skybolt

On 12/21/2023 at 7:19 PM, Timed said:

Since the culprit has already stated he has over 30 years experience with comics, it's not hard to believe that he was selling under a different eBay before. And if he was indeed using a different eBay that got banned, it's not unlikely that he'd be willing to use multiple CGC accounts to skirt suspicion for all the reholders... 

Please tell me this guy isn't Jason Ewert making a comeback again. The 30-year experience comment scares me.

On 12/21/2023 at 6:00 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

Cracking out a 9.8 to swap in a 9.6 seems risky.  What if the actual 9.8 doesn’t get a 9.8 on resub?

Those were likely the early days where he was just testing the waters.

On 12/21/2023 at 5:20 PM, Happy Noodle Boy said:

Being a "raw comics" (I really don't like that term, but we're stuck with it) person myself, here's where I would normally say, "Buy it ungraded!" but in a case like Hulk 181 I wonder how many raw copies are out there in high grades that haven't been slabbed. It seems like anyone who wants to actually check the inside pages of a high end book before they purchase it these days is going to be out of luck, because slabs are often the only game in town.

High value raw comics can be a problem as well. When I got into the vintage comic book market back in 2003 I won $5,000 worth of raw books advertised as unrestored from a seller who had a 100% rating. Most of these were mid to lower grade keys like Hulk #181, Daredevil #1, etc. For whatever reason I got suspicious and started checking what some of the people that had left him positive feedback had won. Of course, it turned out that he had 3 or 4 other shill accounts, which he used to buy CGC graded restored books, crack them open and then sell them as slightly higher graded raw unrestored books on this account. Since Ebay used to allow payment via check back in the day, I quickly called my bank and cancelled the transaction. The interesting thing is that he had already sent me the books. As soon as I received them I repackaged the books and sent them back to him on my own dime. I then told him I knew what he was up to and reported him to Ebay. Not sure if Ebay did anything, but I think other buyers took him down soon thereafter.

On 12/21/2023 at 2:55 PM, drotto said:

Personally, I suspect their process does cause some damage to the slab, but it does not look like tampering. We all know slabs with damage do not sell as well. So the individual needs the resubmission. Second, now that CGC is posting scans of graded books, if they can get the now re-slabbed book scanned and listed in the registry with the new image, it gives them more backing that this is the original and valid book. It also looks like CGC is backing their copy.

I didn't think of the 2nd point. That makes a lot of sense if someone checks CGC verification for grader notes and notices the books are different. This guy definitely did his homework.

On 12/21/2023 at 2:48 PM, trademarkcomics said:

I think the pertinent issue here is that they are doing this to make sure the grader notes match up so there's no question as to the "validity" of the issue they are selling. 

Unfortunately, half the grader notes I get from CGC make no sense (albeit for much cheaper books). I would agree that 9.6/9.8 candidates are the best for these shenanigans since they have no grader notes to compare to.

Unfortunately, it doesn't even need to involve taking the bold move of re-holdering books through CGC. If someone has figured out a way to remove inner wells without damaging the slab, they can technically buy an ASM #1 CGC 4.0 and an ASM CGC 3.0 restored. Do the whole switcheroo thing, and make a couple of grand just like that.

On 12/21/2023 at 2:02 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Conversely or by and by...

Look up the cert numbers corresponding to those individual cert numbers in the verification tool, from the base number of ########01 all the way to ########25...

And you can see all the books in each submission to question them. Alternatively to also looking up the pics to see inserted books, that given his most recent submission being ones with cgc scans on the verification tool then you also might see scans of those additional submissions in CGC scans from #01-25

I see what you're saying. Even if he submits the original books he swapped out for regrading, at least we'll know which books he was trying to swap and work back from there.

On 12/21/2023 at 1:49 PM, DoctorWyoming1 said:

A guy who trimmed books? I think his list of submissions did get out, although I suppose not officially from CGC.

That is correct. Unfortunately, in this situation it'll be tougher since this guy was re-holdering one book at a time. It's not the same as Ewert where you could track 25 books submitted at the same time just by the serial number of one book.

On 12/21/2023 at 1:41 PM, DoctorWyoming1 said:

I do wonder what they are doing right now and to what level they see this as a concern. They of course have the rest of the list of books this person submitted... unless this person was clever enough to submit under multiple names and addresses. 

They will never release that list, just like they didn't in the Jason Ewert situation many years ago. The floodgates would open if that ever happens. They'll take the approach that if there is no significant proof that 95% of the books this guy submitted were swapped, then these books in question are not tainted.

On 12/21/2023 at 1:09 PM, drotto said:

Because, even if CGC finds the error, they are not going to jump to the conclusion that the submitter is attempting to commit fraud.  More then likely they will call them and say the found some issues with the book. They would then ask.

1. Do you just want us to return the book

2. Try and fix the issues with a press, etc

3. Re-grade with the chance the grade drops or may get a different label.

We have no idea if the person has had books rejected, we just know some have gotten through. We have no idea what their success rate is with this. Even if CGC has caught some, the submitter is never going to admit what they are doing, the will act surprised and say, wow thanks for catching that, but I am disappointed.  CGC is non the wiser about their true intentions.

 

Good points. The one thing I can think of is the seller trying to form a relationship with a CGC staffer and going through them directly for these type of issues. What I mean, is that let's say the ASM #252 guy called CGC customer service and acted extremely upset about CGC not giving him the Mark Jeweler designation to the point where he won't submit books anymore. The CGC staffer tells this guy not to worry, and to send the book directly to them to take care of. Now this guy has a point of contact who can streamline the situation for him when he has a similar "error" occur. If he only has to convince that one staffer that CGC keeps screwing up, then he's guaranteed to get the Mark Jeweler designation every time.

The one thing I'm trying to get my head around is how this guy was bold enough to submit some of these books for re-holdering and not worry about CGC potentially asking to regrade them to ensure that the Mark Jeweler insert is all there and/or not detached. If one CGC employee told this person that we can't give out this designation without regrading the book first (especially if he was not the original submitter of the same serial numbered book), then shouldn't that raise some red flags at CGC if he tried the same thing with the same book a few weeks later? For example, I remember a Youtuber previously asking CGC if he could re-holder a previously graded newsstand edition and get the newsstand designation, and was told that they can't do that without regrading the book. In this scenario the newsstand designation was actually in plain site vs. in the middle of the book like the Mark Jeweler insert.

Can someone verify if what I said above is true? Can I send a newsstand book that was graded in let's say 2015 and receive the newsstand designation now via the re-holdering process only?

On 12/21/2023 at 11:47 AM, mephistopheles said:

I mean which is worse, a rogue employee or a lax process? 

The problem with the rogue employee situation is that it also brings in a "lax in the process" situation to the forefront as well. For example, is anyone performing a QC of this person's work? How is this rogue employee constantly taking care of this guy's books without anyone getting suspicious?

On 12/21/2023 at 11:29 AM, Timed said:

Hot take; CGC has an easier path forward if they come out and explain this situation as a rogue employee being involved - even if this was not actually the case. Doing so, from a PR stance, would allow CGC to stand by their methods of "guaranteeing" books (even though we know how complacent and lax CGC actually is), and the blame would be shifted away from CGC as a whole. "We will take this as a learning lesson, and heavily screen our current and future employees..." 

Honestly, that would scare the heck out of me. If it's a rogue employee, anything graded / reholdered since this employee was hired would come into question.

I have been collecting CGC graded books for over 20 years now and have always felt CGC gives preferential treatment (or at minimum turns a blind eye) towards big money submitters. Over the years there have been several instances where a lot of collectors were scratching their heads as to some decisions made by CGC.

A couple of examples that come to mind are 1.) CGC giving out high grades to the Dave Crippin pedigree books 15+ years ago because they were submitted by Heritage comics. A lot of these golden age books had awful foxing on the front and back covers, but still received 9.2/9.4 grades. In contrast, I would submit a book with a very minor stain on the back cover and get a 6.0 (I know it's all subjective, but still).

Another fraud case I remember from 2004/2005 was the whole Jason Ewert issue where he was trimming high valued books, aging the edges and then getting high grades from CGC. Once $&%^ hit the fan, CGC banned him and told him to leave the hobby, or else have a lawsuit brought up against him. There was a Washington lawyer (who was also a high end comic book collector) who wanted to help prosecute him, but I think at the end it didn't work out for whatever reason. What is interesting about this case is that CGC forum members started tracking serial numbers of additional books in the same submissions of books proven to be trimmed. What they found out was that CGC actually gave the guy a purple label for trimming 5 or 6 books in the same submission, but missed some other books that appeared to have also been trimmed (based on older scans). 

This brings me back to my original point where CGC cannot automatically trust long-term customers / dealers with deep pockets if they smell something fishy. They should hire an auditor type person whom graders can go to if someone is constantly calling and complaining about a Mark Jeweler designations being missed or if they can clearly tell that 5 books out of a submission have been trimmed, but turn a blind eye towards other ones that supposedly pass the smell test. I can also tell from past experience is that CGC will likely not release any info on all the books that have been submitted by this guy via the reholdering process and will only try and remedy the situation on books proven to be swapped by the average collector.

I can totally see this ASM #252 guy calling CGC and complaining about missing designations and CGC automatically remedying the issue (without performing an investigation) because he's a high valued customer. He probably called and said "what the heck is going on here, I'm spending tens of thousands of dollars grading books and you guys can't get the Mark Jeweler designation correct on my books"? CGC customer service likely pushed this complaint quickly through the door to appease this customer.

Repost

On 10/30/2022 at 12:10 AM, piper said:

Welcome back @skybolt!

Thank you. Honestly, I'm just happy to have kept some of my GGA books. Still miss all the ones I sold 10 years ago.

Double Post.