wombat

It certainly seems like extreme negligence that there is such an easy way to crack open the slabs and seal them back up where even CGC doesn't spot it. What kind of testing did they do on these slabs? It wasn't rocket surgery at the end of the day. And shouldn't they have had experts who know about this kind of thing? Their entire business model and product is completely worthless if it can be easily tampered with.

Its whatever CGC says it is.

What if sending in the reholders was only part of his scam. The other was just swapping and selling without sending back to CGC.

I feel really bad for anyone who got scammed. I feel even worse for the meat grinder you will have to go through with CGC.

On the plus side these books are way out of my range. On the downside these books are way out of my range.

It wasn't a card. You guys just made me think of this.

Yeah, but do you have dirt from Dracula's actual castle?

Ah, but who's gonna check the 4th party grader? 5th party. duh.

I don't think its unreasonable that scammers would move to lesser priced books to avoid scrutiny. I'm not saying $100 books. But less than what we have seen.

So you think putting out a case that has been shown to be somewhat easy to crack open and put back together "done their job to the best of their abilities"? We aren't talking about cases from China. We are talking about cases from CGC.

I don't think that is what we were discussing. But sure. The only thing they are worried about is how to spend the least amount of money to make this go away.

Its their slabs. That are easily opened. And sealed back up again. You don't think that is an issue CGC should deal with? And do you think people should be OK with that?

This doesn't "fix" someone swapping out a lower grade book and then just selling it directly.

I'd like to retract my previous statement of 'liking' the RFID scenario. CGC tracking division: Dr. Balls is in the bathroom again? What is wrong with this guy.

I'm not really sure how they could do it without it becoming apparent to someone, and they'd probably like the public to know what to look for etc, just a thought I'm not sure how well it would go over if it was "we made changes, but we won't tell you about them". How many people would actually believe changes were made?

I dunno. I don't see it as a downplay, more like a cautionary stance. No one wants to scream "the sky is falling!" when it's their own reputation on the line. They're probably going forward cautiously and not overstating the problem. I don't see that as underhanded at all - I'm glad it's been addressed. It still remains a possibility that CGC will not widen the scope and just "assume" it was this one bad actor. There is also the issue of now that we know the slabs can be cracked and put back together pretty well that every case out there can be tampered with and a lower grade book be swapped in without even sending it back to CGC. I have no idea how they would even begin to deal with this.

The fear here is that they are only going to include books submitted by this one person and not broaden the investigation. Easy to downplay in this way.

That is psychotic. Just sayin.

I have no doubt they are in the information gathering stage. You can make a statement to that effect. I think people would like to hear that you are aware and looking into it. It doesn't have to be a "final statement" with all the answers.

The thing that seems odd to me is that CGC is acknowledging something is happening from the statement we saw from CS. At that point I would think you would make a statement. I mean they already are, but only to people who ask about it. So now only some people have the information. It would be easy enough to say something along the lines that we are aware of "something" and are looking into the matter. If anyone has any specific concerns please contact us.

I'm just glad we have you to moderate this thread. Thank you for your service.

Unless I don't understand you, this all started because we could see that an ASM 252 that had been reholdered with a custom label had a different comic inside the cert #, because CGC had scanned the lower grade comic in to the grader's notes. Got it. This would be really bad if CGC knew something was up and still let reholders through without checking them.

I was thinking the same thing... Do we know if any of the reholders were submitted after scans started?

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? Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who I have no idea about for your efforts.

Clearly you have missed a few things in my post. First, it was tongue in cheek Did you think I was relaying an actual CGC conversation? You also completely missed the context of my post. But I will leave that to you to figure out.