drotto

The other issue is by name, business, and actions, CGC is presenting themselves as experts in grading. Under the law an expert is held to a higher standard, because they have additional expertise that in theory should avoid the error. Therefor they may be liable when a layperson is not.

Correct, anybody with knowledge that a product is not what is being sold as is potentially guilty of fraud. Going back to the counterfeit money senerio. If I get passed a fake $100 bill, if I discover it is fake and still try and use it, I am potentially liable. If I discover the fraud, I am expected to take the article to the authorities so it can be investigated and taken out of circulation.

That is a little harder. I would say yes, because they are swapping out books with the intent of increasing the value for a future sale. CGC in the reholder process can reasonably expect the book in the case is the book they put in the case, and the submitter is giving it to them and essentially claiming it is the actual book that belongs in that case. That is deception leading to fraud. The person swapping it trying to fool CGC by knowingly exploiting a loophole. Yes, CGC as "experts" could also be liable because the experts should catch the deception.

7 1. Not the same. Pressing and cleaning are an excepted way of increasing the value of a book. CGC has in fact endorsed the practice. Any collector buys a slab with the knowldge that this has likely been done to the book. They key is the buyer knows or has a reasonable expectation this has occurred, and CGC recognizes it. There is no way a collector would expect a case has been swapped. 2. The buyer has a reasonable expectation that CGC would catch a missing MVS, since they represent themselves as expert graders. So any value change if they fail in their job, they are responsible for, unless a book has been tampered with. A submitter that knowingly sells a mislabeled book is guilty of fraud, because they have knowledge of the mistake, and are now selling it as something it is not. A subsequent buyer is not liable, because they lack the knowledge and without damaging the product can not know. The original submitter and CGC are still at fault. 3. Swapping cases is fraud. The seller is knowingly and intentionally doing an action that increases the value of the book, and hiding or not disclosing that alteration to the buyer. What it says on the label is irrelevant, the seller has performed knowingly an action that has changed the value and misrepresents the product. CGC is complicent in this case, because as "expert graders" they buyer has a reasonable expectation they should have caught the deseption. They are not responsible for the original fraudulent action.

You are correct. I suspect removing the bent label without damaging the case or visibly altering the label is nearly impossible, because of that fold. Swapping the book is easier.

They appear to be using current generation or at least making sure the outer and replaced inner are consistent with each other. There is not enough data to confirm this however.

Sorry was just trying to clarify.

The simplest definition of fraud is any person who knowingly attempts to misrepresent an item or service with the hope of monetary gain. This guy is clearly doing that. It does not matter if he is using third party to do it or not. It does not matter if he spends money in the process of doing that or not. Yes, you could argue that CGC is guilty of complacency as is Ebay, but they are not guilty of criminal intent. They may be guilty in a civil case for allowing the event to occur, because their services are supposed to protect against such acts, but not of fraud.

for the following reasons as best as I can guess 1. whatever method he is using to swap books does some visible damage to the case 2. by preserving the inner well, he needs to at least submit the now swapped book for grading 3. he wants a valid registry number at CGC, and the information in the registry at least needs to look close to the original book in case a buyer is checking. This makes a buyer more confident to pay large some of money.

But, in light of this CGC, at least in the short term, may not have a choice. Look at it this way, if a Signature Series case is damaged severely or opened not in the presence of CGC, they will no longer honor the SS label, and will relabel the book as qualified. Why, because they can no longer verify the signatures are real, by their rules. The same could easily apply to any damaged case. Once a case has been altered in any way, they can no longer verify that the previous grading is valid. The fact that CGC has allowed re-holdering without regrading is exactly what is being exploited here.

Also essentially stopping the reholder service is the only way to completely close this loophole. CGC would just say any book in a case with any apparent damage, or is being submitted for a new label or change to label information will be re-graded, and verified for authenticity of something like MJ. In addition all of these submissions will be assigned a new certificate number, and the old number removed from the registry.

I understand that, but clearly there is a need for increased security. The most logical place without making the outer holder bullet proof is changing the inner well. I suggested earlier, some sort of crimper so the inner well would also have the certificate number on it seems reasonable. Or it may be as simple as attaching the inner well to the outer well (no not in a way that would damage slabs like the creep engine ones did), at the back so it would be inconspicuous, and not damage the book. But, it would require fully opening it to separate the two components.

Also, reholdering gives them two high grade books to sell, after they resubmit the high grade copy. So they can essentially dubble dip. If the trasfering wells theory is correct, it makes no sense to put the high grade in the lessor case, they need that second high grade case. Finally, they want they book to show up on CGC census correctly, so they need those legit numbers.

I suspect whatever method is being used to open the case, causes at least some damage to the holder. We all know how people buying a slab will sometimes freak out if there is a scratch on the case for a book they spent big money on. Even one that has zero effect on the book itself, or the value of the book. So, if there was any apparent damage to a case it would risk a high level of returns, and lead to bad eBay reviews, effecting their ability to sell there. So whatever damage the seller is doing, they have figured out CGC does not consider it suspicious damage, and is happy to re-holder it. The loophole they have found is that CGC does not seem to be very careful in rechecking the books submitted for re-holder. Even if CGC catches it, as a few others have noted, CGC would call them and either give them the option to take the book back, try and fix the damage, or regrade the book. It seems they are not suspicious that the submitter is causing the damage. I suspect that if CGC looks through it records, they can find a submitter that has an unusual level a grail resubmissions for new labels, missed notations, or re-holders due to damage. As long as the subs are being consistently done on one or a small number of accounts. I even checked a few of my books in new cases. The short edges are not welded, and is fairly easy to create some separation between the two halves. I am not sure I could create more then 3 or 4 mm of space without causing some real damage, but it may be possible with patience or some appropriate tools, only making some "innocent" looking stress cracks. I suspect they are entering through the bottom edge, but is anyone willing to test this theory? I am sure if anyone posted it however, it would get memory holed here really fast.

I am talking a clip that would sit flush with the edge and then welded in place. Seems like that would be very hard to break.

Could this get even more subtle. It seems like at this point the seller is targeting books with either high yield subtle variants, like the MJ, or book like H181 with a well known "issue" that results in a qualified grade. Yeah, what about swapping out unrestored for restored books, or even books where a mild grade bump gets a massive price increase. So taking a AF15 at a 3.0 and swapping it into 4.0 case? With the inconsistencies in grading this could easily go un-noticed, but lead to massive profit. As a collector just wading into the big key market, this has me a bit spooked.

Would it be practical to put a "clip" around the edge of each side of the holder, that would break with any tampering, in addition to the sonic weld? I know that would mean a redesign.

I know that putting the certificate number on the inner well has been mentioned, and some said it would be expensive or difficult to implement. If they can use a crimper to put an expiration date on the base of my toothpaste tube, they can use the same crimper technology to put a crimp on the inner well. Or if they can label every food with an expiration date, there is a cheep way to print the certificate number on that well. It is neither hard or expensive.

Does not matter if they make $500M on it if they are spending $200M to $250M to make it, then another $100M to market it. Still losing money.

The narcissistic attitude he shows in the audio clip where he calls himself a great man that is doing great things for his community, is nauseating. This is almost more damaging than the actual verdict.

But they need to stop with blaming the pandemic and actually look at themselves and make good movies.

I suspect the decision was made months ago, but was not announced until the guilty verdict. This was almost too quick.

Has Johney Depp really come back? Has Will Smith? Has Mel Gibson? It is going ro be a very hard road, and he was nowhere near these individuals.

Regardless of his ultimate sentence, his acting career is over.

He was found guilty on the more minor charges and was exonerated of the more sever assault charges. He still faces up to 1 year in prison during sentencing in February.