answering many phone calls.

Originally Posted by blazingbob
They are NOT avoiding the issue one bit. I've spoken to CGC today, they will be making another statement about the issues brought up in the thread.

Again, they are VERY aware of the issues.

Originally Posted by Marc_1
Quote:

Originally Posted by blazingbob
They are NOT avoiding the issue one bit. I've spoken to CGC today, they will be making another statement about the issues brought up in the thread.

Again, they are VERY aware of the issues.

Bob, perhaps that is addressed towards me because I said they only addressed it a few times with very broad strokes.

I'm glad they are aware of the issues and will be addressing them. It just seemed quite odd that they would take the time to address Microchamber paper and not even say a word about the case issues.

They have odd ways of communicating with their community and don't take advantage of the forum as a means to provide timely information to their customer base.

The thread here serves the purpose of talking about the competition in an open way. There is nothing wrong with it. I'm a fan of both companies and don't wish harm on either one.

I just want CGC to take notice of how CBCS treats their customers and provides information in a unobstructed and open fashion.

Originally Posted by CatmanAmerica
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc_1
Quote:

Originally Posted by blazingbob
They are NOT avoiding the issue one bit. I've spoken to CGC today, they will be making another statement about the issues brought up in the thread.

Again, they are VERY aware of the issues.

Bob, perhaps that is addressed towards me because I said they only addressed it a few times with very broad strokes.

I'm glad they are aware of the issues and will be addressing them. It just seemed quite odd that they would take the time to address Microchamber paper and not even say a word about the case issues.

They have odd ways of communicating with their community and don't take advantage of the forum as a means to provide timely information to their customer base.

The thread here serves the purpose of talking about the competition in an open way. There is nothing wrong with it. I'm a fan of both companies and don't wish harm on either one.

I just want CGC to take notice of how CBCS treats their customers and provides information in a unobstructed and open fashion.

This is a very telling point. "They" being Harshen in his 23rd post since 2003. I asked myself "Why would the head honcho choose this moment to post a precisely edited, cut & paste statement about the archival benefits of microchamber paper" along with CGC's commitment to continue it's use (as it slows pulp paper aging through neutralizing acids in paper and inks via pH buffering) instead of addressing the more immediate problems they're faced with from the roll-out of their new holder?

I could only conclude three possible reasons for this:

1. That CGC is starting to feel the burn from reduced submissions and growing collecting community concerns about the design of their new holder.

2. Microchamber paper is something CGC continues to use that isn't controversial. And it's easier to point out a positive benefit than to address the plethora of complaints about the ugly appearance of Newton's rings (on spine, bottom and edge of many comics), waves (along the tops), the pressures these impart to books, and the large grade box with bold grade which, ironically perhaps, leaves the impression of overgrading in those books afflicted.

3. (This may be the most logical reason for Harshen chiming in on this issue now) - CBCS doesn't use microchamber paper, deeming it unnecessary based on the CBCS holder design and some of CGC's large order customers are starting to indicate they may turn elsewhere for 3rd party grading if the problems aren't fixed to their satisfaction soon (the implication should be clear).

Originally Posted by CatmanAmerica
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc_1
Quote:

Originally Posted by blazingbob
They are NOT avoiding the issue one bit. I've spoken to CGC today, they will be making another statement about the issues brought up in the thread.

Again, they are VERY aware of the issues.

Bob, perhaps that is addressed towards me because I said they only addressed it a few times with very broad strokes.

I'm glad they are aware of the issues and will be addressing them. It just seemed quite odd that they would take the time to address Microchamber paper and not even say a word about the case issues.

They have odd ways of communicating with their community and don't take advantage of the forum as a means to provide timely information to their customer base.

The thread here serves the purpose of talking about the competition in an open way. There is nothing wrong with it. I'm a fan of both companies and don't wish harm on either one.

I just want CGC to take notice of how CBCS treats their customers and provides information in a unobstructed and open fashion.

This is a very telling point. "They" being Harshen in his 23rd post since 2003. I asked myself "Why would the head honcho choose this moment to post a precisely edited, cut & paste statement about the archival benefits of microchamber paper" along with CGC's commitment to continue it's use (as it slows pulp paper aging through neutralizing acids in paper and inks via pH buffering) instead of addressing the more immediate problems they're faced with from the roll-out of their new holder?

I could only conclude three possible reasons for this:

1. That CGC is starting to feel the burn from reduced submissions and growing collecting community concerns about the design of their new holder.

2. Microchamber paper is something CGC continues to use that isn't controversial. And it's easier to point out a positive benefit than to address the plethora of complaints about the ugly appearance of Newton's rings (on spine, bottom and edge of many comics), waves (along the tops), the pressures these impart to books, and the large grade box with bold grade which, ironically perhaps, leaves the impression of overgrading in those books afflicted.

3. (This may be the most logical reason for Harshen chiming in on this issue now) - CBCS doesn't use microchamber paper, deeming it unnecessary based on the CBCS holder design and some of CGC's large order customers are starting to indicate they may turn elsewhere for 3rd party grading if the problems aren't fixed to their satisfaction soon (the implication should be clear).

Keep in mind, this is all purely speculation on my part, but there have been a number of interesting responses to Harshen's thread. The fact that the head of operations took the time to post this information rather than asking Matt to do it, but failed to address any of the issues of serious concern in the 225 page plus thread critiquing their new holder does make one wonder about the rationale.

Originally Posted by DrWatson
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobALuey
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrWatson
Do you love it? Do you hate it? Perhaps you're indifferent? Are you comfortable with what seems to be static and pressure holding your book in place? If it's hit hard enough, will the insides separate from the cover? Will it tear at the staples? Is it too much like the CBCS holder? Do you like the prism/oil slick/Newtonian effect? Could you use it as a disco ball? Do you need a special tool to crack it open? What do you really think?

I think you ask a lot of questions, but how would you answer them?

No. Yes. Maybe a little. No. Yes, in my opinion. Yes, in my opinion. No, it needs to be more like the CBCS holder. No. Yes. Yes. I think it's a glorified cell phone case designed to go around a comic book. I wouldn't put someone else's books in it, much less my own.

Originally Posted by Stelbert_Stylton
Quote:

Originally Posted by CatmanAmerica
@Stelbert_Stylton I read the posts in that thread Stu and just about everyone else who read it knows why that thread was locked. Here's a hint: it wasn't Steve's fault.

I don't even know what you are responding to. Maybe I wasn't clear enough? You asked "Why would the head honcho (of CGC) choose this moment to post a precisely edited, cut & paste statement about the archival benefits of microchamber paper" and you then gave 3 reasons maybe why. I gave you a fourth.

I was thinking that someone at CGC read the MCP thread here (whether it was locked or not is irrelevant). CGC saw Borock acting irresponsibly by throwing out "facts" about MCP without any actual facts to back it up, so they took the opportunity to try to make Borock look bad. Harshen posted three things that seemed to be aimed directly at refuting what Borock said here. Harshen said:

1)"There is no evidence that the inserts (MCP) will harm the book once their life expectancy runs out (i.e. the acids go back into the book). What actually happens is the alkaline in the microchamber paper, which neutralizes the acids, eventually runs out and any remaining acids in the book (or environment) will simply resume its destruction." This is the opposite of what Borock said.

2). Then he said "The time frame on a sheet's effectiveness depends on the amount of acid it's absorbing from both the book and the environment. The worse of either, the faster the effectiveness of the sheets expires. But the seven year limit that's been discussed in the past seems to be quite a bit on the conservative side." Again, the opposite of what Borock said.

3.) He then posted a link to facts. The opposite of what Borock did.

Seems to me that this was a conscious effort to use Borock's own words against him. Like you said, the timing is quite suspicious.

Originally Posted by Iceman399
I love the updated photos he posted...every single one is off center and tilted. Doesn't it make everyone feel sooooo much better especially seeing those Newton Rings on the front cover of the dark covered books still.

Careful Masterctrlprogram why didn't you declare the slabs had damage at the top of the holder and that "they arrived safely to the submitter after we shipped them to him" SHAME ON YOU!

Originally Posted by Iceman399
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinzebac
Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman399
I love the updated photos he posted...every single one is off center and tilted. Doesn't it make everyone feel sooooo much better especially seeing those Newton Rings on the front cover of the dark covered books still.

Careful Masterctrlprogram why didn't you declare the slabs had damage at the top of the holder and that "they arrived safely to the submitter after we shipped them to him" SHAME ON YOU!

After rereading Matt's response, I am thinking that his post really isn't putting too many people's fears at ease.

100% agree