- Popular Post
-
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
-
Posts
13,888 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
CGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by comicwiz
-
-
On 2/6/2024 at 12:07 PM, buttock said:
As I said, I don't know when this rule was changed, but I think you can put a direct link to that change and this scandal. It's absolutely unacceptable.
I recognize that it will still happen, people can just use a proxy in all aspects. But CGC needs to have a strict rule on hand to maintain some sense of propriety.
It isn't perfect, but it's the only chronology I've been able to ever gather on this matter.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/6/2024 at 12:40 PM, sd2416 said:@comicwiz What is your cash app or paypal? Id like to buy you a drink for all the detective work you have done.
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.
-
On 2/6/2024 at 9:15 AM, Stefan_W said:
Maybe a lawyer can weigh in on this, but to me it is not at all unusual and I would be shocked if they used absolute numbers. When they use "approximately" it leaves the door open in case other instances are discovered, but if they use a hard number they can be shown to be wrong if that number changes.
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).
- comeaux, Steven Valdez and AJD
-
1
-
2
-
-
My analysis on the incorrect use of "certification" under the declaration in support of plaintiff's motion.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/4/2024 at 2:11 PM, shadroch said:A problem with that is you are asking people to forgo a passion of theirs- collecting comics for a job. Some sort of restrictions are needed, but a total ban isn't a good idea, imho.
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.
-
On 2/4/2024 at 8:19 PM, sledgehammer said:
yes, his name is in there.
And then there were two
-
On 2/4/2024 at 6:43 PM, wombat said:
Just like they don't know books they pressed themselves.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/4/2024 at 6:20 PM, GDN said:I remember.
FWIW, Ryan addressed that in a subsequent video and gave his side of the story. Believe him or not, I found his explanation genuine.
Ryan is correct that YT auto-deletes comments with links in them which as you can see from that linked post Comicwiz's comment on Ryan's YT video had.
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.
-
On 2/3/2024 at 6:29 PM, MasterChief said:
Sounds like someone’s moral compass wasn’t wound tight enough.
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.
- comeaux, MAR1979 and MasterChief
-
3
-
On 2/3/2024 at 3:37 PM, comicjel said:
I am surprised that they did not discover the (assumed) separate reholder scam themselves in the 2 - 3 months before the ASM 252 was brought to light.
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.
- comeaux, BlancoBros and brute_nm
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/3/2024 at 10:49 AM, ramithard said:Like I said earlier.....this thread is like the show True Detective.....no one wants to tell us who the person is that did this....it just goes on....and on...and on,,,,
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
- bluehorseshoe and namisgr
-
1
-
1
-
On 2/2/2024 at 12:41 PM, awe4one said:
I watched the answer. Thank you for posting it. But I think the answer is a little cavalier when CGC is still investigating the whole matter. He could have been more cautious in his answer since the matter is still in question.
Again, I’ve deslabbed multiple comics and can’t see how you could do so without it being obvious or having equipment to reslab a comic to make it look legit.
Jim
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.
-
On 2/2/2024 at 12:25 PM, drotto said:
He was not being asked about this case being an inside job, he was asked about swapgate being an inside. To his knowledge that scandal is not an inside job. So he told the truth from a particular point of view.
You have to remember everything Matt said was carefully curated by legal, and he did not give any responses that legal did not pre-approve. That interview was only about swapgate, so all responses are only about swapgate. This is a separate matter, and they had not gone public with this one yet.
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.
-
On 2/2/2024 at 12:08 PM, HighGrade said:
but uses the word duplicate, but when you do a reholder you print a duplicate of the legit label so that is why the word duplicate is used, it's not a new label it's a duplicate label of the original which it says he printed and was "taken" from the legit graded book
I noticed those words being used. This is something I will need to circle back to on those SS books.
-
-
On 2/2/2024 at 5:15 AM, mr_highgrade said:
That's a good question Bob, why is Mark Haspel a "Consultant"?
Just last week, Steve Borock was interviewed by Swagglehaus, and retold the story of his choice of Haspel being questioned, with doubts. Something along the lines of "are you sare about this guy?" Prescient warnings.
-
On 2/1/2024 at 9:40 PM, MatterEaterLad said:
It's just scandal upon scandal at this point.
It's ridiculous that employees aren't allowed to grade/sell their own books when OWNERS have been doing it since day one. I'm not saying employees should, but zoom out and see the big picture that's been there since the beginning, when CGC stakeholders were also stakeholders in Heritage. Total conflict of interest that was spotlighted by the WATA mess, with stakeholders manipulating the market for their own gain.
If they ever want to earn back trust they should disclose if any of the previous stakeholders (or board members) still have a minority ownership after the BlackRock acquisition. And if stakeholders are still allowed to grade/sell their own books.
This journal entry covers my take
- MatterEaterLad, DR.X and Iconic1s
-
2
-
1
-
On 2/1/2024 at 7:47 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:
I'm losing the thread here and would appreciate it if someone can clear up my confusion.
Am I right that this married couple being sued by CGC are completely separate from the scammer behind "the list" we've been talking about on this thread? Because I don't recall any of the books on "the list" being stolen.
I think you answered your question. My advice: let CGC answer that for you with their next move.
-
On 2/1/2024 at 4:17 PM, blazingbob said:
For me I've had issue with "Consultants" who come in and grade and also sell books.
Especially the one who got caught red-handed selling WATA Atari games.
I bet you didn't know about The CGC Rule. I bet no one here knew about it. It's almost like this was invented for just such an occasion.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Another stretch of not having time on my side, but I guess this is as good as any time to share a link to my journal "Who Watches the Watchmen" - where I've posted some excerpts from the motion for injunction (and will update given this revelation).
-
On 1/30/2024 at 2:58 PM, comicjel said:
Lastly, I would not expect to see SS books involved at all.
With this revelation, we will need to circle back to this. All in due time.
-
On 1/30/2024 at 11:27 AM, comicjel said:
First, the effort you are putting towards this, and the efficiency (and consistency) of the archive you are creating is amazing!!!
Sorry to scroll in on one of the books, as I understand this post was intended as more of a global education of what is happening, but the Avengers 57 SS 9.6 intrigues me more than the others - I can not help but think that the SS books are involved in the scam somehow, but there is no obvious way that it seems they could be??
The Avengers 57 SS 9.6 seems like the same book through the various listing scans (there are too many exact characteristics for me to think that a different book has been swapped in), but there are changes happening to the book in it's inner well (and it is on the "list"), so it seems like it must have been reholdered... however it is the same book being reholdered, and is just acquiring minor new flaws along the way without getting any grade bump or label change - what is the benefit of this reholder?? - it just makes no sense to me??
I believe I have mentioned this somewhere, but it bears repeating now that you are asking. In this instance (and there are others), there are competing variables. One is that I am restricted to what exists in terms of sales history, and the photos available to me. There are about 25% of the "suspect" sales which I've identified where there is no record available on WP. Pics are everything in the way we can trace the kind of activity that has led us to understand what the "holder tampering" at least looks like thus far. Beyond the limitations of what is available in the way of data, there exist limitations on being able to take identification to the next level with what is available in the photos. These books (A57 SS being one of them) fall into that category. However, the methods used to determine tampering for everything else don't apply if it's what I think is going on. That's about all I can say at this time.
CGC Files Lawsuit Against Employees
in Comics General
Posted · Edited by 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.