drotto

On 2/2/2024 at 12:28 AM, Kevin76 said:

Matt Nelson said in a youtube interview recently that this isn't an inside job...why did he lie?  

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.

On 2/2/2024 at 12:28 AM, Kevin76 said:

Matt Nelson said in a youtube interview recently that this isn't an inside job...why did he lie?  

He did not technically lie, he was telling the truth about the book swapping scandal (as far as is known) that he was addressing in that interview. That would be his stance.

This was an omission by choice that they had found this separate problem. He was clearly aware of this court filing, and skirted the issues, making sure his language was only referring to the swapping scandal. Plus the interviewers did not press him on if there were other investigations of separate issues.  I do not fault the interviewers at all, I know they had to submit their questions prior to the interview, and needed to more or less stay on script.

Distasteful, and ultimately destroyed trust, but from a legal standpoint Matt did not technically lie.

On 1/30/2024 at 7:28 PM, Grendel72 said:

I'm just saying being attractive isn't a requisite to be supergirl. If she was portrayed as supergirl without having powers to fly, that would be different; or not being the cousin of Supes. Being good looking and attractive aren't exactly the same things. Check it out. And both are subjective.  For what's its worth, I find Milly good looking. There is an otherworldly look about her. Good casting Imho.

She can also act.  She was great in her 5 episodes of House of the Dragon.  I preferred her performance to Emma D'Arcy.

On 1/29/2024 at 3:35 PM, awe4one said:

How do you get the label out of the inner slab?
 

Jim

In the current generation slabs, the label is not attached to the inner well.  It sits in a separate compartment all by itself.

On 1/29/2024 at 3:17 PM, awe4one said:

But how do they get through the inner slab? It’s sealed?

You can break the plastic outer cover but the comic is still sealed in another seal.
 

Jim

They never touched the inner well.  They pulled the books out of the outer hard case, the remained in the inner well. That new book still in the well was then inserted into the partially cracked open hard case.  We are not 100% how it was done, but there are a few likely methods that have been demonstrated. 

On 1/29/2024 at 1:30 PM, awe4one said:

Forgive me for asking but I don’t have time to read through 377 pages. What exactly happened here? Did a person break out a slab and replace a comic before resealing a slab or did someone have a replacement slab and placed a comic in it with the label? I know whenever I broke out a comic from a slab you would know it. I know this topic has probably evolved from the first post so I don’t want to distract from the discussion. If you can message me with an explanation it would be appreciated.

Jim

In a nutshell, what is believed to have happened.

1. Scammer had two or more of the same book, one very high grade, one either lower grade, qualified grade like missing MVS, or a more costly varient like Mark Jewlers insert, or newsstand.

2. They open the otter case for the high grade that does either very little damage, no apparent damage, or causes damage that does not look like tampering, and puts the cheaper lower grade or qualified book into the high grade case. At no point does it look like the scammer touched the inner wells.

3. They send that cheaper book, now in the higher graded case into CGC for a reholder and/or custom label. They also ask CGC to note they missed the book was a newsstand or MJI and to change the new label to reflect that when possible. The maintains the grade, and the legitimate certificate number.

4. CGC reholders the book, and the books maintains the higher grade, and any special label changes are added. 

5. Scammer sells the now mislabeled book with the incorrect label. That CGC has put in a nice new case.

6. Scammer resubmits the high grade book as a new submission, and gets the legitimate book with a new certificate number and new high grade.

7. Scammer either now sells that legit book, or uses the case again in the manner described. In theory they can just keep cycling that high grade book for limitless legitimate labels to swap.

On 1/28/2024 at 11:23 AM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

The question is have you seen swaps that have not been included on the list?

Also have we identified the genuine books that belong in those cases? I am sure they were resubmitted (possible multiple times), where are they now?

On 1/27/2024 at 10:46 PM, Randall Dowling said:

For some reason, the last episode kind of missed the landing for me.  I like Alan Ritchson quite a bit but it felt a bit predictable in the end.

Like the show, do not like what feels like plot armor for the main characters.  I can believe he is the best, but they push it a bit far at times.

On 1/28/2024 at 7:31 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

Being recast only to wrap up the storyline as quick as possible and move on.  I believe the original plan was to utilize Kang a bit more, so they had written themselves into a corner, and this was they only way out apparently. Now they are going to defeat him (again), and be done with it. They really screwed up Kang and the multiverse, but likely felt they needed it to incorporate the FOX properties.

On 1/24/2024 at 8:57 AM, 1Cool said:

What's that put their PE at? 45?  I think I sold it when it hit $350 since there was just no way it could justify that price - 

 

Current PE on Netflix is 48. Up from 29.2 at the end of 2022, but below their historical average of 129.5 over the last 10 years.

On 1/23/2024 at 5:51 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

More ammunition for Peltz vs Disney.

On 1/22/2024 at 11:07 PM, Artboy99 said:

"IF" it goes sour...LOL it did the day they announced it.

Or they are doing the same thing they have with the last several inexperienced directors that have never shot action.  Let the announced person shoot the quiet scenes, then quietly bring in a second director to shoot the action sequences.

We should not let this thread go away completely.  I still want updates, and we need to keep applying pressure to change the problems.

On 1/16/2024 at 1:38 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

 

But, to me, this begs the question, who allowed you to blow your budget? The spending had to be approved, and the funds secured.  The show runner did not take the Disney credit card to the ATM and withdraw $225M. 

At some point the oversight for these shows completely broke down. The adult in the room saying the ROI is just not there on this show given the quality and the potential profits. This type off issue and sentiment is just a symptom of a broken, inefficient, or incompetent production team and studio.

On 1/15/2024 at 4:32 PM, Bosco685 said:

Men's Health touched on this after saying the appearance we did get was quite intense (which it was).

How many Echo episodes does Daredevil appear in?

 

Bait and switch.  Hey DD fans he is in it we promise!!!  Plus, it is not the She Hulk version of DD, he will go back to being a badass!!

On 1/15/2024 at 3:24 PM, Bosco685 said:

I think what got me was the early news first that Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio were coming back in their original Netflix character design, and that this was going to be tied into the original Netflix shows.  

Then with the Marvel Spotlight show banner news with the involvement of Michael 'Werewolf By Night' Giacchino, and these being darker shows, the excitement was even higher.

What Is Marvel Spotlight? Marvel Studios' New Banner & MCU Connections Explained

So I guess the bar was set high for me at that point in believing the early story Marvel Studios was selling.

So, DD being a tease more then an appearance, and much of the first episode being recap seemed a bit disingenuous?

On 1/15/2024 at 2:51 PM, MisterX said:

I haven't been reading all the threads about this very closely, but...I tend to think that a portion of slabbers still engage in the CPR game, which generates more money for CGC, so...what's their incentive to design a truly crack-proof slab?

As long as there's still a way to crack the slabs open, the door will always be left open for tampering.  Until they seal the comics in invisible force-field bubbles!

Again this is why tamper evident is the key.  You need to either mark permanently the inner well which already need to be cut to get the book out, or make it so the outer case can't be opened without it breaking.  For people doing CPR the case showing damage is a non issue.

On 1/13/2024 at 3:52 PM, jcjames said:

Very thin metallic/Mylar tape over all four seams. Like the tamper-proof seals on many electronics.  

At least until a redesign is completed. 

Problem is tape peels over time.  It is one of the reasons the gen 2 case was redesigned, because the stick on labels along the top always came off. Remember these cases are potentially highly handled and moved often.  Electronics tend to be purchased once then put on a shelf or desk.  The tape is not subject to handling in the same fashion.

Good in concept, but it would be a headache in the future, because collectors would not want cases with any indication of even a peeling label. 

On 1/14/2024 at 2:51 AM, Microchip said:

An indigenous, deaf, amputee. with a ton of baby fat, as the all conquering superhero does sound like a massive box ticking exercise.

Not to be mean, but it seems like the ability to hear is critical to being a good assassin or hit person.  So take away a superpower that more then compensates for that disability (like DD), why would Fisk pick her?/

Fantastic film, deserves all the praise it is getting.  

On 1/13/2024 at 11:12 PM, wiparker824 said:

The interesting thing I find from this data is things seemed to ramp up after 2016. That’s the same year CGC rolled out the custom labels if I recall. Of course you could reholder a book without a custom label before 2016, but this limited data we have suggests the scammer may have not ramped up that particular exploit until the custom labels rolled out.

Also the year the new case came out.

On 1/13/2024 at 6:28 PM, agamoto said:

While I remember 9.9 talking about chatting with Zaneglor about the 9.8 252 MJ variant, I don't recall him talking about having any discussion with Zaneglor months before about the 266 X-Men MJ Variant and the claims made by Zaneglor about associations with higher-ups at CGC. So, still news to me. 

It just underlines how I've felt about this from the beginning. When I first got involved in this, The 9.8 252 MJ, a 266 X-Men and a few Hulk 181 switcheroos had been identified. I then found hundreds of more listings going back to 2016 and when I counted the dozens upon dozens of Spider-Man 300 9.8's in play, I mentioned it here in the forums and I knew, right there and then, that the scope of this was massive and something law enforcement needed to get involved in.  

This goes along with my gut feeling that the scammer is not inside CGC, but is well known to them and has a relationship with them. I have a few friends that have been very active in comic circles for years that get preferred treatment with CGC. This is not fair to your average collector, but it is the way the world works, because they have spent so much money with CGC. You think all these sig series artist and store exclusive variant covers go through the regular CGC witness process?

I will even admit to benefiting from it at one point, get mad at me if you wish. I had bought a sketch cover, the dealer gave it to me to take over to CGC for a signature cover slab, immediately after getting it (admittingly a break in SS protocol). CGC said initially they would not except it, because they did not witness the artist complete the sketch and sign it. Exactly what they should have done, they did not know who I was. I told the artist representative the issue, he went over to the CGC booth with me, got on the phone with a higher up at CGC, and they accepted his word that the sketch cover was authentic. CGC gave me the yellow label, because he was well known to CGC and has a long standing relationship with them.

This is but a small example, but I suspect stuff like this happens all the time.

On 1/12/2024 at 11:31 AM, Dr. Balls said:

They could be taking a page from software developers' approach to this: letting the public do the footwork, while they collate information everyone else has gathered, formulating their next step internally. Software companies have been releasing buggy software for two decades, letting end-users troubleshoot the problems for them, where the make all the bug fixes and push an update. We may not see a response from them until they've made the next significant step behind the scenes.

The other old adage in programing is that end users will find ways to break the program or exploit the program that the programmers never imagined.