paqart

I did the same but got 1 bull and scored 5 for a total of 28. I think that puts me middle of the pack somewhere.

You might be surprised to know this, but I suspected you had done in the last round what you did in this one. I suspected it so strongly that I initially gave all the comics a 5.0. That was a mistake obviously, and led to my worst score of the contest. And then you did it on the next round instead! Arg!

Seems to me that without an explanation, no one should bid on these. My policy: assume they are counterfeit until proven otherwise.

Yes. And speaking of which, it makes sense to me that Zannello could have, or did, work with more than one LCS to submit. This operation of his was in some ways better than printing money, because they output was closer to genuine than a counterfeit hundred dollar bill. His resources would have been llimited only by the number of transactions he could process, meaning the vendors he could submit to. Once this operation starts, he's getting guaranteed profits every month, and it was happening for several years that we know about.

Speaking of "number of charges" I wonder if a lawyer can answer this question: Which would receive the heavier sentence: A thief steals a single comic worth $1,000,000 A thief steals 20 comics worth $50,000 each, in 20 separate robberies. It seems to me that the second option would draw a much heavier penalty than the first, because each robbery carries its own set of risks to the victim, and that is more important than the values involved. Am I right?

I didn't believe that from the start. Any time you try to find every example of a criminal's efforts, you are likely to have incomplete knowledge. That allows some crimes to escape notice. If you find 350 examples, the scale of what you may have missed goes up considerably higher than what it would have been if you'd found only 10 or 20 as in the Terrazas case. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the true number of affected comics is closer to 2,000 than 350. Also, think about the impact to criminal charges here. If this were to be prosecuted criminally, and it definitely could be, Zanello and Riva are in serious trouble even if the number of comics affected remains at 350. That's 350 separate counts of fraud. Depending on how the comics were grouped for processing and sale, it's probably not less than 150 separate mail fraud and wire fraud charges as well. The prosecutor could essentially go for life in prison for this on the basis of the number of counts, much like Bernie Madoff. More realistically, they'd only charge a sub-group of these and sentence on that basis. Regardless, I doubt he'd be looking at less than 5 years in jail, but it could easily be 20.

My guess is that CGC either contains this by identifying, finding, and buying every affected comic or they get a class action against them. If I was in the shoes of any of the affected customers, I'd be happy to walk away if CGC's offered compensation was appropriate. Meaning, I don't feel like I've lost anything. That includes, btw, any value that comic might have accrued since the time of purchase, providing it was the right comic. It also includes whatever money I spent, regardless how much value the comic lost in the meantime. This is why I think the fairest thing they could do is literally replace the comic with another that is untainted with the same grade. Anything less than this, and I'll be looking elsewhere for satisfaction. CGC's failure to follow their own rules may have impacted the value of all comics in their holders, as customers wonder if the contents match the label. For all we know, there is an IH 181 out there that is just a cover attached to a bronze age Archie. It may be unlikely, but it is a fair concern. Speaking for myself, I'm now wondering about my bronze Marvels, hoping they all have their Marvel Value Stamps. I assume they do, but I'm no longer as confident as I was.

I just got one of these: . That looks good to me, but doubt I am in a position to win anything unless everyone else screws up. Amazing that the real contenders have done as well as they have.

They could have been working some other insider(s). I just don't see how they could do what they did without help.

Curious how this works with the victims. 1) Does this mean the comic is now surrendered to CGC and you don't get it back under any circumstances? 2) Was the purchase price higher or lower than FMV? 3) How is FMV determined? 4) Are they offering FMV, replacement value or a replacement slabbed comic? 5) Did you lose money because of this, after expected compensation? 6) Are you happy to walk away after compensation, or do you want to see perpetrators criminally prosecuted? 7) Have you independently contacted law enforcement?

I think so, but CGC isn't suggesting that in their lawsuit. They have accused the other couple of pulling an inside job, which suggests they are willing to out any bad employees. Therefore, either they aren't aware of an inside component to the reholdering scandal, there isn't an inside person, or there is and they've decided to conceal it. If there isn't an inside person, then CGC has seriously compromised their reputation with a gaping hole in their certification process by allowing unvetted reholdering at a massive scale. If there is an inside person, and they must have at least considered the possibility, I wonder why that person(s) hasn't been found yet or is being concealed. My opinion is that if a CGC emplyee helped Zanello and Riva, it is better for CGC than if not. The reason is that they can say, "there is the problem" and get rid of it by firing the person, suing them, and prosecuting criminally. If there isn't an inside person, CGC really failed at their most fundamental job: certifying authenticity of comics in their holders. Bottom line: 1) Inside man limits scope of reholdering scandal to identified comics 2) No inside man means all CGC holders become questionable, including but not limited to reholders.

So where are we at @comicwiz on the question whether Riva and Zanello had inside help on their scam? I don't see any way CGC would let 369 bad reholder requests go through without checking them unless the comics were set up to land on one person's desk, and that person was helping. I see the connection you're making between the two scammer pairs but am curious what that looks like in relation to the reholdering business. At this point, the information released so far indicates to me that there was an inside man at CGC assisting in the enterprise.

She appreciates the thought, but leaves the collecting to me. She buys comics, but only as a general reader.

This is where, I think, the problem lies, not on the definition of "counterfeit." I have a hard time believing there wasn't an inside man on this. The idea that out of all the people working at CGC, a random group of them would randomly not look at 369 reholdered comics before reholdering is hard to believe, Also, I just got off the phone with my insurance industry friend, with whom I discussed this case. First, he agrees with you about the insurance payout I received for my stolen comics. He thinks there was something else going on that I didn't know about, like the judge was convinced by something else, even if not my trstimony, because, "not even the most honest insurance company in the world would pay out if they didn't have to." Second, he thinks CGC is in bigger trouble than it might look right now. The reason is that there are too many victims in this case to effectively manage by compensating them for losses. It isn't a question of money, but willingness to accept the deal offered. I agree, it is difficult to get that many people to agree on anything no matter what it is. That makes it very likely that some will break ranks and sue CGC in a class action. There is also damage to the market value and salability of the affected comics, which seems to have spread to all copies of ASM 300, 252, etc. That is harder to quantify, but the bottom line from him was, "Yep, they're cooked." Personally, I think CGC will make it through, but I am concerned about the possibility this was enabled by someone at CGC that purposely slipped the comics through the reholdering process without checking to see if they were the right comics.

Full disclosure, my wife agrees with you and @comicwiz

They may have been graded at one time, but not on the occasion when they received a grade bump. If you buy an Action #1 graded at 1.5, it is CGC-graded. If you break it out of the case, it was CGC-graded. If you slip it into a case with a 9.0 label, CGC did not grade it 9.0. Therefore, in that holder, it is no longer CGC graded. Breaking it out of the original holder is like nullifying a marriage: it is as if it had never happened. Saying that someone whose marriage was annulled is now married to someone else on the basis that the names on the marriage certificates match, when the person involved is not the same, does not make them married.

How is it "CGC graded" if CGC didn't grade it? They reholdered it, had a responsibility to at least examine it, but they didn't re-grade it and may not have originally graded the comic if it had ever been graded in the past before the swap. In your coin example, I was waiting for you to say that law enforcement determined they weren't counterfeits, but then saw they absolutely were due to the adultered metal. However, there are many ways to make a counterfeit. I'm not sure these distinctions matter at all, because your concern seems to center on CGC's responsibility in this, whereas my interest is in a correct label from the customer point of view, which is likely how CGC's lawyers are viewing it. You may well be right, though we now live in an age when many words now mean the opposite of what they meant 40 years ago. In this case, we agree the combination of elements were assembled for the purpose of committing fraud. It would not have happened but for the actions of the perps involved. Something at CGC allowed it to happen. Personally, I am not yet convinced there wasn't an inside man on this. It looks more likely to me that there was. At that point, would you accept the term "counterfeit" because the intent of all parties involved was to fraudulently create the appearance of a CGC comic? BTW: If I was on a jury for this case and the verdict depended on this definition, I'd stick to my guns that it was counterfeit. I'm retired and would be happy to stick it out as long as it takes, or until a better argument is offered.

They applied the mark without grading the comic. Therefore, it is not a "CGC-graded comic". That makes it counterfeit.

I see your point, and have seen it, as well as @comicwiz from the beginning. "It isn't what happened" is different from "That's no what it is." The slabbed comics are counterfeited CGC-graded comics because they weren't graded by CGC. CGC's reholdering process was exploited to obtain that result, but the end result is the same, regardless. This only applies to the reholdered comics btw. Comics that were directly swapped out by the perps are also counterfeit CGC-graded comics, though it is easier to see with those.

Where is the link to Round 4? I don't see it.

I agree with all of this. I disagree about the term "counterfeit." From a buyer's perspective, that's what it is, no matter how it came to be. It isn't a "counterfeit Incredible Hulk 181" (or whatever), but a "counterfeit CGC 9.0 Incredible Hulk 181."

This is Bard's answer to you: This response seems to argue against using the term "counterfeit" for the CGC reholder scandal. Here's my analysis of the main points: Points against "counterfeit": No replication: None of the physical components (holder, label, comic) are themselves replicas. They are all genuine CGC elements. Intent and opportunity: While deception was involved, it relied on manipulating existing elements, not creating replicas. They didn't "knock off" any component. CGC's role: The comic was initially authenticated as genuine by CGC, potentially adding confusion to the term "counterfeit." Additional points to consider: Focus on authenticity and manipulation: This perspective emphasizes the manipulation of the system and label information, rather than creating replicas. Internal comparison: Drawing a distinction between external counterfeiting (like fake Rolexes) and internal manipulation within a trusted system strengthens the argument against "counterfeit." Detection after the fact: Highlighting the need for post-grading comparisons suggests it might not fall under the traditional definition of "counterfeit" immediately discovered during authentication. Overall, this response offers a valid perspective against using "counterfeit" for the CGC reholder scandal. It shifts the focus towards manipulation and deception within a trusted system, potentially suggesting alternative terms like "fraudulent relabeling" or "misgraded reholdering" for better accuracy. ______________________________________ Back to me: I see your point, but our difference of opinion is coming from our focus. You are looking at how it was made, I am looking at how it is presented to customers. To a buyer, these are counterfeits because they aren't what they purport to be, though they look genuine thanks to the genuine parts. You are saying it isn't a counterfeit because the comic is genuine and CGC assisted, meaning all genuine parts. The term "counterfeit" is designed to have meaning in the context of customer deception, not to describe how something is manufactured.

This is what the Bard chatbot has to say about it: Arguments for calling it "counterfeit": Deceptive intent: While not a perfect replica, the act involved creating a deceptive representation of the comic's value by swapping it with a lesser-valued one within the certified case. This aligns with the core principle of counterfeiting, which seeks to deceive buyers into believing something is more valuable than it actually is. Misrepresentation of origin and value: The CGC case and label, now attached to the wrong comic, misrepresent the origin and value of the contents. This echoes the element of counterfeiting where fake items are presented as genuine to inflate their perceived worth. Legal precedent: Considering CGC itself uses "counterfeit" in their lawsuit, legal arguments and definitions might support this terminology. Arguments against calling it "counterfeit": Technical definition: As you mentioned, individual components (case, label, comic) are genuine, even if their combination is fraudulent. This deviates from the stricter definition of "counterfeit," which often implies complete replication of the original. Degree of replication: Unlike classic counterfeiting, the deception doesn't involve replicating the original comic itself, but manipulating existing elements (case and label) to misrepresent its contents. This distinction could warrant a different term. Alternatives and considerations: Fraud: This continues to be a strong option, emphasizing the deceptive intent and act without getting bogged down in technicalities of replication. Tampering: While accurate, it might not fully capture the deceptive element and the intent to mislead buyers. Misgrading: This specifically addresses the manipulation of the grading system but doesn't encompass the broader act of deception with the case and label. Hybrid terms: Combining terms like "fraudulent reholdering" or "counterfeit relabeling" could offer more specific descriptions while acknowledging the unique aspects of this case. Ultimately, the choice of term depends on the specific emphasis you want to convey and the context of your discussion. Consider the following: Target audience: If you're addressing a general audience, "counterfeit" might be easier to understand, even if technically imperfect. If your audience is familiar with legal nuances or comic book collecting, a more specific term like "fraudulent reholdering" might be better. Desired focus: Do you want to emphasize the overall act of deception, the manipulation of the grading system, or the specific use of genuine components in a fraudulent way? Choosing a term that aligns with your intended focus will improve clarity.

A "counterfeit" is something that has been manufactured, assembled, or labeled deceptively, for the purpose of persuading others that it is something it is not, usually an item of higher value. In the case of counterfeit money, it is paper manufactured to make it look like genuine currency. With a knockoff Rolex, it has a fake embossed logo added to a watch that is not a Rolex. The logo is real, the watch is real, but the watch isn't a real Rolex. A painting by a follower of a well-known artist might have his name covered up or scraped away from a painting to make it look like it is by the master (who doesn't sign his work.) It is a real painting but it isn't by the person who purportedly made it. This is distinct from a "forgery" where an attempt is made to imitate the artist's style. What we have here are counterfeits of the knockoff Rolex variety. It isn't that any of the elements are counterfeit, but that their unique assembly is a counterfeit because it falsely represents the contents of a slab as something other than what it is. The false certification number (because it doesn't apply to the comic inside) is clever, because it is a real number belonging to a different comic. Sometimes diamonds are micro-etched with ID numbers. If someone had a list of ID numbers and the gems they were associated with, then found similar gems and infiltrated them into an order at the company that does the order, they would end up with counterfeits due to the substitution. That is exactly what happened here.

It sounds to me like you agree the slabbed comics in question are counterfeits. Not counterfeit comics, holders, or labels, but counterfeit products that are not what they are purported to be. Your quibble seems to be with CGC's responsibility in this. My impression is that CGC can't argue that Zanello made counterfeits when it was CGC that actually put the counterfeits together. Is that what you are saying? In other words, they are counterfeits but you think it makes no sense to accuse Zanello of making them when CGC put the elements together? If that is your argument, and it wouldn't surprise me if this is exactly what Zanello is thinking also, it doesn't work for me. By submitting the wrong comic to CGC, he is clearly committing fraud. CGC appears to have unwittingly helped produce the counterfeits, but only because they were defrauded by Zanello. CGC's guarantee creates an obligation to "certify" the contents of the holder, and that is where Zanello hurt them the most, by exposing that they seem to have skipped that step. It doesn't change the fact that the counterfeits wouldn't exist if not for Zanello's actions.