bc

Priceless! -bc

-bc

-bc

Gorgeous copy Got this as a placeholder a while back. In hand, the inks and gloss are superb so I haven't really tried too hard to find an upgrade. -bc

If I were going to try and pull off something like this, I would want to control both the original and donor(s) to maximize cash flow. -bc

Thread is only 9 days old. Have patience. We are a small slice of the collecting community. There is plenty of evidence of qualified/donor books winding up in High Grade Universal slabs with many having "newly discovered" variant designations. -bc

Because standardized meta data trends feed Large Language Models...but that belongs in another thread Data is the new currency. -bc

I agree 100%, but obvious detractors like foxing and finger prints are worth a note. Show's their lack of software development as those options aren't standardized in a drop down list - they appear hand entered. And people think they can do AI ? -bc

One of the theories is that the parties involved are high volume submitters which would reduce the suspicion on the ration of ME's/reholders requests due to historical average volumes. Not stating that as a confirmed fact, just something speculated during the last 125 pages. -bc

So if I understand the full extent of this, the original 9.8 never leaves the inner well? This would increase the chance of getting a 9.8 on a resub for a new cert number. I know you can directly submit the competitors slabbed books (I did a batch), guess nothing stops one from resubmitting inside its original CGC inner well. -bc

It's also odd how the versions of the grader's notes significantly deviates. Specifically the foxing notation, which I thought was a fairly important criteria to document. And the fingerprints don't disappear from the back cover but they do from the notes. -bc

Agree 1000% -bc

Better watch out, they may offer you a job in their PR department. -bc

Not everyone collects high volume, Bronze Age 9.8's variants - which is his MO. -bc

I realized that after I posted, hence the edit. Given all the eagle eyes hitting this thread, if he was just swapping labels, there would be some visual evidence of a crack, chip, or a scrape on the cases. -bc

-bc

Why bother with the label since it's only good for one shot? What this perp is doing is allowing him to re-use the same 9.8 multiple times for reholders & custom labels. I can see how the perp could re-use the label multiple times now. But why would he do it when he can exploit the system and have CGC do it for him? -bc

Priceless -bc

A Very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to All! -bc

This pic is super cool! Love the custom statues! As others have said, this is a pleasant holiday surprise! -bc

We do laser etching for assets at a large hospital chain. While economical to create, the logistics to create a pure chain of custody is likely a major overhaul for CGC. -bc

I work at a college and my neighbor develops micro chips for the food industry (cheese and other dairy specifically) - they are insanely small and versatile. Just go back to the fact that adding more unique metrics (and QC risks) to the transaction is something that management has to consider. -bc

Possible, but that is likely a major re-tooling job from both the fabricator, supplier and integrator perspective. -bc

Its all good When you think about it, CGC's main job is to put the right label with the right book into a slab. The book and the label are 2 unique sub-assemblies that must be matched together for a proper transaction. What is being discussed is adding 2 more unique sub-assemblies into the equation (inner & outer cases) that need to match both the book and the label. We are doubling the risk for a QC situation. -bc

Hawkman on a Walkman I'm old enought to get this one -bc