Talk:Certified Guaranty Company

Criticism

OK, it's locked. But is there really a "latte grade"? Sorry Starbucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Some of the criticisms section seems reasonable, but the article is written partly in the second person and the length of the section suggests serious bias on the part of the author. More balance would be helpful. D-Clancy 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I originally created the page and tried to keep up with the updates, making sure that criticisms were somewhat ordered and reasonably stated (as many of these criticisms do have some foundation). I tried to clear up some of the things I knew to be incorrectly stated but there have been many anonymous updates and the page is starting to break down into an anti-CGC rant ripe with conspiracy theories and second and third hand reporting (not unlike a thread on the CGC message boards). Kevthemev 11:57, 21 January 2007

I agree. While criticism can be informative, in this article it currently takes about three times the space as the general information about the company. Much of this seems to come from message boards, which are not considered reliable sources as per WP:A. Trimming this section will help to balance out the article and bring it back to a neutral point of view. --GentlemanGhost

"I agree. While criticism can be informative, in this article it currently takes about three times the space as the general information about the company."

It's not criticsims - it's the truth! Why does truth have to be criticsim? It's general information, not criticisms. And if it's so bad, why don't you write the section that would balance it out? You can't complain about it if you don't personally do something about it.

"Much of this seems to come from message boards, which are not considered reliable sources as per WP:A."

Even when the president of the company, Steve Borock, only posts important information ON their chatboards? That's part of the whole point: CGC makes many of their most important announcements ONLY on their chatboards, not their website. If "sborock" posted it, it's official, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.30.34 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a complaint so much as it is an observation. Looking on this article as an outsider, it seems to me to be strongly biased to one point of view. More effort seems to have been put into detailing specific complaints about the company than explaining what the company does. To be a useful Wikipedia article, it needs to be edited to represent a more neutral point of view. Otherwise, the content might be more appropriate for a personal website or blog.

Regarding the material which is sourced from the message boards, truth is not the issue. As stated in WP:A, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." For all I know, it could all be true, every word. Yet even if I knew firsthand its veracity, that would still not be enough to qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia demands reliable sources, preferably secondary in nature. Unfortunately, it does not consider Internet bulletin boards to be reliable. --GentlemanGhost 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the section I just took out, one cannot generalize regarding the general public. Attaching a reference to a message board doesn't make it any better. Message boards are not acceptable sources, as noted above. --GentlemanGhost 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I just now reverted to a previous edit, taking out some parts of the Restoration vs. Conservation section. The material that was put back in is, in some cases, redundant. Moreover, it's not necessary to quote an entire reference. If the reader wants to check it out, that's what the link is for. Making the article more succinct (without losing the point) is better for the article. Also, we really need to avoid making the article conversational and informal. It is an encyclopedia, after all. There should never be a sentence starting with the word "Update", for example. Respectfully, GentlemanGhost 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The information in this page is misleading. CGC grades counterfeit books. Cy-Fi (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Why the blatant puffery? "This is another valuable service as a good counterfeit can be hard to detect even by a trained eye." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Internet partners and link

The reason edited this section was because of the way it was phrased using the second person. It sounded like advertising copy taken directly from the company's site (and indeed included a link to the website). "You can do this...", "You can do that...". This is not an encyclopedic tone. The way that it is phrased now (including the subsequent edit after mine) is much better. Also, I think linking to CGC's website in the lead section is unnecessary as there is already a link to it in the "External links" section. --GentlemanGhost 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wizard Age"

Regarding the "Wizard Age" label controversy, this section was phrased very badly. Nothing that is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia should need the preface "This is a true story." That it is "corroborated by Moondog" is hardly a ringing endorsement. Moreover, Internet bulletin boards are considered "self-publishing" and consequently are not considered to be reliable sources. I don't object to the content per se, but if it is to be included, it needs a better source and it needs to be rephrased. --GentlemanGhost 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Another editor questioned whether this company was truly notable enough for Wikipedia. I think that it is, but there isn't much currently in the article to back that up. I added a quote from Robert Overstreet to help establish notability. Another thing that might help is a verifiable source regarding the relationship between Wizard Magazine and CGC. Wizard features CGC and CGC-graded comics in its monthly price guide, but as I am not a subscriber, I am not sure when this began or what the exact nature of the partnership is. If someone has a reference that would clarify this, I think it would add to the argument of notability. --GentlemanGhost 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.17.130 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 10 May 2007

Neutrality

This article is really starting to shape up. Thank you!

Doubtless, you will have noticed, however, that I tagged it as POV again. This is for many of the same reasons as before. The criticism section is still much larger than the basic information about the company. This gives undue weight to that point of view. Many of these criticisms still come from message boards, which are not considered reliable sources. It could all be true, but that's not the point. The point is verifiability. Assertions made by a poster on a message board are impossible to verify. Indeed, it's not even possible to verify that a poster is who he or she claims to be. For this reason, message boards are not considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Removing some these unverifiable assertions will help to whittle down the overlong criticism section. --GentlemanGhost 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I have removed the section on CGC "pandering too much to speculators". The only evidence provided for this criticism was a CGC ad and their website's FAQ. Although individually, one may infer things from these sources, it is original research to put one's conclusions into the Wikipedia article. This may be a valid criticism, but it needs to come from a reliable source, not inferred from the primary source. --GentlemanGhost 01:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All this said, there are still elements of controversy missing from the discussion. I've lost the link (otherwise I'd have added it) but there was a published article critical of the CGC idea, in which a noted comic book expert criticizes the idea of "slabbing", saying it has changed comic book collecting to wall art collecting since slabbing does not allow the interior of comics to be viewed. I agree that commenting on speculators needs a bit stronger of a source; anecdotally I have heard this and in fact there is visual evidence in the 2007 Overstreet book which includes an illustration of a CGC-slabbed 2005-dated Action Comics #824, which Overstreet lists at being worth only $2.50 in top condition. Even at the cheapest CGC pricing option, the cost of getting it shipped and graded and slabbed far outweighs the stated cost of the comic; obviously speculation that someday Action 824 will be worth substantially more is under way here. Unfortunately we can't speculate ourselves as to the motives (that would be OR, plus we don't know if the slabbed comic might not be autographed or have some defect increasing its value), but it is a piece of possible evidence anyway. 23skidoo 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you find ever find that magazine/newspaper again, I think it would be appropriate to add its information to this Wikipedia article. The problem with this article has been and continues to be that it includes far too much unverifiable material, the preponderance of which is slanted against the company. Published criticisms from verifiable sources such as you mention are far more useful to Wikipedia's users than message board rantings. --GentlemanGhost 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the one that he was talking about, because I remember reading it in the Wall Street Journal a few years back. It can be found here: WSJ: Bang! Pow! Cash!, great read and pretty much dead on about the whole criticism section (which BTW, is way too long). I have been moth balling my collection, so these articles have been great reads. --Ronb (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"much dead on about the whole criticism section (which BTW, is way too long)" How can it be too long when it's all true? Should we edit out the truth for stylistic purposes? Please, all you worriers, write a section or two to balance out the Criticism section, I beg you. Then we can focus on the real problems... put up or shut up, you might say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonewert (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The owner of Mile High Comics has written extensively about CGC.[1] Not totally sure if it meets our requirements for a reliable source, but it might. - Peregrine Fisher 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jason Ewert edit war

Maybe we should talk about this on the talk page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit trying to delete the FACTS and there won't be a problem, Jason. Jasonewert 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the facts are (strangely, but of necessity) less important than verifiability. For a long time, this article has contained a lot of information which has not been backed up by reliable sources. Unfortunately, such information is not really appropriate for Wikipedia. I have not yet looked at the specifics of the current edit war, but I would urge everyone to make sure that they are citing any additions to this page with reliable sources. --GentlemanGhost 22:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Forum refs

Most of our refs don't look reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. However, I thought that by putting them in reference format, it might make it easier to identify what we're looking at, rather than blindly following a link. While I still feel that message boards don't meet the definition of reliable sources, I think there might be some room for quotes from Steve Borock on http://boards.collectors-society.com. It appears to me that this website is owned by CCG[2], the parent company of CGC. Therefore, I don't think there's any "reasonable doubt" that the posts by Steve Borock are actually by him. To my mind, they bear more weight than would a message posted on another message board by someone purporting to be Steve Borock. Since this is an article about CGC, as long as a Borock quote meets the criteria for self-published sources of WP:V, I think that these could be included in the article, if we so choose. It should be noted, however, that comments and complaints about CGC on this message board by third parties do not meet the standard, as message boards are questionable sources and the commentators are not making statements about themselves, but rather someone else. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the references which seems particularly weak is from the forum at StlComics.com. [3] The first post of the thread reprints an article by Nathan Melby. However, no credit is given to the original source of the article. Given that Melby is a reporter for the Comics Buyer's Guide, I assume that this is from whence the article came. However, I could not find a copy of the article on the www.cbgxtra.com website. It seems to me that if we want to use this article as a reference, the original issue of CBG should be referenced, not someone else's transcription to an Internet forum. Also, the verb "backpedaling" which is attached to this quote doesn't seem very NPOV. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus christ, thank you! Somebody finally gets what I have been saying for a year. The refs are reliable, 100%! It "appears that this website is owned by CCG/CGC" - holy crap, you finally figured that out? You gotta be a retard not to know that. Do you guys even collect comics? You don't seem to know much. I told you like a year ago, there is NO reasonable doubt. If it's posted by "Sborock" w/ the name in green, it is Steve Borock. PERIOD. Just spend a day or two actually reading the Board, and it will be as obvious as the facts I've presented. Have you guys ever even been there? Posted there? If you did, you'd know that this is part of CGC's policy/strategy. They put important info on the chat boards, and ONLY on the chatboards, on purpose. If they were really altruistic and slabbing books to "help the hobby, save the buyer from getting ripped off", they would've released this info to Wizard, CBG, newsarama, etc. Wake up! Or read up. Anything to educate you guys and I can quit this edit war.

Although the page as it is now is a step in the right direction. I will always put the Ewert info back in b/c IT'S THE FRIGGIN' TRUTH! VERIFIED BY CGC! Want proof? Call their toll-free number - 1-877-NMCOMIC and get the info, if you're not too lazy. As it is now, the info is smaller than I would like, one or two sentences, but that's better that editing it out completely.

Do you guys ever make any actual contributions, or do you just sit there editing out the truth? Write some pro-CGC sections to balance the article, ya hypocrites! Truthy McStupid (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "reading up", perhaps now's a good time to read WP:CIVIL. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't answer the question. Do you guys know anything about comics? Or are you just anal thought-police that like to wag your fingers and say "I think that's against the rules"? If you guys were any type of comic fans, you'd know that the ends justify the means, and you'd quite screwing with the truth. Truth that is verified in the real world, not just your mama's basement. Did you call the phone # I gave you and talk to Steve Borock? Jason Ewert is banned for life from CGC from submitting trimmed comics - FACT.

You've seen this link, right, that's been up for almost a year? http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1058881&page=1#Post1058881 That's not official enough for you? Send him an email...

Why am I agruing with someone who uses "whence"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.17.130 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't respond to your inflammatory questions, but I will point again to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Message boards are self-published sources and therefore are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Comments made by CGC employees on their own message boards might be an exceptional case, as per the policy I linked to above. Other people's comments on the message boards, however, are not covered by this exception. Also, calling CGC directly is original research and cannot be used as the basis for information within the article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that calling the number would not be WP:OR. Any more than watching a film would be. The main thing to ask is: "Did you have to draw a logical conclusion based on the data?" If yes, then it's OR, if it's merely stating the information conveyed, then I dopn't think it is, presuming that the source of the information (the phone line, in this case) is documented. Other than that, AFAICT, GentlemanGhost has interpreted the various policies correctly. And I'd like to reinforce something as clearly as possible: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - jc37 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, calling up CGC and asking them to comment the Jason Ewert matter would be the equivalent to "unsourced material obtained from the Wikipedian's personal experience", which is prohibited by WP:OR. And, since it is not a published source, it would also be unverifiable. Sure, you could call the same phone number, but that doesn't mean you'll get the exact same answer. It's a rather iffy methodology if you ask me. I suppose if you wanted to call the number to verify that, yes, this is the correct phone number, that would acceptable, but I'd be wary of any other use of it as a source. In any event, I used another means to source the Jason Ewert info: Steve Borock's post on the message board. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A thought

Just as I thought, you guys aren't even comic book fans. Someone didn't even know CGC started in New Jersey. Sad little boys, pretending you're "in charge" of something. I'm doing what's morally right for the comic community, you guys can keep aiding and abetting the scammers and scum of the comic industry. And you can't stop me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.35 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your moral crusade is better suited to a blog or a forum, not an encyclopedia article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Below me. It's not necessarily a moral crusade, but it's turned into a crusade against scab-pickers like you. I'll ask you again - do you even know anything about CGC at all? No, you know Wiki style formats and what's technically not allowed. You're like the balloonknot in middle school who says, after the bell rings, - "Teacher, you forgot to give us homework". Maybe I should just wipe out the page - then you'll have nothing to stroke it to. "oh yeah... oh yeah... I'm gonna edit that out... oooooh yeah, that's how I like it" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.35 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the "Criticism" section NPOV?

Is the Criticism section NPOV? There has been an ongoing edit war regarding it. A previous iteration of the article might be good for comparison. For example, this one.

Comments from Peregrine Fisher as requested by GentlemenGhost

These are just my opinion, not a GA review or anything, so feel free to ignore.

I don't understand the description for Qualified (green)

I woudn't put an external link to Barex in the body. It would be better to provide a short description with a reference to that link.

"There has been controversy regarding CGC's policies on conservation, restoration, and trimming, as well as concerns about its impartiality." could use a ref. Probably a few other sentences.

Since forums/message board posts are usually frowned upon I think the refs here should explain as much as possible about the source so people can judge for themselves. I made a stab at what an expanded ref might look like. Here's the dif or just look at ref number 18.

Overall, think this page is looking pretty good. If you're looking for respectibility, I think you're almost there. If you're looking for a GA, I'd talk to the reviewers a bit about how they're going to grade the forum refs before submitting it. I have a feeling they would have an opinion on it, but I don't know what that would be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've attempted to rewrite the description for the green "Qualified" label. Well, more accurately, I've now incorporated more text from CGC's website in the description. However, it is attributed as such. Hopefully, it makes more sense now that I've quoted them more directly instead of trying to paraphrase.

I hadn't even considered nominating the article for GA status, although that's great if you think it's approaching that level. I may give that a shot. My primary concern was bringing it up to the NPOV standard. Secondarily, I wanted to fix the tone of the article which was originally very informal and unencyclopedic.

The forum refs remain problematic, but I think that there are valid reasons to include them in some cases. I think that any post by Steve Borock can be trusted to be valid and "officially" representative of the company's point of view. It is their message board, after all. It's possible that they may have made press releases covering the same points, but I have yet to find them. It will be interesting to see what others think.

As for the Barex link, it wasn't my first choice, but last time I checked, there is no information on Barex within Wikipedia. It's not even listed as part of a "list of plastics". So, failing that, I thought an external link might be helpful. I like your suggestion of converting it to an explanation with a reference. I'll go ahead and do that. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the expanded, clarified ref you made passes muster, so I'll set about making the others more consistent. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. I think once we have the quotes in their and easy to read, we'll be able to see exactly what info, if any, might be better off removed. We will then have a good article, and maybe even a Good Article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

POV check template

Looks like there's been a template on the article for quite some time about possible POV problems. Are there still concerns with the article? Shell ^babelfish 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I overlooked your message the last time I edited this page. Sorry about that. I think that the POV concerns have pretty much been addressed. But I have been loathe to remove the POV tag as I'm trying to avoid even the appearance that I think that I "own" the article. To that end, I had solicited feedback from WikiProject Comics and from an RfC. Initially, the article didn't get much attention, but lately it seems like more people are noticing it, which is great. As far as further improvements, there's still the matter of including exact quotes within the references, several of which stretch the boundaries of what is normally considered a reliable source. But on the POV issue, I think the article is much closer to a neutral point of view than it was a year ago. Someone other than me has removed the POV tag and I think that makes sense. Naturally, the article will continue to evolve and removing the tag does not mean that further improvements cannot be made. Thanks for taking an interest! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are allowed

Can someone point out where on wikipedia's policies or guidelines it says that you can't have a controversy section on an article? [4] The section even has an {{Inappropriate tone}} tag that links to the Wikipedia:TONE#Tone style guideline where it says that the lead should "include mention of notable criticism or controversies" and "They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, (...) including its more important controversies, if there are any."

If the section is not correctly written then the solution is not deleting it all but rewriting it. If the sources are not good then you should try to change them for others and delete the really bad ones.

The "Grading" subsection is very negative and should be moved out of criticism and include both the Comics Guaranty's LLC definition of grading and positive statements about grading (I suppose there must be some somewhere!) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the tag was added, but another user did a big rewrite to make the article NPOV a while back. It's a long and sordid tale, but basically this is the version that was agreed upon as being NPOV. There's a user who adds a bunch of NPOV stuff peridically example diff using various created accounts and as an anon (see history), but that stuff is always reverted out. There's still work to be done, but this article has been getting a lot better in the past 3 or 4 months. Basically, that one user added a bunch of bad info, this caused a bunch of cleanup but the job isn't finished. Anyways, thanks for putting the info back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been so long, I don't even remember if I added the tag, but I certainly agreed with the assessment. The article used to have an extremely negative bent to it, but several of us have tried to bring it to a neutral point of view. I think that it's in workable shape now. It's not perfect, but I haven't had the time to follow up on the suggestions for improvement made here on the talk page. I hadn't removed the NPOV tag because I thought I should allow other unbiased people to take a look at the article. I put it on the RfC list and notified the Comics WikiProject, but it didn't attract much attention. I'm content to have the dispute tag removed as I think the article is considerably more NPOV than it was before, without sacrificing some legitimate criticisms of the company. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This version from February 2007 is indicative of the POV and tone problems which the article used to have. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Since we seem to be back to a spate of IP addresses who have a bone to pick with the subject and continue to reinsert material against clear consensus, I've semi-protected for a bit. Shell ^babelfish 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Green Label" section

While it is true that the green lable is used to note that a special damaging feature is part of the comic it is also important to point out that if there is a signature on a comic that wasn't witnessed by a CGC Rep. the comic is given this "special" label. The truth is I'm not sure how far this extends since on their website it makes a comment about Certificates of authenticity being hard to confirm. This should be noted however since based on this someone would think that a comic with a green lable must have a horrible deficiancy where it might just have an unconfirmed signature.

This is the website that has the info: http://www.cgccomics.com/grading/label_description.asp

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinderhaulf (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2009

Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the article to include this information. I had used the same source for the label descriptions, so I suspect that CGC had changed it since I last looked at it. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If the unconfirmed signature is on the cover of the book, it gets a Green label. If it's inside/on the first page, it gets a Blue label. It's been that way for years. This, and a whole lot more info (like the letter grades, see below) used to be available here, but these anal OCD sufferers live for literal interpretaion of the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.101 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 May 2009

That is useful information. It just needs to be reliably sourced. That has nothing to do with obsessive-compulsive disorder or anal retentiveness, just basic encyclopedic verifiability. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It was reliably sourced, the information came directly from the president of CGC. These guys just pick and choose what rules to enforce when, when it suits them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.6 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Process definitions

As a Wikipedia user with no specific knowledge of comic collecting, I find the Process table confusing. It is stated that CGC grades material from 0.5 to 10, then Definitions defines what A, P, S, M and E denote, but below that is given an example grading "VF/NM 9.0". I'm going to induce that NM is near mint, but am I to guess what VF is or why it is there? 121.45.247.24 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The numbers correspond to more traditional descriptive grades such as "fine", "very fine", "near mint", and "mint". I've added a sentence explaining that and a link to the chart on their website. Also, I removed the "VF/NM" part from the example. Does that make it more comprehensible? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing an obvious and major criticism

One of the most obvious criticisms is that the CGC practice is the ultimate objectification and de-artification of the comic/magazine being graded, because it is sealed permanently and will never be read/viewed again except for the cover. All of the story and interior art are essentially sealed forever for all intents and purposes, as if there were no writer or non-cover artists. One might as well just encase it in Lucite like a bug in amber. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone has made that remark in a reliable source, I'm all for its inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See, here's more misinformation that would've easily been refuted when this page was informative. A comic is not permanently sealed in the slab, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.6 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-criticism bias

Coming back a month and half after I last commented, the piece still appears to be written to lend CGC an imprimatur of acceptance and authoritativeness that it doesn't really have. There are a large number of criticisms from a large number of critics. I've been collecting for 30ish years and I can't even begin to estimate the number of collectors who feel that CGC and its few imitators are a terrible idea, rip offs, a grievous insult to everyone but the cover artists, easy to fool, a cynical way to make a quick buck off of collectors who don't know better, grotesquely skewing comics values, causing older comics to be less critically graded, and so on, and so forth. While the "Criticisms" section hasn't been deleted again lately, and I think it's important that the lead itself continue to note that the company and the idea are controversial, the Overstreet quote in the lead isn't reliable, as he is not an independent source, but takes lots and lots of advertising money from them, has worked directly with them (some say effectively under their thumb) to revise the comics grading standards to the new 3rd Edition specifications, and otherwise has direct ties to the company. His statement is comparable to a paid "blurb" on the back of a paperback novel. How many comic stores don't even carry any CGC items at all (other than recent acquisitions that happened to come in with a purchased collection)? Lots of them. The article of course should not be an attack piece, but it shouldn't be a puff piece either. And I've seen up above that there's been some disputation, with some editors saying online forums cannot be used as sources here, at all, ever. This isn't actually true. An online forum can easily and obviously be a reliable source (sometimes the most reliable) for the fact that a controversy exists and what its details are, when it is a live record of that controversy in action. They just aren't reliable for statements of fact that need independent verification, like how CGC operates, what its revenues are, etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look back at previous iterations of the article, it was basically a slam piece against CGC. I've tried to bring it back to a neutral point of view.

If I over-corrected, please attempt to bring it back to the middle.

With regard to the Overstreet quote, I added it mostly because it was one of the few quotes which was not from the not-so-reliable message boards, but from an actual newspaper, and we need something to establish the importance of the company to people other than, say, us. Since you removed it, won't you please replace it with a citation explaining why the company is either important, notable, or controversial within the realm of comic book collecting?

Also, the Chicago Sun-Times can't be verified? Since when? The link I added may be dead, but we do still have public libraries. (This week, anyway.) I'm going to add the ref to the references section, although I won't put the quote back, as per your concern about its bias. It may be that someone will look the article up and pull a more useful, less biased reference from it.

Also, the criticism section is still longer than the information on the company itself, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as an anti-criticism bias. Maybe what's missing is better-sourced criticism which addresses the points you mention above (value inflation, "entombing" art).

Regarding message boards, here is the relevant section from WP:A: "Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable."

There are refs in this article which do come from message boards.

There used to be a lot more, but I've tried to whittle it down to instances where there was a dialogue between a representative of CGC and other posters. In some cases, I have quoted the message within the ref, to try to make it clear why it is pertinent to the article. However, I think it would be a mistake to repeat every bit of hearsay from the message boards.

Looking forward to your edits.

Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a slam piece against CGC, because it was all the truth. "Slam piece" implies that untruths were told, which you know is not the case. You pro-CGCers were just too lazy or too stupid to write a counter-piece, which I encouraged you to do. But no, you'd rather just dumb it down then dig for the truth. You guys don't even know comics, you're just Wikinazis 66.217.176.6 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So either you're a hypocrite or I've been right all along, eh? Either way, you look like a tool 66.217.176.6 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between you and I, anon, is that I'm not married to a point of view and I am perfectly happy when others strive to bring the article closer to a neutral point of view, even if they are overwriting something I did. I'm sorry that you feel cheated by CGC, but that's an issue for small claims court, not an encyclopedia. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not married to a point of view if you can prove me wrong, but I am married to the truth. Seems you have some kind of agenda, what with the way you edit out stuff without verifying it. If you took a few minutes to check this stuff out (like I've been begging you fools for years to do) you'd change your "not married" POV. If you had done this to start with, you wouldn't look so hypocritical, saying first that chatboards don't count and now saying they do. If you had just taken my advice years ago no one would know what a Dumas you are.

And cheated by CGC? WTF are you talking about, that doesn't even make sense. Just trying to find some reason to invalidate my relevant and valid research. I've never been "cheated by CGC" and never will be - what does that even mean?

What's your name on the CGC Board? I'd love to read your brilliant contributions. Or are your only contributions to the comic world deleting other's informative and verified true statements? 66.217.176.2 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As always, name-calling will get you nowhere. I am not and never have been employed by CGC. Wikipedia's polices of verifiability and neutral point of view still stand. I have no agenda other than these policies. You have been and still are urged to abide by the same. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues Tag

I am very familiar with CGC, I have not submitted books to be graded, but I have purchased some from eBay and comic shops. I have never sold a cgc graded book as I collect not profit, in fact I have not sold a comic in 15 years. At a glance this article appears to lack NPOV. The criticism section is large encompasses more than 1/2 the article. Then something like CGC is locked for edits REALLY!?! Well there is your sign. This page screams NPOV. I am familiar with some of the topics including grading inconsistencies, but I also noticed certain element have been excluded from the article such as how a CGC graded book vs a non-graded book can be more valuable, especially in terms of a high grade. This is in terms of both the market effects of things such as eBay, Craigslist, and other online sites. As well as brick and mortar stores. Also little mention is made of the pros of grading. Verified signature, reliable 3rd party grading vs a seller who has more vested and benefit in a self imposed and likely exaggerated grade. No mention on article is made of Wizard magazine having the graded section for several years. Basically this article extensively expands on the cons of grading, but very little on the pros, especially of cgc or competitor PGX. Personally I don't like restored books and many people try to restored to increase value, things such as page bleaching, trimming, staple replacing, and even counter fitting are all to common especially when money is involved. CGC has benefits and not everyone is for or against, but this article clearly has been edited lacking a NPOV. No mention of the potential benefits at all really!?, Really!?. No mention of CGX, no mentioned of higher prices on ebay. Mile high comics is not the authority on prices and neither is overstreet, overstreet is just a guide. A book is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. So lets cleanup this article, the fact that something as non-mainstream and not a political page such as this needs to be locked for edits should be a flag for concern. may even need to initiate a full community discussion on this page, many some mediation. The criticism section is generally fine, a tad large for this article. Also why no pros such as the few I mentioned. I will let this ferment for a little bit them I am tagging NPOV. I plan on also expanding the article to mention some of the pros with reliable 3rd party sources. I would advise to throughly read the NPOV guide and then please lets discuss.--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC) After a through review of the content and citations. there is several problems. While the criticisms definitely hold some water, I think are way to expanded. The criticisms section is also lacking reliable citations. A lot of citations are from collectors society chat boards. Collectors society falls under 2 issues, Primary Sources and Internet forum postings which are deemed not acceptable by wiki policy.0pen$0urce (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi 0pen$0urce. Thanks for your attention to the article. I have previously sought out broader input from the Comics Project and the Wikipedia community for this article, but didn't receive that much attention. I would be pleased if you'd do so again. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forum and Primary sourcing

Aside from a strong notion of lacking NPOV, the criticism section lacks reliable references as tagged since 2008. Forums are deemed not acceptable by wikipedia. Most of the references were from collectors society forum board which has 2 glaring issues, one is the reference is coming from the primary source, another is citing a forum.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC) i am going to try to source some of this information, but I think the criticism section could be written better and summarized. A lot of the questionable material begins with something a former or current president did, then followup up with un-sourced opinion of reaction from a forum. I will make a light attempt to source that material, if not reliable source can be found within wiki guidelines, delete. This section has be tagged regarding the references for 3 years now and it appears little has been address this tag. Raises concerns to the intentions of some editors.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of forums: while I agree that they generally fail to meet the requirement of being reliable sources, I see an exception in cases where employees of CGC make official statements on the forum, using a verified account under their real names. The question then becomes whether or not the citation adds to our understanding of the subject or not. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

GentlemanGhost, you make an excellent point. I'll look into the references, just want to make sure they support the information. I am fine with the overall concept of the criticisms, but the section needs work. Some of the information appears to be an elaboration or paraphrase of something from a CGC forum and is a double fault as a forum is being heavily used for a reference and that forum falls into the Primary sources realm. --0pen$0urce (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added back one message board thread which was used as a citation in two places. Please see what you think. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources:

---

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves (Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

---

The CGC message boards count as a self-published source. As such, we can use information from these message boards within the limits described above. The article has already been changed to address at least one complaint about on the self-serving point. If we do use the CGC message boards as a source, we should only use messages from CGC employees that pertain to their company, not those which make claims about third parties, such as customers or other companies. And, as stated, the article needs to be based primarily on reliable sources, not self-published sources. On this count, the article has been fairly lopsided. Adding more information from the NY Times article or the Chicago article (or new articles) would help to balance this out, as would reducing the amount of detail in the criticism section which is based on the message boards. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

General Expansion and cleanup

Somewhat taken on this article as short-term project as I observed some significant information missing such as several CGC graded books setting price records at auctions in the past year. This fact provides both relevance and notability to this article. Also doing some light cleanup and since the criticisms appears to be the focus of the article I do want to add mention of the lack of UV resistance on the materials used.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I love when a johnny-come-lately know-it-all shows up to fix all the problems. You lost credibility the moment you asked where the PGX info is. The "pros" you mention are so obvious that they are not needed in this article. People deserve to know the underhanded things CGC does - they don't need to be told a slabbed book sells for more than a unslabbed one. And as for the chatboard stuff, Gentleman Ghost already told you what it took them years to figure out - it's valid. CGC has a long history of only discussing certain things on their Board. Where else have you read about the Ewert scandal? Wizard? CBG? No, on the CGC Board.

And btw, Wizard is out of business, where they belong. If you really are "not for profit", you'll help make this article better by exposing the truth. Seems to me, though, that you need a lesson in the real CGC first. 66.217.176.3 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you obviously have an agenda and thus why you are here, I advise reading NPOV which is the root of all edits. Much of the criticisms is un-sourced or very poorly sourced from blogs. I can create a blog to either drum up or complain about anything, however that does not merit it being reference worthy. Not everyone knows about the benefits, that just furthers your agenda. Sorry you don't like CGC, sorry you don't like Wizard, this is not the place to promote opinion. Again NPOV,Also consider making a registered account, your IP is posted which is ill advised. 0pen$0urce (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I thought you were an idiot before, but if you think the CGC Board is comparable to a blog, you've surpassed my expectations (and you haven't done your homework, even those initially opposed now admit it is credible, read above). And if you think PGX is comparable to CGC, well then, you're in the stratosphere! 66.217.176.3 (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Civility, no need to be a coward name call and hide behind a New Britain, Connecticut IP.--0pen$0urce (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2012

The following text from the article appear to be the author's personal opinion and an attack on a named individual to boot. Should probably just be removed completely as it doesn't really add anything to the article.

"Critics say that this policy encourages sellers to press comics without disclosing it to buyers. Steve Borock himself refuses to proactively disclose work done on specific comics. Critics ask: if Pressing is no big deal, why don't sellers proactively disclose it? Because they are worried about leaving money on the table. The greediest pressing/restoration expert is Matt Nelson, who also works for Heritage Auctions (where Steve Borock now works). " 62.107.114.13 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No objections, so  Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello?

Is anybody going to add to or fix this page? Certainly you heard the big Classics Inc/CGC announcement. Plus, the page is really lame, you're missing a bunch of good info. I'd do it myself but, you know, the Nazis got me. You guys talk big but it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Do something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.2 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, neat! Godwin's law gets proven again. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And all you've done is prove what a retarded mongoloid you are. All you do is yap yap yap, never contributing anything to this page. You know nothing about CGC apparently, so the only way to feel superior is to edit important stuff out. You're part of the problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.8 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of quoting things that are not relevant to the article (Godwin's law), could you reply to the original question? Does this need to be addressed to someone else in the wikipedia structure who can give a competent answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.72.198 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

A signed book has the potential to valued more than the same book in equal condition

should be ( could someone fix the grammar? )

A signed book has the potential to be valued more than the same book in equal condition 24.74.72.198 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Hi. I work for CGC Comics and we would like to remove any reference to our company President as it is inaccurate. The reference appears in two places (see below).

1) "The company was launched in early 2000 and has since gone on to become a notable part of the comic book collecting community. CGC's current President, Mark Haspel, is also the company's primary grader.[2]"

   You could change it to ""The company was launched in early 2000 and has since gone on to become a notable part of the comic book collecting community."

2) "Key people Mark Haspel (President)[1]"

   Please just remove the reference as CGC does not currently have a President position.

Also, please remove "18 years ago" after "Founded January 4, 2000; 18 years ago" located in the upper right corner of the page by our logo where the second time the name Mark Haspel appears (see below).

Type Private Industry Collectibles Founded January 4, 2000; 18 years ago Parsippany, New Jersey, U.S. Headquarters Sarasota, Florida, U.S. Area served Worldwide Key people Mark Haspel (President)[1]

If you need further information I can be reached at lauries@cgccomics.com

Thank you! Laurie Lsan242 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Notwithstanding the requestor's declared COI, the requested edit makes sense and checks out with the references that were on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

Hello, I'm a CGC representative requesting that "Comics Guaranty" be changed to "Certified Guaranty Company". This appears to be correct everywhere except for the very top title section for the company. Thanks! JSnyderCGCComics (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

CGC has been banned from E4 due to Astroturfing. Please see evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSXBt-AXCo&ab_channel=SolemnYuGiOh , https://efour.proboards.com/thread/21152/cgc-employees-astroturfing-e4?page=4 , https://the-comic-book-forum.boards.net/thread/1615/cgc-employees-permanently-banned-astroturfing?page=1&scrollTo=84480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1FC0:2480:4DCD:8668:54B8:EA2F (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Comics Guaranty → Certified Guaranty Company – This is the correct name of the company that this article is about (see https://www.CGCcomics.com). It also follows the style within Wikipedia of the page names for CGC's coin-grading affiliate, Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Numismatic_Guaranty_Corporation), as well as NGC's chief competitor, Professional Coin Grading Service (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Professional_Coin_Grading_Service). All three of these companies authenticate, grade and encapsulate collectibles. Limeparade (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collecting or selling my comic books you once asked me!

I emailed your company at one point or another asking cgc how exactly I go about grading my comic books that I own in my collection at one point or another I owned the world's finest comics issue 73 through 323. And Adventure Comics 155 to 490, and I wanted advice on how exactly to grade my comic books through cgc. And furthermore I can't believe I would be asked if I'm going to keep them or if I'm going to be selling them. What difference does it make if I intend to keep them or sell them? Furthermore since when should I subscribe to your website in order to grade a comic book in my collection since I'm having to pay for the comic book to be graded to begin with having to pay a subscription fee for you to do your job seems ridiculous to me. And when does it take 11 months to a year and a half for an individual trained and certified by cgc to grade comic books? Had it took me 11 months to a year and a half to do my job I'd be fired. Then again I probably wouldn't be here right now I'd probably be dead because I was a soldier in Afghanistan as an Army Ranger. And furthermore how many comic books do you grade per day I know I'm curious to know as well as other people, and how is it that comic book stores online are coming across comic books that are sold and very fine condition I often wonder to myself, if perhaps cgc or other comic book grading companies are opening unclaimed comic books that were sent in to be graded. And cgc is sending these comic books individual businesses opening up selling them to us once again only to be resubmitted to faten their pockets, with a fresh submittal fee to not only faten their pockets but the business as well. And I have one other question for cgc cbcs and PGX and my question is if Gary Moser is indicted by the FBI for trimming baseball cards that is considered a hobby is it not but he did it for a financial gain through PSA I get it hey sports card grading company. So when does it become so coincidental that you are able to do the same exact thing to somebody's intellectual property such as a comic book in their collection by trimming it adding color touch, or even trimming only one side of the comic book I've seen stuff happen with cdc's grading that I often wonder to myself if they come up with new scenarios of how to screw over the little man. This is why a dear friend of mine who has passed away recently his name is Neal Adams, once said to me he frowned upon cgc and everything they have done to the industry he worked for he didn't understand why everybody deserved a golden star book why couldn't it be graded for as it lied and why is it that pressing a comic book is not restoration of a comic book are you not manipulating the way the grade is going to be, to increase the value just like Gary Moser? So I wonder first who gave you permission when you are not on the cover as a artist not as the anchor or the writer of the comic book not even the comic book industry DC Marvel has authorized you to do such a thing I bet you artists don't even know that you're doing this thing to their books because I've asked a few of them and they don't know this is going down! And why is it that you charge such a ridiculous amount of money to grade a comic book but you don't have a authenticator to authenticate a signature on site guess what if I submit a sports card to tops or upper deck at signed by Joe Montana they have a signature authenticator on Deck but you don't, why is that? You would think because you're part of the collectibles grading group you would think that you'd have the same standards as PSA Beckett as anyone else who grades cards or comic books and furthermore why is there no price guide for your purple label your green label comic books furthermore I don't think there's a price guide that's free to the general public for even Blue label books people say use eBay, use Heritage auctions. Well if Heritage auctions banned you from using their account how do you price your items are they the ones who make the overstreet price guide so if they put a ban on your account from being able to value your items then how does one get the value of their comic book? And it's sad to say that I've owned in my collection several vintage video games being a collector of all things being told by individuals for certain companies you have nothing to value when obviously you do have stuff about you and you going to approach these individuals, and they know your vulnerable because your father had just passed away they know you're disabled and they scrutinize you verbally attack you make you feel less than human this nation I want served as an Army Ranger I couldn't believe my ears. Is this the America I swore to protect is this the America you people stand behind people who antagonize victimized and attack disabled Rangers with TBI and PTSD? Why would we give any of these people our money whenever they can't even give you an honest grade? And why is it that CDC has a term to use for the person grading the comic book such as amateur grader, intermediate grader, professional grader? Why is it necessary for you to charge me 10% of the comic book value if it is so scarce and so vintage such as Superman #1 Batman #1 only for you too place it in a 7.5 graded purple label intermediate graded stating that it needed only the right side page two and three trimmed do you know who's comic book you happen to have grade during this time that individual I believe he said he was 11 years old when you bought that book that was his inspiration to go into the comic book industry to draw Batman at a later time in his life his name is Neal Adams, Neal Adams owned a comic book store as well he also sold on eBay. And furthermore worked all the way to the day he died did he get paid like he should have? He got paid just as much maybe a little bit more by a few thousand dollars as much as a school lunch lady! And doing something he enjoyed doing he grew to leave the house for a Comic-Con with a fake smile cuz he had to be there, and basically grew his passion into certain kind of animosity towards the end because of everything it has become today! People don't collect comic books like they should anymore only old time collectors have collections people of the youth only buy to get it graded to flip it so that they can buy the next big thing and cover the bills having a collection is something of the past and that is sad it's not for the love of the comic book The Joy of the person buying the comic book that is why comic books died before the pandemic and we're always dead and if we want to see change we're going to have to start fixing the people who are infringing their rights desecrating the comic book so the individual can never sell it, that is wrong people! This is just my opinion on the matter and furthermore my opinion on the matter why is it that you can't give a military discount we fought for your country didn't we I'm on a fixed income can't grade cause it's too overpriced no enjoyment for me I guess that's just my opinion! Apocalypsegamer (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)