comicwiz

On 4/16/2024 at 9:03 AM, comicwiz said:

Mad props to CGA for releasing their population reports again. This is leaps and bounds better than the previous iteration, and is really slick. It can be a little clunky in terms of trying to figure out the correct criteria to improve relevance matching, and as such, I'd imagine this will increase the amount of search attempts until users figure out which are the best keywords or combinations of search fields to use. The person who gave me the heads up was locked out for suspicious activity, so I'd recommend giving at least 30 seconds between each search to avoid this, as I'm certain it's meant to eliminate bots scraping data from their site.

However, what they have done to federate the search across four different subsiadaries, which includes AFA, and especially, how they integrated the serial-look-ups with the population data is a massive improvement, and one that other graders should emulate (that includes CGC). The unknown of course with any pop reports is that you really don't know how quickly the data will populate after grading, but this is a welcome upgrade to be able to perform simple verification for graded toys under the CGA umbrella. 

A week later, and it's not working 

On 4/12/2024 at 6:38 PM, HotKey said:

The two rounded/circles look like what are referred to as "hickeys" in printing - for those who have never heard this term before, for brevity here's a quote from Google: "occurs when a piece of dust or random mote sticks to either the plate or blanket of the offset printing press or the printing medium, which causes an imperfection on the printed page"

Mad props to CGA for releasing their population reports again. This is leaps and bounds better than the previous iteration, and is really slick. It can be a little clunky in terms of trying to figure out the correct criteria to improve relevance matching, and as such, I'd imagine this will increase the amount of search attempts until users figure out which are the best keywords or combinations of search fields to use. The person who gave me the heads up was locked out for suspicious activity, so I'd recommend giving at least 30 seconds between each search to avoid this, as I'm certain it's meant to eliminate bots scraping data from their site.

However, what they have done to federate the search across four different subsiadaries, which includes AFA, and especially, how they integrated the serial-look-ups with the population data is a massive improvement, and one that other graders should emulate (that includes CGC). The unknown of course with any pop reports is that you really don't know how quickly the data will populate after grading, but this is a welcome upgrade to be able to perform simple verification for graded toys under the CGA umbrella. 

On 4/16/2024 at 7:24 AM, fantastic_four said:

Who were those two blobs supposed to be?

It's a 3D representation of Logray and Chief Chirpa that were blacked out on the back of the card to avoid spoilers. 

On 4/15/2024 at 9:38 PM, Buzzetta said:

This guy made some custom Kenner SW figures.

If you know, you "know".

Bet you @comicwiz doesn't have these prototypes in his collection. 

I posted this meme in that thread (IYKYK)

On 4/10/2024 at 10:48 PM, Buzzetta said:

Why do I always feel with these announcements that CGC is tens years away from owning their own auction house where your books can be graded and go directly to market from there all under the CGC umbrella? 

Let's hope it's light speed distance away. If people truly believe this serves the consumer/collectors best interest, it never works out that way with monopolistic practices such as what's unfolding here. Walmart is the perfect example of this. If anyone has ever tried to enter into any service or product agreement with them, they'll know exactly what I mean. Years ago, they wanted to use my company's services, but when we began talking about price to carry out our service, their approach was to eventually do the job for them without even considering wages of workers. Basically, if we wanted the contract with Walmart, we had underpay our staff and/or work for free.  And they wondered why we didn't answer their calls after our first meeting.

So it's not just how they eliminate competition locally by under-pricing other businesses, then slowly increasing their prices once they've killed off every mom and pop, but it's a direct attack on the local economy because they target living wage. People who work there don't earn enough to afford shopping at the retailer. In this instance, it starts with upcharges on fees for listings, grading, auctioning (final value fees), storing. The confluence of consolidating 75% of the grader market for PSA/SGC, and rubbing out the rest (that includes CGC), thinning margins for sellers, and bearing similar earmarks of the horrors that came with "offerings" such as the global shipping program and taking a percentage of shipping cost. It's the perfect recipe for consumers getting hosed at every step of the process. Competition is the way consumers keep businesses fighting for their loyalty, this deal is meant to eliminate that possibility.

It doesn't effect me, and there would be no way in the world I would ever surrender any cards under this agreement to either PSA, eBay or their "vault," Over the long-term, this will have a negative impact on the trading cards hobby and any appearance of a one-stop umbrella of service offerings is the kind that still leaves you wet in the rain.

Worth a read:

Why did the 'King of Collectibles' cast doubt on their million-dollar LeBron James card?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tried-sell-million-dollar-lebron-100057785.html

Amazing! The hollow cheeks is a killer find!

Sweet haul! 

On 6/9/2023 at 12:11 PM, comicwiz said:

This will be a long post, but it is meant to be both for informational purposes, and a public service warning to the wider community of collectors of vintage Star Wars. While it focuses on an unlicensed toy produced by a Hungarian manufacturer, it's relevance in the formerly described context is the manner with which one of the self-professed identification and variant 'experts' has gone about spreading disinformation, with an emphasis in exposing his flawed "research methods," particularly as it relates to being the ring leader for an identification site known as "Variant Villain." While I want to make one thing clear, and that is that I avoid this identification site like the plague, I do not want what follows to be tainted by this bias and personal opinion. And to be clear, I held this view well before what took place in the past 6 months. Instead, I want to provide the fact pattern of the specific example I've chosen to show why this individual should not be trusted to ever provide any opinion or expertise on the subject.

 

Back in October of 2022, I was asked to appraise a toy produced by Schenk. This toy spacecraft has a very interesting history, and I was very fortunate to have connected with the former company owner Károly Schenk's nephew Stephen, who is not only a family member with a passion for preserving and archiving the history of this toy company, but worked at Schenk right up until the company closed its factory in 2006. Prior to establishing contact with Stephen, I did make an effort to communicate with this Variant Villain "expert" whose name is Wolff Lipinski. Before I proceed any further, Wolff has a past of deception, lying and scamming, particularly in relation to how he tried to paint beater vintage figures to pass them off as original "variants." For those interested in reading more about this past incident, the following links should give you more to read on regarding this matter.

 

Touched Up Figure from Wbobafett

https://forum.rebelscum.com/threads/touched-up-figure-from-wbobafett.1057049/?fbclid=IwAR24xdkjjY1pusc15k5mrf-O56ARl7Og7vRhcrJkG0rRRKhvfDomRiRPHME

 

Watch out---me, myself and I

https://www.imperialgunneryforum.com/t1902-watch-out-me-myself-and-i

 

Wolff Scam highlighted by the TIG Team

https://www.starwarsforum.co.uk/threads/wolff-scam-highlighted-by-the-tig-team.7193/

 

Despite the past scam he pulled, I, along with many other collectors, gave Wolff a second chance. When I was tasked to the assignment of appraising a Y-Wing back in October of 2022, during the time the owner shared photographs of the ship for my work file, I noticed that this specimen was unique. I wrote about this in greater detail in this announcement post. So when I reached out to Wolff last October, while he knew about the ship already, the reason was to communicate the discovery of previously unknown characteristics which hadn't been noticed until I asked the owner to carefully open the cockpit and photograph the contents. 

 

During this conversation, he made a bigoted comment about the previous owner, which had nothing to do with why I reached out to him. I wanted to make him aware of what I had discovered about this specimen, which he may have confused as me asking for his opinion on legitimacy. It's important to note that the ship originally was purchased in November of 2020 off e--Bay. More on this later in the post. After the buyer received the item, he contacted Wolff about the ship, and Wolff told him it was legit. The previous owner did not want to be dragged into this, and this is why my PM conversation with him blurs out his info, and you’ll soon understand why his concerns have merit.

 

 

As it turned out, the ship changed hands from the 2020 buyer, and the new owner who had contacted me to appraise the toy was someone Wolff disliked, and suddenly, his views on the legitimacy of the toy changed. He began to talk about nonsensical characteristics, which I knew had zero relevance in our conversation, so I had to emphasize to him that I did not contact him to ask for his opinion on whether the specimen I was appraising was legitimate, but to make him aware that it was the only specimen to have been found complete, with both a replacement helmet and gun. The other reason I contacted him was to explain that I had some concerns over his example having a loose figure floating loosely outside of the ship within the netting. In typical fashion, Wolff ignored what I was trying to communicate, and focused instead on his made-up observations.

 

Beginning in April of this year, not too long after completing the final stage of appraisal in March, and the client posting the item for sale, he began posting his assertions and claims on why his specimen was the only 'real' example, and after he found his on e--Bay in May 2020, he made a post stating his was only the second known. He did this also stating that his ship was produced in "83/84."

 

 

First, there are 3 examples which I have used as photo reference for the appraisal, one is shown in this French collectors video at the 2:41 minute mark. The other was part of a Schenk exhibit held in Hungary in 2016, and this photo (Photo 1) was taken in the display used for that Schenk exhibition. There are supposedly 5 unopened specimens in one Hungarian Schenk super-collectors website, which I have yet to be shown to confirm the legitimacy of this claim, and I have collaborated with Stephen from back in October to arrive at the extant population being in the single digits. Essentially, there are more than just 2 known.

 

Photo 1: Rare example of a Schenk Y-Wing in original netting

 

Secondly, reading his post stating his ship is from "83/84" is like watching someone post that their Star Wars Early Bird set is from 75/76. Once you realize the person didn't even take the time to find out when the toy was actually produced before making such a clueless claim, it completely renders the comment devoid of any credibility or relevance. Despite this clueless claim, my intent was to make this informational, so here is the reality. 

 

Schenk owner Károly Schenk had a heart attack in 1984. While the Schenk toy company had been planning to initiate a figure line to capitalize on the success Return of the Jedi had achieved at North America box offices, they couldn't proceed due to his health circumstances, and as such, any plan to build the spaceship was postponed. The Schenk Y-Wing was produced for 10 years, between 1985-1995.

 

Now if we cut him some slack, and resign to accepting he was only a year or two off with his estimate, and place his ship in the early timeline of production (i.e. 85/86), it causes another series of issues with the specimen he has touted as "real." First, his so-called "unopened" specimen is the only one that does not have the figure inside the cockpit. The relational observation to this is that the netting is more taut than normal, and this notion that a figure popped out of the cockpit is highly unlikely as this netting plastic is simply not forgiving enough when it's stretched in such a manner, and as tight as it is, to allow the cockpit to open wide enough to allow the figure to come out of it. This taut netting characteristic will prove to raise additional questions further into the post. 

 

Photo 2: Wolff’s Y-Wing with loose figure - figure was produced using ABS plastic.

 

The problem beyond the figure loosely included inside the net packaging that is shown in Photo 2 is that Schenk did not begin to use ABS plastic for its figures until 1991, and Stephen believes that particular figure was only available after 1992. And it's very important to understand that while there has been the proliferation of overstock parts and figures on certain Schenk toys produced from that era, what is significant to take away from this is that it's akin to seeing a POTF2 era figure inserted into a Return of the Jedi playset. The two era's vastly conflict if we are to go by Wolff's assertion that this is an unopened specimen. 

 

Further adding to these issues is the legal advisory label on the underside of his specimen. Wolff has claimed that the label advisory is the only way to confirm a Y-Wing is legitimate. This couldn't be further from the truth. First off, he never once actually describes what the purpose or history of this legal advisory is, he just goes off on a tangent stating that the label is the be all, end all, to confirm legitimacy. So here is the reality.

 

Photo 3: Legal code with blue arrow showing gaps in netting and yellow arrow for width of label.

 

The legal advisory originates from child poisoning events that occurred between 1963-1965. While it took another 11 years before this decree was put into force, Schenk audits of its factory and production processes began as early as 1968. The decree itself can still be accessed through Hungary's legal code website. The wording on the label itself describes the materials Schenk used, and that it is safe to expose to water. While Wolff insists on the necessity of this label, he never explains the fact this is actually a joint decree. In the first part, it's a quality assurance that Schenk is disclosing the exact material, and in doing so, complying with the original legal code instituted 9 years prior to the production of the Schenk Y-Wing. However, it also combines with it a clever marketing aspect, as Hungary at this time had instituted a hygiene mandate, and including this language in the label could be seen as one way to encourage parents that this toy could be used during children's bath time. 

 

The choice of use on how this advisory label was applied was highly dependent on the packaging formats. When Wolff first began to openly contest the Y-Wing which I authenticated, I asked him if he knew what the different packaging formats were for this Y-Wing. He never responded and I gave him ample opportunity to do so. To get through this point more quickly, the netting was one of the three packaging formats used on the Y-Wing, and the netting was specifically meant for vending uses in outdoor fairs and market settings. The application of the label shown above in Photo 3 is Wolffs specimen, and if you will note, the blue arrow indicates the gap in the netting, juxtaposed to the yellow arrow, which is the width of the label. 

 

Photo 4: Schenk play scale in net packaging, with loose label

 

In Photo 4, you will see a toy scale playset that uses the correct label, which is significantly wider, to ensure it cannot be lost through the gap openings of the netting. If you combine the way netting was intended for outdoor venues, the "weathering" aspects of vending in outdoor settings and using a wider label would more intuitively ensure that a label cannot easily blow out from inside the netting with any gust of wind. As these nets were ordinarily hung on a booth or market stand, it's more appropriately the case that the type of label shown on Wolff's example was used for a different packaging format than netting. 

 

Photo 5: Legal code label applied on plastic toy wagon

 

In Photo 5, you can see another plastic Schenk toy that uses the same label, and this toy was not packaged with netting. These alternate packaged toys were also more commonly sold in Hungarian "traffic shops", with the toy usually laying flat on a shelf, with no opening in the packaging. 

 

The confluence of these facts - a later period figure, a loose figure floating inside the netting, and a label ordinarily applied on toys using different packaging formats - suggests that it is likely his specimen was actually opened, and the ship and/or figure were not native to that netting. And make no mistake, the fact he’d rather focus on disparaging the authenticity of other examples is deliberate - and it’s simply so he can claim his is the only real "unopened" example. For informational purposes, Photo 6 shows various examples of print litho and label methods which I collected for my work file back when I originally performed the appraisal.

 

Photo 6: Some differing packaging formats used along with legal advisory

 

If the fact pattern explained above wasn't concerning enough, when it was originally brought to the community's attention he had demonstrated nothing but baseless claims, he made a death threat to the owner of the ship and several of his supporters attempted to interfere with the sale. He then back-peddled claiming that because English isn't his first language, "You are dead" didn't translate correctly when he sent his threat by PM.

 

 

In addition to the research I did under the direction and guidance of Stephen, I traced the example I authenticated back to the original seller. I am glad I did this, not only to establish a chain of custody and ownership from the time it first appeared on e--Bay, but because after Wolff claimed it was a "fake", I wanted to communicate with the original e--Bay seller to explain what had been happening with the specimen he sold back in 2020.

 

Photo 7: e--Bay listing for Y-Wing from November 2020 

 

It turned out that the e--Bay seller is a Chief Museologist at Hungary's András Jósa Museum. It was a pleasant surprise, not only because this gentleman confirmed a lot of the research and information I had shared during my original authentication work, which included that he originally bought his from an outdoor market, but also because Stephen knew this gentleman. In fact, this gentleman held a Schenk exhibit in 2017 at the museum and Stephen was one of the organizers of that exhibit. Below are some photos of that exhibit. 

 

Photo 8: Set-up photos taken at the András Jósa Museum for an exhibit held in 2017.

 

I wanted to make him aware that there was a contingent of people that were calling into question a toy he had sold back in 2020. To say he was unimpressed is an understatement. As an accredited appraiser, I deal with a wide range of institutions, and I know someone in the position he holds is committed and passionate about the preservation of history, so when he asked me to provide the information on who this individual was, I did so, making him also aware that Wolff is a "restorer" and has done work for Württemberg State Museum because he boasts about in on this page. 

As many of you know, over the 20+ years I’ve been a member of these forums, I have always tried to do my part to raise awareness around emerging issues that can impact collectors and our hobby, and this includes outing bad actors. As this thread focuses on toys, I’ve done the same in the past with regard to matters impacting the toy collecting community. As a lifelong collector, it’s concerning when someone who has become one of the biggest weapon 'experts' in the current landscape accomplishes this because newer collectors don't realize he's a known liar. He painted loose figures and sold them as original. That's hardly the bedrock of reliable information. 

While I stated the purpose at the outset, the inspiration for doing this is found in the fact that the truth very much matters in the hobby's we pursue. I was not given the opportunity to explain any of these things I mention above, not because I was afraid of Wolff’s penchant to threaten, but because I was muted and blocked from sharing this information in groups run by supporters who take his every word and opinion as complete truth, as well as being blocked by his Variant Villain page. The take away I want to achieve most with this post is to newer collectors - and more specifically, that you do have alternative choices for weapon and identification research websites such as The Imperial Gunnery Weapon and Accessory Identification. Given the above outlined fact pattern, if you insist on using any information from Variant Villains, that you do so with a preparedness to scrutinize that opinion carefully, but to also ready yourself for an onslaught of questioning and scrutiny from people like myself who will not stand for hobby disinformation to be perpetuated, especially when it’s someone with a history as a known scammer.

He's back at with his lies. If you haven't already, read the post I quoted above.

Yesterday, he posted in a FB group called Bespin Prime, stating his "Hungarian Y-Wing" was the "only example."

I responded showing info/photographic proof that revealed his "limelight of lies for likes" campaign.

He removed the post.

Then proceeds to post in a group I'm not able to respond in because he's a liar and would rather peddle misinformation than confront soemone that can call out his lies for what they are.

This is the self-proclaimed VSW hobby segment weapons expert?? Variant Villain indeed!

I collect comic racks, and metal detect. The latter led me down the path of conserving metal, and I've worked on everything from Roman coins, 14th/15th Century Biscayne trade axes, environmentally damaged coins, and everything in-between. I bring a unique perspective to this, but at least you will have a different perspective to the advice you'll hear from others. I don't ever work on anything unless there is a need to. I've recovered ancient artifacts dating between 8,000-10,000 years old, and those I would never dare touch. The main thing is to identify when there is degradation occurring, and unfortunately in your case the rust is something that you will need to address. Rust never sleeps. I've worked on trade axes that came out of their conservation session almost new, and within minutes began oxidizing and rust beginning to return. Non-ferrous metal requires proper stabiization techniques. A clean-up and repaint is not something I would ever recommend, and if you decide to go that route, you should disclose it as such. The cost to properly "stabilize" something like this will be considerable. However if you are going to do it, go to people that know how to work on these sorts of projects. Pay the money, and get it done right. Those folks should also know how to recondition/repair and recreate (as required) the header or sign. As a comic rack collector, the DC publisher rack is one I'd like to someday add, but unfortunately as is, it's a very, very tough sell because anyone that's ever had to restore one of these the right way will know it won't be cheap. A metal artist, antique resto expert, and miracle worker in one is what you'll need here. 

On 3/31/2024 at 1:46 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I've never understood the implied importance of who-created-what. Unless it's on your resume and you're trying to establish a pattern of creativity to get a job, it seems pretty inconsequential. Wolverine was created by a couple people, but without artist emphasis, expertly written dialogue, editorial favoritism and marketing savvy - the greatest character in the world is merely a scrawled set of loose ideas on a page in Foom Magazine. 

It seems pretty obvious in this instance, the call was made to Len Wein's widow to tell her Roy Thomas is NOW in on the action from the upcoming movie. 

The issue as most see it is that he was an EIC when this would have occurred, as Larry Hama puts it:

Larry Hama
"I was an editor at Marvel, and I always understood that if I created stuff as a staff employee, it belonged to the company. No editor should get further renumeration for coming up with material for their freelancers to work on. That is part of the job. They got a salary for that."

Him suggesting the character should be Canadian, and to call him Wolverine, isn't enough to establish he created the character. Add to this the EIC component mentioned above, and you end up with a co-creator grab because he's the last one standing. 

Then there's also this:

“There's another piece that is interesting because it points out that Roy's "contribution" of nationality had already been pitched by a fan in FOOM [Marvel’s fan magazine, "Friends of Ol' Marvel”].  And Dave Cockrum had claims that his character presentations/designs that led to the New X-Men included a Wolverine character."

Click the first screenshot in the order to go to the post, or click here:

On 3/30/2024 at 12:50 PM, Jimmy Linguini said:

After Bob was kicked off the CGC boards he became very anti-CGC in most of his postings.

Bob became anti-CGC because of the All Star #8, and the pickle it put him in with Jerry's widow when CGC allegedly refused to acknolwedge they damaged the book. As I've said, frame that into it's correct context. After the narrative shifted from the baker being fleeced/fooled into believing Obadiah Oldbuck's significance in the chronology of comic history, it shifted to Bob being a bad actor, who was going to listen to Bob that CGC had done him wrong?

Now that the music is playing, with back to back lawsuits, people still don't want to listen to the warnings. Everything old is new again. 

On 3/30/2024 at 11:27 AM, Cat said:

I saw a post from her some years later asking Bob about payment. I THINK it might have been after he'd announced his retirement, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Regardless, I definitely saw a post some years later enquiring once more publicly about payment. 

I saw (presuming it was you) the post on reddit. I found that to be of poor taste, as is what you're doing here. On a "probably" or "maybe" of all things. Even on the reddit, someone asked for evidence, and you posted links to discussions which linked to removed content, and/or that has long been deleted. 

On 3/30/2024 at 7:47 AM, KirbyJack said:

This is a perfectly reasonable and understandable position. I imagine she is not the only one, either. 

Jean removed the post in 2013. Lot's to unpack from this incident, surely you would think that when post submission damage happens, and CGC tells a customer you're SOL, people would rather trust CGC than Bob?

2023/24 is a different time, isn't it? If you're going to believe CGC over Bob on the All Star #8 being damaged, then I guess you're also likely to believe 350 books are the extent of the impact, or that people will ever see any compensation from the property they surrendered.

Keep it classy folks. 

On 3/22/2024 at 8:33 AM, DougC said:

That is a lot of reading a self inserted argument into what I posted, I don't even know how to reply.  

Maybe I took the way you wrote it as some manner of dissuading that pathway of seeking redress.

On 3/22/2024 at 12:10 PM, Dr. Balls said:

From the land of obscurity: Iomega did this to customers who lost gigabytes of data from their Zip Disks due to 'Click Death' - where the disk failed and all data was lost (at the time, in the late 90's - many people archived data on zip disks due to them holding large amounts of data and less expensive than optical disks). There was a class action lawsuit against Iomega where the customer's reward was a simple credit coupon to buy replacement disks. Nothing for the - literal - hundreds or thousands of billable hours lost from the data on the disks. I can't recall how many hours my employer paid me for rebuilding files that were lost - but it was several hundred at least and took months.

I would not be surprised in the least for people to be given credit to CGC - while the Class Action lawyers do donuts in the parking lot in their new Mercedes after getting paid handsomely for bringing the suit to court.

This reminds me of some of my old days of doing everything from PC/laptop repairs, assembly, data recovery, and everything in-between. Toshiba dominated in those days for their laptops, and I remember a certain manufacturer with a hard disk drive that developed the nickname "Deathstar" because of the insanely high failure rates. I remember working the service desk on odd occassions, and whenever a call would come in about someone's hard drive crashing, I already knew what it was. Data recovery was an extremely lucrative gig in those days, and I already knew within the few months early in 2000 something was up with this disk drive to have such a high failure rate. I began giving instruction to people on how to at least recover their repair costs because it just seemed like the right thing to do. Later as a parent to two young boys, watching Mr Incredible do the same in his 9-5 hourly grind reminded me of what happened back then, and the boss in that movie looked exactly like mine. I don't think most people know how expensive it is to recover data from a hard drive, or what some of the centers like I worked for would charge, but you'd think someone would have gone after the manufacturer in a more coordinated manner, rather than the piecemeal (and costly) approach to address the problem. Even with the help I was offering those few times I manned the service desk, I think that manufacturers "Deathstar" drive brought us about 85% of our data recovery business over span of several years. Whenever one of their laptops came in even for a simple update, I would check and if it had a Deathstar, I'd pre-warn or replace the drive (sometimes at no cost) if we had another makers drive sitting around. They were that bad.