VintageComics

On 12/28/2023 at 1:29 PM, wiparker824 said:

Exactly. The video shows the most important piece, the heat gun being used to seamlessly open one of the pins on the corners. Yes he messed up the other one, and may have been sloppy with the sealant putting it back. But the fact he could pop that corner pin seamlessly means someone who actually spent a lot of time perfecting this could get this down to a science. This is just a guy who was trying something in his garage for fun on a couple books. That alone is alarming. 

Not quite a 'guy trying something in his garage'. Apparently he's a chemist by trade? Most people don't even know what Xylene is, well they didn't until he posted that video publicly. 

I agree with the sentiment of most that CGC should be studying how to get around their win safeguards if they aren't already (and I'd be surprised if they weren't or hadn't done some R+D in this direction). 

I wonder if Blackstone looked into stuff like this before their purchase of the company?

On 12/28/2023 at 1:25 PM, drotto said:

On 12/28/2023 at 1:21 PM, VintageComics said:

Diagnostic tech thinking hat on now: 

Is there a reason he DOESN'T how a clear shot of the side he sealed "properly" because I can see that it doesn't look as original as he makes people believe it does, just from the quick flashes we get of that spine edge. There's a little 'sleight of hand' going on there. 

But his method is reasonable, and is likely enough to get past a cursory check done during a reholder submission, especially ifthey arw claiming damage to the case as the reason foe the submission.  That is all that matters.  Plus, this person has only done this to a few slabs. The scammer may have a completely different method, but has also has done this many times and refined their methods with practice. 

Maybe. Maybe not.

But what struck me the most, and that NOBODY has questioned is why he never shows a clear shot of the "properly" sealed edge. 

Sleight of hand to get YouTube views is probably the answer. 

On 12/28/2023 at 1:08 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

People wanting specific details about law enforcement, etc are now just being ridiculous. You can never feed the mob enough. 

You're skinny in real life, though, you should get first rations. 

On 12/28/2023 at 11:40 AM, SpiderParker said:

I am not sure if this video has been posted but anyone can literally defeat a CGC case with a heat gun and some patience.  This is a HUGE issue.  The whole design and sealing method needs fixed ASAP. 

Diagnostic tech thinking hat on now: 

Is there a reason he DOESN'T how a clear shot of the side he sealed "properly" because I can see that it doesn't look as original as he makes people believe it does, just from the quick flashes we get of that spine edge. There's a little 'sleight of hand' going on there. 

On 12/28/2023 at 10:57 AM, namisgr said:

Perhaps it's the result of you mistakenly believing it's going to take technological innovation of NASA proportions to accomplish, when in fact it would be a relatively straightforward undertaking in comparison to the many thousands of examples of machine learning being developed and implemented in the sciences, coupled with robotics and imaging technologies that are highly sophisticated and existing already, requiring only customization for their brand new purpose.

Sorry, I missed your edit. That's a mischaracterization of what I said. 

What I stated repeatedly to the people who keep stating that CGC should use AI to grade comics, is that the tech is likely available at the NASA level (software and hardware) but is not cost efficient or feasible at this time. NASA can likely accomplish it because they're at the leading edge of tech, and cost is not as large of a factor.

Comic book grading is at the bottom of the totem pole, and so until the intersections of tech / cost / profitability make it feasible, it's a pipe dream. 

We've already seen from flyingdonut that the combo of software / hardware tech is limited. So if this is the cutting edge available to the public, we're still not there for all the reasons I outlined a few pages ago. 

The key here is that NASA doesn't need to worry about profit nearly as much as CGC does and that need for profit is the boundary that will limit how and when AI is used. 

Does that clarify my position better?

On 12/28/2023 at 10:57 AM, namisgr said:

On 12/28/2023 at 10:47 AM, VintageComics said:

Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with on on something I've been stating from the beginning.

This is an exaggeration, as we differ in prior posts in the thread by some margin on the anticipated length of time it may take for the technology to become cost effective.

No, I agree with your statement below.

On 12/28/2023 at 8:18 AM, namisgr said:

Making such an automated grading system cost effective is a separate matter, and may certainly take awhile.  

As I've repeatedly stated, I can see CGC using AI for some smaller aspects of grading, but I've generally been right about more things than you in the past so I'm willing to bet on myself again and take the over as to when CGC will use AI as a grading standard for grading it's books. 

On 12/28/2023 at 10:54 AM, namisgr said:

On 12/28/2023 at 10:47 AM, VintageComics said:

As JC25427N repeatedly stated, training the software is not as easy as most people think. and I can understand why.

A key word search of PubMed for the term 'machine learning' finds 136,885 peer reviewed publications in professional scientific journals.  So despite not being easy, it has become routine for those versed in the requisite programming and computer science aspects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=machine+learning&sort=date&size=20

I'm not sure what your point is other than to confirm my point that it's not easy. 

If it was easy, they wouldn't need 136,000 peer reviewed articles (and counting) to figure it out. 

I can see the press release now...CGC welcomes it's newest grader:

On 12/28/2023 at 8:48 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

Even more importantly, CGC has the scans, grades and notes on hundreds of thousands of books. AI wouldn't need to be trained in real time so much as loaded with reference examples of books, especially SA to Moderns for all grades, with a multitude of examples of the cumulative defects that were (in theory) used in arriving at the final grade.

No. The grader's notes are useless in this. The machine language would need to be manually trained by a grader. Even I know this and I'm just a lowly town crier. 

On 12/28/2023 at 8:48 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

I know Roy likes to wax poetic about the human element, the je ne sais quoi if it, the touch the feel of paper, the fabric of our lives, the smell, oooh that smell, can't you smell that smell, blah blah. Well that's the point, to remove the subjective bias of individual graders that governs the difference between a 9.4 and a 9.6m a 0.6 and a 9.8.

I don't know why you always need to throw shade at me to make it personal.

It has nothing to do with waxing poetic. How the book feels and smells is a part of the grading process. 

Well preserved books feel differently than books that aren't. Some of the most distinctive characteristics of the most sought after Pedigrees are how they feel and smell. 

Grading is not 2 dimensional, it's 3 dimensional. 

2 dimensional replies seem to be the norm though, so it's to be expected. 

On 12/28/2023 at 8:18 AM, namisgr said:

You can train an amateur in comic book grading to become a professional comic book grader at CGC.  The training is iterative, and almost certainly takes months rather than years  Whoever thinks you cannot train a machine learning algorithm to become a comic book grader with accuracy comparable to many of the professional graders themselves is either unaware of what machine learning algorithms have been accomplishing over the past decade, unknowing about how iterative training refines and improves the accuracy of the algorithms over time, or both.

As JC25427N repeatedly stated, training the software is not as easy as most people think. and I can understand why.

The "speck of dust" analogy is a perfect one, because a human has the experience to identify and move past it much quicker than a machine program for the same reason that a human and machine don't think the same way. As someone with extensive experience in neuroscience, you should know this. 

So while consistency is an easier goal, adaptability is probably the tougher one and this conversation needs to address both. 

It's not impossible, it's just a road filled with many obstacles, and how soon those obstacles are overcome is what this entire discussion has morphed into. 

On 12/28/2023 at 9:01 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

Respectfully, I think we underestimate machine learning. Once you establish the lingo, (CF, LRC, spike tick, spin stress, etc etc) It's going ot learn pretty fast. Having such a large data set is a huge advantage. Eventually it would be telling you how many times the notes were incongruent with the images. 

This is where @JC25427N would be really beneficial in the conversation. 

On 12/28/2023 at 8:18 AM, namisgr said:

Making such an automated grading system cost effective is a separate matter, and may certainly take awhile.  But I am of the belief that the technological aspects could be readily achieved.

Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with on on something I've been stating from the beginning.

No, seriously. Thank you. 

On 12/28/2023 at 10:34 AM, pdags said:

On 12/28/2023 at 10:28 AM, drotto said:

5. It is enough money and a serious enough matter that law enforcement is involved.

I don't think this has been clearly stated.  A Private Investigator and "Outside Council" of some sort doesn't necessarily mean any law enforcement agencies are involved yet.  I posted a question to CGC Mike asking to clarify this.

@drotto

You're already muddying the waters by leaving out the most important part of the line you quoted, which I BOLDED for you below.  

CGC has officially stated that this individual will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Which part of that did you miss?

On 12/28/2023 at 9:07 AM, CGC Mike said:

CCG and CGC Comics Statement on Holder Tampering Incident

 

We have also retained a leading private investigative service and outside counsel to conduct a comprehensive review of this incident and our processes, and to help ensure that this individual is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

On 12/28/2023 at 10:31 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Purely observational, but as I cruise Ebay almost daily - the push for card auctions, card collecting, vault stuff, etc - it seems that there is a big upswing on cards way more than comics. Even in the sports, trading, collectible card categories are far above 'comics' on Ebay's collectibles landing page. I always felt hierarchal links have always been a simple way to determine topic popularity.

Cards are much older than comics and much larger in scope, much like sports have always been more popular than comics. It stands to reason that there will be more card activity and the card hobby will be larger than comics. 

Coins are the same, meaning much older than cards and therefore the coin hobby is much larger than cards as well. 

Remember, million dollar coins have been the norm for some time. Million dollar comics are very recent. 

On 12/28/2023 at 3:35 AM, namisgr said:

On 12/28/2023 at 3:27 AM, RonS2112 said:

You are correct.  But I think some here should get used to the idea that it is possible (in fact likely) that the scammer’s personal info will not be shared with us.

Some of the perp's information will have to be shared for the searching to continue for slabs with bogus grades and for consumers to be able to evaluate the slabs in their collections and be made aware of suspect slabbed books going forward.  Names/aliases and city locations used by the scammer to sell books at various venues must be spread clear and wide, at a minimum.  And lists of certification numbers from all submissions to CGC by the perp must be compiled and released.

While I don't disagree, for now, public social media handles like eBay and IG are enough for people to know if they've dealt with this person. 

Personal privacy laws these days in the overly litigious society we live in make the consequences of publicly sharing information a potentially messy thing, and can even be used by alleged defendants to counter-sue. 

The right people know ALL the details and a little trust is going to be necessary until an official statement is made. 

On 12/28/2023 at 2:03 AM, Silver Surfer said:

But let’s not speculate, unless it’s to suggest that maybe this guy didn’t sell at cons, etc. Right.

No, you can speculate about things that are possibilities. but I countered your possibilities with facts we know so far because it's already been discussed it several times. 

You in turn, turned the conversation on me. Why?

The problem with a thread this large is that some are perpetuating stories that have no basis in fact and it muddies the trail, making it harder to see clearly overall.

In this particular instance, people have continually MISQUOTED and mischaracterized the statements of the two very people who started this entire investigation in the 1st YouTube , video, on the 1st page of this thread with stuff that isn't true. That misquoting and mischaracterization doesn't help anyone.

As you can see, WestcoastDAVEngers, one of the people who made the 1st video, corrected everyone AGAIN last night. 

I get it. People are upset this happened. I'm upset. Everyone is upset. 

Even MORE reason for everyone need to stick to perpetuating facts once they've been established because perpetuating false information just makes the breadcrumb trail harder to follow for everyone.  

On 12/28/2023 at 1:33 AM, WestcoastDAVEngers said:

Just wanna clear this up again, there was zero talk about photos of these books at cons from me or 9.9, photos of books he was selling on Grailz and screenshots of dms. 100% no confusion here, Manu (9.9) doesn't go to cons so he wouldn't be sharing photos of someone at a con.

Thank you.

And be careful, someone may accuse you of waving CGC pom-poms for wanting to keep the story straight. 

On 12/28/2023 at 1:11 AM, Silver Surfer said:

So we are not allowed to speculate just have to tone it down so we don’t offend anyone? Give me a break. 

Nope. Some just continue to perpetuate false things. 

Speculating about possibilities is one thing. Stating false things as fact is an entirely different thing. 

Why is it that you have a problem with sticking to facts?

Do you WANT the story filled with false information?

On 12/28/2023 at 1:02 AM, Silver Surfer said:

C’mon Roy I’m sure that CGC appreciates that you are in their corner but do we really have to hear about how’s it’s not as bad as we might think, this guy didn’t sell at con’s, etc. Still no official response of any substance (unless I missed it) so it’s obviously bad with no simple solution otherwise one would have been provided by now. People are obviously frustrated and rightfully so. 

Peter, which one of my posts put me in anyone's corner?

I simply am trying to stick to the facts, while some people prefer to stick to the speculation...and you're one of them. 

Stick to the facts. 

On 12/27/2023 at 11:51 PM, skybolt said:

Starting at 1:30:18 and 1:33:18 in this video, 9.9newsstand provides some very interesting insight on the scammer.

Ah OK, so that's where the story came from.

I re-listened to that video the other night,specifically looking for that info but I stopped around the 1:20:00 mark, being too tired (it was my 2nd time listening to it just for the answer we were looking for).

So he has pics of the guy showing off books at a con. Sounds like the alleged seller was walking around, not set up at a show and that's very common. We see it all the time. There's no indication he was actually set up at the show.

On 12/27/2023 at 11:37 PM, wombat said:

Do we know if any of the reholders were submitted after scans started?

160 pages into this thread, you're asking the most basic questions that are quickly answered on the very 1st page because you can't be bothered to read it, but you can take the time to troll people. Good job. 

On 12/27/2023 at 11:30 PM, wombat said:

So you are upset that the people working behind the scenes that we don't know are working behind the scenes are not being appreciated?

No.

On 12/27/2023 at 11:16 PM, Sigur Ros said:

On 12/27/2023 at 10:41 PM, VintageComics said:

No. I'll put in crayon for the kindergarten students. 

CGC looked into the book and said it was fine. 

I know you think you're doing all the heavy lifting with your one-liners but there are a LOT of people co-operating behind the scenes. They're just not making YouTube videos or posting here to announce it. 

Why are you getting defensive?

Anyway, before you post another comment about being picked on, etc, etc...zzz

I was just saying it was good that both the seller of the book...AND the company whose reputation is at stake...both said the book is fine.  

Because if they aren't honest, who is..?

Because I went out of my way to notify Comiclink about the ASM #129 conversation here, asked them to look into it and then relayed the results back here and all you could reply to my post with was snark. 

You have NO IDEA how many people are working behind the scenes that aren't posting here and your snark shows a lack of appreciation for these efforts. 

A simple 'thank you' would have been much more appropriate. 

On 12/27/2023 at 10:42 PM, sledgehammer said:

That's interesting. Someone came on the thread, a boardie from Canada, that doesn't post often (actually, he really never does), and proved that the ebay seller shipped his purchase from a USPS location in Kew Gardens, NY.

He bought an IH 340 from him/her/it..

Can you at least say that YOUR suspect is in the Brooklyn area?

What are his initials? 

Nothing to do with Bree or Briva. This could be an alias, family member or something else. 

The people who need to know the details are aware of them. 

On 12/27/2023 at 8:13 PM, Stefan_W said:

On 12/27/2023 at 8:11 PM, KCOComics said:

Hey all - I haven't read through all 162 pages of this,  but have been trying to track the situation. 

If this has been suggested,  I apologize, but is anyone tracking all of the identified swapped books?? If you can document it with links and evidence and post that document in a place CGC can easily find it,  it will help them investigate.  I imagine no one at cgc will be sifting through the hundreds of pages in this thread. So post the link to the document in the first post, or start a new thread. 

I think at this point there is no question that something fraudulent and despicable is going on. Now let's make it as easy as possible for CGC to identify it and take action. 

 

And I know many feel they won't take a strong enough action. What they do is out of our control. What is in our control is making it obvious and trackable to the point where it can't be ignored. 

Expand  

@comicwiz is doing great work with the help of a few others. 

Also, CGC Customer Service has stated they are following the thread as well as investigating. 

On 12/27/2023 at 5:38 PM, BrashL said:

On 12/27/2023 at 4:30 PM, VintageComics said:

So, so far this still seems to be an eBay centric problem. 

Newsstand 9.9 knows who the original scammer is and said he has seen him selling on Instagram and at shows. Even if this was just one guy (and it’s not) it’s not limited to eBay. 

I don't think so. 

As far as I know, we've covered this already a few days ago. There was an unsubstantiated rumor that the scammer was showing his books off at a show and even that wasn't confirmed. The person that stated it (  @skybolt if I'm not mistaken) it never went back to the video confirm it. Has anyone else?

If you have some proof otherwise, please share it. Post a clip of the video with a link to the time spot that it's being spoken about.

There is no proof he was selling at shows yet, and I have spoken to a very prominent national dealer who would most likely recognize the name of this person if they were setting up at shows. 

So far, ALL we know points to eBay for sure, and possibly IG, so online sales only at this point. 

The important point being all of the online stuff will leave footprints and can be tracked.

If you have anything that proves otherwise, I'm happy to be wrong.

On 12/27/2023 at 7:21 PM, Sigur Ros said:

On 12/27/2023 at 4:30 PM, VintageComics said:

On a side note, I asked and got word back from Comiclink regarding that ASM #129 CGC 9.0 from the exchange that was discussed earlier, and that specific book has been checked and is not considered to be a part of this problem

So the seller of the book says "this one is fine".

Whew.. good to know.

No. I'll put in crayon for the kindergarten students. 

CGC looked into the book and said it was fine. 

I know you think you're doing all the heavy lifting with your one-liners but there are a LOT of people co-operating behind the scenes. They're just not making YouTube videos or posting here to announce it. 

On 12/27/2023 at 4:50 PM, agamoto said:

You saw the post of mine where I looked at his groups of submissions over the past year, no? The one where he sent in 100 books and got 90 of them back 9.8's, a few 9.6's, a 9.4 and some lower grade silvers? What do you think of that win/loss ratio?

That's not an uncommon win/loss ratio for people who are very experienced with grading, and it's exacerbated when CGC is slightly on the loose side, which we all know happens, so that in and of itself isn't anything that raises eyebrows. 

I've regularly posted on here publicly over the years that if I get about 80% of my projected grades, I assume CGC is bang on down the center and if that percentage varies higher or lower, they're loose or tight, so not out of the ordinary to me.