EastEnd1

I've actually doubled my people on "ignore" with this thread. Was a great evidence based thread until some silly people showed up more recently.

Should work out for you then when you're ready to sell yours

That's great news! Now lets wait and see how the upcoming Heritage and Clink auctions work out.

Agreed, there is a noticeable lack of transparency when it comes to this issue. It's a simple question really: was the scammer able to reseal holders without producing obvious defects? I have to think CGC knows the answer to that question at this point.

I think we have to wait and see how the upcoming major auctions do before the question can be answered, particularly with regard to the books that the scammer most preferred to doctor up. Hopefully no decline, but that is not an evidence based answer right now.

Agreed, someone has to keep a master list. Seems like CGC is best positioned to do that. The selling venues should share all scammer transactions that went through their sites. They should all know who the scammer is at this point.

Agreed, and this is why we need any books the scammer consigned to Heritage, ComicLink, ComicConnect, MyComicShop, etc added to the list. Throw in eBay as well. Unless someone can demonstrate that the scammer was not able to swap books without creating a noticeable holder defect, these books are just as suspect as the reholdered ones. CGC, and now ComicLink, are to be commended for their commentary and keeping us updated. But the transparency on the potential for a simple holder swap is still lacking.

Thanks Josh. Does the list include EVERY book consigned by the scammer to ComicLink, or just the ones that went thru a CGC reholder/ME process? I ask because it's been surmised that the scammer is able to open and reseal holders WITHOUT creating an obvious defect. So every graded book he's touched is suspect, unless that possibility is wrong.

There's an awful lot of Spidey #300s on that list.

Ok, that's another possibility that I actually prefer to believe, cause my potential explanations (other than maybe the clerical error) give me agita.

The cleaning at the back cover actually looked pretty good to me... it's not easy to clean off soiling/fingerprints on such a bright yellow cover without degrading the surface color... and I'd expect some slight remnant to remain as it does here. But again, the lighting in the two photos is dramatically different, so who's to say.

I see... the line under the U looks more like a reflection to me (it's two-dimensional) whereas the bends at the two corners look three-dimensional and deeper. There's also a similar very slight line running parallel to the one under the U which again makes me think its just a reflection. But it's possible they're all reflections in the scammers photo... he wasn't very "cleanly" with his photos as we know.

The Heritage book looks cleaned too... note the soiling/fingerprints in the bottom half of the yellow at the back cover of the scammer's photo... far reduced but still slightly visible in the Heritage scans. Could be lighting but looks more like a cleaning to me.

The top right front cover and the top left back cover both look pressed to me... unless the culprit photos being compared to greatly accentuate the bends in those areas.

Yep, totally agree. Hope I'm wrong but I'm left with either the scammer was able to get into both the outer and inner wells and reseal them both without an obvious difference (apparently Heritage didn't notice anything) or an insider was involved. Or, I guess was simply "a clerical error" by CGC, if we want to be optimistic.

That's what I originally thought but the thing I don't understand though is that the book has the same serial number after the CPR?? Wouldn't it get a new one?

Looks like it got pressed on that last go around with Heritage.

Yeah, that's my concern... you just can't be sure when your holder has these little anomalies and there will be a new level of uncertainty added to transactions involving graded books. Uncertainty is never helpful when you're trying to maintain a stable market. "Tamper Obvious" is an excellent term CGC should be striving for with their re-design.

I generally agree but I don't think the tampered holder needs to be "perfect" for the scam to fester. If the after-effects of tampering are very minute, some may catch it but most collectors won't. Most won't be looking for tampering unless it's conspicuous (though I guess more and more collectors will be looking more carefully as further doctored books are uncovered over time). Based on the method Immaculate Comics has demonstrated so far, it looks like there are two "tells": one is that the heated pin winds up slightly larger than the unheated pins when viewed from the back cover side; the other is that there is just the slightest separation at the re-sealed tampered corner. Neither seems very conspicuous, and may still be curable with further experimentation. I can just imagine the arguments that would ensue between a buyer and seller over tiny anomalies like these. If buying a graded comic going forward entails the use of say a magnifying glass on a holder, then we've clearly lost something of value... the required use of the magnifying glass means there's been a loss of trust. And that certainly hurts the hobby... perhaps not all the way back to the wild west of the pre-grading days, but certainly reduced from where we were. Btw, this is based on the demonstrations by Immaculate Comics... we still really don't know what the current scammer actually did to the holders.

I'm in!

I think CGC would be happy to implement the tightest and strongest measures... the question becomes, what would they have to charge their customers in exchange, and would the market bear that additional cost? At some point, the equation doesn't work anymore, and the books that would justify the added cost of grading would be a smaller and smaller population, which could put the viability of the service in question. It's a tough balance that CGC has to manage.

Funny thing is we ARE aligned... I love my CGC slabs and have plenty of invested capital sitting there too. The last thing I want is for CGC to be undermined. But burying your head in the sand isn't going to fix this or make it go away. Even if it did blow over in a few weeks, the holder is too vulnerable, and further scandals will happen... and that won't be good for either collectors or dealers.

And CGC also let's our discourse continue openly. They and CGC Mike are to be commended for both.

We don't know yet what this culprit did exactly... I don't think all of his hundreds of submissions could have been MEs as that would have attracted attention (CGC pre-approves those as it costs them money)... so he either swapped and resealed some or someone on the inside helped him. If it's the former, then clearly he's able to do it without creating any obvious defect (though a careful inspection might reveal something). If you go back to the chemists video, it's pretty clear on that second pin that it's very easy to pop the pin by merely heating it up with a heat gun... quick, simple, and no cracking at all. He demonstrates that you only need to pop ONE bottom pin from the newest holders to get the original book out and a substitute in. The chemist also points out that any minute scratches or blemishes from the effort can be eliminated by using tape, polishes and other solutions. This all from one quick early attempt. With practice, the result will get better. He did mention however that there was one "tell" in his effort... the bottom pins at the back of the holder became slightly larger than the top pins from the heating and pulling. So if heating and pulling is "a must" for this scam, that currently seems to be one indicator... at least until someone figures that out. For those "in the know", I guess enlarged bottom pins is something to look for. But for the majority of transactions, this won't be a good stopgap... too many purchasers will not be "in the know" and two slightly enlarged pins is simply not obvious enough. CGC is going to need a new holder that doesn't open so easily with a a simple application of heat. I expect we'll be seeing that. What happens with the 8 million heat susceptible holders already out there, God only knows.

If Blackstone works like most multinationals do, and I fully expect that they would, CGC won't have very much excess cash to access on its own. It's cash gets periodically swept up by Blackstone to redeploy wherever Blackstone sees fit in its overall business. I'd imagine CGC will have to come up with an estimate, take a charge, and then either sop it away from incoming cash (if small) or secure funding from Blackstone (if large). Blackstone would function as its "bank". I don't believe Blackstone would let CGC go under, that just seems foolish financially. But I could see them come to the conclusion to prop it up and divest it if the cost/benefit of owning it, based on their internal metrics, no longer makes sense. Really depends how bad this gets financially (probably not too bad) and reputationally (could be bad). There's also insurance to consider if CGC wants to make the claim.