• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

comicwiz

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,887

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Journal Comments posted by comicwiz

    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    Chronology of CGC employees not being allowed to commercially buy and sell comic books

    CBG article (Feb 12, 1999)
    "CGC employees will not be permitted to engage in the commercial buying or selling of comics books. In this way, CGC remains completely impartial, having no interest other than a commitement to serving clients." 

    Screenshot_20240203-1344302.thumb.png.b0

    Posted Jan 3rd, 2005
    Excerpt from CGC Celebrates Five Years of Graded Comics (Posted on 1/3/2005)

    "To further prove the integrity of CGC, Borock and all future employees would not be allowed to commercially buy and sell comic books. Borock took this one step further, so that no one could question his intentions: he sold his entire comic collection and instead began to collect comic book art."

    Jan 27th, 2024 
    Excerpt from A Life in The Comic Hobby with Steve Borock CGC & CBCS Founder 
    Steve Borock: "they told me I can pick my own team and set the ethics, because I really believed this has to be super-ethical, right, where I set it up, we can't buy and sell CGC books, we can still collect, we're collectors, we didn't want to turn people off, but I get, uh, I get an email from one of the top people of the Certified Collectibles Group and they said they wanted to have lunch. So I meet with the three of them, and they were like, we're worried about this guy Mark Haspel, and I'm like why, I mean, I think he's going to be the best. And they were like, there were some people complaining, and, I said their name, I said it has to be these people, and they said, oh yeah, how did you know, and I said, it's because they don't like him, they can't buy him off." 

    Footnote: those three guys were very prescient - here's why:
    ↓
    Sept 2, 2021
    Wata Co-Founder Accused of Selling The Games He Graded Himself
    "A report has accused the company's co-founder, Mark Haspel, of selling games appraised by his own company on his personal eBay account. If these reports are accurate, this is a serious breach of Wata's own policies."

    Not sure how up to date the Meet The Graders page is, but he's listed as a consultant on CGC's website:

    Jan 30th, 2024
    "The CGC Rule"
    "As a condition of employment, with the exception of four permissable sales transactions per year (the "Employee Transactions"), CGC prohibits employees from commercially dealing in collectibles, including, but not limited to, selling or reselling CGC-graded comic books, online or elsewhere in the marketplace."

    "In addition, as a benefit of employment, CGC employees were permitted to submit for authentication and grading a maxium of twenty of their own collectibles per year (the "Employee Submissions"), at no charge.

    "Employees may deal with an auction house, a collectible dealer, or online marketplace like eBay provided they are using an anonymized ID/handle that they have disclosed to CGC."
     

    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    Here is an example of CGC shifting culpability almost entirely on the alleged perps. Under "Nature of Action", no. 3, we have the following claim:
     
    "..and in many cases, submitting them to CGC to be purportedly “re-holdered” in a CGC-branded holder."
     
    What the perpetrators allegedly did is send the tampered books back to CGC, it was CGC's job to review those "reholders/mechanical errors" to determine the book inside aligned with the grade assessed on the CGC label.
     
    The absolute success achieved gave an undeserved legitimacy to the scheme, because the alleged scammer realized seasoned buyers of these "tampered" books might want to do a look-up of the cert number if they saw something that was off with the book.
     
    In the second screenshot I've provided below, you can see how a "donor" book for the swap - a qualified (green label) Hulk 181 - was photographed by CGC, for CGC's certification look-up.
     
    In the third screenshot, we see an update to the certification look-up - this is after the swap - it was sent back in, and CGC not only reholdered it, but photographed it again, and consolidated the swap scheme by using the photo of the qualified book as the universal (see final screenshot).
     
    Negligence does play a role in assessing fault, and while it could prove to be difficult to demonstrate intent, it's factually erroneous to not see CGC enabling this scheme to have succeeded for as long as it did, with as many books as the alleged perpetrators passed through. 
     
    What this example reveals is one of the methods of deception that has been used to resemble previously known and recongized systems of trust.
     
    reholder-uncircled.png.30a038b8c29c2b967d9b9cc87fac8209.png
    Green-85-Verification.png.a1765b459396eac3b8faf944decae5f6.png
     
    Blue-90-Verify.png.537b49a14ba65d3b6523a98cfd4e0c70.png
     
    Blue-85-front-comparison.jpg.472b471cfd6d6f23f712e85ff4502df1.jpg
    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    The description used on the first page of the declaration is incorrect. I've included a screenshot, and highlighted the assertion in question.

    In order for CGC to be providing a service that even remotely resembles "certification", it requires a body of oversight for consumers to report deficiencies, transgressions and seek redress in situations where consumers are impacted. Taking the problem to CGC doesn't count, the oversight needs to be an independent body.

    The second tenet is that the attestor has to sign his/her name to what they are certifying. Without this, it cannot be a certified opinion. This step also makes it possible for the oversight to be able to address matters of accountability, and this is where oversight needing to be independent becomes crucial.

    Just because consumers are taking CGC's word for what they are stating they do does not make it accurate or correct, both caveat emptor and venditor would apply in this instance.

    certification.png.39f5e4c9f1001a672c83310520bcf1be.png

    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post
    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    With the filing of a second lawsuit, we have learned that CGC has named the alleged perpetrators of the "holder tampering" - "Certified Guaranty Company, LLC, Plaintifff v. Ulises Zanello and Bree Riva, Defendants"

    Bree-Riva-Zanello.jpg.f7a8737b0a0c9f7cceaf4b4338586108.jpg

    During the same video we explored this past Thursday, after the lawsuit against the alleged employees, at the 7:43 minute mark of the video Exclusive! CGC President Speaks on Graded Comic Book Scandal - Matt Nelson Address Re-Holder Scam

    West Coast Davengers: is it possible that more than one person was involved in this, like what are your thoughts on that

    Matt Nelson: To date, we believe there is only one individual. Obviously the investigation is ongoing, but to date, we believe it's one individual.

    The lawsuit clearly mentions two names as the defendants. 

    comicwiz

    Posted

    Thanks to Bob Beerbohm for his post from earlier today on FB showing the original CBG article from 1999, adding further proof that CGC employees were not to allowed to buy/sell comics. "The CGC Rule" is revisionist b.s., attempting to entrench an allowance that was never part of the original terms of employment. Under this "new" rule, they are allowed to sell 4 times a year, and get 20 comics graded.

    Screenshot_20240203-1344302.thumb.png.b01ea28ee5995868c3960c55001538ae.png

    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    To summarize, CGC went from NOT allowing employees to commercially buy and sell comic books, to recently stating under "The CGC Rule" (Under section C. of the CGC v. Terrazas Complaint), employees can buy/sell up to 4 times a year, and are allowed 20 submissions per year (at no charge).

    "Employees may deal with an auction house, a collectibles dealer, or online marketplace like eBay provided they are using an anonymized ID/handle that they have disclosed to CGC."

    CGC went from wanting to prove their integrity by removing the ability for employees to engage in buying/selling, and grading, to allowing it, with the added proviso that they need to use an anonymous ID/handle. 

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    Aprox 8:20 mark of the Exclusive! CGC President Speaks on Graded Comic Book Scandal - Matt Nelson Address Re-Holder Scam

    West Coast Davengers: ...have you discovered if that person was or is in relation with a former or current employee.

    Matt: no, yeah there's no connection. No employees are involved. It seems like it was a seperate incident from, uh from CGC.

    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post
    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    I feel that The CGC Rule is deserving of some analysis. Under section C. of the CGC v. Terrazas Complaint (pg 13) CGC is trying to establish the history of the grader they hired "around June of 2022." He was, according to the document, a collector. He also, according to the document, handled "high-value" comics. 

    I met Steve Borock in 2000, in a shop in Toronto, just before CGC opened it's doors. It's been 24 years that I've watched CGC evolve into the company it has become. 

    Just last week, Steve Borock was interviewed by Swagglehaus, and the full length video was posted on YouTube. In it, he talks about the early days when CGC operated, and how it was important for them to prove the integrity of CGC - namely, that Borock and all future employees would not be allowed to commercially buy and sell comic books. It says so in this in Jan 3rd, 2005 article right on CGC's website. I've posted a screenshot of an excerpt, highighted in blue for posterity at the end of this post.

    I urge everyone who has been following this journal to go back and reread The CGC Rules as they've been stated in the CGC v. Terrazas Complaint.

    If CGC were trying to demonstrate that the grader went against policy, why wouldn't they just say no employee should be allowed to commercially buy/sell comic books? No 4 per year, no 20 subs per year. Nothing!

    In my opinion, the statement of "allowing" employees to partake in selling, with 20 submissions added on top, is a concession that is likely to have been put in place the moment they realized they couldn't keep this matter private any longer, and filed this motion and lawsuit.

    If "someone spilled the beans" and that caused this lawsuit to get filed, then it's likely this "allowance" to sell 4 times a year, and submit 20, would have also been called under an intense spotlight and magnification of scrutiny.

    Thus the "allowance" is born.

    It's a very telling part of how the grading cultures have become fast and loose with process and protocol, particularly when the occasion requires it.

    To reiterate, prior to this lawsuit, the CGC policy was that no employees would be allowed to commercially buy and sell comics books. We have reference to this in the article I linked above, as well as the screenshot that follows.  

    According to The CGC Rule, they can now do it up to 4 times and submit 20 books every year.

    CGC-not-selling.png

    comicwiz

    Posted · Edited by comicwiz

    What does certification mean?

    Certification has various meanings, but in the context of collectibles being "certified", it ought to represent an official document (soft/digital or hardcopy) that attests the item is at the very least genuine. In the case of third-party grading, this is a necessary function to arrive at the subjective opinion of assigning a grade. 

    Certification however does imply something very important in order for the attestation being made. 

    In the context of "appraising" an item, the two-step process is similar because it does require the attestor to authenticate the item is genuine. From this, they are able to arrive at a determination of condition and henceforth it's value - this is conditional to it being real, and based on it's state of preservation at the time it is being inspected.

    The most critical part of something being certified is that it should have the attestors name signing the document. Without this, it is not a certified opinion.