CGC Response on Suspected Ewert Books

[DrWatson]

Hello Michael,

 

If CGC were to post this list, would there be any type legal ramifications against them for posting that information on a public chat board?

 

Furthermore, let's say the list gets published. Where would it get published? Who would see it? How many of the owners of the current books in question would even care. What do you do if they don't?

 

Why isn't the list compiled by the Network of Disclosure sufficient? Why isn't there a thread here in General entitled "The Big Possible Jason Ewert Trimmed Book List"? I believe I saw part of a list that Barton dug out of some obscure post that promptly got buried again.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass. These are legitimate questions I would have if we were talking face to face at lunch in Orlando.

[buttock]

I want to clarify that I'm not calling CGC "liars", simply that I don't think that anyone can reliably claim to detect or rule out trimming when done well. I think in some cases, there are probably tell-tale signs, but I'm sure there are probably just as many cases with no signs. Therefore a CGC "OK" doesn't mean it's not trimmed. Nor would an OK from anyone else.

 

I don't mean to sound glib, but what then? What do you do with a book that nobody can tell if it's been trimmed?

 

I'm just trying to understand if you are saying no ones opinon(be it CGC, Matt, Susan , Tracey , even Hammer) holds enough water for you to feel secure enough to buy a book because they "might" be wrong. Or simply that even though to the best of everyones knowledge a book does not appear to be trimmed, it still can be and people should be aware of that fact.

 

Which leads me back to my question, what then? What would you rather see

(in this instance) CGC do differently?

 

 

 

Regarding CGC's response about the Ewert submission list, timeframe and return policy.. well sorry Paul, I think your non answer stinks. I admit I do not fully understand all the dynamics of the Ewert fiasco, nor how CGC came to it's decision on how to best handle the "situation" But from the cheap seats it sure does not make sense why you are so unwilling to meet what appears to be a very simple request and work with everyone who has voiced concerns be they valid or not. Even if it means getting a more blackerer eye short term.

 

 

I'm NOT criticizing CGC here. I'm simply trying to point out that this check/certification/clearance - whatever you want to call it - isn't quite a panacea.

 

I like what Zipper68 said about it being a "due diligence" thing, but I want people to realize that if CGC gives it a blue label, it doesn't mean it's not trimmed.

[Transplant]

Hello Michael,

 

If CGC were to post this list, would there be any type legal ramifications against them for posting that information on a public chat board?

I won't give legal advice for CGC, they have their own lawyers and I'm not barred in Florida. But hypothetically, I doubt there are any real potential liabilities to speak of. As far as I'm aware this is not any type of privileged information that they would be sharing. I'm also not aware of any contractual limitations on CGC sharing the data based on the submission forms. The only possible problem that I could see would be some possible slander to title of the books. The argument could be that they have put a cloud on the book's legitimacy. 2 things though. 1) CGC doesn't guarantee a book to be resto free. 2) Their publishing such a list would not even be saying that something was definitively wrong. Only that they requested people return them for review. Similar to the automaker publicizing a recall. The mfr. isn't liable for the fact that the car might have a problem.

 

Furthermore, let's say the list gets published. Where would it get published? Who would see it? How many of the owners of the current books in question would even care. What do you do if they don't?

Publish it here on their main website, Scoop, etc. I don't know a good answer to that. Wherever it's likely to reach the most people who collect. If the owners don't care, that's their prerogative. The list wouldn't just be for them. It would be for potential buyers as well.

Why isn't the list compiled by the Network of Disclosure sufficient? Why isn't there a thread here in General entitled "The Big Possible Jason Ewert Trimmed Book List"? I believe I saw part of a list that Barton dug out of some obscure post that promptly got buried again.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass. These are legitimate questions I would I have if we were talking face to face at lunch in Orlando.

I would be likely leaving out something if I tried to explain how the list on the NOD website was compiled, so I won't try. That list is, at best, an educated guess, as to the books that were either submitted or sold by Ewert. Nothing in the lists says that a particular book was trimmed. The fact is that CGC KNOWS which books were submitted by Ewert. CGC KNOWS which of those books are in the registry. We may not be privy to it, but there may have been discussions with Ewert that detailed which books were modified.

 

All in all, very reasonable questions to ask Jim. Now, quit calling me Michael and I'll buy you one of those sissy drinks you drink when we meet next. Maybe in Orlando.

[The Question?]

 

 

[tth2]

I've seen blatantly MACROtrimmed books in blue CGC holders. I don't take them at their word on this.

 

I want to clarify that I'm not calling CGC "liars", simply that I don't think that anyone can reliably claim to detect or rule out trimming when done well. I think in some cases, there are probably tell-tale signs, but I'm sure there are probably just as many cases with no signs. Therefore a CGC "OK" doesn't mean it's not trimmed. Nor would an OK from anyone else.

CGC aren`t perfect!

 

Maybe some of us had never ascribed this omnipotence to CGC that you seemed to have. They`re not perfect, but they`re better than any other commercially reasonable alternative that I have seen so far.

[DrWatson]

Thank you, Miguel.

 

BTW... I don't drink sissy drinks. That's Buck Biggins. Mai Thais, hello?

[comicdonna]

Hello Michael,

 

If CGC were to post this list, would there be any type legal ramifications against them for posting that information on a public chat board?

I won't give legal advice for CGC, they have their own lawyers and I'm not barred in Florida. But hypothetically, I doubt there are any real potential liabilities to speak of. As far as I'm aware this is not any type of privileged information that they would be sharing. I'm also not aware of any contractual limitations on CGC sharing the data based on the submission forms. The only possible problem that I could see would be some possible slander to title of the books. The argument could be that they have put a cloud on the book's legitimacy. 2 things though. 1) CGC doesn't guarantee a book to be resto free. 2) Their publishing such a list would not even be saying that something was definitively wrong. Only that they requested people return them for review. Similar to the automaker publicizing a recall. The mfr. isn't liable for the fact that the car might have a problem.

 

Furthermore, let's say the list gets published. Where would it get published? Who would see it? How many of the owners of the current books in question would even care. What do you do if they don't?

Publish it here on their main website, Scoop, etc. I don't know a good answer to that. Wherever it's likely to reach the most people who collect. If the owners don't care, that's their prerogative. The list wouldn't just be for them. It would be for potential buyers as well.

Why isn't the list compiled by the Network of Disclosure sufficient? Why isn't there a thread here in General entitled "The Big Possible Jason Ewert Trimmed Book List"? I believe I saw part of a list that Barton dug out of some obscure post that promptly got buried again.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass. These are legitimate questions I would I have if we were talking face to face at lunch in Orlando.

I would be likely leaving out something if I tried to explain how the list on the NOD website was compiled, so I won't try. That list is, at best, an educated guess, as to the books that were either submitted or sold by Ewert. Nothing in the lists says that a particular book was trimmed. The fact is that CGC KNOWS which books were submitted by Ewert. CGC KNOWS which of those books are in the registry. We may not be privy to it, but there may have been discussions with Ewert that detailed which books were modified.

 

All in all, very reasonable questions to ask Jim. Now, quit calling me Michael and I'll buy you one of those sissy drinks you drink when we meet next. Maybe in Orlando.

I know this threads is about CGC's actions but, the thread on the NOD forum is very much appreciated by myself and many others. I would like to publically commend Brad for his 100's of hours he has on this project. Even though it's a guess as you said, I will say an extremely educated guess. His thread, at the very least, can alert people of "suspect" books!

[tth2]

If you're happy that CGC gave your Ewert book a bill of clean health, then good for you. I personally wouldn't place much stock in that.

If they KNOW it`s a Ewert book and can therefore scrutinize the book really carefully, then my degree of confidence in them catching the trimming goes up quite a bit, actually.

 

But the fact is, it`s easy enough to criticize, but what is your proposed alternative? In the absence of any commercially reasonable alternative, CGC`s re-review is the best that we can do for the time being.

 

The only other choice that I can see is we all just become paralyzed by fear because the world has suddenly become an uncertain place.

[tth2]

I don't think that anyone can reliably claim to detect or rule out trimming when done well. I think in some cases, there are probably tell-tale signs, but I'm sure there are probably just as many cases with no signs. Therefore a CGC "OK" doesn't mean it's not trimmed. Nor would an OK from anyone else.

 

I agree with this. Just like a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean someone is innocent, a CGC OK means they can't tell with certainty it is trimmed.

 

This is not a knock on CGC... when done on the cover only and a very small amount is taken off, it may very well be impossible to know with certainty in some cases. Especially if the paper is fresh and well preserved... it may not exhibit some of the same "cracking" or snags that can happen when typically aged paper is cut.

 

Does that invalidate the certification in your opinion?

 

In this case, I think "certification" means that you've exercised due diligence in pursuing the truth.

 

Could I sell the book to another owner knowing I did my best to determine I wasn't passing off tainted goods? Yes.

 

Would I bet my life the book isn't trimmed? No.

(thumbs u

[tth2]

I like what Zipper68 said about it being a "due diligence" thing, but I want people to realize that if CGC gives it a blue label, it doesn't mean it's not trimmed.

I`m suddenly getting a flashback to metaphysical discussions from Philosophy classes in college. Although I appear to be sitting here writing this and believe that I wrote it, doesn`t mean that I really wrote it. Perhaps "I" am not even I.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

I agree Mike,

 

Brad has put forth alot of time and effort with this project. And it is very much appreciated. (thumbs u

[buttock]

I've seen blatantly MACROtrimmed books in blue CGC holders. I don't take them at their word on this.

 

I want to clarify that I'm not calling CGC "liars", simply that I don't think that anyone can reliably claim to detect or rule out trimming when done well. I think in some cases, there are probably tell-tale signs, but I'm sure there are probably just as many cases with no signs. Therefore a CGC "OK" doesn't mean it's not trimmed. Nor would an OK from anyone else.

CGC aren`t perfect!

 

Maybe some of us had never ascribed this omnipotence to CGC that you seemed to have. They`re not perfect, but they`re better than any other commercially reasonable alternative that I have seen so far.

 

Hi Tim. Something bugging you, or do you just feel like being a ?

 

You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make.

[buttock]

If you're happy that CGC gave your Ewert book a bill of clean health, then good for you. I personally wouldn't place much stock in that.

If they KNOW it`s a Ewert book and can therefore scrutinize the book really carefully, then my degree of confidence in them catching the trimming goes up quite a bit, actually.

 

But the fact is, it`s easy enough to criticize, but what is your proposed alternative? In the absence of any commercially reasonable alternative, CGC`s re-review is the best that we can do for the time being.

 

Go read my first post again. My issue is not with CGC. It's with this push to have all books evaluated, which is predicated on a non-existent ability to reliably detect trimming.

 

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

 

The only other choice that I can see is we all just become paralyzed by fear because the world has suddenly become an uncertain place.

 

nice drama queen. Bravo.

 

 

[tth2]

Go read my first post again. My issue is not with CGC. It's with this push to have all books evaluated, which is predicated on a non-existent ability to reliably detect trimming.

I did understand your post, and I disagree with it. CGC`s ability to reliably detect trimming is not non-existent, it`s just not infallible. There`s a big difference. Just because it`s not infallible doesn`t mean it`s not reliable or non-existent. Otherwise, all of us should be terrified to get on an airplane because not every one is made perfectly, although I`m not sure that anyone would genuinely say that Boeing or Airbus aren`t reliable manufacturers.

 

And I believe that CGC`s detection ability DOES markedly improve when they KNOW they`re supposed to be on the look-out for something. I don`t think that makes them incompetent, all humans are better at detecting something when they know to look out for that something.

 

So I don`t understand the naysaying in having CGC evaluate books, because (i) the quality of their resto detection has actually been proven to be pretty high, (ii) it`s definitely better than my own resto detection ability and (iii) there is no reasonable commercial alternative because it would be very expensive to pay Susan or Matt to review each book rather than CGC.

 

Now if your point is to simply remind everyone that CGC is not infallible, then I wholeheartedly agree with that, but that`s not what I was getting from your post. In any event, given the context of this thread, I think everyone is painfully aware that CGC is not infallible.

[buttock]

Go read my first post again. My issue is not with CGC. It's with this push to have all books evaluated, which is predicated on a non-existent ability to reliably detect trimming.

I did understand your post, and I disagree with it. CGC`s ability to reliably detect trimming is not non-existent, it`s just not infallible. There`s a big difference. Just because it`s not infallible doesn`t mean it`s not reliable or non-existent. Otherwise, all of us should be terrified to get on an airplane because not every one is made perfectly, although I`m not sure that anyone would genuinely say that Boeing or Airbus aren`t reliable manufacturers.

 

And I believe that CGC`s detection ability DOES markedly improve when they KNOW they`re supposed to be on the look-out for something. I don`t think that makes them incompetent, all humans are better at detecting something when they know to look out for that something.

 

So I don`t understand the naysaying in having CGC evaluate books, because (i) the quality of their resto detection has actually been proven to be pretty high, (ii) it`s definitely better than my own resto detection ability and (iii) there is no reasonable commercial alternative because it would be very expensive to pay Susan or Matt to review each book rather than CGC.

 

Now if your point is to simply remind everyone that CGC is not infallible, then I wholeheartedly agree with that, but that`s not what I was getting from your post. In any event, given the context of this thread, I think everyone is painfully aware that CGC is not infallible.

 

Fair enough.

 

How about this. Would you feel completely comfortable buying a former Ewert book that had been cleared by CGC?

[tth2]

Go read my first post again. My issue is not with CGC. It's with this push to have all books evaluated, which is predicated on a non-existent ability to reliably detect trimming.

I did understand your post, and I disagree with it. CGC`s ability to reliably detect trimming is not non-existent, it`s just not infallible. There`s a big difference. Just because it`s not infallible doesn`t mean it`s not reliable or non-existent. Otherwise, all of us should be terrified to get on an airplane because not every one is made perfectly, although I`m not sure that anyone would genuinely say that Boeing or Airbus aren`t reliable manufacturers.

 

And I believe that CGC`s detection ability DOES markedly improve when they KNOW they`re supposed to be on the look-out for something. I don`t think that makes them incompetent, all humans are better at detecting something when they know to look out for that something.

 

So I don`t understand the naysaying in having CGC evaluate books, because (i) the quality of their resto detection has actually been proven to be pretty high, (ii) it`s definitely better than my own resto detection ability and (iii) there is no reasonable commercial alternative because it would be very expensive to pay Susan or Matt to review each book rather than CGC.

 

Now if your point is to simply remind everyone that CGC is not infallible, then I wholeheartedly agree with that, but that`s not what I was getting from your post. In any event, given the context of this thread, I think everyone is painfully aware that CGC is not infallible.

 

Fair enough.

 

How about this. Would you feel completely comfortable buying a former Ewert book that had been cleared by CGC?

Actually, I would, because I think the book would have been scrutinized very carefully, much more carefully than the average book, because they KNEW it was a Ewert book and knew what to look for.

[buttock]

 

Fair enough.

 

How about this. Would you feel completely comfortable buying a former Ewert book that had been cleared by CGC?

Actually, I would, because I think the book would have been scrutinized very carefully, much more carefully than the average book, because they KNEW it was a Ewert book and knew what to look for.

 

And therein lies the crux of my argument.

[batman_fan]

we already know cgc misses the trimming even after they knew about the ewert deal. Remember the thread where a Ewert book was re-submitted by a well known dealer even after he was told it was a Ewert book without disclosing to CGC that it was a Ewert book. Came back in a blue holder. Was resubmitted a third time and declared trimmed. Of course before and after scans 100% confirmed it was trimmed may have helped it get a "trimmed" declaration otherwise it may have made it through the detection process a third time.

[sterlingcomics]

Oh, and another question for CGC...

 

Why is Tom Brulato no longer reimbursing purchase price in the event of a book being determined to have been trimmed?

 

When was this communicated?

 

Thanks for reposting this response...I've sent an inquiry to CGC about my books and hope to receive a response soon...

 

I agree with Jim's response...to say that the list is inaccurate doesn't do anything to help people who pay premiums for these books to help AVOID BUYING these books.

 

I'm also in favor of CGC automatically communicating the prospective status of the book when submitted in the registry.

 

I have no illusions that CGC is perfect (nor expect them to be), but as a company they could do consumers a great service by implementing one or both of these recommendations

[lou_fine]

we already know cgc misses the trimming even after they knew about the ewert deal. Remember the thread where a Ewert book was re-submitted by a well known dealer even after he was told it was a Ewert book without disclosing to CGC that it was a Ewert book. Came back in a blue holder. Was resubmitted a third time and declared trimmed. Of course before and after scans 100% confirmed it was trimmed may have helped it get a "trimmed" declaration otherwise it may have made it through the detection process a third time.

 

Bat Fan;

 

Exactly what I have been saying all along! (thumbs u

 

CGC's ability to detect Jason's type of micro-trimming increases significantly if you tell them in advance that you are submitting an Ewert book. I do not have as much confidence in their ability to consistently detect the micro-trimming if you submit the book to them "blind".

 

They just have too many books coming in to check them all so closely for micro-trimming that is so expertly done. With Ewert's books, they know in advance and I am sure will spend a lot more time checking the book for this one specific thing.

 

The other question I have is, what if their are other micro-trimmers out there who are just as proficient as Jason, but with their own unique micro-trimming technique? What would CGC's chance then be of catching this if it has not yet been brought to their attention through before and after scans?