Lightning55

It was voted out, 6-1.

Sorry for leaving you hanging....I had to read 200 posts to catch up. I do see what you mean, but I am looking at it from the perspective that if a slab is checked, it's ok and gets a new number, that number now has the CGC Seal of Approval. It has been fully reviewed. We can look it up to see if the grade or label stayed the same. If no change, a false positive. If the grade changes, or goes from blue label to green or purple, it was a scam book. Full transparency. Too much to ask?

I did say, a long way back, that when a book is checked and reholdered, the old number and new number would stay on the list, for a paper trail. At the time, it was not stated that the old number would stay on the list with a strike-through. I thought they were literally going to "take it off the list", as in remove it. So the strike-through works great. But we should see what the progression is on these books, as in did the grade change, or did it go from blue to green. We have no idea what % of these books are being found to be corrupt. This post was directed at the idea of inserting any new suspect cert numbers (new books thought to be scammed) onto the list in any random method. That it would be hard to track numbers added if not highlighted in some way, grouped in some way, and identified as additional suspect certs. And to inform us at such time that new certs have been added, so we have a heads up to check the new numbers.

I second this motion emphatically. New numbers being inserted randomly is a tracking nightmare. Even appending them is problematic, if no one knows there was a change to "The List". Someone here would have to be in charge of updating it in real time to keep it straight. Otherwise, over time "The List" becomes "Sorta The List". Additional cert numbers need their own mini-announcement. In groups, maybe. Or a separate thread started with the original list, and then posts from CGC as each number emerges and becomes part of the new list.

You have to bear in mind that not all titles have custom labels available. It's about a dozen per year, and changes roughly annually. Some characters continue with new versions of artwork, some are added, some retired. The Hulk label is discontinued, but several iterations of Wolverine have been available, currently and in the past. Same with Spider-Man.

Tanning or staining would work for me. Foxing usually has a more spotted appearance, in my experience. But whatever you call it, probably the same grade impact.

Maybe? Yeah, just maybe. Very subtle...not.

Did you consider the ramifications of sending it in to CGC for them to check? If they open it, altering it from its current state, it may affect its status as evidence, along with chain of custody issues. If you just want them to check and either reimburse you for value loss, or reslab if ok, then that is the right path. If you intend to pursue the seller, maybe the wrong path.

@Jibber82 Is this a book you saw for sale somewhere?

Congratulations! Nice book.

You are completely caught up, because to my knowledge, there was never any explanation offered as to the specific methodology used to compile the list. That part is still behind the curtain.

Or even 92%, if the value is high enough.

Technically, yes. If it was raw, no grading cost. If you got it for free, found it on the ground, or stole it, you would have zero basis. If you walked it over to the auction house, no shipping In reality, I wonder if even a single copy ever auctioned had those attributes. Very profitable. The only way you could make more would be to take a lower grade comic and slip it, surreptitiously, into a higher graded case. Oh...wait...

In Bizzaro World, yes.

Gross profit would have been an acceptable term. But not net profit. And I think you mean ROI, not RoE. And it wouldn't be ROI, which is expressed as a %. You mock a guy who got it wrong, as got it wrong. Priceless.

EXACTLY the same. Just like if you said that someone's response was based on ignorance, you are inferring that they are ignorant.

Not an accountant, I see. Quite funny that you are criticizing someone for these terms when you don't have them correct either. I think they call that being hypocritical. From your earlier post, you are defining net profit as what you receive after auction fees. This would actually be "net proceeds". What your net profit is would be the difference between what the book sold for, and all expenses involved (auction fee, shipping, original purchase price, etc.).

You cannot randomly add labels. The submission has to be entirely labels, or entirely non-label.

Books to be graded, and books to be reholdered, have to be in separate submissions, so their numbers would not be sequential or even related.

I suspect there are people doing time currently for fraud or embezzlement, however it was perpetrated. For this particular situation, if the perpetrator is found to be guilty of fraud, imprisonment would seem appropriate. But we won't know for a while how that goes. If the only remedy is civil suit, that isn't much of a deterrent. Even if you are successful and get a judgement, you may find it difficult to collect any damages. Winning and collecting are 2 different things.

I am surprised that some books are already being crossed off the list, presumably because some "authority" called CGC and explained why it shouldn't be on the list, because no one could have mailed their slab to CGC so quickly to get a determination. I would like to see that the number comes off the list because CGC only has in fact removed the book from the holder, authenticated it, and then reholdered, new certification. And the new certification # should be posted on that line item for a clear paper trail, as well as the old cert # added to the lookup information. This is a bad situation and needs a clear resolution. Anyone "fixing" specific books other than CGC only muddies the waters.

I fall into this group, also. I've had around 2000 books graded, an even spread of Bronze, Copper, Modern. About 20% were 9.8s. I got 1 or 2 with Grader Notes. And as low as 8.5 with no notes at all. Very different results than Mr. Scammer. Some people are just "lucky".

The announcement also allowed for the possibility of more books, since no one can be certain that there are not undiscovered swapped books out there: "If you have any questions, or if you believe you have a tampered book that is not on our list, please reach out to us at ReportFraud@CollectiblesGroup.com." I suspect that the list will be "fluid" in both directions. CGC did not say it was an exhaustive list.

Sounds like the normal screen process doesn't fit for you because you don't want the books back raw, losing the signature authenticity. Why not send them in for a straight C&P with regrading, no screening?

If you feel strongly about it, hoard a bunch of 23's. If they switch it, you're golden.