pdags

I agree... but I know a guy that used to use a stud-finder to buy every pack-of-cards that had hologram or thicker card inside them. CGC may be able to do something comparable... Not saying a stud finder is the perfect solution, but CGC may have crafty ways to determine certain things. For instance, a stud finder calibrated on a normal, slabbed book may alert on a slab with the same book but with a MJI (or a book with something else inside of it). I'm Just saying, "there's a chance".

I didn't mean to insult you or 9.9 (seriously) and I apologize if it came off that way. There's only so much you can do in that situation without biting the hand feeding you, maintaining good relations, etc. Matt chose what to address, how to answer, and his tone.

They really need too... otherwise the assumption is it isn't obvious and can only be clearly identified with special equipment (stuff you don't typically have lying around the house). If it is notable, sharing is the ethical thing to do.

Well, it didn't make things worse... But, I wasn't wholly impressed either.

Yes (for me at least). Same message.

The people that got scammed will *always* be victims, even if compensated for their loss. Even if the criminal personally paid everyone back, they still committed crime.

Several hundred pages ago I recommended people with high dollar books consider getting legal council before sending any books back to CGC... It wasn't taken too well then.

This is a step in the right direction, but it's not full proof and it's highly inconvenient if you purchase a lot of slabs or are comparing a bunch of slabs to buy. I don't want to scan 20 different images with, possibly, only micro differences. And if buying stuff online the quality of the online pictures may not be all that great or have different lighting, etc.

I'm not worried about the overall market, but what indicators are there that can indicate if *CGC* is being affected by this (preferably in the long run). Not sure we can get any indicators without CGC publishing information.

I'm not against this theory, but I can't see it as one person for a few years. It was a department and the overall process was inadequate. I made a post about that awhile back... how does CGC adequately differentiate between tampering and accidents. I'm not sure they can and if they can why not share it with the community.

We already went through the optimistic thinking phase... A poorly designed holder allowed someone to commit fraud *for years*. Tampering was sufficiently good enough to trick CGC *for years*. CGC has no slab on the market that isn't, how should we say it, weak on security. How does this get fixed? It can't. I try not to be too critical of CGC on their forums, but weak slab security, newton rings, and lax business processes may not have affected Heritage Auction, but it's made a major impact on my behavior going forward. I can only speculate that I'm not a lone.

Personally, I always want to be informed. Imagine if some people know about it and can protect themselves while others don't get the same opportunity. It's not unlike insider trading.

I found them highly informative. Helped me defend myself against being scammed and to assess the products and am better informed about services I may use in the future.

That book has gotten me more times than I can count... "That's a great priceI should buy tha... Oh, wait, wait, which one is the original... Is it the "M" one or not?"