VintageComics

We know the first name is Brees I believe this is incorrect.

Because the complexity of adding 4 stickers multiplies the chances of something going wrong exponentially, making it a QC nightmare and also increasing the complexity of assembling cases. CGC slabbing is not an automated assembly line. It's humans doing the work.

I can pretty assuredly affirm that everyone is on the wrong track and this is NOT the person. Let's stop hounding the wrong person.

eBay has been guilty of being lax on shill bidding since it's inception and frankly, I hope this stings eBay to the extent that they crack down on it.

Yup - and honestly with what I have seen I feel this specific scam doesn't go back as far or as deep as people are thinking. Is it bad? Absolutely. Is it thousands of books? I don't think so. Personally I feel its in the dozens. I know you have seen pretty much what I have so you might have another perspective but... I agree. I'm sure many know who the person is but haven't shared it openly. CGC certainly knows who it is. It would be impossible for them not to know. I also agree with the opinion that the scope of this scam isn't as vast as some think. Again, just my opinion, based on my gut, ramblings I've heard throughout the industry over the years and what I know about CGC and their product.

Yes. Barring a better, more tamper resistant OUTER holder, this is a very reasonable solution only it would require an all new outer well and inner well. So a total redesign. We'll leave it to the CGC bean counters to factor cost into the possible solutions.

This sounds like a logistical nightmare, internally for CGC. Imagine the QC problems if one of the serial numbers goes with the wrong package? Just spitballing here, but it may be far easier to design a more tamper proof outer slab.

That statement is misleading at best and not true at all, at worst. It's more accurate than the average person which is what it's supposed to be. It's not perfect, but then neither is NASA. If they had a more accurate, cost and time efficient method do you think they'd be using it? It's a question with a yes or no answer.

This sounds like a great place to ease the conversation into.

You're painting inanimate objects that aren't easily damaged first, and the objects are 3 dimensional, but it's basically a 2 dimensional canvas. We're talking about delicate comics that bend an rip - they don't stay straight or motionless and you'd need to image each page from all angles (or do it simultaneously - whatever, different discussion). Assembly lines have been painting cars for decades. Robots have been used to stitch upholstery forever. The comic grading equivalent here would be to paint the inside and outside of a complex object with fine linework, precisely every time. Or something like that. The LAYERS of complexity is what in my POV, makes grading a comic different than just a two dimensional problem to solve on an inanimate object that can't be damaged easily. You have to undo ALL of those layers and solve them. We're also starting to see it in comics. CGC has already admitted to implementing AI in some of it's procedures. Nobody is arguing against consistency. I've already stated multiple times that certain aspects of grading, like estimating PQ or assigning a pre-grade range is very likely and sooner. What is being argued is FEASIBILITY. In your own words:

I haven't read the entire thread. Where was it posted?

Maybe it's a couple? Who knows?? Did you watch the video? The comments all seemed to be written "seedy guyish" is his communications to me, but make your own call "I've been a collector for 30 years" Exact written words. That could fit a 36 year old man. Especially one that wants to BS everybody. The name of this person is allegedly known. It's just not public yet.

I know a lot of people laughed early on at @paqart's assertion that eBay may have recourse. Now, with alleged shill bidding, price fixing, racketeering and fraudulent products this takes on a very different picture. This is massive fraud, on a grand scale through eBay's website. Is anyone on contact with or has anyone heard of anyone who has contacted eBay about this?

I didn't correct you, I added to your points. Again, nobody stated it isn't coming. I'm simply saying it isn't coming soon and the reason I believe this, is for the reason that the intersections of efficiency (time) / complexity / cost / profitability don't make it feasible yet. Painting a 3.75" toy for child consumption is very different than flipping through a vintage book, imaging 30+ pages, programming software to identify every possible option and formulating an accurate grade. Like someone stated above, just a speck of dust can change everything, whereas humans would factor that in quickly. There is a sliding scale between reliability and accuracy and the human relationships on this and computer relationships on this operate very differently. I think the average Joe thinks they're the same. They're not. ^ That was me correcting you. ------------------------------------------- As I stated in the #252 thread, I believe this will become reality in the future, around the time when more complex bio-digital convergence in humans. No, not hearing aids - I'm talking about intelligent bio-digital convergence.

It's been implemented in cards for 2 specific reasons that I can think of. 1) cards are much easier to grade than books 2) the money in cards dwarfs the money in comic books. Remember when $1 million comic book was crazy money? There were already multi-million $ cards floating around. Again, I'm not saying AI will never grade comics, I'm just saying making it accurate, cost efficient and time efficient are feasible over all, are the complicating factors.

Just the topic of scanning and interpreting images, (and this post doesn't even touch on how the book will be manipulated for scanning) is pretty complex. The problem as I perceive it it isn't that AI can't just scan and read images, we all know it can, but a book is a 3 dimensional item. It's a combination of things like how will the book be delivered and show to the AI program / scanner? Who will expose both sides of every page in a book (16 - 32+ wraps or 32 to 64+ pages?) How far open do the pages need to be? Can you scan them accurately at an angle? Can you scan them accurately with curvature on the pages (meaning they aren't laying flat)? How do you inspect staples? Especially in square bounds? You're already imaging 32-64 pages, how do you image the sides of the book, like the open edge, the spine the tops and bottoms? I've had books with defects ONLY apparent on the open edge of the book - literally across the face of the page ends. Really. I had a book where someone wrote in ink that only showed up in UV on the literal edges of the pages and the defect wasn't visible from the flat side of the page. This was one of those strange defects that I was talking about that you would have to completely retrain AI for once you uncovered a new flaw. Then we have the problems of stuff like specks of dust and other things that can corrupt images as discussed above. Every little new factoid is a learning curve for AI that would take countless hours to adapt to, that humans can factor in, in a matter of seconds through a personal discussion around a grading table. These are just some of the things that I've written "off the cuff" so to speak. There are probably a zillion others.

As promised: In regards to a "fair and consistent grading model" In regards to not having any bias: In regards to removing human hands from the equation. In regards to @skybolt 's comment: I'm just worried about an AI scanning a dust particle that landed on the book and thinking it's a stain. In regards to @jcjames 's comment: AI is currently better, faster, more accurate at scanning medical imaging (which IMO is more complex than creases and spine tics) than any single human. It didn't happen overnight, but it is possible. Regarding using public images and a CGC database of stored images:

As I said via PM, this is a great compromise and I'm very happy with it. Thank you.

Thanks Mike. It's much appreciated! I talked to Mike about it and he agreed to open it so yes, it's a great Christmas present.

We get it, everyone is more stupid than you. Only you have vision and insight. Maybe putting a sticker on it will make it better?

For what it's worth, I didn't think you sounded condescending at all...but then half the forums think I'm condescending when I don't mean to be, so what do I know?

You're not a part of the cabal?

Yeah exactly. Same here. I'm wondering if a disclaimer by sellers moving forward is going to be valuable or if there will be some way to prove it. I think I've only ever reholdered maybe 10 or 15 books in 20 years. I don't want my subs lumped in with this debacle because almost all of my subs have been straight subs for grading.

This is unfair. Comiclink has a great reputation and if I had to bet the house, I'd bet that CGC is working with anyone who may have dealt with this person to gather information. Just try to think logically: It is highly likely the auction houses and big dealers are co-operating on this front.

Higher value books, which as you already mentioned exist in far lower numbers also receive far more scrutiny than lower value books, from buyers, the general public, from CGC, from auction houses.