JC25427N

On 12/21/2023 at 7:49 PM, D2 said:

Sorry to ask if this has already been asked, but has CGC or anyone from CGC acknowledged any of this yet? At all?

Has there been any official word whatsoever or so far has this been conversation exclusively outside of CGC?

Yeah someone linked to the response here:

On 12/21/2023 at 7:04 PM, agamoto said:

Hoo boy…

so I use WorthPoint, which allows searching through historical records of eBay sales going back to the beginning.

i searched for a phrase briva3 uses in all their descriptions… "the $$$ and hard work has already been done for you”

the result? Over 1200 listings…. Hundreds upon hundreds of high grade books too. So many friggin spider-man 300’s.

This is devastating.

listings go back to 2015

 

That would have to mean (if all the listings you found truly are the same seller) that prior to 2016 he sold under a different account since he only has 723 items sold on his account made in 2016 

On 12/21/2023 at 7:39 PM, agamoto said:

Just a sampling of some of the earliest posts.

 

Does worthpoint give you the seller's ebay name too? I feel like some variation of "The money and hard work has already been done for you" isn't an uncommon phrase for people selling graded books (Although the exact use of $$$ may be more discriminating) 

It would help if half of every page wasn't diluted with "If I were CGC I would...." posts. Does anyone really care what another boardie would do, I just care what CGC will actually do 

On 12/21/2023 at 7:25 PM, Mr. Spider-Woman said:

What's the crime committed here the part of the seller? Some kind of fraud, probably? It's clear something shady is going on but I'm curious what laws the seller has broken.

I think pages like 10-30 have a drawn out discussion about that including some boardies who are lawyers giving their thoughts

On 12/21/2023 at 6:22 PM, WestcoastDAVEngers said:

I need some help here just cause my glasses wearing stupid eyes can't confirm.

The asm 194 9.8 Briva sold on 10/3/23 and the second set of pics is a 9.6 that sold on ebay on 4/29/23 

Wrap is the same, notch below the bar code is the same, the mark on back is the same (although it does appear on at least 1 other book) 

but the giveaway to me is the top, you can see in the hi-res photos that it has some red spray, and you can faintly see it in the 9.6 - BUT the white notch is in the same spot above the "CS" in Marvel comics group

 

 

 

 

Wait sorry, I didn't read this right the first time. If you think this is another example of the reholder exploit the seller is doing, you'd have to find an older pic of that 9.8 slab with that same certification number and see if the older pic shows a clearly different book than the one in it right now. The trick in this case (since I think the methodology is getting lost in all these posts) is that the 9.6 you found, was slipped into a 9.8 slab with that cert number and reholdered (retaining the same cert number) to make the whole slab "clean" again, and then the true 9.8 was resubmitted to have another 9.8 slab and "double dip". So if you find an old picture from a sale of that 9.8 cert number with a clearly different book in it, then you found another example. Otherwise it just seems like a 9.6 getting a 9.8 on regrade without that other picture as reference

It's different than the green label IH 181 example because the same book going from green to blue makes it obvious that a swap was done, so we don't need the 3rd picture as reference for that, and with the ASM example we did have that 3rd picture showing that cert used to contain a clearly different book

On 12/21/2023 at 7:06 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

What am I not understanding?  Enlighten me….

It's a fright coward risk obviously 

On 12/21/2023 at 6:22 PM, WestcoastDAVEngers said:

I need some help here just cause my glasses wearing stupid eyes can't confirm.

The asm 194 9.8 Briva sold on 10/3/23 and the second set of pics is a 9.6 that sold on ebay on 4/29/23 

Wrap is the same, notch below the bar code is the same, the mark on back is the same (although it does appear on at least 1 other book) 

but the giveaway to me is the top, you can see in the hi-res photos that it has some red spray, and you can faintly see it in the 9.6 - BUT the white notch is in the same spot above the "CS" in Marvel comics group

 

I'd stick with the slam dunks...this one just seems like a 9.6 being cracked out and getting a 9.8 on resub (which even if its not, and its also part of some weird plot of slipping a 9.6 into a 9.8 slab and then resubbing the 9.8 to double dip, there's no way to really prove that in this case since you'd have to find the true 9.6 in a 9.8 slab...and whats a 9.6 and 9.8 to CGC can change 50 times a day so...yeah I'd just let this one go, its a much weaker/less impactful example)

On 12/21/2023 at 2:23 PM, Axelrod said:

 

Problem for him right now is, he has no idea who this guy is.  Guy has an ebay account.  Maybe an Instagram account.  Things which are anonymous and easily changed.  Guy probably also lives in a completely different State from him.  

 

Wouldn't he have the return address on the package? (assuming he actually received it)

On 12/19/2023 at 10:11 PM, cstojano said:

Its funny how the 600k Stormtrooper costume sort of gets lost in this isn't it? 

Would love to hear predictions on the Guice TOD cover. Felix may have misspoke and called it #2 or maybe that one is coming this summer? Ditto for the Campbell cover. I like's his assessment that the interiors from that series are really the draw. The covers are very strange IMO.

Did they say which Campbell cover?

On 12/19/2023 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm not saying this is the issue, but are we not yet at the point where we DON'T give CGC the benefit of the doubt concerning their QC?

The number of mistakes I see - in not even really following this topic anymore - is CRAZY... 

The raw number of mistakes being reported here is pretty large, but what if the actual QC error rate is 1% of total submissions? To me that seems like an acceptable margin of error, and considering the total number of submissions CGC probably gets 1% would still be a large number. I don't know that's the case it's just a hypothetical, but my point just is that basing a conclusion on a raw number seems fallible. 

Possibly, but you'll need a system for maximizing this comic's value  

On 12/14/2023 at 2:17 PM, CAHokie said:

That’s the thing. Getting enough documentation and people willing to move forward. Even then, the Police/Courts will have to agree it’s worth pursuing criminally and not just say, “It’s a civil matter, you can take him to court.”

Even if they decide its a criminal matter and get a search warrant for the stolen property, would the owners even get their books back right then and there? Wouldn't the books be seized as evidence until the case is settled?

What are your thoughts?

He drew that?  I drew that 

On 12/4/2023 at 8:26 PM, batman_fan said:

Not sure about anyone else but I definitely get all my financial and stock investing advice from a comic book message board.  I declined purchasing Nvidia stock in 2020 because I was certain the stock certificates had been pressed and potentially trimmed.

Excuse me sir, this is a returns message board. Discuss returns or get out 

On 12/3/2023 at 11:12 AM, comix4fun said:

Does anyone know if this artist was related to Eduardo Barreto? 

The artist is Eduardo Barreto, the name is just misspelled in the banner

On 11/29/2023 at 11:49 PM, Will_K said:

Interesting.  For the HA piece, the buildings in bottom left are shaded.  But not for the Dino piece.

Yeah someone I've been talking to has pointed out a few more differences. Barreto's signature between Huntress and the Rocket isn't there on Dino's piece, and if you look at the scan of the entire board that Heritage has https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/eduardo-barreto-wonder-woman-319-cover-original-art-dc-1984-/a/7244-95043.s the writing on the top right of each board don't match up

Is there a thread for anti-flips? 

Dino sold this cover on today's dueling dealers for $2500

Sold 2 years ago at Heritage for 16.8K

Someone at some point these past 2 years must have taken a real bath on this before it got to Dino

On 11/29/2023 at 7:31 PM, redrighthand said:

and I don't know how many times I've seen a fully inked piece called a sketch just because it wasn't a cover or interior page. 

 

This might sound weird but I think it's just because of laziness (for lack of a better word). I don't think any of the alternatives are as pithy as sketch. Drawing, Illustration? I think the next best one would just be calling everything "pieces"

On 11/29/2023 at 3:07 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Man, there is a lot of grey area in there to define that as a prelim. And of course, philosophically: is it a prelim if it never became something more? If not, I'd say it was a sketch - just as you pointed out.

I would think that an artist would refer to something that never saw completion (commercially or personally) a 'work study' – as a sketch that never got finalized or rejected seems more like a practice exercise. I have reams of artwork that never turned into anything, and I always referred to them as work studies.

I'd go with the definition that prelim means something done in preparation for something else greater. So if the intent when this piece was drawn was for it to lay the ground work for a greater piece, I'd say it fits the definition of prelim even if that greater piece never actually ended up happening, as long as the intent was there. 

Edit: actually you know what, thinking about it more, I don't agree with myself. Because an artist could have a quick sketch they intended at the time to be nothing more than some quick doodling that they may later reuse as inspiration for a greater piece. But the way I defined it earlier would make that original sketch not a prelim since the intent wasn't there at the time. 

I don't know anymore, I'd just go with prelim means unfinished like comix4fun said 

On 11/28/2023 at 12:24 PM, KirbyCollector said:

I retired at 51 and daytrade for fun using an established charting methodology. My charting simply tells me we may be looking at an event similar to the dotcom crash (i.e., 10 years to return to the highs) but broader based. I'm not speaking from emotion, but from data derived from charts. I could certainly be wrong, but I avoided losses in 2008 and 2020 (wasn't trading in 99) so I have a little confidence in my methods. As the old investment advisor saying goes, "Do your own due diligence." 

For the record, never met Gene nor do I know him personally. I do know his reputation for financial acumen, however.

I'm not saying this is you or making any comment about your proficiency, but the last time I almost trusted someone who told me they daytraded as a hobby and found massive success with it, their advice was based on them taking an Udemy course on technical indicators and a rudimentary application of a simple moving average and bollinger bands. I didn't take their advice because as you say "Do your own diligence" but I wouldn't have been happy if I did. 

The only reason I even bring it up is because I got reminded of it because he came to me with the same sort of line "My charting is saying....". So it's just to say you may know of the right tools, and be doing analysis based on data rather than feelings or fundamental analysis, but that in and of itself doesn't make a methodology more or less valid or guarantee success (neither does past performance as the other old advisor saying goes). I don't know if you're right or not, I'm not by any means an expert on this type of stuff either, but I'm just wary of anyone who tells me they know what the market will look like in the future with as much confidence and eagerness as you express. 

On 11/27/2023 at 10:40 PM, stormflora said:

Our chargebacks do not work the same way as they do in the US. You can't just say "Oh, I never made this purchase, reverse it.", and it'll happen instantly without any questions asked.

The credit agency in question will either do one of two things: 1) Mark the card lost/stolen or 2) Dispute the transaction.

In the former case, that's more serious, as it involves filing for fraud, and you go through an entire process having the entire card replaced and resent through the mail, etc. The agency will reverse the transactions, but you get internally flagged as they monitor for any additional misuse. They start up an investigation if the amount refuted is large. Should really only be used as a last resort.

In the latter case, you don't actually get your money back. They open up a case just like PayPal would open up a dispute, and you have to wait for things to settle. It may or may not be ruled in your favour, or may involve additional steps like getting into contact with the retailer and a bunch of other jazz that leads to a bunch of back-and-forth, the same kind of situation you'd be in from directly requesting a refund from the retailer.

Ah, I slightly misunderstood what you meant then, my bad. But even then what you described is how chargebacks in America work as well. I'll admit I don't have much experience filing chargebacks (probably a good thing), but the one time I did for items that I bought but never received, when I filed the chargeback I was given a temporary credit on my account that freed up the amount I was charging back and then a case was opened and I had to wait about 2 weeks or so for my bank to do their investigation and then I was given a notice saying they ruled in my favor and that the credit would become permanent. 

On 11/27/2023 at 3:54 PM, stormflora said:

 

This is definitely a possibility. Chargebacks are still possible for American credit cards (for whatever the hell reason, while that practice is not permitted in Canada), which means the seller could have their comic effectively stolen.

 

This is the first I'm hearing that Canada does not allow credit card chargebacks, every resource I found online says otherwise. It's just not allowed for fraudulent reasons (same as America as far as I know)

https://nomoredebts.org/blog/credit-cards/how-to-dispute-credit-card-charge-get-chargeback#:~:text=Yes%2C but only for certain,getting double-charged by mistake.

https://creditcardgenius.ca/blog/credit-card-chargeback-canada

Why would you want the concept of a chargeback to not exist at all? What if you pay with a credit card through a direct processer and not through a platform that offered buyer protection (like Paypal or Ebay). The buyer could have their money literally stolen. It defeats one of the biggest benefits of using a credit card