comicwiz

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.

This journal entry covers my take

To summarize, CGC went from NOT allowing employees to commercially buy and sell comic books, to recently stating under "The CGC Rule" (Under section C. of the CGC v. Terrazas Complaint), employees can buy/sell up to 4 times a year, and are allowed 20 submissions per year (at no charge). "Employees may deal with an auction house, a collectibles dealer, or online marketplace like eBay provided they are using an anonymized ID/handle that they have disclosed to CGC." CGC went from wanting to prove their integrity by removing the ability for employees to engage in buying/selling, and grading, to allowing it, with the added proviso that they need to use an anonymous ID/handle. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

So what happened between 2 weeks ago when Matt Nelson gave the interview, to have arrived at this? (excerpt from Declaration of Harshen Patel):

Aprox 8:20 mark of the Exclusive! CGC President Speaks on Graded Comic Book Scandal - Matt Nelson Address Re-Holder Scam West Coast Davengers: ...have you discovered if that person was or is in relation with a former or current employee. Matt: no, yeah there's no connection. No employees are involved. It seems like it was a seperate incident from, uh from CGC.

I feel that The CGC Rule is deserving of some analysis. Under section C. of the CGC v. Terrazas Complaint (pg 13) CGC is trying to establish the history of the grader they hired "around June of 2022." He was, according to the document, a collector. He also, according to the document, handled "high-value" comics. I met Steve Borock in 2000, in a shop in Toronto, just before CGC opened it's doors. It's been 24 years that I've watched CGC evolve into the company it has become. Just last week, Steve Borock was interviewed by Swagglehaus, and the full length video was posted on YouTube. In it, he talks about the early days when CGC operated, and how it was important for them to prove the integrity of CGC - namely, that Borock and all future employees would not be allowed to commercially buy and sell comic books. It says so in this in Jan 3rd, 2005 article right on CGC's website. I've posted a screenshot of an excerpt, highighted in blue for posterity at the end of this post. I urge everyone who has been following this journal to go back and reread The CGC Rules as they've been stated in the CGC v. Terrazas Complaint. If CGC were trying to demonstrate that the grader went against policy, why wouldn't they just say no employee should be allowed to commercially buy/sell comic books? No 4 per year, no 20 subs per year. Nothing! In my opinion, the statement of "allowing" employees to partake in selling, with 20 submissions added on top, is a concession that is likely to have been put in place the moment they realized they couldn't keep this matter private any longer, and filed this motion and lawsuit. If "someone spilled the beans" and that caused this lawsuit to get filed, then it's likely this "allowance" to sell 4 times a year, and submit 20, would have also been called under an intense spotlight and magnification of scrutiny. Thus the "allowance" is born. It's a very telling part of how the grading cultures have become fast and loose with process and protocol, particularly when the occasion requires it. To reiterate, prior to this lawsuit, the CGC policy was that no employees would be allowed to commercially buy and sell comics books. We have reference to this in the article I linked above, as well as the screenshot that follows. According to The CGC Rule, they can now do it up to 4 times and submit 20 books every year.

I think you answered your question. My advice: let CGC answer that for you with their next move.

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.

The CGC Rule

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).

Excerpts from the Motion for Preliminary Injunction

and exhibit B

I give you exhibit A

With this revelation, we will need to circle back to this. All in due time.

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.

The one troubling aspect in this for me is that I don't believe CGC has really thought through all the possible risk scenarios posed by a "holder tampering" incident like the one which besets us. When Sansweets Star Wars collection was stolen, one of the people involved with selling the pieces (uknowingly) for the thief was caught in the crosshairs of one of the most well-publicized thefts. The way those pieces were seemingly "in the weeds" at that point was eventually left alone when Sansweet got his insurance payout. But, some of us watched select pieces quietly reappear through private sale by those who well knew they were holding pieces that were proceeds of a crime. Not to the mention that after the payout, the insurer owned them, but that didn't stop anyone from trying to dump them on to unsuspecting consumers. In the case of the ML broker with 18 year brokerage history, who embezzled more than $4.2 million from client accounts between 2007-2017, the FBI was going to collectors homes following the trail of Star Wars toys they had purchased from him going back to 2007, because these were toys acquired through the proceeds of a crime. Before the lid blew on this, I tracked several of those pieces changing hands, well before the broker was senetenced to 8 years in prison. The reason I mention these two seperate incidents is that the last thing CGC should be doing is asking for reciepts, or at least reword the way they are asking for the victims cooperation, seeming almost as though surrending property and evidence is contingent on them receiving compensation. Why? Because we shouldn't just be worried about the alleged seller dumping any remaining problem books - we should be equally concerned about the people holding any number of the "impacted books," who might be reading about the hassle people are getting, while trying to cooperate with this "investigation." And keeping that list at 350, when I know there are more, is one way the ripple effect of the scenarios I'm describing above increases. The more people feel like they are getting pushback, or are being hassled in a situation they never asked to be put in, the messier this will get.

Then try to work your way through this compendium of posts. It is important to visually go through the way each facet of the summary explains things, from the cert screenshot (some having been revised or removed since these were posted), changes in grade date, when the book first appeared for sale, and then later reappeared changed. These are different from the project green to blue, because these books appear to maintain the same certification with completely different books reappearing after passing through the alleged seller that is linked to this "holder tampering." This should give you some sense of what I mean by variability, and establish a baseline on what CGC has described as "holder tampering." Again, there are a lot of unanswered questions here, no one other than CGC should be addressing these: FF 48 CGC 9.0 - Certification: 1012329005 ASM 129 CGC 9.0 - Certification: 1028057001 Avengers 57 CGC 9.4 - Certification: 0966088004 ASM 252 CGC 9.8 - Certification: 1257876006 X-Men 266 CGC 9.8 - Certification: 2120143023 ASM 238 CGC 9.8 - Certification: 3805448018 ASM 238 CGC 9.8 - Certification: 4109535001 Noticing Changes to Grade Date: Financial Toll & Analysis Hulk 181 CGC 8.5 - Certification: 1295091001 Hulk 181 CGC 9.0 - Certification: 1055471002 Hulk 181 CGC 9.4 - Certification: 0052830003 Avengers 57 CGC SS 9.6 - Certification: 1478893002 Financial assessment of 17 of the 19 Hulk 181's on the (350) Impacted List Hulk 181 CGC 9.2 - Certification: 0013796019

Start with going through the project green to blue books - this link compiles all of them with a visual matrix. No one here or on YouTube knows for certain how the swaps happened. I have an idea after going through several hundred books since Decemeber how it's being done. However, there is some variability between the way the swaps are made as well because each scheme exploits the holder and/or process differently. Following each linked example of green to blue, seeing the donor book become a blue, will give you a better sense of what I'm describing above.

This summary involves a Fantastic Four 48 CGC 9.0. Of the six past sales data points we can track through GPA, there are only 5 which can be tracked through WP. The change of book inside the holder is noticed on sale date 1/28/2020 (#6 in the summary below) Certification: 1012329005 Fantastic Four (1961) #48 CGC 9.0 Beginning first with a cert look-up for posterity: Screenshot of the cert on the 350 list for posterity: 1) Cert: 1012329005 {3/20/2011} | $988 2) Cert: 1012329005 [6/13/2012} | $1,132 3) Cert: 1012329005 {9/29/2012} | $1,000 (No WP record of this sale) 4) Cert: 1012329005 [2/18/2018] | $2,950 5) Cert: 1012329005 [2/21/2018 | $2,700 6) Cert: 1012329005 [1/28/2020] - $5,302 - this is where we notice the book inside the holder change - the easiest way to ascertain the differences are the gaps in art from both the Watcher's leg to the spine, and The Thing's foot to the outer edge (see comparison pics at the end of this summary) Additional notes: Comparison pics to show the differences between the two books inside the holder

@CGC Mike would you be able to ask the team if this book that appears below, that has been struck off the list, is an impacted book or has been cleared please.

I for one am grateful you have posted what you have on this matter. It makes all the voluntary work I did in researching this incident thus far worthwhile. What many may not realize is there are unusual data gaps in some of the ways we track the sales history on these impacted books. For this reason alone, making an offer of compensation that appears contingent on a purchase reciept introduces barriers that on the surface do not seem "fair." Your situation also provides a textbook example of why replacement cost is a better suited instrument to use for redress such as this incident is only beginning to reveal. If there is any advice I might impart, try to find an accredited third-party appraiser who can provide you an impartial value opinion. While this is something I could assist with, and would offer this at no charge, I do not want to offer this in any way to influence your decision, however I need to offer this advice as it will give you the strongest position in terms of being compensated. What I bring to the table are my credentials as a published Overstreet Price Guide Advisor as well as a CPPAG Accredited Appraiser designation, examined on Code of Ethics, Standards & Practices modelled after Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). You will not get this combined experience anywhere else, and it's become quite evident that CGC needs to consider some seperation in their manner of offering redress here.

This

PSA has a bigger problem with it's "flip tampering" - early Jan I posted something to this effect - more than ever before, it's become critical to have third-party/impartial historical data tracking, that's the only chance we have of identifying bad actors, market manipulation, and other deceptive practices given the current process and protocols graders are using.

With the appraisal work I do, it is very rare for people to keep receipts. It is an unusual request, esp after reading through the CGC Guarantee, particularly the FMV mentioned as the method being used for compensation. In the manner it's stated, I might ask the purpose - i.e. is it essential to provide a recipet to arrive at an appropriate compensation to the impacted victims? Definitely a good habit to get into if you don't already keep receipts, it's an effective back-up when arriving at replacement cost, but I don't believe that's why it's being asked in this instance.

Anytime, and FWIW, it's good you are doing these checks and noticing the things you are, and sharing them. It's allowed me to catch some things after going back and re-reviewing the data in my own research