Over 300 unchecked Ewert books in the Registry!

[Flaming_Telepath]

Yes, this is correct.

Nick (flaming telepath) I sent a book at the time through John (John Skoulides, a London LCS owner) and was very surprised to have it come back essentially 'as is'.

I personally wanted and expected a new serial number, and assumed that what the books were being sent back for with the resto check. But obviously not.

 

Was there some additional criteria applied to certain books resulting in a full cracked inspection, I'm unsure.

 

CGC would really need to chime in at this point...

 

Stacy, it's not correct at all.

 

If the books were within the submission date range, they were all cracked, checked and either reslabbed with a new serial number, or held and reimbursement sent.

 

If your returned books were 'as is', it's because they had not been submitted by Jason during the 'critical time-frame'.

 

However, how that time frame was arrived at is still a mystery?

[brasseye]

Well the book was submitted on the basis that it was on 'the list'.

 

So the presumption then is this is not the same 'list' that CGC has in respect of Jason Ewarts franken books. And that their list thus is smaller.

 

Do we have a submission sequence version of the list... the serial numbers can't be sequnetially listed in respect to the submission, and slabbing by CGC.

 

[brasseye]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

[Silver Surfer]

Great thread. Can someone pass this scan on to Hook. I bought this off of Ejerk probably in 2003 before the water was tainted so to speak. Love to hear from Borock as to how they came up with a specific date range for potentially tainted books, what did they take Ewart's word for it?

[Flaming_Telepath]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

[Moondog]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

There's no question that the community needs to know why CGC decided on this particular date range.

 

It simply couldn't be arbitrary. There had to be a reason.

[lou_fine]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

There's no question that the community needs to know why CGC decided on this particular date range.

 

It simply couldn't be arbitrary. There had to be a reason.

 

Gary;

 

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer from CGC to this particular question. It's probably as difficult as trying to get them to finally disclose their grading standards.

 

I believe CGC simply has too much to lose if they try to answer this question as their response would probably not pass the mustard. It is in their best interest to limit the collateral damage as much as possible.

 

There are already too many other related questions such as CGC's ability to consistently,detect micro-trimming, identity of the trimmer, and the possibility of other trimmers out their successfully practicing their own form of micro-trimming.

 

Definitely in CGC's (and the uber HG buyers) best interests to stay mum on this subject and ride out the waves from the radicals on this board instead of opening up this can of worms again.

[tth2]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

I'm going to start calling you Flaming Quixote.

 

And yes, I think your chances of success are just high as Don's.

[brasseye]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

I'm going to start calling you Flaming Quixote.

 

And yes, I think your chances of success are just high as Don's.

 

So they're willingness to resolve the most serious breach to their reputation in the history of the company has it's limit's

 

And by the look of things, they took some limiting action. Only 'these books from this time period' were affected guys, oh ya, we're not going to say what part of Ewarts fiasco it is

[Theagenes]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

There's no question that the community needs to know why CGC decided on this particular date range.

 

It simply couldn't be arbitrary. There had to be a reason.

 

Gary;

 

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer from CGC to this particular question. It's probably as difficult as trying to get them to finally disclose their grading standards.

 

I believe CGC simply has too much to lose if they try to answer this question as their response would probably not pass the mustard. It is in their best interest to limit the collateral damage as much as possible.

 

There are already too many other related questions such as CGC's ability to consistently,detect micro-trimming, identity of the trimmer, and the possibility of other trimmers out their successfully practicing their own form of micro-trimming.

 

Definitely in CGC's (and the uber HG buyers) best interests to stay mum on this subject and ride out the waves from the radicals on this board instead of opening up this can of worms again.

 

I would be happy if they would just quietly inform all those owners with suspect books in the registry about the situation and offer them the free check proactively. That would be the responsible thing to do. I hope they are already doing this. I don't think those are radical expectations.

[brasseye]

Again, we really need CGC to chime in and lend some real information to the questions raised here.

 

There's no question that the community needs to know why CGC decided on this particular date range.

 

It simply couldn't be arbitrary. There had to be a reason.

 

Gary;

 

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer from CGC to this particular question. It's probably as difficult as trying to get them to finally disclose their grading standards.

 

I believe CGC simply has too much to lose if they try to answer this question as their response would probably not pass the mustard. It is in their best interest to limit the collateral damage as much as possible.

 

There are already too many other related questions such as CGC's ability to consistently,detect micro-trimming, identity of the trimmer, and the possibility of other trimmers out their successfully practicing their own form of micro-trimming.

 

Definitely in CGC's (and the uber HG buyers) best interests to stay mum on this subject and ride out the waves from the radicals on this board instead of opening up this can of worms again.

 

I would be happy if they would just quietly inform all those owners with suspect books in the registry about the situation and offer them the free check proactively. That would be the responsible thing to do. I hope they are already doing this. I don't think those are radical expectations.

 

Well they did do this with a blanket offer to check all suspected books. But only books within the 'specified date range' were cracked and issued a new serial number.

Thus those books not reslabbed are left in some hazy grey area after the process, as CGC has not issued a list of checked books.

[Theagenes]

Brasseye, are you talking about the original offer from several years ago? The origianl offer was announced here, but only those owners who happened to hear about it were aware of the situation. With these books currently in the registry, it is a situation where they have individual contact info for owners of suspect books (in the date range). They should contact these owners directly, just like manufacturers do with a product recall. That is just the right thing to do.

[brasseye]

I do recall there were several members charged with the trask of contacting book owners, through ebay account contact details, etc.

And the contact rate was high from what I remember. So the scope of the list extended beyond just these forums and it's members at the time.

CGC did not participate at all in the side of the restitution, just simply supplied the offer to check, and return free of charge.

 

I only recall Sterling as being one the boardies involved in contacting Ewart book owners, though there were others. We need them to contribute information at this point.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I do recall there were several members charged with the trask of contacting book owners, through ebay account contact details, etc.

And the contact rate was high from what I remember. So the scope of the list extended beyond just these forums and it's members at the time.

CGC did not participate at all in the side of the restitution, just simply supplied the offer to check, and return free of charge.

 

I only recall Sterling as being one the boardies involved in contacting Ewart book owners, though there were others. We need them to contribute information at this point.

 

I took a chunk of names and contacted them. Take up wasn't that great. Not surprising, really, as who the hell was I to e-mail someone out of the blue and inform them that they may have 'tainted' books?

 

The only people with the rep to do this is CGC themselves, but I suspect they see this as advertising their deficiencies.

[Mr. Zipper]

I do recall there were several members charged with the trask of contacting book owners, through ebay account contact details, etc.

And the contact rate was high from what I remember. So the scope of the list extended beyond just these forums and it's members at the time.

CGC did not participate at all in the side of the restitution, just simply supplied the offer to check, and return free of charge.

 

I only recall Sterling as being one the boardies involved in contacting Ewart book owners, though there were others. We need them to contribute information at this point.

 

A group of us volunteered to contact known ebay winners of Ewert books. We sent the winners a brief overview of the situation and referred them back to the thread that had more details about the free check, etc.

 

Of the people I contacted, about 1/3 responded in any way.

[brasseye]

I do recall there were several members charged with the trask of contacting book owners, through ebay account contact details, etc.

And the contact rate was high from what I remember. So the scope of the list extended beyond just these forums and it's members at the time.

CGC did not participate at all in the side of the restitution, just simply supplied the offer to check, and return free of charge.

 

I only recall Sterling as being one the boardies involved in contacting Ewart book owners, though there were others. We need them to contribute information at this point.

 

A group of us volunteered to contact known ebay winners of Ewert books. We sent the winners a brief overview of the situation and referred them back to the thread that had more details about the free check, etc.

 

Of the people I contacted, about 1/3 responded in any way.

 

That's right, you guys were given lists of names to contact. Any idea how the other's got on?

[dgillock]

Hi. For those of you who do not know me, my name is Douglas Gillock. I am the Sales and Auction Coordinator at ComicLink.

 

The following books, which are included in our January 8th auction, were brought to our attention as possible Jason Ewert submissions and were immediately sent to CGC for review:

 

ASM #27 CGC 9.4 #0615305005

ASM #31 CGC 9.4 #0615305007

ASM #33 CGC 9.6 #0615305009

ASM #41 CGC 9.4 #0615305016

ASM #47 CGC 9.6 #0700042016

ASM #50 CGC 9.4 #0615305019

ASM #132 CGC 9.8 #0626904010

 

I just spoke with Mark Haspel and he let me know that of these 7, only the ASM #132 was submitted to CGC by Jason Ewert. That book has now been reviewed by CGC and cleared. It will be recertified to avoid further confusion and we will be changing the picture in the auction listing as soon as it comes in from CGC. The other 6 comics were not submitted by Jason Ewert. They have also been reviewed and CGC has determined that the books are not trimmed. These will not be recertified as they were not submitted by Jason Ewert. We wanted to post and make sure that everyone is clear that the issues in question have been addressed.

 

We will do our best to reply to any follow-up questions, but please keep in mind that we are launching a major auction this evening and we might not be able to immediately respond.

 

 

Here is a book that is scheduled to go live on January 8th.

 

Amazing Spider-Man #47 CGC 9.6 White pages cert. # 0700042016 graded on 2/9/2005

 

 

I called Josh at ComicLink to let him know about the three suspect ASMs in the upcoming auction. The books are being overnighted to CGC for review.

[VintageComics]

Well that's a ray of sunshine.

 

Thanks for the quick heads up!

 

(thumbs u

[Transplant]

Thanks Doug. I think CGC should clarify why the selected dates for review were chosen and what CGC #s were submitted by Ewert.

[paperheart]

Hi. For those of you who do not know me, my name is Douglas Gillock. I am the Sales and Auction Coordinator at ComicLink.

 

The following books, which are included in our January 8th auction, were brought to our attention as possible Jason Ewert submissions and were immediately sent to CGC for review:

 

ASM #27 CGC 9.4 #0615305005

ASM #31 CGC 9.4 #0615305007

ASM #33 CGC 9.6 #0615305009

ASM #41 CGC 9.4 #0615305016

ASM #47 CGC 9.6 #0700042016

ASM #50 CGC 9.4 #0615305019

ASM #132 CGC 9.8 #0626904010

 

I just spoke with Mark Haspel and he let me know that of these 7, only the ASM #132 was submitted to CGC by Jason Ewert. That book has now been reviewed by CGC and cleared. It will be recertified to avoid further confusion and we will be changing the picture in the auction listing as soon as it comes in from CGC. The other 6 comics were not submitted by Jason Ewert. They have also been reviewed and CGC has determined that the books are not trimmed. These will not be recertified as they were not submitted by Jason Ewert. We wanted to post and make sure that everyone is clear that the issues in question have been addressed.

 

We will do our best to reply to any follow-up questions, but please keep in mind that we are launching a major auction this evening and we might not be able to immediately respond.

 

 

Here is a book that is scheduled to go live on January 8th.

 

Amazing Spider-Man #47 CGC 9.6 White pages cert. # 0700042016 graded on 2/9/2005

 

 

I called Josh at ComicLink to let him know about the three suspect ASMs in the upcoming auction. The books are being overnighted to CGC for review.

 

i'm confused- if the NOD list was accurate, why were 6 of these 7 books on the list if they weren't submitted by JE?