comicwiz

On 2/7/2024 at 7:49 PM, comicjel said:

- The reference to CBS in the filing did not sound to me as I would expect they would be referred to if CGC felt that they were innocent and fully cooperating.

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

On 2/7/2024 at 7:06 PM, paqart said:

Full disclosure, my wife agrees with you and @comicwiz

She has to join the boards now 

On 2/7/2024 at 6:12 PM, paqart said:

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

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. 

On 2/7/2024 at 6:04 PM, agamoto said:

However, if the grading company itself applied the mark based on its reassessment process, the situation doesn't straightforwardly fit the concept of "counterfeiting" as defined, since the issue stems more from the exploitation of the company's certification process rather than the unauthorized or deceptive use of a counterfeit mark.

THIS

On 2/7/2024 at 4:57 PM, paqart said:

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.

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. 

On 2/7/2024 at 4:38 PM, paqart said:

Sometimes diamonds are micro-etched with ID numbers.

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.

On 2/7/2024 at 4:38 PM, paqart said:

What we have here are counterfeits of the knockoff Rolex variety.

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.

On 2/7/2024 at 4:03 PM, paqart said:

but counterfeit products that are not what they are purported to be.

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

On 2/7/2024 at 2:37 PM, paqart said:

Not sure I agree with you. I'm familiar with putting exhibits together and can say that what they did in the lawsuit was much easier to understand than anything I've seen on this forum.

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

On 2/7/2024 at 1:53 PM, agamoto said:

While it would involve removing and reinserting a book into an inner sleeve, which I don't think has been on anyones radar in all of this, all it would take to effectively duplicate a sloppy ol' sharpie signature on any book is a $550 axidraw and the appropriate color sharpie. I personally don't believe for a second anyone would have the balls to do such a thing on such big books and then send them into CGC. 

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.

On 2/7/2024 at 2:21 PM, WestcoastDAVEngers said:

Why are all the Stan Lee signatures on the back cover? As someone who worked in the memorabilia industry for 15 years, working for places like Steiner Sports.. for example:  I have never seen anyone decide to get a Kings puck signed by Gretzky on the back where the kings logo ISN'T.

You can make a case for "he was trying to not ruin the front cover art" but signature placement is a HUGE deal when it comes to getting a premium. 

You don't get Slash to sign the back of a Les Paul, just like you don't get someone to sign on the back of an 8x10 photo.

Game worn jerseys are the only thing I see people getting signed on the inside, as to not detract from the game-worn aspect of it.

 

All that being said, why did CBS decide to be a "trend setter" and getting stacks and stacks of huge silver age keys signed by Stan on the back cover.

Nothing to me, is more fishy than that.

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

On 2/7/2024 at 12:14 PM, paqart said:

The bad thing about going straight to law enforcement is that I might not get any reimbursement and the comic would be taken as evidence.

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.

On 2/7/2024 at 12:07 PM, CJ Design said:

Didn't think you forgot...verifying you were on it. I have the complete pin-up list if you happen to need it.

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

On 2/7/2024 at 12:01 PM, CJ Design said:

And as I stated WAY back a few times...the pin-up books also need to be .  ASM 20 is one of the most out there missing pin-ups.  FF 2,3,4 and ASM 3 all have pin-ups also...along with many more ..not cheap books.

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

On 2/7/2024 at 10:14 AM, HighGrade said:

 

I certainly believe you didn't see it, but yeah I was 100% sure I saw it some books? I even clicked on the link learn more because I thought it would show the tamper evident part of the case and it didn't show anything about that at all..LOL.

I just found the actual note in this thread below, I'm guessing it was just on the ones added after July maybe? At least I know I wasn't seeing things or nuts. you started to worry me.

Check out this thread it might help with some things and timelines.
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/524080-cgc-scanning-all-books/.  Someone in the thread actually copied and listed the note, 15 posts down, maybe certain browsers block it like ad block?

On a side note, we need back images!!! especially with this note, I can see people freaking out with no picture showing on most. seems like they are bad books without an image.

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!

On 2/7/2024 at 9:48 AM, sledgehammer said:

No, I clearly got that. I was just wondering if the notes were all from a different book, or if they played around with the notes for this book.

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. 

On 2/7/2024 at 9:35 AM, sledgehammer said:

Do you a theory on what the Terrazzos did here?

What threw me was the mention of slight spine roll in the notes.

It didn't strike me as "slight", but the grade was clearly screwy.

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. 

On 2/7/2024 at 9:25 AM, HighGrade said:

but yeah it's been up since at least July, Might have started when they started posting all the images

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.

On 2/7/2024 at 9:08 AM, HighGrade said:

That note is on ALL books, not just his, pretty sure it's been there for a while? does anyone know how long?

 

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.

Information withheld.