- Popular Post
-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
MasterChief
-
Posts
1,522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
CGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by MasterChief
-
-
On 3/21/2024 at 5:14 AM, Mdesimone said:On 3/21/2024 at 4:17 AM, agamoto said:
Who is telling you to go to court yourself against the guy? The dude victimized possibly hundreds of primary victims and who knows how many other secondary victims who may have purchased his bad books from those victims.
The onus is on you as the victim here to file reports with local and federal authorities, the purpose of which isn't to prove or disprove anything or to initiate any lawsuit or claim in court, but to have the case kicked up to where it belongs, in the domain of the FBI/FTC where it will be investigated as a criminal matter, and that investigation would certainly include CGC's cooperation in revealing all of that information that you don't have to investigators, whether CGC wants to or not.
You work for the NYPD, you're the victim of interstate wire fraud and you didn't hear any alarm bells go off in your head when CGC casually forgot to mention you should report the crime against you?
Everything you mention here is PRECISELY why the FTC should be investigating. Not just all the incidences of fraud itself, but also CGC's unwitting role in allowing the fraud to occur in the first place as well as their poor response to it.
Again you need proof to file criminal charges against some for fraud. If I do that on my own those scammers would sue me for defamation if I lose, why waste my time when cgc will do it for me.
It appears as though you have not read any of the posts in this thread about filing a fraud complaint with the FTC.
- thehumantorch, comeaux and comicwiz
-
3
-
On 3/9/2024 at 5:05 PM, tth2 said:On 3/8/2024 at 1:52 PM, MasterChief said:
“books that haven’t seen the light of day since they were purchased off newsstands in the 1940s”
(This statement is laughable if not insulting to the collector who viewed Heritage scans with an objective eye. And that’s not to mention the purported account that the books were actually bagged and boarded in ~2001 after the brother’s death)I interpret "haven't seen the light of day since" to mean they haven't come to market, not literally that they haven't seen the light of day. So I don't think the fact that the books were bagged and boarded in recent decades makes the sentence false.
And if the bagging and boarding was done in a basement with no windows, then they truly have not seen the light of day!
Understood, counselor. I got lazy with my argument. I should have fleshed out the first part of the comment and called attention to the fact that many of the books, especially those from the early 40s, exhibited clear indications of post-newsstand reading, handling, and being played around with by yutes before being boxed up and placed in storage for safe keeping after Junie was killed in action in 1951.
-
On 3/8/2024 at 10:38 AM, buttock said:
I'm trying to phrase this politely because I'm not wanting to be antagonistic. But I'm not sure what the alternative would have been to promoting the collection. And the particular phrases you highlighted are all very accurate, and to a degree understated. I think en toto the collection broke $25M, so estimating it at 40% seems like the opposite of hype.
Thanks for the response. We may have to agree to disagree as to the added emphasis above. That said, a few comments to the pre-marketing and follow-on-post-initial-auction phrase claims clipped from the web:
“An amazing story of how a brother’s promise to protect a fallen veteran’s treasure trove of Golden Age Comics could be worth $10 million decades later”
(This is a Heritage pre-auction estimate. So, yes, the ultimate realization was astounding. But the “story” falls flat. Without story validation and provenance verification, it's just that. A story, a hobby fairy tale. No sense in re-discussing the alleged truth behind it again. That will only result in another thread derailment.)“A collection of Golden Age comic books in pristine condition”
(Pristine? Perhaps for many books but certainly not all, as the statement implies. Pristine is defined as “clean and fresh as if new; spotless.” Many examples have been posted on these boards and elsewhere that are the exact opposite of pristine. And that’s not to mention the fact that maximization took place for targets of opportunity during certification.)“it’s “the highest-quality pedigree collection, book for book, to debut in our hobby in the last 25 years”
(No comment. I’ll let the pedigree experts debate the merit of this statement against all pedigrees of the time frame referred to regardless of category age)“books that haven’t seen the light of day since they were purchased off newsstands in the 1940s”
(This statement is laughable if not insulting to the collector who viewed Heritage scans with an objective eye. And that’s not to mention the purported account that the books were actually bagged and boarded in ~2001 after the brother’s death)“The collection’s depth and scope is almost unparalleled”
(I’ll let those that debate such things argue the merit of that claim)“Put simply, The Promise Collection will go down in history as one of the greatest comic-book finds of all time”
(Agreed) -
On 3/8/2024 at 6:46 AM, DC# said:
Please be gentle with me.....I am not a hard-core GA collector and have only had a passing interest in the Promise Collection (and only read the last half dozen pages of this thread). I have never seen a robust recap of the GA market overall but there are some where people have been tracking Silver, Bronze, and Copper (Silver attached below for reference). Most of these indexes show that the Mid-to-late 2021 window was the peak and all those markets are off those peaks by roughly 50%. The original Promise Collection auctions hit right during that peak window.
Is the belief that the decline in Promise books is outside/above any normal declines in GA overall market? I appreciate that there are some very brutal numbers in that recap for some books - so the aggregate view may mask the challenge of many specific Promise books. And also appreciate that GA may be harder to "index" for multiple reasons.
Just curious - especially with the polarizing effect that the Promise Collection seemed to engender among some collectors.
The collection of data began as an idea to look under the hood of Promise Collection initial sales and subsequent short-term liquidations to get an appreciation of how pre-marketing and follow-on post initial auction advertising hype, delivered by Heritage, CGC, independent media, and social media may have led to and drove the FOMO phenomenon and irrational exuberance. It was not meant to be a barometer of the GA market. With regard to FOMO, there were many discussions and analogies made here on these boards (and elsewhere) comparing the Church Collection to the Promise Collection while underscoring how collectors missed out on a windfall of gains if they were unwilling to pay Rozanski’s Church prices at the time. Thus the apparent “pump” was not to miss the boat with buying a piece, or many pieces as some seemingly did, of the Promise Collection. Not saying that kind of talk led to the FOMO phenomenon in totality or captivated any one individual in particular, but when coupled with catchy and enticing sales and marketing phrases such as those that follow, which are only a very few used to promote the collection, it may be hard to say that collectively they didn’t have an effect:
“An amazing story of how a brother’s promise to protect a fallen veteran’s treasure trove of Golden Age Comics could be worth $10 million decades later”
“A collection of Golden Age comic books in pristine condition”
“it’s “the highest-quality pedigree collection, book for book, to debut in our hobby in the last 25 years”
“books that haven’t seen the light of day since they were purchased off newsstands in the 1940s”
“The collection’s depth and scope is almost unparalleled”
“Put simply, The Promise Collection will go down in history as one of the greatest comic-book finds of all time”
*****
By the way...
For those interested in such things:Promise Collection ROI Update! Links:
(1) Posted September 17, 2022
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12514240(2) Posted November 19, 2022
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12591086(3) Posted December 18, 2022
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12625080(4) Posted February 22, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12703032(5) Posted April 6, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12757403(6) Posted March 30, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12749631(7) Posted September 14, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12935859(8) Posted June 22, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=12839455(9) Posted December 1, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=13011367(10) Posted March 4, 2023
https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/492270-post-your-promise-collection-wins/?do=findComment&comment=13116851- tth2, Silver Surfer and jimbo_7071
-
2
-
1
-
On 3/7/2024 at 4:40 AM, jimbo_7071 said:
A fool and his money are soon parted, to be sure. I overpaid badly for both of my high-grade Promise books, but that's not a big deal to me because I overpay badly for non-pedigree books all the time.
I’m in the same boat, but I don’t consider myself as being “ripped off” as that implies I and others were cheated by Heritage. If it can be proven that we were bidding against N.P. Gresham during the many Promise Collection auctions that went down, then yeah, we that won were ripped off. But I doubt that’s the case here. What the ROI data suggests, however, is that many bidders, including myself, played into marketing hype and the irrational exuberance that followed, thus apparent subjects of the Greater Fool Theory, at least in the short-term.
For those unfamiliar with the Greater Fool Theory, there’s much about it on the web. Here’s just one piece that discusses it (read with the Promise Collection in mind):
The Greater Fool Theory: The Root Cause Of Market Bubbles?
Written byKarl Montevirgen
Fact-checked byDoug Ashburn
https://www.britannica.com/money/what-is-greater-fool-theorySuppose a stock that’s been hyped on social media goes viral, infecting the social trading space with a severe case of FOMO (fear of missing out). Now, everyone’s talking about it, and soon people begin buying in droves, clogging up the digital order flow space with a frenzied folly of bids.
The stock is already up over 100% from its lows, and by your own estimates, that’s way overvalued—disconnected from its fundamental worth. Yet its price keeps advancing. Do you pass it up, wait for the price to pull back a bit, or do you pull the trigger and buy some shares?
The overblown narrative lifting the stock has proven compelling enough to take prices this far, so why not aim higher? And surely, somewhere in the stratosphere of lofty values, there’s likely to be someone who’s willing to pay an even more exorbitant price down the road, right?
That’s the basis of the greater fool theory. As a trading strategy, it’s an extreme (if not cynical, and most definitely risky) version of a key component of technical analysis—trading on momentum. But as any veteran momentum trader will tell you, when a momentum trade turns into a “bubble trade,” it can go from lucrative to dangerous at a moment’s notice.
Why would someone risk buying a fundamentally unsound investment?
Betting on a “greater fool” outcome seems risky, almost like a gamble. After all, it’s about investing in a bubbling asset or assets in a bubbling market. So, why not just avoid it? Well, it’s not that clear-cut or simple. Not all bubbles are the same. As we’ll see, some are hard to identify and difficult to avoid.
What is a speculative bubble?
A speculative bubble is a situation where the price of an asset rises above its fundamental value because of excessive speculation. In a speculative bubble scenario, investors are willing to pay higher prices for an asset whose real value may be much less. This can apply to single assets or to a group of assets within a broader industry, sector, or market.
So, what drives excessive speculation? It depends on the type of bubble.
Short-term bubbles
More often than not, short-term bubbles are driven by some form of hype. It might be a news report, a celebrity announcement, a social media post gone viral, or any kind of communication that can persuade a large number of people to buy an asset.
When assets experience this type of bubble, their prices are bid up rapidly—fueled not by fundamental value, but rather by narrative.
Long-term bubbles
Long-term bubbles are tricker to detect, as they form gradually and move slowly. These bubbles can last for years, especially if they’re supported by low interest rates (low borrowing costs), which can increase the demand for riskier assets. Typically, this helps boost jobs, wages, wealth perception, and consumer demand. When broad demand outpaces supply, prices tend to inflate, and this includes financial assets.
In a booming economy on the verge of “overheating,” it’s often difficult to tell whether asset prices (like stocks and real estate) are rising thanks to increased value or just plain speculative demand, also known as “irrational exuberance.”
Bubbles of a third kind (no fundamentals)
As an investor (and not a florist), how do you evaluate the financial fundamentals of a tulip bulb? It might sound like an odd question, because tulips aren’t traditional financial instruments. They don’t have the durability common to most collectibles, and they’re not consumable or functional like commodities such as food and gasoline. Yet, they’re infamous for being the focal point of Tulip Mania, one of the most outrageous speculative bubbles in history.
More recently, the cryptocurrency space has shown a similar phenomenon, this time with digital financial assets. Unlike tulips, cryptocurrencies were designed either to provide alternative monetary value or to facilitate financial processes. The problem is that there’s no standardized way to measure crypto fundamentals. The industry is still in its infancy. So it’s almost like having no fundamentals at all, because there’s no surefire way to measure them.
Yet, mass crypto speculation caught on like wildfire, bubbling and bursting in 2017 and 2021, with many “greater fools” taking deep losses.
Should you attempt a greater fool strategy?
Should you avoid overvalued assets, or might you consider betting on a greater fool to help you cash in?
Exploiting a short-term bubble can be ultra-risky. Short-term bubbles can burst in a matter of days, hours, or even minutes. This type of speculation is more of a trade than an investment. Whether you can pull it off really depends on your trading experience, whether you’re able to “babysit” your trades each day, and—let’s be honest—whether you’re feeling lucky.
In other words, you should either be a trading pro, or you should be playing with money you can afford to lose.
But if you’re dealing with a long-term bubble—one that could go on for years—then you face a dilemma. You can either risk time in the market (investing despite a potential bubble) or timing the market (waiting for it to burst, if it is indeed a bubble).
This is where your portfolio management principles and skills come into play. If you’re investing for the long term and using sound risk management principles, then the greater fool theory may not be so relevant to your far-horizon strategy or goals.
The bottom line
It seems there are always greater fools in the market willing to pay high prices for assets on the verge of correction or collapse. The problem is that it’s hard to know how many are out there, whether their numbers are dwindling, and whether the few that are left are wising up.
Sometimes the “greater fool” is a matter of perspective that has more to do with your approach to trading versus investing. If you’re investing with the assumption that a greater fool might be out there, just remember that it could be you.
-
On 3/4/2024 at 9:31 PM, Dr. Love said:
Been waiting for a Promise romance to resell - first entry for the genre. @MasterChief
Thanks for the tag!
Book added to ROI chart.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Update!
As March moves forward, this update encompasses sales from the past three months.
The Promise Collection ROI closed 2023 with a torpedoing on December 7th that drove the overall 2023 losses to a new high, from -23% to -27%, where it remains today. Six books propelled the negative result with the close of Heritage’s Showcase Auction in December at a combined loss of -$243,043 or -64%. Memo to Hertiage Auctions: Do not close auctions on Pearl Harbor Day.
With the beginning of the new year, it started with an irregular gain in Promise liquidation returns. Most notable was the 329% positive increase of Shadow Comics V7#12. However, January’s gains were unable to move the overall ROI dial with the offset of February’s greater losses.
As we observe the third year since the collection’s November 2021 premiere, one thing is seemingly evident at this point in time. The Promise Collection has not lived up to the hype and it is putting the Greater Fool Theory to the ultimate test.
Data sorted oldest to newest Sale Date.
(Source: Heritage Auctions (HA), Comic Connect (CC), ComicLink (CL), eBay)
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Just now getting caught up with this interesting and informative thread. Took a cursory rewind backward in time and came across the following post...
On 12/23/2023 at 9:35 AM, VintageComics said:Regrading a book gives you a new certification number. If anything, it disproves the "new label / reholder" theory which keeps the same cert number with the book, which means this book was likely regraded and therefore inspected by CGC.
I realize Roy is banned so I’m not necessarily responding to him but to the larger conversation surrounding his comment.
I have collected hundreds of before and after images of manipulated books and twice as many associated datapoints of books increasing in grade through apparent maximization means. All through the years of gathering that information, I have never documented an instance where a book increased in grade and yet somehow retained the very same (original) certification number after resubmission. The label ALWAYS changes to a new grade, a new grade date, a NEW certification number, and more often than not, a new page quality.
Nor have I witnessed a straightforward reholdering submission – from old to new generation holder and/or from traditional label to new pedigree label – receive a new higher grade and retain its original certification number. The procedural process never changes. The resubmitted book only gets a new certification number IF the grade changes. It doesn’t retain the original number. That fact has held constant until I recently came across the following two examples.
These books were obviously regraded and reholdered from 2nd generation holders to 3rd generation holders with the new pedigree label as illuminated by before and after imagery.
They have been reassigned higher grades and new grade dates (regraded) in the certification database (initial certification information removed); however, they have somehow retained their original certification numbers that were issued years earlier during initial or secondary authentication and certification.
Not exactly sure how that worked out. CGC has advertised the exact opposite down through the years and has directly answered questions related to the specific process for certification number changes during reholdering.
I can’t help but wonder if this is a clerical error committed by a new, uneducated employee or if it was purposefully done to obscure certification history for an elite collector or dealer of these legendary grails prior to liquidation by means of favoritism and the “secret handshake.”In any event, this unfortunate discovery brings to mind the following past claim that rocked the community herein during the early days of the certification age:
“Select clients who maintained a membership agreement with CGC and who were sworn to secrecy were offered the opportunity to send in their comic books to CGC and have a CGC in-house improvement service maximize the physical condition before undergoing the grading and slabbing service.”
**********
Edgar Church copy of Superman #1: Initially authenticated and certified in 2004 as 7.5, it was regraded in 2014 as 8.0. The book is now an 8.5 with a new grade date of 1/10/2022 (exact same certification number as the 8.0 copy).
Kansas City copy of Action Comics #1: Initially authenticated and certified in 2010 as 8.0 with OFF-WHITE Pages. The book is now an 8.5 with OFF-WHITE TO WHITE Pages. It has a new grade date of 11/04/2021 (exact same certification number as the 8.0 copy).
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/10/2024 at 11:29 PM, comicguy123 said:These are the same book. 9.0 Universal became 9.4 Universal Windy City pedigree copy. Book has been color touched and half inch tear repaired on back cover. How can a book go from 9.0 Universal, get color touched and tear restored, and become 9.4 Universal Pedigree?
The Windy City copy of Marvel Comics #1 was originally certified in 2002 as an 8.5 with Cream to Off-White pages and WITHOUT its pedigree designation. Thus far it has been graded as an 8.5, 9.0, and 9.4. It is currently authenticated with Off-White Pages.
The book was identified as being from the Windy City collection during a discussion in the Gold Forum in 2019 when I was able to piece together its provenance through historical research.
It was recalled from the pending Heritage auction by CGC, with the help of a boardie with connections to Jim Halperin and the collection’s founder Gary Colabuono, relabeled and assigned with its pedigree designation, then sent back to Heritage. It made the rounds for advertising purposes at a convention or two before auction commencement.
As far as restoration goes, it’s a stretch not to consider the book has been manipulated during its certification life. However, through visual analysis of all available imagery, and IMHO, the book does not appear to be color touched nor have tear seals applied. Possible, but not likely. It does appear to have been pressed (multiple times?) and cleaned.
Below is the visual graphic of the book’s provenance that I created and presented during the thread. It helped validate the copy’s chain of custody and ultimate designation as being from the collection.
Also below is a link to the original thread, the provenance time-line with references, and another link to the analysis of the impacted top staple and perceptive staple tears on the back cover.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/5/2024 at 10:45 PM, lou_fine said:On 2/5/2024 at 10:48 AM, Red Hook said:Was the shift towards changing the definition of restoration over time part of some master plan on CGC's behalf from the beginning? I don't think it was.
Like some other boardies here at the time back then, greatly appreciated the masterful detective work you and others like @MasterChief did in flagging examples of books that had been "artfically manipulated" into higher grades at a time when it was still NOT the rampant and generally accepted practice that it is nowadays, and then also with the micro-trim jobs that Jason was performing on his books.
Not sure about when this change started, but have been told by some here via PM's that they believe it probably started around the time that Heritage with their checkered or rather questionable history in the collectibles marketplace arrived on the scene back at the beginning of 2002.
As for their undisclosed grading standards back then, that has clearly changed over time and sadly at least from my own personal POV, not necessarily for the better. Especially with the current grading regime in place which is headed by somebody whose former expertise and background history was really all about pressing which can lead to a particular bias (whether intentional or not) when it comes to a case of undisclosed grading standards that seemingly change over time.
I still remember getting about a dozen of my GA books graded when CGC first started up and in time for Greg Manning's big auction back in October of 2000 and every single one of them came back with a grade ranging from CGC 9.2 through to CGC 9.6. Probably should have gotten my entire GA collection graded back then from a strict grading cost POV, but also from a punishment grading POV because there is zero and I mean absolutely zero chance that the books in my GA collection would grade out in this condition range today without some advanced prepartory "maximization of potential" work done on them prior to grading.
On 2/5/2024 at 10:48 AM, Red Hook said:I spent way too much time in the debates and in the end (2008 - when I got tossed from the boards for various reasons) was very happy to not deal with it anymore.
Definitely a very controversial time on the boards back then, but I found it kind of hilarious how CGC would eventually spin things so that they could rationalize what was taking place at the time.
Of course, the signature line that was coined at the time was "maximization of potential", but the one that I found really hilarious was when Borock came out with the statement that "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book, in and of itself, does not constitute restoration" when he used it to justified how a book could go from CGC 4.0 and laddered its way up to CGC 9.0, all while residing in a blue unrestored Universal slab.
Thanks for tagging me on this. I agree for the most part. Only difference being -- I do believe the disregard for industry accepted restoration standards was intentional and purposeful in order to facilitate James Halperin's “crack-out game” and drive the top-line. The conclusions drawn from the data collected indicate the institutionalization of manipulation began July 4, 2002, with Heritage Signature Auction #803. More than 150 lots were identified as targets of opportunity at an approximate cost of $460K. In as little as three months after #803 closed, Heritage began relisting the very same books sold during that auction. Reholderded with higher grades, they were liquidated with various forms of treatments applied. Unbeknown to the buyers of course. Wish I had more time to go into detail but currently on business travel. Maybe I’ll write a book someday about how a cabal of self-proclaimed, self-interested experts took a cut from the hobby at the expenses of collectors at large.
-
On 2/3/2024 at 11:36 AM, COI said:
I'm not sure how a business predicated on enriching its clients by facilitating the unregulated, high value trade of commodified non-essential goods through a mostly arbitrary and subjective process, has so thoroughly lost its way?
Sounds like someone’s moral compass wasn’t wound tight enough.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 2/2/2024 at 12:45 PM, bluehorseshoe said:Annndddd just like that, Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed and Plaintiff's Motion for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Denied.
Life moves at you pretty fast.
Yes, the complaint was dismissed yesterday. However, CCG/CGC was grated leave to amend the complaint, which they did and resubmitted today. I have not compared the original to the amended, so can’t comment on what was done to fix the complaint.
Here's the full text of the Judge’s order dismissing the original complaint:
“ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, this complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). Specifically, each count "incorporates and adopts by reference the allegations in" the prior counts leading to a situation where counts II through VIII contain all factual allegations and legal conclusions of the previous counts. See id. at 1321 ("The most common type [of shotgun pleading]--by a long shot--is a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint."). This kind of shotgun pleading is readily remedied upon repleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's 1 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its complaint no later than February 15, 2024. In the light of this Order, Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 2/1/2024. (ALE) (Entered: 02/01/2024)”
-
On 1/29/2024 at 8:30 AM, 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
Hey, Jim
This is one of the best posts in the thread. Especially for those late to the party. Kinda a reader's digest version...
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 1/22/2024 at 7:34 AM, agamoto said:On 1/22/2024 at 3:16 AM, drotto said:We should not let this thread go away completely. I still want updates, and we need to keep applying pressure to change the problems.
As the frequency of comments in this thread begins to wane and the community and CGC continue to process this incidence, I wanted to provide more concrete information below in order to clarify options available to the community in these circumstances.
If you have incurred financial loss due to purchasing comics online that were subsequently swapped out with different books, this constitutes criminal fraudulent misrepresentation, and any online transaction involving these books or shipment of them across state lines is considered felony wire fraud. CGC has requested you report such incidents to them via email at ReportFraud@CollectiblesGroup.com. However, this should not be your only course of action. It is essential, whether you purchased the item in person with cash or over the internet, to report the details to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at https://reportfraud.ftc.gov. The FTC is tasked with protecting consumers and addressing issues of fraud and deception in the marketplace.
Moreover, any fraudulent transaction that occurred online should also be reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at https://www.ic3.gov/. The IC3 is instrumental in gathering reports on internet-related criminal activities and forwarding them to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for further investigation. While CGC has expressed their intention to fairly compensate those who have suffered losses, the specifics of this compensation are still not clear. It is crucial for victims to understand that there are no individual legal remedies for recovering losses without first filing a report with the proper law enforcement authorities. CGC cannot and will not file this report for you, as they are not the direct victims of this fraud.
Technically speaking, one could argue CGC was inadvertently involved in facilitating the fraud against consumers, but it's critical to remember they are also victims of fraudulent misrepresentation here. That, however, is a civil matter between the responsible parties and CGC. Had the fraud not been discovered by CGC's customers, CGC theoretically would have profited considerably from the scheme, given the amount of fees involved in grading and re-grading such a significant number of high-grade books in addition to their reholder fees. CGC can indeed take legal action against those they determine responsible for damaging their reputation, covering costs associated with reimbursing victims, private investigations, legal fees, and process mitigation. However, what they cannot do is 'press charges' or 'prosecute' anyone who may have defrauded individual customers with a swapped book. The consumers, not CGC, are the victims of this fraud. While CGC has pledged to hold those responsible accountable 'to the fullest extent of the law,' they might wish to provide clearer communication to customers and victims about which specific 'law' they are referring to. CGC should clarify whether their legal team intends to represent all victims, including CGC, in any potential future lawsuit they may file. Additionally, CGC should make it clear to customers and victims that third parties like PayPal, eBay, Instagram, etc., cannot file a fraud report on an individual’s behalf either.
Furthermore, CGC should also inform concerned customers and victims that sending any suspect book to CGC before consulting with local/state/federal law enforcement, personal legal representation, or before filing any criminal complaints could potentially jeopardize any direct legal recourse for recovering losses from those indicted and convicted for this fraud in a criminal court.
Others in this thread have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such reporting. However, it is important to understand that failing to report these incidents assuredly guarantees that no action will be taken. The collective reporting of these crimes greatly assists federal agencies in identifying and tackling such fraudulent schemes. These steps not only aid in your pursuit of justice but also contribute to the broader effort to combat online fraud and protect others from similar deceptive practices. As individuals who have suffered from these fraudulent activities, it is your right and responsibility to yourself, to other victims, and to potential victims, to report these incidents.
That's my 2 cents.
Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
If I may, a few minor points of clarification:
1. Reporting Fraud to the FTC.
You don’t have to be a “victim” of fraud to file a complaint with the FTC. Just having knowledge of a scam or fraud is enough. From the FTC website:
“At ReportFraud.ftc.gov, consumers will find a streamlined and user-friendly way to submit reports to the FTC about scams, frauds, and bad business practices. The FTC has long encouraged consumers to report these issues to the FTC when they encounter them—whether or not they lost money to the fraud. Every time you report scams or bad business practices to the FTC, you’re helping to protect your community.” [emphasis added]
“If you think you’ve spotted a scam, tell the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov to help fight fraud in your community. The FTC uses reports like yours to investigate and bring cases against fraud, scams, and bad business practices, and to spot trends and educate people about scams.”
Reference:
Reporting fraud 101: protect your community by reporting scams
https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/04/reporting-fraud-101-protect-your-community-reporting-scams
2. Possible Federal Crimes Committed by Perpetrator(s) of “Slab Swap.”If a criminal matter, initiated by FTC complaints of consumer fraud and forwarded to the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for investigation and prosecution, the potential federal crimes would be Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud. Offenders face the prospect of imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine of not more than $250,000 (not more than $500,000 for organizations), an order to pay victim restitution, and the confiscation of any property realized from the offense.
In order to convict, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) used either mail or wire communications in the foreseeable furtherance, (2) of a scheme to defraud, (3) involving a material deception, (4) with the intent to deprive another of, (5) either property or honest services.
3. Are Multiple Persons Involved with Perpetrating “Slab Swap?” (Another Possible Federal Offense)
Aiding and Abetting, Attempt, and Conspiracy
Attempting or conspiring to commit mail or wire fraud or aiding and abetting the commission of those offenses carries the same penalties as the underlying offense. In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant in some sort associate themselves with the venture, that he/she participate in it as in something that he/she wishes to bring about, that he/she seek by action to make it succeed.
To prove conspiracy to commit either wire or mail fraud, the government must establish that: “(1) two or more persons, directly or indirectly, reached an agreement to devise and execute a scheme to defraud; (2) the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) the defendant joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to further the unlawful purpose.”
Reference:
Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc96709/m1/1/high_res_d/R41930_2011Jul21.pdf -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 1/12/2024 at 9:36 AM, Red Hook said:Hopefully this is better ...
Welcome back, Brad.
Good to see you around these parts!
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 1/8/2024 at 5:18 AM, comicwiz said:I've taken the analysis portion as far as I'd like from my end for the time being.
Joseph,
I was digging through an old external drive of comic book data files and came across your CGC forum detective badge* awarded many years ago. Unfortunately, I could only find the small version that appears to have been resaved one too many times.
Having seen it again I realized just how long you’ve been serving. Amazing work!
That said, and on behalf of your fellow detectives and hobbyists, thank you for 20 years of sustained superior performance and dedicated service to the CGC forum community and the comic book hobby at large. It is truly appreciated!
____________
* CGC Forum Detective Badges were created and awarded by Brad Hamann ( @Red Hook ) as public recognition for outstanding achievement and other acts or services of consumer protection that were above and beyond what is normally expected of CGC forum members. Criterion for award recommendation and consideration was based upon work performed to bring corruption and dishonesty within the hobby to the forefront, usually through data collection and study, the use of digital scan technology and comparative imagery analysis, and the presentation of findings and conclusions. Service to the general collecting community was a priority for consideration. Former award recipients include: @Rickdogg, @Jeffreykli, @OldGuy, Abrams, @delekkerste, Rosenberg, @Arty, @DiceX, @Davenport, @comicwiz, and MasterChief.
-
On 1/7/2024 at 1:55 PM, NewWorldOrder said:
Who is the youtuber you are referring to?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 1/7/2024 at 11:05 AM, mrd160 said:I’m gonna share everything I know it’s CGC tomorrow and that’s really all have to say about it
Just to recap with additional comment and recommendation...
Your FF#2 is an original owner book purchased by Stu Janis and dubbed as being from the “Christopher Avenue Collection” by Comic Connect.
Comic Connect submitted the book for grading to CGC and it was subsequently certified a Universal 8.0 on November 5, 2013. It was brought to market by Comic Connect along with the rest of the Christopher Avenue Collection and first sold on March 12, 2014, per their website listing.
As was pointed out by several forum members, the book is the same copy from initial certification until now. No manipulation is visually apparent, trimming or otherwise, when comparing all subsequent resale images. It is the same book.
What now?
IMHO, the YouTube influencer that led you to believe your book was trimmed along the bottom and right side, which was sold to you by the suspect perpetrator of “Slab Swap,” needs to issue a public retraction and state that he made his accusations without the benefit of conducting visual analysis of all publicly available imagery before broadcasting his reckless statements. He used your book as his big bombshell announcement to tie the alleged perpetrator into it, along with publicizing the involvement of a “major comic book shop” in NYC, which together fueled his sky-is-falling rhetoric and hobby-implosion fearmongering. While he comes across as a good guy, and he very well may be, that particular video is counterproductive in the discovery of suspect fraud in the purported Slab Swap scandal.
PS. If he is suggesting that the book was trimmed before certification, then he needs to states so with clarity and precise language. That would then mean CGC and Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect collectively missed the trimming. If that is the case, then resubmit your book to CGC for that reason and that reason alone. Not because it’s a suspect book of Slab Swap.
- Cat, awakeintheashes, VintageComics and 8 others
-
7
-
4
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 1/6/2024 at 9:54 AM, Sweet Lou 14 said:On 1/6/2024 at 7:42 AM, MasterChief said:ExpandThis is one of the best posts in the thread. Especially for those of us late to the party. Anyone know if a follow-on recap like this has been done?
Truly appreciate you for pointing this out and @brute_nm for posting all that in the first place. Hugely helpful.
NP... and the image below is a great visual to capture interest and encourage understanding of the process. Props to whoever created it!
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 1/6/2024 at 8:10 AM, MasterChief said:Yes, those two books appear to be the same when comparing both front and back covers.
Amending my comment, thanks to @RockMyAmadeus, the books do not/not appear to be the same.
OH, and BTW... I got a PM from DD. He said to meet him under the bridge if I didn’t change my comment. He added this to his PM...
-
On 1/6/2024 at 8:13 AM, pdags said:
It's uncanny... The only notable difference is the back, top staple. Assuming he colored touched it, a few discrepancies may be real.
In addition to selling undisclosed restoration, Dupcak manipulated the photos he used for eBay auctions. This was proven by Red Hook back in the day. RH was well versed in Photoshop (taught graphics creation using PS, IIRC) and identified the below book as being Dupcak’s work.
- mr_highgrade, brute_nm, RockMyAmadeus and 1 other
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
On 1/6/2024 at 7:59 AM, pdags said:
**** Can someone verify ****
kellysuperhoroes Fantastic Four looks a lot like Briva3's Fantastic Four 4...
Yes, those two books appear to be the same when comparing both front and back covers.
And the first copy, sold by kellyssuperheroeskellys, is listed with "slight c.t."
-
On 1/6/2024 at 7:47 AM, mr_highgrade said:
Check out his auction below. First look at the angle of the photo and notice there's no photo of the back cover.
Then look at "Item Specifics" all the way on the bottom left under "modified" Slight c.t. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/315075164540?hash=item495bf1797c:g:MoUAAOSwnfNjUupG
ASM #252 CGC 9.8 Record Sale - something fishy going on? - Holder Tampering Incident confirmed by CGC
in Comics General
Posted
This is CGC protecting CGC. It has nothing to do with justice for the victims. That will only come through criminal prosecution by the federal government (if and only IF the Feds are made aware of the fraudulent scheme). Folks on the boards need to understand that. CGC is not your friend and their lawsuit has NOTHING to do with victim rights or a remedy for those that were scammed.