MasterChief

Thanks for the point of clarification. Here's an interesting article that discusses the topic. Steve Ivy of Heritage, among others, is quoted in the piece with regard to non-payment by winners. What's not discussed is if you get left holding the bag because of, well, that ghost of an employee with the catchy moniker shilling/submitting punishment bids. My Cat Made Me Do It,’ and Other Ways People Try to Back Out of Auction Bids By Daniel Grant • 03/02/18 Every auction is filled with at least a little anxiety. Will the sale be a flop? Will you be outbid for the piece you have your heart set on? Or, worst of all, will you accidentally bid on something you don’t want…maybe when inadvertently scratching your ear…as TV and movies lead us to believe happens all the time? In reality, this never happens at live events—an auctioneer always makes sure to receive affirmation of a bid before moving the proceedings on. But other accidents do happen. Often getting swept up in the pursuit of the sale, it’s not uncommon for a buyer to want to back out after an item has been won. If you realize quickly the error of your ways, the auction house is likely to let you out of it and go to the next highest bidder. But not necessarily. At a live auction, a bid represents a legal obligation. There’s no going back. But clearly not all buyers are on the same page; nonpayment is an issue all houses have to reckon with. And in the online auction world, the issue of when you have to pay up, and how you can back out, is a whole lot murkier. So what happens if you don’t want something you won in an auction? It depends on the situation, but you could very likely get sued. (Link to entire article: https://observer.com/2018/03/christies-sothebys-lawsuits-show-what-happens-when-buyers-back-out/)

The Human Torch #31 also. Thanks for the lead. Along with the Saddle Justice #6, the HT#31 is currently listed as a "Post-Auction Buy" with the same wording: "We are accepting offers until 8:00 AM CT Monday, September 20, 2021 on this item that didn't sell in the recent 2021 September 8 - 12 Comics & Comic Art Signature Auction." If I understand what's going on, there are six items that did not sell in the September auction. All items apparently unsold due to buyers reneging. One of the items (a Frazetta OA piece) is listed as a post-auction buy for $540K. All post-auction buy items are on a countdown clock. Seems as though once the clock runs out, the item, if not sold either through 'make an offer' or 'by it now', are removed completely from the website and auction records with no way of knowing what happened to the lot. For example, the printable auction results, which I understand is one item of record required by law among several others, does not reflect the Frazetta lot number of 91006. The number is skipped and lists 91005 then 91007. But no 91006. (link to printable auction results) Here's a screen grab of the items currently listed as post-auction buys. They will be gone in the morning.

This has probably been discussed before, but I don't know the answer. What are the consequences if you back out and renege on a Heritage auction win? Do you have to give a specific reason that that meets some acceptable criteria to cancel the purchase?

Greg, what are the books that you've seen relisted?

I was about to hit the nuclear button until I saw that Heritage is admitting, in their current ad, that it had been previously up for sale and that, for whatever reason, the sale did not complete. The wording is vague, but can’t rule out the possibility of an innocent explanation ... you beat me to it, Clark. I was preparing a response to your last post that altered me (can't seems to find it now), but took a quick break. Anyway, the book was removed from the Heritage archives, too. As a result, there's no way to determine the bid source. I noticed in the last Promise auction a lot of the books were acquired with the method of "HA.com/Live bidder." Many of the "internet" bids were beat out by that method (I was one). The bidding would go back-and-forth and ultimately the winner would be the "live" bidder. Not sure what to make of it, if anything.

Covered by someone who sometimes writes for NYT is not the same as covered by NYT. Some good comments in this thread. If you'd like to read the original thread on the subject, which contains a very healthy and sometimes contentious debate, check out the below. It has links to all of the Abramson articles, including responses by Heritage and Mark Haspel, with a subsequent follow-up response by Abramson to the Haspel response. It also contains additional background information on Halperin's exploits in the coin hobby and his run-ins with the Feds. BTW...for the old timers, the original thread is reminiscent of the early Halperin/Heritage/CGC conflict-of-interests debates post commencement of the comic book certification age. Those sure were some interesting times. Here’s the link to the thread…👇

The FTC will only take action if complaints are submitted. If no complaints, then video exposés and social media reporting are all sizzle and no steak. Report Fraud to the FTC The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. We conduct investigations, sue companies and people that violate the law, develop rules to ensure a vibrant marketplace, and educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. The FTC says that complaints can help it and its law enforcement partners detect patterns of fraud and abuse, which may lead to investigations and stopping unfair business practices. How to Report Fraud https://www.ftc.gov/faq/consumer-protection/submit-consumer-complaint-ftc Submit Consumer Complaint https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/

No kidding. The smoke and mirrors routine is effective.

I can't help but wonder what may have happened if an investigative journalist, or the mainstream media at large, had taken notice of the allegations and outright shenanigans that took place right after, and in the subsequent years following, the rollout of the comic-book certification age. While the hobby did have a "news outlet" publish an article in the attempt to address collector concerns following the discovery of the manipulated books from the Nicolas Cage Collection, as highlighted earlier in the thread with the posting of the CBG article, nothing else of any significance materialized to shed light on illicit behavior or root out elements that were alleged to be corrupt within the hobby. Not one. And that included arguably the biggest scandal to hit the hobby. That being the Jason Ewart trimming fiasco. While the Ewart scandal generated deep public outrage within the walls of this and other related forums, it received no interest as a newsworthy story by the hobby press, including CBG. And that was even after several well-meaning collectors lobbied the publisher of CBG to research and compile some type of report that would deliver consumer awareness to the public about the matter. As Joe mentioned earlier, much of the tomfoolery discovered in the earlier days of the certification age was laid bare by astute collectors and presented on comic forums such as these. Unfortunately, those revelations, of which many appeared to be connected in one degree or another to the apparent conflict-of-interest between Halperin, Heritage, and CGC, went nowhere other than their little corners of cyberspace. Many of us were surprised by this, and continue to be surprised to this day. The lack of press interest was, on its own, noteworthy. Perhaps it was designed to be that way. Let comic geeks gnash their teeth on meaningless message boards far away from the public eye while the hobby is fleeced to no end. It would seem so, in my opinion. Because for 20 years the certification establishment and its many lickspittles in the hobby assured us that everything was fine and that there was no validity to any of the conspiracy theories..."Remember how it was before CGC?" They would drone on about. "We're building back trust within the hobby...we've standardized the science of grading and have created a buying and selling tool for the internet that keeps the crooks at bay." Meanwhile, they'd continue to snub recognized hobby restoration standards by turning a blind eye toward disassembly, erasure, cleaning, restoration removal, pressing, etc. in an effort to make possible the key component of the crack-out game (manipulation) to drive the top-line. In reading the latest Seth Abramson story, I was reminded of another who used to post rather frequently in the early days about hobby ongoings. He presented some of the first rather shocking manipulation examples bearing certified universal grades while editorializing his message from a perspective that he knew exactly what was going on. That individual was Daniel Dupcak. Now before I get flamed for being some kind of Dupcak apologist, I'm not. I was right there in the trenches with a lot of you battling his dubious behavior. But if we remove the emotion and put aside Dupcak's history and just read his comments on the issue, he does raise some very interesting points. Points that relate to the allegations being made today by Abramson and others. I personally believe Dupcak knew too much, someone with inside information, and was seen as a liability from the powers that be. So, he was silenced from the boards. He did have a way of striking a nerve and getting people riled up, that's for sure. Here's a screen capture of comments by Dupcak from 9 years ago, using one of his many aliases, about the auctioning of the Cage collection. It's from the long defunct Comics Corral message boards. While I have studied the liquidation of the Cage collection, I have concluded with a high degree of confidence that some of the things he is saying are commensurate with the findings. The remarks he makes echo the comments of today.

Does that mean they paid over a million bucks so the FTC would stop wasting their time? As presented in the Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1989: "Numismatic Certification Institute, and its principals, Steve Ivy and James Halperin, agreed to settle charges that its representations and failures to disclose information misled consumers as to the value of coins certified by the company. An affiliate, Heritage Capital Corporation, also agreed to settle charges that it provided substantial assistance to a coin retailer, Certified Rare Coin Galleries (CRCG), knowing that CRCG was misrepresenting the security and profit potential of its coins to investors. Under the settlement, defendants agreed to a permanent injunction, and Heritage and NCI agreed to contribute $1.2 million into a consumer redress plan for CRCG's customers." https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports_annual/annual-report-1989/ar1989_0.pdf ************** Here's an article from the Los Angeles Times reporting on the matter: FTC Issues Rule Against Overgrading By Don Alpert AUG. 10, 1989 12 AM PT By and large, it’s grading and rarity that determine the value of a coin. Rarity is easy enough to establish. Grading is often a matter of opinion. It’s for this reason that grading services came into being. Their purpose is to give an impartial rating to a coin, which virtually establishes a particular price. But what happens if the grading service misrepresents the grade of a coin, thereby increasing its value? That’s the situation described by Bill McAllister of the Washington Post in regard to a recent decision by the Federal Trade Commission. The commission determined that overgrading coins was a “deceptive and unfair act” prohibited by the 1914 law that created the FTC. Charged with this practice were two Texas-based corporations, Heritage Capital Corp. and Numismatic Certification Institute. Also named in the action were Steve Ivy and James Halperin, prominent numismatic figures. A consent order was signed agreeing to establish a $1.2-million fund for collectors who purchase the NCI-graded coins from Coin Galleries Inc. of Miami. Other collectors will benefit from this action, FTC lawyers say, because those involved are prohibited from “knowingly and substantially assisting any third party in misrepresenting” any information about coin purchases and are barred from issuing any grading certificates “likely to mislead consumers.” Collectors should also benefit by the positive reinforcement this should render to the other grading services. While the process has been tainted, the leading services -- Professional Coin Grading Service, National Guaranty Corp. and the American Numismatic Assn. -- are unscathed. But this should serve as a warning to the entire industry, even though those involved with the FTC settlement do not admit any of the allegations. The fact is, overgraded coins bring inflated prices. And it’s wrong, whether it’s done deliberately or inadvertently. It’s too bad that the government had to step in, but perhaps it’s necessary when self-regulation doesn’t work. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-08-10-vw-88-story.html

Thank you, COI. And now, a damage control word from our sponsor... ************* Heritage Auctions Comments on State of Video-Game Marketplace Press Release DALLAS, Texas (Aug. 25, 2021) — Heritage Auctions has seen the recent speculation about alleged market manipulation in the collector video-game marketplace. The company and its founders want to ensure all those who love the hobby as much as we do that Heritage has always acted with the utmost integrity and has never falsely inflated the collector video-game marketplace or any other. Heritage has worked tirelessly for more than four decades to ensure the best possible experience for our consignors and clients. Transparency and integrity are the cornerstones of our business, and since our founding in 1976, we have earned a reputation as trusted stewards of the collectibles hobby. Our co-founder Jim Halperin, a well-known collector across several categories, was an early believer in the collectible video-game marketplace, and has been an active participant in that arena for several years. Indeed, Jim's participation — including his purchase of the first six-figure video game — was not only disclosed, but was widely publicized by Heritage Auctions. While Heritage has a strong relationship with Wata, as well as other third-party grading companies and authenticators, Wata's grading and activities are wholly independent from Heritage or its management. Jim was indeed an early minority stakeholder in Wata, through his nonprofit foundation that provides funding for arts-, education- and health-related endeavors. "I had no idea video games would take off as fast as they did," he says of his early involvement, "but I suspected that marketplace was undervalued." Jim divested himself of his ownership in Wata earlier this year when that company was sold. The notion that Heritage somehow colluded in order to achieve results at auction is baseless and falsely assumes that transactions are fictitious when they are in fact very much real. Heritage prides itself on transparency, which is why we post every result from every auction and maintain that information in our permanent archive, which is accessible by anyone who is interested in that information, including Heritage's 1.5 million registered bidders worldwide. Heritage and Jim wholeheartedly agree that as the video-game marketplace continues to evolve and mature that population reports are an essential component needed to maintain its transparency. Yes, Heritage employees do consign and bid on items for their personal collections, as disclosed in our terms and conditions. Jim is well known as one of the world's greatest collectors of EC comics, original comic-book art and Mad memorabilia. But as we always say, an item is only worth what two bidders are willing to pay for it, and Heritage strives to make the playing field level for all. As to the question of regulatory fines, in 1989 Jim and co-founder Steve Ivy reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission arising from allegations related to grading and the marketing of coins by an unrelated third party. Heritage Auctions settled for $1.2 million to avoid protracted litigation and admitted no wrongdoing. As Halperin himself said in 2004 on the company's website, "I'm glad the FTC came in, cracked down on some of the practices in the industry and weeded out some of the bad apples, allowing us to alter our business model profitably, and serve a much larger and faster growing clientele." This settlement had nothing to do Heritage Auctions. We founded Heritage Auctions 45 years ago as an auction house by collectors for collectors. Robert Wilonsky, Communications Director https://www.ha.com/heritage-auctions-press-releases-and-news/heritage-auctions-comments-on-state-of-video-game-marketplace.s?releaseId=4273

The inconsistency on display with current grading and labeling of the Promise Collection is puzzling and, unfortunately, implies preference. While I pretty much agree with what's been presented thus far concerning the loose grading, I get the feeling that if the average joe submitted a book like the one below, it would get hammered in grade and placed not in a Universal holder but in a Qualified or Restored one. To the seasoned collector, that defect is nowhere near production related. The book appears trimmed using scissors (for whatever reason) but there is no notation disclosing that fact on the label.

Is this the book you're referring to?

If I understand you correctly, you sound like you were a member of the Heritage legal team. Short of the takeaway that an audit revealed that Heritage engaged in a “systematic pattern of overcharging and other wrongful conduct”, the other red flag to me was that Heritage’s contractual statute of limitations defense failed because of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. Now I'm now lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but fraudulent concealment, from what I gather, is willfully withholding material information to hide wrongdoing from the victim. If the defendant (Heritage) intentionally concealed material information from the victim (Hughes) so that the victim did not know they had a viable claim, then the limitations period does not begin to run until after the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, his claim against the defendant. My

Perhaps like some/many here, I found it odd that Mark Wilson, the former Heritage employee and long-time comic dealer, would relay information to his son about his personal relationship and conversations with Jim Halperin concerning manipulating comic book prices to stimulate the market. Was Wilson mindful that his son was going to go public with that information? Another case of a long-time comic book dealer who recently went public with personal Heritage insight was William (Bill) Hughes. For those that may not know, Hughes was a player in the hobby and comic book investment advisor in brokering some of the very first unprecedented Gold Age megadeals just after the launch of the certification age. Two of which were the sales of the "Pay Copy" of Marvel Comics #1 from Steve Geppi to Jay Parrino; and the sale of the Denver Copy of Marvel #1 from Steve Geppi to Jay Parrino. The latter transaction involving Heritage who arranged the private transaction (see article). Additionally, Hughes, on behalf of Jay Parrino's The Mint, was involved with bringing the Nicolas Cage Collection to market. Both Heritage and The Mint jointly auctioned Cage's collection, one of the first certified collection to achieve national press coverage at the time (see article). Hughes would go on to other business interactions with Heritage, but suffice to say, the relationship between the two would eventually unravel with Hughes suing after years of collaboration. What I'll post is the beginning and the end of the Hughes grievance. The midstream legal wrangling you can search out for yourself. Make of the case what you will. In my opinion, however, the episode not only paints Hughes in a bad light, but also adds to the dark cloud that hangs over Heritage. Complaint Review: Heritage Auctions Submitted: Mon, May 26, 2014 Updated: Thu, July 17, 2014 Reported By: William Hughes "Between 2001 and 2009 minimally, Heritage Auctions has used their vast financial resources, position in the collectibles industry and experience in manipulating the accounting of sales of consigned goods to steal, cheat and con clients who enter into consignment relationships with them in good faith. I personally entered into well over $3,000,000 worth of transactions with these crooks and ended up on the short end of the stick to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not over a million dollars (I am still figuring out the magnitude of the deception and malfeasance on their part)..." Link to original report and follow-up posts by Hughes: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/heritage-auctions/internet/heritage-auctions-heritage-comics-heritage-sports-collectibles-heritage-movie-posters-f-1149717#comment_7 After a period of time, the Hughes claim went to arbitration and then to trail court, with final adjudication by the Texas Court of Appeals. Here's the verdict issued by the appellate court... Date: 05-08-2015 Case Style: Movie Poster House, Inc. v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. Case Number: 05-14-01260-CV Judge: Molly Francis Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth Court of Appeal from 160th Judicial District Court of Dallas County Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas E. Shaw for Heritage Auctions, Inc. Defendant's Attorney: Robert J. Andreotti, Corey R. Herrick and Derrick J. Hahn for Movie Poster House, Inc. Description: Movie Poster House, Inc. appeals the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Heritage Auctions, Inc. In four issues, MPH contends the trial court erred because its claims are not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel and the arbitrator abused his discretion by refusing to allow MPH to amend its statement of claims. We affirm. In early 2008, Kenneth Mauer loaned William Hughes over $600,000 that was secured by artwork, coins, movie posters, sports memorabilia, and other collectibles owned by Hughes. Mauer perfected his security interest by filing a UCC-1 of the various items with the Texas Secretary of State. At the time, Hughes also held 50% ownership in MPH and was an officer and director in the company. When Hughes defaulted on his loan obligations, Mauer obtained a judgment against him for over $730,000. Mauer then filed an application for writ of garnishment against Heritage because Hughes regularly bought and sold artwork, coins, movie posters, sports memorabilia, and other collectibles through Heritage and Hughes believed Heritage held many of the items secured by his UCC-1 security interest. Heritage filed its answer, alleging that any interest Hughes had in the collateral had been consumed by charges due Heritage. After a subsequent audit determined Heritage had engaged in a “systematic pattern of overcharging and other wrongful conduct,” Mauer sued Heritage in November 2009 for various causes of action, including fraud and civil conspiracy. On May 23, 2012, MPH filed a petition in intervention, alleging that “[a]mong the specific goods purportedly ‘pledged’ to Heritage by Hughes was memorabilia actually belonging to MPH.” MPH sought (1) an accounting, including asking Heritage to identify any MPH property it held but had not sold and (2) in the event Heritage had collected proceeds that had not been tendered to MPH, a credit to MPH’s account for that amount. In response, Heritage filed an application to compel arbitration, noting that MPH had signed an Auction Consignment Agreement in November 2008 which contained a “valid, enforceable, and eminently fair arbitration agreement and all of its claims [fell] within its scope.” On June 5, 2012, the trial court granted Heritage’s request and ordered “the dispute” between Heritage and MPH to arbitration. On January 28, 2013, MPH filed its detailed statement of claims with the arbitrator, asking for an accounting and a declaration that the pledge language in the November 2007 agreement between Heritage and Hughes was ineffective to grant Heritage a security interest in either Hughes’s shares of MPH stock or in the inventory MPH had consigned previously to Heritage. Several months later, MPH filed, without the arbitrator’s consent or approval, an untimely amended statement of claims asserting six new causes of action for damages, including breach of contract and a claim for missing and/or damaged inventory. The arbitrator struck the amended claims but stated that, at the evidentiary hearing set for July 2013, he would address the propriety of allowing MPH to proceed with the claims. Following the July hearing and a subsequent September 11, 2013 telephone hearing, the arbitrator ruled: the pledge language in the Hughes-Heritage agreement was ineffective to provide Heritage with a valid security interest in either Hughes’s shares of MPH stock or in the inventory MPH had consigned previously to Heritage; there was no legally enforceable agreement between MPH and Heritage that would allow Heritage to apply proceeds from the sales of MPH-consigned inventory to pay down Hughes’s debt to Heritage; Heritage’s contractual statute of limitations defense failed because of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. The arbitrator also determined Heritage was legally obligated to remit $29,949.46 to MPH: $23,078.90 from sales of MPH-consigned inventory that had been used to offset Hughes’s debt to Heritage and $6,870.56 in proceeds that had not been applied to any account. And the arbitrator awarded MPH $70,000 for its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator then addressed why he denied MPH’s request to assert “multiple causes of action for damages based on Heritage’s retention of proceeds that should have been paid to [MPH] and to assert a claim, based on Heritage’s breach of contract, that the parties’ Auction Consignment Agreement be declared terminated and that [MPH’s] consigned inventory be ordered returned to it.” The basis for these claims was that Heritage failed to pay MPH the $29,949.46 in sale proceeds when it was legally required to do so. The arbitrator noted that in April 2012, before the arbitration proceeding began, principals of Heritage told representatives of MPH that Heritage had begun applying proceeds from the sale of MPH inventory to offset Hughes’s debt. The arbitrator concluded MPH knew or should have known of the misappropriation of funds in April 2012 and could have asserted such claims in its original demand for arbitration or in its January 2013 statement of claims. With respect to MPH’s proposed claim for missing or damaged inventory, the arbitrator noted MPH physically inspected its inventory consigned with Heritage in December 2012. Thus, MPH should have determined or known during that inspection or as a result of that inspection if any of the consigned inventory was missing or damaged and should have included any claims addressing the same in its January 2013 statement of claims. Finally, the arbitrator stated that in light of the evidence adduced at the July 15 and 16 hearing, it was unlikely MPH could show conduct on the part of Heritage sufficiently culpable to entitle MPH to additional or punitive damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and MPH had been “made whole for its out of pocket loss by [the] award to it of $29,949.46.” There was no appeal of the arbitration award. MPH then filed an amended petition in district court, incorporating the arbitration award and asserting new causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, theft of property, violations of the DTPA, common law fraud, and fraud by nondisclosure. Heritage filed an answer and a traditional motion for summary judgment, asserting MPH’s claims in the amended petition were barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. The trial court granted Heritage’s summary judgment motion without specifying the grounds and dismissed MPH’s claims. This appeal followed. We begin with MPH’s argument that the arbitrator abused his discretion by refusing to allow MPH to amend its statement of claims during arbitration. The parties’ consignment agreement provided they would arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act. Under the FAA, an arbitration award is presumed to be valid, and judicial review is “exceedingly deferential” and “extraordinarily narrow.” Myer v. Americo Life, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 401, 407−08 (Tex. App.―Dallas 2007, no pet.) (citing Sarofim v. Trust Co., 440 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 2006)). The statutory bases for vacating an arbitration award are outlined in the FAA. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 10-11. Refusal to allow an amendment of claims is not one of the statutory grounds for vacating an award. See id. “Under the FAA, the validity of an arbitration award is subject to attack only on the grounds listed in sections 10 and 11 of the Act.” Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 796, 805−06 (Tex. App―Dallas 2008, pet. denied). Here, MPH complains the arbitrator should have allowed the company to file an amended statement of claims. Notably, MPH does not challenge the arbitration award or seek to vacate it. Because MPH does not raise a statutory ground to vacate or modify the award, we dismiss this issue. In its remaining issues, MPH claims the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel. We review the granting of a summary judgment de novo. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). The party relying on the affirmative defense of res judicata must prove (1) a prior final determination on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims that were or could have been raised in the first action. Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). “The judgment in the first suit precludes a second action by the parties and their privies on matters actually litigated and on causes of action or defenses arising out of the same subject matter that might have been litigated in the first suit.” Travelers Ins. Co., 315 S.W.3d at 862. What constitutes the subject matter of a suit requires an examination of the factual basis of the claim or claims in the prior litigation as well as an analysis of the factual matters making up the gist of the complaint. Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex. 1992). “Any cause of action which arises out of those same facts should, if practicable, be litigated in the same lawsuit.” Id. (citing Gracia v. RC Cola-7-Up Bottling Co., 667 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex. 1984)). Here, the parties are identical, and there is a prior final determination on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. See Ancor Holdings, LLC v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, Inc., 294 S.W.3d 818, 826 (Tex. App.―Dallas 2009, no pet.) (arbitration award is treated the same as the judgment of a court of last resort). Thus, the only issue is whether the causes of action MPH sought to raise arose out of the same set of facts as addressed in the arbitration. The record shows that, in February 2014, MPH sought to amend its pleadings to include claims for breach of contract, conversion, theft of property, violations of the DTPA, common law fraud, and fraud by nondisclosure. However, these claims arose out of the same set of facts that formed the basis for MPH’s previous claims: Mauer obtained a judgment against Hughes and sought to recover items held under the security agreement; Heritage claimed all the interest Hughes had in any collateral had been consumed by charges due Heritage; an audit showed Heritage had a “systematic pattern of overcharging and other wrongful conduct;” and MPH sought to protect its inventory and received credit for any proceeds from sales of its inventory. MPH’s amended claims arose out of the same facts, and therefore were barred by res judicata. See Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 631. We overrule MPH’s first and second issues. In light of our disposition of these issues, we need not address the third issue regarding collateral estoppel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Outcome: We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 141260F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MOVIE POSTER HOUSE, INC., Appellant No. 05-14-01260-CV V. HERITAGE AUCTIONS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-11040. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill participating. https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=05-14-01260-CV&s=TX&d=78322

Maybe that's exactly what needs to happen. They say the discovery phase is a hell of a thing. Tin foil hat conspiracy theorists for years accused Bill Mastro of shilling his own Mastro Auctions and selling altered and restored baseball cards without disclosure. To anyone who would listen, he vehemently denied all of it, every single time. Many of his supporters and customers believed him and in his company. Yet the Feds got involved and Mastro was convicted of the very same thing he was denying, including admitting under oath that he himself trimmed the Gretzky Honus Wagner card to increase its value and prevent it from looking like it had aged. At this point, perhaps what we need are new conspiracy theories because all the old conspiracy theories have come true.

I must admit that I don’t recall any investigative reporting ever being conducted to shed light on the apparent shenanigans unleashed on the comic book hobby at the beginning of the certification age. Certainly not like the reporting in the video that you posted at the start of this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only story I remember was a short-lived piece that appeared in CBG, which I've pasted below... *************** Mystery Comics Mystery by Brent Frankenhoff Comics Buyer's Guide #1528 (February 28, 2003) Six years after Nicolas Cage starred in Face/Off, comics collectors are facing off over two copies from his collection. When the copies, auctioned by Heritage Comics Auctions in its October 2002 Signature Auction, were purchased and resubmitted to Comics Guaranty LLC (CGC) and received higher grades, several collectors raised questions to CBG and on CGC’s message boards. Collectors Raise Questions The two issues, Marvel Mystery Comics #2 and Marvel Mystery Comics #33, were originally graded 7.5 (VF-) and 8.0 (VF) respectively. After the books were removed from their slabs and resubmitted to CGC for regrading, their respective grades were raised to 9.0 (VF/NM) and 9.2 (NM-). Dave Blanchard, an Ohio collector, asked CBG, “How can a comic book’s grade increase by 12 to 15% after it has been removed from the slab? If CGC’s own graders can be off by 12 to 15% within a period of months, how do they justify the rates they charge for their grading service?” Also, some collectors asked if the books had been restored and why the Cage collection information was removed from each books’ new label. Others alleged Heritage bought the comics itself and resubmitted them. “Is this standard operating procedure at Heritage,” Blanchard asked, “(to) purchase comics from their own auctions and then upgrade the condition to get an even higher price?” Heritage Responds According to Heritage Director of Auctions John Petty, the books were “not purchased, submitted to CGC, or re-consigned by any Heritage employee or by the firm itself.” Keeping with the company’s policy of not releasing the names of bidders or consignors, Petty told CBG, “A dealer-client bought them, resubmitted them, and got a higher grade and then reconsigned them with us.” Petty said that the company did not restore the books. “We do not employ anyone to do restoration, nor do we work on books ourselves,” he added. “We do have outside consultants to do restoration checks for us, but there are no restorationists on our payroll at this time nor have there ever been.” The Pedigree Question CGC Primary Grader Steve Borock said that the Cage books do not have a CGC pedigree. Instead, like the Stan Lee file copies, that information about the comic book is entered into CGC’s notes. While pedigreed information is entered on a new label, even if the submitter leaves the information off his submission form, it is not included on non-pedigreed books or ones that CGC doesn’t know are pedigreed. A separate field exists in the computer database for pedigree information. When a pedigreed book enters CGC’s system, that information is noted. “We never gave the Cage books a pedigree designation,” he told CBG. “It was noteworthy and that was noted, but that was it. When a book like that is resubmitted, once the case is opened, there’s a chance that that information won’t be put back on the label, because we might not be able to verify its provenance.” Borock said that many resubmitted books are sent in without the label, which would reduce the reslabbing fee, “because collectors don’t care about saving the money, they just want the grade. And, some people don’t want us to know where a book’s come from in some cases.” He added that often the original label is sent in at a later date to keep the population report accurate. When the company does have the original grading label, it is removed from the CGC population report database after the book has been regraded. “It can take up to six to eight weeks since that’s about how often we update the population report,” Borock added. Since its inception, CGC’s policy has been that its graders don’t know where a given comic book has come from throughout the grading process, something that the firm’s volume would also preclude. “In the case of a pedigreed book, I might know who owned it a year and a half ago for example,” Borock said. “But I’m not going to know now if it’s been sold or not. The book might be being resubmitted for any number of reasons. The bottom line is a. we don’t know, and, b. we don’t care. That’s one of the nice things about the way the company’s set up.” The Grade Change While the grade changes to the two books in question sound extreme, with a change of 1.5 points for the Marvel Mystery #2 and 1.2 points for the Marvel Mystery #33, in terms of actual comics grades it is a rise from Very Fine- to Very Fine/Near Mint for the #2 and Very Fine to Near Mint- for the #33, gradations that the average collector might be hard-pressed to detect. Borock said that while it is possible for such a rise in grade to happen, it’s very rare. “It really pushes the envelope,” he added. “Our grading reflects how dealers across the country are grading their books. We’d have been out of business if we weren’t close to how the dealers and collectors are grading.” One factor that may have affected the grade is whether “pressing” was performed on the books. Allegedly, both books were pressed before resubmission, a process where a comic book is flattened by a heavy weight in an attempt to remove spine roll. It’s a process that CGC doesn’t recognize as restoration. Borock said, “When we came to market, people said we couldn’t call pressed books restored, mainly because many pedigreed books had been pressed at some point. When we call a book restored, it has to have been cleaned and pressed or taken apart for restoration or have had other processes performed on it. I personally know many dealers and collectors who for many years have been pressing comic books on a regular basis. Unlike restoration, when a comic-book cover is pressed correctly and safely, it will enhance the look of the comic book, and, in many cases, most experts can’t even tell it has been pressed.” While CGC began its grading service with three graders on staff and Borock doing the final grading and restoration detection, the company has grown to the point that it now employs eight graders, with Chris Frisen, formerly of Renaissance Restoration, as the company’s restoration detector. “We’ve found missing pages that folks weren’t aware were missing,” Borock said. “We’ve found restored books that had the wrong back cover. Mark Haspel, our senior grader and pedigree expert has even helped find some pedigreed books for folks who didn’t know they owned a pedigree. “There are extremists who don’t want to hear anything about grading or restoration detection. We’re going to have naysayers no matter what. We combat that by telling the truth 100% of the time.” Employee Bidding Policies “We’re upfront about our business as well,” Petty said as he outlined Heritage’s policies about employee bidding on its auctions. “We are permitted to bid on items just like anyone else. We are all collectors ourselves, and we are willing to pay strong prices for items we need. Why shouldn’t we bid like everyone else? If we didn’t participate in our own auctions, our consignors would be deprived of several active participants bidding on their material. Of course our competitors would prefer we didn’t bid, but we don’t work for our competitors — we work for our consignors. And we have to pay the same bidder’s premium and sales tax. If, for example, I win an item, I pay just as much as anyone else. I don’t get a break on the 15% bidder’s premium or the sales tax. The only thing I save on is shipping and handling, which anyone who picks up their lots at the live auctions or here at the firm would also do.” The Marvel Mystery #2 realized $13,800 in a 7.5 (with glue noted on cover) CGC holder at Heritage’s October auction. When re-offered on eBay in a 9.0 holder (also with glue noted), the issue was bid up to $14,999.99, but did not meet reserve. Petty said, “How much do you think Nicolas Cage would have been offered if he’d brought a Marvel Mystery #2 CGC 7.5 with glue to a dealer that advertises to buy comics outright? I’d guess $7,000 to $8,000, tops, maybe less. But the dealers in attendance at our auctions can determine which books they think are potential upgrades, and will bid up the prices of those books accordingly, to the benefit of the consignors. Furthermore, those books that sell for premium prices don’t always upgrade, and can even occasionally downgrade, upon resubmission, yet our consignors get the benefit of the dealers’ high perceptions even when the dealers are wrong.” Petty added that the company has revised its employee bidding policy to only allow online bidding prior to a live event and not allow floor bidding by employees any more. “So if anything,” Petty said, “Heritage and its employees are actually now at a slight disadvantage compared to other bidders in our auctions.” Is Resubmission Common? While a common practice in coins and sports cards for many years, cracking a slabbed comic book and resubmitting for regrading is fairly new to third-party comics grading. As with the initial submission of the comic book, there is a gamble involved as to whether the grade will go up or down. “It accounts for less than 1% of our business,” Borock said. Petty said that while Heritage does crack and resubmit some of the CGC-graded comics it purchases, “it’s not a real profitable thing for us. It’s a gamble. This is not how we make our money. It’s not our model. If it was, we’d be out of business very quickly, I think. With our history as a coins auction firm, it is something we’re very familiar with. Collectors not being as familiar or comfortable with it in comics shows just how new it is at this point.” Borock agreed that reslabbing is a gamble and said, “Collectors are very superstitious and believe in every conspiracy about third-party grading. I occasionally hear, ‘You killed me, this book went down,’ after I’ve regraded a given comic book. It’s rare for the grade to change in resubmission. I’ll never say never, but it doesn’t happen that much.”

Irony indeed! If you never admit or deny anything, it makes things more interesting, particularly when it comes to the benefactors of the cabal of corruption. So... that cat Wilson, the one in the video... is he now going by the name of "David?" He says his eBay handle is Collector Comics, but in the past that eBay ID was associated with the name of Thomas Wilson, not David Wilson. Both Mark Wilson and the son Thomas Wilson were connected by a litany of compelling evidence as the perpetrators behind the Face Jobs (reverse spine roll) that created quite the manipulation controversy here on the boards several years back. So much so, those Wilson-ized books, and the public outrage that ensued, got the attention and involvement of CGC, much in the way that the Ewart scandal did. For those that may have missed the Face Job alterations, here are two links to the story. Also provided is a thread about eBay seller collectors_comics.

Well, whaddya know! Same manipulation model, same players, same cabal of crooks. And to think Dupcak was the great boogeyman of the hobby. The findings in this investigative report are virtual similar to those that were presented by many astute members of this and other comic book forums approximately 20 years ago. The parallel to the comic book certification age is remarkably similar. The only component of the crack-out model that's missing in this case is the actual physical alteration (restoration) of the collectible to enhance the appearance of the aged or damaged video game to garner the highest certified grade. But I suspect that may already be happening.

I suspect the technical terms and definitions presented in Overstreet have been crafted and refined over the course of the publications 50+ years through a deliberative, consensus standards process involving Overstreet principals and advisors; the ranks of which were comprised of collectors, dealers, and historians with many different backgrounds and walks of life. Perhaps it's time for Overstreet to reevaluated certain terms and definitions in the Guide, much the way they did in 2006 when the restoration definition itself was readdressed with collective input from advisors and the hobby at large.

West, have a majority of the 150 odd Overstreet Advisors influenced a change in the definition and classification of trimming? Reason I ask is that my current copy of the Overstreet Guide (2019-2020) continues to classify trimming as restoration: Restoration – Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, trimming, re-glossing, reinforcement, glue, etc... Trimmed – (1) A bindery process which separates top, right, and bottom of pages and cuts comic books to the proper size; (2) A repair process in which defects along the edges of a comic book are removed with the use of scissors, razor blades, and/or paper cutters. Comics books which have been repaired in this fashion are considered defective.

Old Forum. Reliable, Dependable, Memorable.

So I pulled the trigger on the grader notes and, indeed, the notes list a "small split bottom of spine."

I spotted that book, too. It's an eye catcher thanks to the imagery. Took a closer look and noticed what appears to be an approximate 1/2" spine split, bottom front cover. Cracked my Overstreet Grading Guide for a reality check...and found that an 1/8" split is allowed at the maximum grade of 6.5 (FN+), and an 1/2" - 1" split at the 4.5 (VG+) grade. Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention lately, but is that type of defect now allowed at the 8.5 (VF+) level?