comicwiz

I'm going to address the part I bolded from your comment. I have been waiting for someone to point this fact out. It is the raison d'etre for a third party grader, that is supposed to be impartial, and provide a service of authenticating and grading. Their role is to always be vigilant of someone trying to subvert their system. As I'm reading through the lawsuit, there are aspects of it that left me scratching my head. Their explanation for "reholders" was absent of some critical information, and that was that even though they generally offer this service to manage issues with defects/cracks/damage from mishandling or shipping, there is a critical part of this process which is that they are in effect validating the book within their systems. Seeing the same book now showing-up in the "certification" look-up in two places, one under the green label cert (8.5) and one as the blue label (9.0) speaks somewhat to what I'm referring to as lacking the safeguards to realize a vulnerability in something like a verification check is what causes a barrier for the consumer to properly vet tampering for themselves. That function of validating it through a reholder process in the manner I've described acts like a stamp of approval that all checks out, and who is going to contest what CGC says? That was at least until someone discovered the scam that was perpetrated. There is also the detail of missing certain data from the alleged sellers eBay accounts which caught me by surprise, but I am purposely being vague about this because I'm not on their payroll, and we've been told Kroll's got this. So I'll let them think that, despite finding some inaccuracies in the statements they filed. Ultimately though, this does cause me to wonder how they are making things foolproof for catching errors, and deception, when it's been left to the community to do. But even more importantly, when they can't seem to even explain the finer details of things after it's been practically done for them on these boards, especially when it's something as important as filing an injunction against the defendants, who they claim to want to do everything possible to arrest from continuing their alleged wrongdoing. This "holder tampering" incident has allowed me to realize some things. Namely, that my memory of things that have happened in the past is extremely heightened and sharper than the average person. This may have something to do with the way they've been beleaguered with scandals which didn't instill confidence they would even know anything was happening unless the community here discovered it. Perhaps there's another reason, and other people's absence of memory relates to not worrying about the finer details, because their trust in CGC is implicit and unshakable. Those people may be comfortable with the systems of trust they've been led to believe keep them safe and protected. Maybe there are other reasons which relate to seeing themselves invested in an outcome that will not impact the worth of their collections or inventory. Memory is never a perfect recording of events that happen. It can change with time, and I might add that with the practice, priming and revising being helped by changes being made in accordance with each blip and scandal, it may not be possible for the things I see of concern being seen by others. Even if this is what is causing this gap in understanding what's at stake, I hope that people will expect from any grader that they must be prepared for the possibility of people exploiting and subverting their systems. It's not good enough to say not everything is foolproof. CGC needs to do better. A lot better at leaving no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure.

It isn't perfect, but it's the only chronology I've been able to ever gather on this matter.

Thank-you, that's very kind. However I would urge you and anyone here who doesn't use @gpanalysis to consider supporting them. We are entering a very precarious time as collectors where our ability to track the activities of bad actors is becoming more important than ever before. Lots of hard work goes on behind the scenes with data providers and aggregators, all making it possible to do the work I was able to do. If you're already a subscriber, please consider supporting a local charity, church, or someone in need in your community. Every litle bit helps, and consider what I've done as my way of paying forward all the help I've received to arrive at the place I am at.

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." 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."

It raises questions of uncertainty in a situation that should not leave such doubt as to how it's being handled. Also, if you're going to say approximately 369, round it up to 370 for crying out loud. No one is going to hold them to it, esp since they already publicly said there was no insider (and it turned out there was) and there was only one person involved (and there's at least two we know about from the lawsuit filing).

They've been using this "approximately" for everything, including the 350 list. One of the things I've mentioned in past posts as being very unusual.

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.

My analysis on the incorrect use of "certification" under the declaration in support of plaintiff's motion.

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.

I found it rather interesting that CGC found some manner to incorporate into it's lawsuit that CL had given Zanello tens of thousands of dollars in cash advances. I'm also reminded of the fact that CL was one of the members who refuted an insider.

The CGC Rule was born out of this alleged internal deception, it was never allowed from the very beginning (1999 CBC article). It's still mentioned in an article right on CGC's own website. My analsysis on all this.

And then there were two

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" 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.

I like how he left a comment that referred to me as being unhinged. I guess you missed that in your assessment, but I certainly wouldn't want to influence your decision on what you found genuine or not. I had a YT channel when these guys were in diapers. I've never, not once removed a comment, even those made by real trolls. There was nothing I said in my original post that was either impolite, or could have been deemed flagged content. I've had my YT account for over 10 years, and comment on a wide range of topics, it just so happened when I commented on his post, telling him I'd made a discovery, that it's one of only two comments that have ever been deleted. A few hours later, he posts about a discovery HE MADE. The other of the two happened with Swagglehaus as well, which is where I also left a comment of the discovery. And more recently when I told him my objections with Borock trying to speak favourably about Haspel - Swagglehaus claimed it was because people wanted to be Switzerland in situations like this. You keep relying on these guys for your sanitized, hype-induced analysis, that in a nutsheel is appropriated by the real people doing the work, all under the guise of neutrality. Let's see how that works out for everyone. I'll stick to calling a spade a spade.

I went to check how my tightly wound moral compass has been trading lately, and I have to report it is trading at shockingly strong prices since the injunction/restraining order filing.

You and I are seeing this situation very differently. We were the meddling kids here - they would have never needed to do one or the other if not for what we discovered. Without the latter, the forner would have likely been dealt with 'privately", if it was dealt with at all.

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.

Was going to post this as well, from Bob Beerbohm's FB post

This has been brought up a handful of times already now. I chose to quote you because in a past comment, you indicated that none of this was going to slow down or change the fact you were still submitting to CGC. It is your decision to continue doing business with the company, whose "tamper-proof" claims have been rendered baseless and a failure, and whose 350 'impacted books' list is not all-encompassing to the true scale of this "holder tampering incident." The latest lawsuit alleging insider corruption has exacerbated a lot of the deceptive practices we've seen happening external to the company since mid-December, and reaching into all manner of manipulating the market. From my vantage point, you are relying on CGC, despite all these inadequacies and deficiencies uncovered by the community. CGC is who you should be asking for the information you seek.

FYI: they filed an ammended complaint

Right, similar to what I posted above, but your point of emphasis leads to what I was holding back from saying, and that is that it was said that way in an effort to downplay it. Listent to Dave's relieved response right after. And I guess it worked, that is until this injunction was filed.

Assuming that your explanation is in fact what occurred, it would have been wiser for him to answer that is not a question he could respond to given the investigation being an ongoing one, and not all facts or information are available or known at the time the question was posed. It looks worse now given what's taken place, especially because some of the activities divulged in the motion and declarations intermingle with the issues of tampering as a whole.

I noticed those words being used. This is something I will need to circle back to on those SS books.

This post has a link to the video that takes you right to the moment in the interview, as well as a transcription of the person posing the question and the answer Matt gave.