comicwiz

Information withheld

Information withheld

I agree. Them mentioning the use of their account was in "violation" was something that stuck out to me too.

She has to join the boards now

I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I'm going to share with you an incident that helps illustrate why it is. Years ago, I did an estate appraisal which contained among many items, some RCM issued coin rounds. These coin rounds were something I had appraised in the past in other estates. They are inside capsules, and placed inside an RCM box with a certificate. The capsules act as a hinderance to be able to do a proper assessment. Most people prefer them not to be opened, making it difficult to test for precious metal purity and weight. A few years prior I had appraised a collection that contained similar items, and was in contact with RCM, who provided me with valuable information, which included the weight of the capsule. Interestingly enough, I got the idea when NGC had announced many years back of counterfeit slabs, and I contacted NGC back them to get the weight of their coin slabs, to help me appraise some NGC graded items at that time as well. So with the weight of the capsule, as well as measuring the radius, circumference and thickness of the coin, I was able to determine they could not be authentic gold coins. Gold's density is impossible to replicate without altering the specifications of the coin round or builion. If you know this information, and it's straight from the source, you have all you need to perform the assessment. It's never easy to break the news to the owners, but that discovery led to a massive investigation that shook out the perps, who had managed to somehow secure dies, stamping equipment, boxes, certs and capsules. I've examined counterfeits before, these were very convincing, and if not for their choice of using a filler metal, I might not have ever noticed. The one thing that allowed them to pull it off as convincingly is that they actually used real boxes, certs and capsules. The capsules were the barrier for most to figure out the weight, and my thoroughness and insistence on accuracy is what led to them being busted. Similarly, it's the holder and inner well that obstructed CGC from performing the assessment they needed to. They can't use weight or measuring their contents because of the variability of the material they are encapsulating. And on books requiring an interior inspection, they needed to make sure that what was inside was a complete book, or even examine the book inside the well to see it matched the grade on the label. The decision to handle reholders the way they did, absent of a thoroughness and insistence on accuracy, is what led to the exploitation to occur, and continue for as long as it did. AND until we caught it, it was very much a CGC graded comic.

THIS

What's lacking here is that an assessment done by the company who grades/authenticates gave the book a stamp of approval. No one forced CGC to hurriedly carry out it's assessment during the reholdering, no one forced their hand to have the book returned in a manner that caused them to not perform a proper and accurate assessment. On the contrary, as a consumer, I would argue that it's encumbent on CGC to ensure these items are accurately assessed, especially in instances were defects such as those posed by a missing MVS be carried out in a rigourous and exhausting manner that includes interior inspection, rather than rushed, causing incomplete comics to go from qualified designation to universal. The fact these books passed through enabled the bad actor to carry out their alleged criminal activity. Hundreds of books if we go by CGC's impacted list. All could have been averted if the reholder process included with it the proper assessment to catch the scheme.

Lab created, but not old mined. Lab created are supposed to laser etch on the girdle, but dishonesty is an issue on those that pass through without. I don't see that at as being the same as this incident. Not even close to being the same in terms of comparison. No one has knocked-off the holder (as far as I can tell from the pics I've looked at), no one has knocked off the inner well. No one has knocked off the label, although they may have been able to print on it incorrect information. Happens with errors too, those aren't counterfeits. The intent to decieve happened with access to the same equipment used to grade/holder/label real. The key differentiator is that if I send in a fake Rolex to them to authenticate, it would never pass. Here, the book was sent in and was deemed fit for reholdering, in some instances photographing for their certification look-up, and returning it to the customer as passing all the checkboxes of it being an authentic product. It only was deemed "tampered" after WE compared before and after pics, as well as tracking the changes of the book inside with each repeat appearance during it's entire sales history cycle.

This is a very interesting direction your taking this. Let's say I send an item of jewellery, let's say a ring, to Van Cleef & Arpels (VCA) to be rejoined with a proper VCA ring box, as the one I originally had for it was damaged. What I receive back is not what I originally sent in, but VCA insists that they returned what I sent to them. It's later determined that an employee was stealing/swapping out customers property and selling it. To be clear, this is a hypothetical, and hasn't happened. I'm just using it for comparison on what occurred at CGC. In the hypothetical scenario I describe, the ring was sent in to the manufacturer, processed as an original, but what was returned to me was not the original ring I sent in. The only thing they needed to do is rebox it in a correct VCA box, and someone internally deceptively intervened with that request. They may have swapped my ring with someone else's that was very similar. Real, but not mine. Or they may have altered the ring in a manner that I notice is different. Or they may have swapped mine with another customers that was similar enough to fool someone that may not have been as attentive. They may also have access to internal tooling that allows them to replicate the rings to the exact standards and specifications, and only after they were caught, did my case for being sent something else suddenly have merit. Explain to me how my original ring is now a counterfeit? Or that any of the real parts in this scandal - the holders, the label, the cert look-ups meshing with it all, the comics inside being genuine article, but of lesser condition or incomplete - how are they counterfeits? When I think of a counterfeit, I'm thinking a guy in Lima in a storage locker with a Heidelberg printing press that has replicated a US $100 bill to an exactness that is near impossible to distinguish between real and fake. A counterfeit is not some insider at the US Mint, who runs notes while no one is looking, or strikes builion on planchets he snags when no one is looking. One is an imitation, the other is not.

Here's one. An error? Perhaps. However, it's a good example of the nuanced aspects of grading. Here we have a SS book that fails to remark Shooters sig in both the label and cert look-up. I'm going to say just a few things about this, because I already know the people more steeped in SS will say it's an error they've seen happen. Maybe so. But I hope they'll agree that it's weird, AND given what we've learned from the lawsuit, worthy of examining under a magnified lens of scrutiny, so please hear me out. This is one of the books sold by the employee at the center of the allegations, through one of the eBay accounts named in the lawsuit. There is already a pattern revealing of books that appear to be of lesser condition, possibly other issues, as shown with the ASM 20 I posted earlier. In this instance, the label should at the very least be a two-tone green/yellow. In the signed memorabilia/poster/whatevs world, having an unverified sig is something that can impact the value, and actually be a deal-breaker for certain collectors. I highly doubt CGC will be reviving the unremarked sig as being witnessed, and if they do, that is some miracle work, because I know I had photos of a book prior to being damaged showing it was double-signed, that arrived to me with a cracked holder, and they in no uncertain terms told me that if the well was breached, they would not be able to validate either of the sigs. Even though I had scans showing the label, the sigs, their placement. So all we have here is an example of a book that for some strange reason was sold with just a witnessed/remarked Beatty sig, no correct two-tone green/yellow label, AND no way an unwitnessed sig of that size and placement would allow this to have received anything higher than an 8.0. And yet, we see a 9.2 on the snappy SS single tone yellow label. Doubtful someone like Kroll would be able to pick-up on any of these nuanced aspects, or be able to understand why this is a problem book as it sits, out there in circulation. And before anyone points out that a Shooter sig isn't going to add much, that has nothing to do with the issue - rather, that this is not an accurate assessment, sold for too much, had too high a grade assigned given the context I've explained above, and because a two-tone green/yellow would have had a more detrimental impact on it's value. Certification: 4233221001 Seller: terrazas-the-collector Cert: 4233221001 [06/24/2023] - $275

It may be easier to understand for "joe public", but it is not accurate to the nuanced aspect of the deception.

My eyes want to see the validity in this, but my gut tells me that it would be much easier to reproduce the entire wrap.

We will need to circle back to this, but I 100% agree with your assessment of the location and placement.

You'd be surprised. I know of two large scale scandals where the FBI were involved. Nothing was surrendered to them by the owners. In fact, they weren't discouraged from selling the items, despite one incident involving a payout by an insurer. I think people immediately think, if I involve the authorities or Feds, I won't see my stuff again, I don't think that is the case in every instance, and of the items that were used as evidence, I didn't know anyone that had a problem getting it back.

We are on the same wavelength here, yes, please send that along.

I haven't forgotten, I'm using this information currently as I'm going through the alleged perps of the employee deception.

Great catch! Here is the link - wow, I'm surprised no one questioned this at the time.

@CGC Mike I think @HighGrade brings up a valid point here that is worthy of getting some verification from the CGC team on for the wider community to better understand the timeline of when this change occurred. It is unfortunate that we are seemingly seeing updates/changes to information which collectors rely on, and it being done without any announcement or notice, leaving some of us doubting even what we think has happened, or when it's happening. The question specifically pertains to the following verbiage that is now appearing underneath the photos on Cert# look-ups: "If the information displayed above is incorrect or does not match the collectible you are verifying, or if you believe that you have a counterfeit or tampered CGC holder, please contact Submissions@CGCcomics.com. To learn more about counterfeit or tampered CGC holders, click here." From my perspective, I've been taking screenshots for posterity, and to track changes, for at least the better part of an entire month. However not all screenshots of certs I took had photos, and I also cropped out the area beneath the photos. However, from the notation itself, there are several aspects to the wording that indicate this is something that meshes aligns with the recent actions against the alleged perpetrators of two seperate incidents, as outlined by two seperate lawsuits. The most telling for me is the use of "counterfeit or tampered CGC holder" as well as a link to the "counterfeit or tampered CGC holders, click here" linking to the announcement that was only made on Jan 3rd, 2024. In addition to having some elaboration or explanation as when this notation was added, and when the changes mentioning "counterfeit or tampered" were added, I would also like to know if this notation was added accross all cert entries, and if so, when that happened. On the latter point, I simply want to understand if this notation was added just for impacted books, then when was it decided to expand it to all certs. Thanks Mike!

There's too many variables to know. Given the allegations presented in the lawsuit, it's possible these were raw swaps, customer books that disappeared, very difficult to say.

The book is a disaster, nowhere near a 4.5. The fanning interior is something that appears to dangerously infringe on the seams on the inner well. I've seen books with minor overhangs denied for grading for reasons of less concern or risk to being damanged. The missing defects in the notes is something I'm seeing as a pattern in other books they sold. I'm having to step away to take care of some things, but just look up a CGC 4.5 grade for this book, and that may help you see the disparity better.

Go through this summary with screenshots of the cert look-ups, none of them have had it. Now, I have been doing cert screenshots since Jan 30th. I can also assure you that the word "counterfeit' is a very new word in the CGC grading vernacular, introduced only after the lawsuits, and from what I can tell, was used for "impacted" books. I would have noticed this from the hundreds of looks-up I've done since starting the research I've done.

To clarify, I didn't say it was only on that book. But I can assure you the notation is new. The reason I posted that was to show the disparity between the assigned grade on the label (as well as notes lacking mention of flaws), and the book inside.

I'm only 46 records into a total of nearly 450 sales from the intermingled sales histories of their eBay sales. All I will say is that thus far, is this adds a new twist to the widely held belief the "swaps" and "tampering" center on only a couple of key books in high grade.

Information withheld.

As I'm slowly going through the mined data for the eBay accounts alleged to be connected to the employees lawsuit, I notice something. We now have a note that states the following: If the information displayed above is incorrect or does not match the collectible you are verifying, or if you believe that you have a counterfeit or tampered CGC holder, please contact Submissions@CGCcomics.com. To learn more about counterfeit or tampered CGC holders, click here. This notation appears below the photos of the book under CGC Cert #: 4355451009 Now, take a moment to look at the cert screenshot below. Look at the notes. Then look at the book. Seller: omni_collector Cert: 4355451009 [01/07/2024] - $575