RockMyAmadeus

My apologies. I will revise the statement to "suggesting." Yes...I am one of them. The issue isn't that people have claimed that people have manipulated this book. The issue is that people have claimed that people have manipulated this book in a manner that will fool CGC.

It's not a "glue" issue. Your logic doesn't follow: if these books can be faked in the manner that you and Jaydogrules are claiming, then they are damaged books, and should be worth little to nothing....not "50 bucks", tops or not.

As I have already said, several times now, these have been faked. The issue is not whether they have been faked, but whether they have been faked in a manner that will fool CGC, That is correct. That is why "Did you notify CGC at the time that someone was defrauding them and collectors?" is in the form of a question, rather than a statement...a question which you have yet to answer. I want this on record: you, Jaydogrules, are publicly declaring that you have no duty or obligation to out cheating when you encounter it, and do not care that other people are defrauded by such cheating. Is that correct? Does time change the facts? Absolutely, and you will find no one claiming otherwise. But criticizing them for mistakes, and willfully covering up fraud which you say FOR A FACT is occurring, are two entirely different things. So, you come onto the CGC board, accuse a seller of selling a "fake" copy of Venom #1 black, accuse CGC of being incapable of detecting faked copies of same, offer absolutely no proof of any of this...and you're complicit in fraudulent activity by refusing to notify anyone that you know...for a fact, mind...that someone successfully slipped faked copies by CGC, and sitting back while others are defrauded by said fake copies. Wow.

I, too, graded it as a 9.0. Didn't think the URC front cover and bottom of spine back cover were that bad. Ah well.

That's a beauty. And so very fitting that the "first issue" of the Doom Patrol has a strange font for the issue number.

Photobucket, in its day, was the premiere picture hosting site. It was relatively easy to use, and quick, and had no peer on the internet. Now, sadly, like Myspace, it has gone the way of the dodo, and is no longer viable. Sad. Photobucket ~ 2003-2017. Gone, but not forgotten. RIP

No. I hate being negative. So, you know what the answer to that is, then...

Red herring; nobody claimed that anyone said that. As stated earlier, these books are not embossed. The issue is not (and never has been) that the foil can be removed and that these can be faked. No one, throughout the entire course of the discussion, has disputed that. The issue is whether or not they can be faked in a manner that will fool CGC, which was your original claim. I want to make sure I understand you correctly: you know...for a fact, meaning you can prove it...that someone has slipped by faked copies of the Venom black through CGC? Did you notify CGC at the time that someone was defrauding them and collectors? If not, why not? Who is this person who is defrauding people? Where are these faked graded copies? If you have proof, show it. You have a duty and an obligation to out those who are cheating others if you have direct knowledge of it. Otherwise, impugning the ability of CGC to tell a fake from a genuine on their own message board is questionable, at best.

Feel better...?

Even considering Jaydogrules' example, that is an interesting foil pattern, and I'm not quite convinced that that one is really a fake... Remember, foil can be offset incorrectly in a number of ways, like this example: and this:

Wrong again, dude. The remaindered foil is pretty much always random, as can be seen here on another faked one. God only knows how many faked ones CGC has graded, I suspect, given the hundreds on the census and counting, that the number is not in-substantial. -J.  Notice what Jaydogrules has done, here. He's offered an example of one he plainly claims has been faked, in comparison with two examples that were graded by CGC (both of which show the consistent foil pattern of the real versions.) He's conflated the fake with the genuine, and either cannot tell the difference between the two, and so claims that the foil pattern (the key factor in determining fake from real) is irrelevant, or he knows very well the difference, and is trying to muddy the water by saying "see? The foil patterns are all over the place!" To which I say "yes, obviously, on a fake, the foil pattern would be all over the place. No doubt about it." And on the genuine ones, the foil pattern is NOT all over the place, or "pretty much random" as Jaydogrules puts it. The foil pattern is one of the key indications, if not THE key, to distinguishing a faked copy from a genuine one. This is how rumors persist. I would ask where Jaydogrules got his example, and how it was achieved, but he refuses to ask direct questions, which is unfortunate. I agree with him, that the example he provided is a fake, and would never be graded as genuine by CGC. Here is another example of a genuine copy, from the Jan 5, 2003 Heritage auction: Now, notice that the foil on this one is oriented to the right. That's different from above, but notice that the orientation pattern is still consistent...that is, you don't see right AND left oriented foil remnants.

I am sorry that you're unfamiliar with the critical thought process, whereby one derives answers to questions they have by objectively analyzing the facts to arrive at a conclusion. If I "always come across" in some manner, I would suggest that that is your interpretation, reading into comments your own biases, rather than what is actually written on the screen. If you think there is a "strong possibility that these can be faked" in a manner that will fool CGC (which is the basis of this entire discussion), again..for the third time...I invite you to share such evidence. If you have no evidence, however, I would ask you to consider your obligation to your fellow collectors to not spread rumors that are unsubstantiated.

Yea i dont remember the specifics but the guy who was creating them lived in chicago and used a heat method to lift the chrome up without damaging the book. Dont get me wrong, i do believe a lot of these black venom errors are legit printing errors, but i know what i saw and the Ebayer trying to sell me 10 or so error comics told me where they came from. There is also a legit counterfeit printed black venom error as well. This is how rumors persist, gentlemen. Someone will read what you wrote, and then, down the road, will remember that someone, somewhere said it was possible, and they heard of a guy who had done it, etc etc etc....all the while providing absolutely zero evidence. "I know a guy who knew a guy" isn't evidence. Here is a closeup of the title of the CGC 9.8 Venom black that sold at Heritage on Aug 2 of last year: See the "ghost" of the foil, especially on the "O"? It's around the other letters, too. Notice how it's always on the left, but not the right? That's how it is on the entire cover. Now. I am not a printer, nor have I ever worked for a printer, and know very little about the printing process. But common sense suggests that if someone tried to "lift" the foil that it would not be possible to leave perfect, consistently placed remnants like this. Here's another, even more stark example, the CGC 10 sold on Feb 25, 2010: Again, same orientation of the foil that is there. Are those separate pieces of foil? How would a counterfeiter be able to leave such a consistent remnant pattern? I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying you can't claim it's possible, provide zero proof, and not expect to be challenged on it. If you have any actual evidence, it would be of great benefit to the entire comics community to see it.

Dude! you know so much about this book and the process, Is it possible? , I mean I have been hearing it for years and there was something on the net a while back that I cant find. Seems like many, many people have mentioned or claimed that this happens , Are you saying that this has never happened? are you saying that its impossible? Do you know something that can put this "rumor" to bed? Dude! What I know or don't know about this book isn't relevant, nor am I making any claims about it. Someone claimed that a book someone else was selling was fake, and that he knew how it was faked. When asked for proof, claimant was unwilling and unable to provide any. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "claimed that this happens." What is "this"? That these books are faked? Or that fakes are produced that fool CGC? The answer to the first is "yes, absolutely", and the answer to the second is a solid "no." By all means, if you have evidence of this book being faked in a way that will fool CGC, share it. The community needs to be aware of these things, wouldn't you agree?

This thread's taken some interesting turns.... I'm glad to see the piece up for sale again. I bid on it at Heritage and, of course, lost by a lot. It will be fun to bid to lose again.

The book isn't embossed. Again if you're entirely unfamiliar with the book, the process used to make it, and the process to "create" fakes, how can you possibly say, with any degree of certainty, that the example you pointed to is an example of one...?

Oscar Wilde wrote his greatest works drunk...so did Hemingway...

Is that like when someone asked you where you were published and you said 'not relevant'? Exquisite strawman you've defeated, sir! Bravo!

In other words "I'll confront you only if I have all my buddies around me and you are by yourself" Very brave of you! As expected. When one "argument" is debunked, pivot to another. "I will only take shots at you where I know I can get away with it!!" Go away, kav. You're ruining yet another thread.

I will comment as much and as often as you wish, in a neutral forum that will not artificially end the conversation, and will allow all parties to say what they need to say, regardless of what. Until you are willing to do that...and you have been thoroughly unwilling to do so heretofore...go away, kav.

Since he wont answer I will-he claimed to be a 'published comic historian' because of all his online posts about comics. Pretty relevant, I would say. Go away, kav.

Go away, kav.

Not relevant. Don't take kav's bait. If you're interested, send me a PM. Well you did call me VAK for a while-there's that self-awareness thing again.... Well ok then I'm just 'playing a game' saying things then refuting other things and not actually 'provoking'. See how that works? Go away, kav.

Was it a humble brag when you claimed to be a 'published comic historian'? No, and you are misusing the term "humble brag." That is a fine, high quality strawman you have constructed. Go away, kav.