BCR

On 12/26/2023 at 3:05 PM, Genuine Article Comics said:

So what does this all mean for collectors?  Blind allegiance and loyalty to the company? Angry posts and videos that amount to words only and no action? Jumping ship to the only real choice in 3rdPG? 

The reality is, nothing will come of this. Nothing at all. Collectors will complain and moan, all the while still sending CGC books for grading and CGC smiles at you and gives you the finger. Another scandal arises and it's rinse and repeat from collectors ad nauseam.

This thread will do nothing toward sparking any tangible change because it will do nothing to negatively impact revenues which is the only thing corporations respond to.

I actually disagree. I think re-holdered books will be scrutinized more aggressively by buyers. I think buyers will finally be more discerning when it comes to buying a book based just on grade. Actually look at the book you’re buying, ya know? Have your OWN grading system that you can apply to the book. 
 

of course books with tattoos, coupons, etc, I think those will require an investigation if they’re in the new label. 
 

Also, this won’t have any impact whatsoever on modern books tbh. This is more of an issue for bronze, silver and golden age. 
 

And further? I think we’ll see a policy change at CGC where re-hollering is now a new grading (which is what it should have always been). 
 

Last, I genuinely could see CBCS getting a bit of a boost because of this. 

I’m actually SHOCKED CBCS hasn’t come forward to tell us all why this could never have happened under their watch. 

Every single CGC that has ever been re-holdered is now potentially a counterfeit on some level. Lesser grade, a literal counterfeit…

We can never buy another CGC book as collectors if that book has been re-holdered. Especially if that book is in the thousands of dollars. 

The glaring thing to me, and correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it literal the policy of CGC that if we send in a book for re-hollering, that that book will be subjected to re-grading? 
 

Like, think about how preposterous it would be if you could send in ANY book that’s currently within a holder and you automatically receive the same grade. That’s not just non-sensical, it’s absurd, hence — to my understanding — there is a mandatory re-grading with every re-holder. 
 

On the particulars, this person might’ve done this with the same newly submitted book over and over and over and over again. On our end, we would only see the two books (the submission and the re-holder), but he then still has that original book. He then resubmits it and it all starts all over again. He could’ve done this 50 times with the same book. Always buying a cheap version (say, green label) version, and going through this process. This could be hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud. 
 

Again, it’s imperative that we find out who has purchased these books so that they can file this fraud with the FBI. Each one of these cases are punishable by up to 20 years in prison. This person needs to be removed from civilized society. And CGC needs to help do it if they want any chance of coming back from this. 

On 12/21/2023 at 11:36 PM, zombielunch said:

if you go through the submissions are generally small like 8 or less books. i know it's one eBay store but i am saying the submission process might be more than one account to make it less obvious what is happening, otherwise this one guy is constantly sending in ASM 238 and hulk 181 in for reholdering (though i suppose the excuse he could use is "i wanted a custom label")

Oh, yeah. I doubt they’re doing all fraud books. This is probably one or two fraud book per submission. So one or two fraud re-holder/custom label and the rest just submissions. 

On 12/21/2023 at 11:37 PM, Nick Furious said:

If the fraudulent books maintain the original cert number (which is how the scam was uncovered), I don't really follow how they can be tied to any other books?  

Basically you type in the very number (say, ending in 4), and then type the next cert number down 3, 2, 1 etc. When we do that, we see books that the person has/had on their site for sale — and the types of books they typically sell. It’s not perfect and irrefutable, but likely. 
 

Again, though, CGC knows exactly who this account belongs to with regards to the books that we know are fraudulent re-holders. 

On 12/21/2023 at 11:19 PM, zombielunch said:

are we even sure this is all on a single cgc account?

who's to say this isn't a group using multiple accounts to further obfuscate the scam from CGC's perspective?

It appears to be the same account judging by the cert number comparisons. One of the videos started numbering down from known fraudulent certs and the books appear to be books that the seller has on their eBay store. So it is one person doing this. And CGC knows (objectively) who it is. 

How has CGC not yet released the list of all cert numbers this customer has submitted. 
 

We need to find the actual people who own these books so that they can submit their complaint to the FBI, perhaps collectively. Every single one of these cases of wire fraud are punishable by up to 20 years in prison. 
 

CGC should aid in finding the owners of these books if possible, and work with them and the FBI. This is tens of thousands of dollars (at minimum) in fraud. We can’t stop until we find out who committed this fraud, who was defrauded, and they’re brought to justice.

So, I only looked at the first two on the slip so that I could be surprised when the books arrived. 

Plot twist — 

Woo HOO! 
 

The money, the submissions, the wait, the emails and calls - all feels worth it. So happy CGC took the time they didn’t have to take to make sure they got it right and made the change. 
 

90s 10%, 00’s 5% and 10’s 1-3% is the rule of thumb. 
 

No reason to break your brain too much beyond that.

Videos are kinda cringe on the part of the Youtuber. 

On 2/15/2023 at 1:05 PM, Yorick said:

CGC has traditionally had a difficult time differentiating between small changes like this in a print run.  I have read plenty of times where they have mis-labeled underground comics or small press published comics.

Have you heard of the Grand Comicbook Database?  Perhaps sign-up to be a member there and add these notes to their record.  I have read that sometimes CGC will use the data from GCD to make a determination on book labels that they (CGC) have no record of.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll 100% do that. I also planned on maybe making a video afterwards just to inform Overwatch fans of the differences, etc. 

The good thing is that the first printing “Convention Edition has it written in the top right corner (though it’s very small), and so it’s just issues #1 and #7 that really require scrutiny, as there’s only 1 printing of #6, #8, #13 and the free comic book day Zarya first appearance.

Oh — sidebar. The customer service lady I talked to today was a big Overwatch fan (especially of their animated shorts), so I think it was good that she at least sorta understood what the comics even are. Haha

On 2/15/2023 at 12:48 PM, Yorick said:

Photos are always helpful.

In the one I am quoting above, are these the two versions?  I may be seeing things, but it appears that the one on the right side has had the creator's names moved slightly upward over the background artwork.  The artist signature is now closer horizontally to the typeset names (and also foot of that main cover character).

That’s exactly right.  

The one on the right (the toy pack version) is also a normal cover stock, while the first printing on the left has a card stock cover.

Issue #7 has a similar exchange, going from card stock on the first printing to regular paper on the reprint. 

Overwatch is a massive video game obviously, but if it ever becomes “mainstream” like other properties, this would have caused a huge issue for passive buyers (especially for issues #1 and #7, which are both substantial key books). 
 

The dad picking up a graded #1 for his kid’s birthday or the girlfriend grabbing a slabbed book for her boyfriend likely isn’t going to know the difference by eyeballing it. So I’m just extremely grateful if CGC can get the census to accurately reflect things. At the very least it will give the grader a moment’s pause to investigate what they’re looking at. 

On 2/15/2023 at 12:40 PM, lostboys said:

I always view the census as a rough estimate.

Why would anyone want to grade the book that came with the toy?

 

So what’s interesting about Overwatch/Blizzard is that they first released their comics digitally. After that, they printed a small amount of convention editions for #1 (McCree first appearance) #2 (Rheindhart first appearance) #7 (Ana and Pharah first appearance, and #13 (Doomfist first appearance). 
 

Years later, they reprinted issues 1, 2 and 7 to go with the backpack hanger toys. But they ALSO did FIRST printings of issue #6 (first appearance of Torbjorn) and #8 (not sure if it has significance off the top of my head). 

So, for instance, the #8 that’s on the census today is JUST the toy comic, as there is no other version of the book. 
 

As to why someone would get the toy comics of 1, 2 and 7 graded? #2 first print has gone for some pretty high prices graded. But really it’s like everything else in pop culture, it all depends on broader outcome and appeal. Overwatch is a massive property, but those gamers are still young, and we haven’t seen life action adaptations of it yet. 
 

Personally, I could see issue #1 and #7 falling into a kind of “Whitman” category, as they were specifically printed for the toy AND are of a lesser cover stock, potentially making them more difficult in high grade. HOWEVER, they’re entirely ubiquitous and the print run is likely in the tens of thousands, unlike the first edition card stock covers. 

So — who knows? Haha 

On 2/15/2023 at 5:40 AM, Doomed said:

That's a pipe dream dude. CGC has been in business for 22 years, it ain't happening.

So WOO HOO? Maybe? 

Just got off the phone with CGC and they’re going to try and stop shipment, pull the books and re-label the reprints as reprints, which will accomplish what I set out to do — create the census tier for the reprints. 

It’s funny because she was concerned that we wouldn’t know which #1 was the reprint, and I told her that it’s the one that was intentionally damaged. Haha 

She laughed and was like “FOUND IT!” 

So I’m really glad I damaged the reprints so that it made this whole thing easier. 
 

So — fingers crossed. At the very least when a book comes in in the future, the grader will be able to see “reprint” as a category and will pause to figure out how the book should be labeled. 

I’ll update once it’s confirmed. Hopefully they were able to stop shipment before it goes out. 
 

When I told her this was officially the nerdiest call I’ve ever made, she said, “Well, you called the right place.” Haha

On 2/15/2023 at 5:40 AM, Doomed said:

That's a pipe dream dude. CGC has been in business for 22 years, it ain't happening.

I think most people agree on one piece of the census — the 9.8s are reflective of an (almost) absolute truth. 
 

Every grade beneath that is always going to be subject to potential cracking. 
 

But 1) This isn’t just about the census, it’s about the collectible being correctly labeled. And 2) Overwatch isn’t Spawn #1 or some massive Spiderman book with tens of thousands of graded copies. This specific census is in its infancy, and what I’m trying to do is help (as a customer) to lay the correct foundation. 

Of course it could still be subject to the same issues as other books, but what it should not be subjected to is having #1 first prints and #1 reprints (that have different set covers AND different paper stock covers) filed under the same category. Especially since this is an issue I’ve brought up to them multiple times to the point where I’ve sent in my physical books and paid to ensure that the census and labeling be as close to accurate as is possible. 
 

The grader was given BOTH books in the same submission. The books are WILDLY different. And the grader is filing these two WILDLY different books under the same census tier. Knowingly and purposely doing their job incorrectly. 
 

I am (marginally) satisfied with them creating the “convention” tier for the 1st printing of #2, despite what issues that creates for previously graded books, and despite it assigning the incorrect publication date to the 2nd printing (an egregious error that is easily rectified), but for #1, it’s just an abject and intentional failure on the part of the grader.

The books are literally right now today with CGC. They can right now today fix the issue I’ve previously and am currently pointing to. There’s zero excuse not to fix the issue.

On 2/14/2023 at 6:46 PM, comicginger1789 said:

The census has nothing to do with the hobby. If you feel it does, forgive me but you are hobbying wrong. As stated it really tells you nothing beyond how rare an older 40s book may be and how hard a certain book may be to find in 9.6-9.8 grades (example if there are 6000 copies graded but only 40 in those grades). 
 

People often try to say “only x on the census” as some sort of feature. Yeah there are only 24 graded copies of Omega The Unlnown issue 5 on the census because there are only 25 fans of the character (one guy keeps his issues raw). That book is super common! And I see no reason to freak out that the label for that issue doesn’t show “first appearance of El Gato” because again who cares! It’s not that important.

I’m not sure I understand the “hobbying wrong.” There isn’t a wrong way to hobby IMO. The census being as close to correct as possible and the  labeling being exactly correct every time when paying for a service seems reasonable. 

As it pertains to the first appearances of characters from Overwatch, I would only be able to compare them to things like Sonic, Mario, Pokemon, God of War, Last of Us, etc. 

It’s a different line than superhero books, but I’d say they’re no more or less important to the people who care about video game characters. Like everything else, it’s a niche within a specific hobby.

On 2/14/2023 at 12:46 PM, comicginger1789 said:

The census is the most useless tool on the planet. Bothering to concern yourself with it is a waste of time.

Yes, it is nice to have everything properly labelled and all but with more obscure things on obscure titles, CGC just does not really care. If it does not really move the needle in terms of importance, they don't care. Labelling a first print vs second print of TMNT #1 matters. Labelling a first/second print of the indie series Space Pirates: The Planetary Crusaders from Jarimo Press Inc....not so much.

Also, consider the fact I could send in that book and get a 7.5. But then I crack, press and send back and get 8.0. But THEN I crack and send to a better presser and resubmit and get 8.5. That book shows 3 on the census when really there is 1 book. CGC doesn't care about that and neither should you.

Unless it is a book from the 40s, the census to me does not do much outside of showing rarity in those cases and, in the cases on certain books, which ones are hard to obtain in high grade.

I care somewhat about the census, but probably even more about the labeling of the collectible being correct. 
 

Secondarily, though, I think the census should have some effort put into it by the community. For instance, when you crack a slab you’re supposed to inform CGC so that they remove it from the census.

The tidier the census, the better the hobby IMO. 

On 2/14/2023 at 11:57 AM, mattn792 said:

I would've backed that up in the email.  Counting on the grading folks to not just toss your notations in the trash is a bad bet.

If the grader is holding two books with completely different paper stock used (literal card stock cover vs non card stock) it feels like they have to intentionally not want to do their job correctly if they’re ignoring notes attached to them.

This is a similar situation where, to my knowledge, CGC has not assigned a reprint status to the toy comic for Incredible Hulk 314. 

This is a reprint published at a later date. 
 

People in the know might be able to discern that difference, but the difference should be established on the slab itself. 

On 2/14/2023 at 11:35 AM, mattn792 said:

@BCR - more specifics in your email would have helped, such as actual publication dates and marked up photos of each version with arrows, circles...whatever demonstrating the difference between each version that you're highlighting.  The basic wall of text isn't terribly effective.

I sent in very clear and succinct notes attached to the physical books. I reiterated that they are reprints and even provided their publication date on the note. Additionally, the books are physically different — different stock for the covers. I’ve also since put images in this thread. 

On 2/14/2023 at 11:33 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

The fact that you're talking about Issue #1 and #2 at the same time is driving home my suspicion that you confused CGC. As of this point, I no longer understand your beef with Issue #2. To be honest, it's better off that I leave this thread. Hope you get the response(s) you're looking for.

The notes on the physical comics (which are composed of differing stock) stated succinctly the source of the reprints. 
 

The issue with #2 is that it isn’t reflecting the correct publication date for the reprint toy version. Additionally, the “convention editions” are already under “Issue 2” tier. This creates a new tier. I’m fine with the creation of that new tier for that comic, but the publication date is still incorrect for the toy version reprint.  

On 2/14/2023 at 11:15 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

You're not going to be able to fix the Convention Editions being counted as 1st Printing, though.

The convention editions are the first printings — but it’s not super relevant that they say “first printing” as much as the toy versions are lumped on the census with convention editions. 

The much more complex issue is #1. Because there are no identifying difference between the first print and the second print except for a slight alteration to the artwork. 
 

If you’re holding the physical book, the first print is card stock, and the second print is normal floppy paper. 

On 2/14/2023 at 11:00 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Considering that they've only graded like 4 copies of this book, how else would CGC learn the differences? Based on your first post here, it could be safe to assume that the notes included with your books were confusing to CGC's staff.

I did some brief research after my last comment and there's only like 3 total images on Google about the "Convention Exclusive" for Issue #2. With a very little amount of information available regarding this issue, you're going to need to be concise if you wish for CGC to fulfill the books with complete accuracy.

The notes on the books were concise. 

The notes read: “2nd printing toy box comic” 

Additionally, the actual submission form noted the two second printing toy comics. 

They ignored both the physical notes attached to the comics and the submission form. 
 

The only “action” they took was to create a NEW tier on the census for Overwatch #2 called the “Convention Edition” — which all (to my knowledge) of the graded Overwatch #2’s already are. 

These are issues I’ve also called them about, spoke to human beings who said they understood the issue. 

Literally paying money to have the census corrected was my final option. So to see it even now not being addressed is bothersome. 

Hopefully since they are still in the process of slabbing, it can be amended. Hence the email and the post here.