Insane press and flip Avengers 1.

[Bronty]

Just guessing here... but notice the avengers 1 staples before manipulation are skewed towards the fc. That would make it a good candidate wouldnt it? Because post manipulatiin will sorta be where they should have been in the first place

[BeachBum]

Cert numbers pulled from current on ebay.

 

Notice the 10569XXXXX series.

 

25 books my azz.

 

serial number range and total for that invoice number

 

 

1056932001 1056932005 5

1056940001 1056940007 7

1056943001 1056943011 11

1056945001 1056945005 5

1056946001 1056946012 12

1056947001 1056947012 12

1056954001 1056954011 11

1056956001 1056956011 11

1056963001 1056963015 15

1056967001 1056967007 7

1056969001 1056969009 9

1056970001 1056970014 14

1056971001 1056971015 15

1056972001 1056972006 6

1056973001 1056973015 15

1134925001 1134925012 12

1134926001 1134926012 12

 

total 179

 

There's an Avengers #1 7.0 with reverse spine roll that someone uncovered in the thread in General... from an invoice very close to invoices above... 1056961

[Dark Knight]

Cert numbers pulled from current on ebay.

 

Notice the 10569XXXXX series.

 

25 books my azz.

 

serial number range and total for that invoice number

 

 

1056932001 1056932005 5

1056940001 1056940007 7

1056943001 1056943011 11

1056945001 1056945005 5

1056946001 1056946012 12

1056947001 1056947012 12

1056954001 1056954011 11

1056956001 1056956011 11

1056963001 1056963015 15

1056967001 1056967007 7

1056969001 1056969009 9

1056970001 1056970014 14

1056971001 1056971015 15

1056972001 1056972006 6

1056973001 1056973015 15

1134925001 1134925012 12

1134926001 1134926012 12

 

total 179

 

There's an Avengers #1 7.0 with reverse spine roll that someone uncovered in the thread in General... from an invoice very close to invoices above... 1056961

 

Yep saw that too yesterday. Newly listed on eBay. I'm wondering now if he will actually send all those books back to CGC for evaluation or sell them elsewhere?

[joeypost]

However, this opens up a can of worms as he is not taking the book apart, nor adding color touch, nor trimming, etc.

 

Forgive me if someone already addressed this in one of the two threads, but has anyone outlined exactly what process this guy must be using to do this? Are we sure it doesn't involve disassembly? I'm having trouble envisioning how he's doing this without removing the staples.

 

No disassembly required.

[Comicopolis]

I'm amazed by the concept that CGC grade more leniently for back cover damage than front cover damage. They are supposed to be grading based on the amount of wear and damage to a book, moving the damage around a bit shouldn't raise the grade at all.

 

I'm not. I think it is only natural. We are all conditioned to put more focus on the front cover than the back, intentionally or not. Not saying that makes it right but I'm not surprised.

 

Exactly.

I think probably most collectors/dealers are likely to give a book a higher grade if the same defect is on the back cover rather than the front cover.

That's probably one reason why I think that there are so many poor graders then.

 

Damage is damage no matter where it's located.

 

This is the truth,

[fantastic_four]

Forgive me if someone already addressed this in one of the two threads, but has anyone outlined exactly what process this guy must be using to do this? Are we sure it doesn't involve disassembly? I'm having trouble envisioning how he's doing this without removing the staples.

 

No disassembly required.

 

So what exactly is he doing?

[sufunk]

Forgive me if someone already addressed this in one of the two threads, but has anyone outlined exactly what process this guy must be using to do this? Are we sure it doesn't involve disassembly? I'm having trouble envisioning how he's doing this without removing the staples.

 

No disassembly required.

 

So what exactly is he doing?

 

Basically the same as the "lady" in your gift, except on the comic community instead of a supermarket aisle (thumbs u

[rjpb]

I'm with you on this, but apparently some major players, including CGC, find considering back cover flaws a lesser evil than front cover flaws anathema, and believe that all flaws are equal and cumulative regardless of placement.

 

Why are you including CGC in that camp? Numerous examples of back cover flaws receiving far less weight in overall grade tend to contradict the idea that they think the back and the front cover defects should bear equal weight. The entire idea of this thread and spine-shifting would be moot if CGC downgraded the front and back equally.

 

I used to know where Overstreet fell on how much to incorporate back cover defects into grading, but I've been too distant from grading for too long and I forget now. Anyone remember if Overstreet has mentioned how to weigh back cover defects in his grading guides?

 

While there certainly seem to be examples of back covers being more lightly treated on slabbed books, apparently this is not policy. The following quotes are from the General Thread concerning this Avengers #1

 

When i talked to CGC about my Avengers 4 downgrade, i was told REPEATEDLY that back cover faults count just as much as front cover faults (thumbs u

 

 

yeah, this

 

Let me emphasize the word REPEATEDLY. I would guess this was said to me approximately 20 times during the course of a 10 minute conversation.

 

 

[Bronty]

If he said it to you 20 times... let's call a spade a spade... he was just trying to get rid of you

[sufunk]

If he said it to you 20 times... let's call a spade a spade... he was just trying to get rid of you

 

You have NO idea just how true that is regarding my particular issue

[rjpb]

If he said it to you 20 times... let's call a spade a spade... he was just trying to get rid of you

 

You have NO idea just how true that is regarding my particular issue

 

Perhaps you should have shifted the spine towards the back of the book, as it appears to make those back cover flaws more difficult to detect

[bronze johnny]

What do you think the endgame is going to be with this?

[Spiderphill]

Cert numbers pulled from current on ebay.

 

Notice the 10569XXXXX series.

 

25 books my azz.

 

serial number range and total for that invoice number

 

 

1056932001 1056932005 5

1056940001 1056940007 7

1056943001 1056943011 11

1056945001 1056945005 5

1056946001 1056946012 12

1056947001 1056947012 12

1056954001 1056954011 11

1056956001 1056956011 11

1056963001 1056963015 15

1056967001 1056967007 7

1056969001 1056969009 9

1056970001 1056970014 14

1056971001 1056971015 15

1056972001 1056972006 6

1056973001 1056973015 15

1134925001 1134925012 12

1134926001 1134926012 12

 

total 179

 

There's an Avengers #1 7.0 with reverse spine roll that someone uncovered in the thread in General... from an invoice very close to invoices above... 1056961

 

Yep saw that too yesterday. Newly listed on eBay. I'm wondering now if he will actually send all those books back to CGC for evaluation or sell them elsewhere?

Honestly, Why should he have to send any of these to be reevaluated? If anything it's CGC's problem. Unless they buy the books out right from him, they can't say anything really. They're sitting in blue labels. That's a lot of submissions to question. If they had to "reevaluate" 179 books, that undermines everything they stand for.

[Spiderphill]

Remember he was following CGC's rules and has kept every book blue. Dont forget that.

[brendanb438]

Cert numbers pulled from current on ebay.

 

Notice the 10569XXXXX series.

 

25 books my azz.

 

serial number range and total for that invoice number

 

 

1056932001 1056932005 5

1056940001 1056940007 7

1056943001 1056943011 11

1056945001 1056945005 5

1056946001 1056946012 12

1056947001 1056947012 12

1056954001 1056954011 11

1056956001 1056956011 11

1056963001 1056963015 15

1056967001 1056967007 7

1056969001 1056969009 9

1056970001 1056970014 14

1056971001 1056971015 15

1056972001 1056972006 6

1056973001 1056973015 15

1134925001 1134925012 12

1134926001 1134926012 12

 

total 179

 

There's an Avengers #1 7.0 with reverse spine roll that someone uncovered in the thread in General... from an invoice very close to invoices above... 1056961

 

Yep saw that too yesterday. Newly listed on eBay. I'm wondering now if he will actually send all those books back to CGC for evaluation or sell them elsewhere?

Honestly, Why should he have to send any of these to be reevaluated? If anything it's CGC's problem. Unless they buy the books out right from him, they can't say anything really. They're sitting in blue labels. That's a lot of submissions to question. If they had to "reevaluate" 179 books, that undermines everything they stand for.

 

No if they "reevaluate" all books that may be apart of this then they are stepping up to the plate to keep their integrity as a grading company intact. I do not see admitting they may have made a mistake and trying to fix it as undermining what they stand for. I see it as them fighting for what they stand for.

[Mark Zaid]

Cert numbers pulled from current on ebay.

 

Notice the 10569XXXXX series.

 

25 books my azz.

 

serial number range and total for that invoice number

 

 

1056932001 1056932005 5

1056940001 1056940007 7

1056943001 1056943011 11

1056945001 1056945005 5

1056946001 1056946012 12

1056947001 1056947012 12

1056954001 1056954011 11

1056956001 1056956011 11

1056963001 1056963015 15

1056967001 1056967007 7

1056969001 1056969009 9

1056970001 1056970014 14

1056971001 1056971015 15

1056972001 1056972006 6

1056973001 1056973015 15

1134925001 1134925012 12

1134926001 1134926012 12

 

total 179

 

I wrote:

 

The submitter only very recently created an account and to date has submitted fewer than 25 books

 

This is an accurate statement.

[Killgrave]

Honestly, Why should he have to send any of these to be reevaluated? If anything it's CGC's problem. Unless they buy the books out right from him, they can't say anything really. They're sitting in blue labels.

 

I guess if he refuses to resubmit them, couldn't CGC refund the entire amount of what was billed and remove the serials in question from their online registry. This would then make them 'void' so at the very least would make any potential buyers who perform a Certification Lookup prior to purchasing/bidding very hesitant to proceed.

[nmtg9]

How many buyers would look the book first? Not many I assume.

 

This dealer obviously doesn't see that he has done anything wrong so he is unlikely to hand the books over because he knows he will take a massive hit.

 

To be blunt it's not his fault CGC graded them as they did and chances are he will be doing everything he can to move these books on and then they may disappear from sight and lost to CGC.

[fantastic_four]

I'm with you on this, but apparently some major players, including CGC, find considering back cover flaws a lesser evil than front cover flaws anathema, and believe that all flaws are equal and cumulative regardless of placement.

 

Why are you including CGC in that camp? Numerous examples of back cover flaws receiving far less weight in overall grade tend to contradict the idea that they think the back and the front cover defects should bear equal weight. The entire idea of this thread and spine-shifting would be moot if CGC downgraded the front and back equally.

 

I used to know where Overstreet fell on how much to incorporate back cover defects into grading, but I've been too distant from grading for too long and I forget now. Anyone remember if Overstreet has mentioned how to weigh back cover defects in his grading guides?

 

While there certainly seem to be examples of back covers being more lightly treated on slabbed books, apparently this is not policy. The following quotes are from the General Thread concerning this Avengers #1

 

When i talked to CGC about my Avengers 4 downgrade, i was told REPEATEDLY that back cover faults count just as much as front cover faults (thumbs u

 

 

yeah, this

 

Let me emphasize the word REPEATEDLY. I would guess this was said to me approximately 20 times during the course of a 10 minute conversation.

 

 

Given that there's consistency visibly evidence in their grading for an extended period of time suggesting leniency on back cover defects, I'm finding this extremely difficult to believe. I've been out of grading for a few years, but I recall citing numerous examples in the past of CGC's clear tendency to assign less weight to back cover defects. Sufunk, do you know the name of the person you were talking to who told you this? Aside from the fact that it sounds like a dubious claim, I'm probably twice as surprised that the person even mentioned this to begin with--usually CGC is tight-lipped about revealing their standards. Did you extract this from the person on the phone with your usual, err, CHARM that you often use on forum members, Sufunk?

[fantastic_four]

How many buyers would look the book first? Not many I assume.

 

This dealer obviously doesn't see that he has done anything wrong so he is unlikely to hand the books over because he knows he will take a massive hit.

 

To be blunt it's not his fault CGC graded them as they did and chances are he will be doing everything he can to move these books on and then they may disappear from sight and lost to CGC.

 

I agree, he's not going to resubmit them without significant compensation. It IS his fault, however. This guy knows EXACTLY what he's doing, there is no doubt about that. You can't hold CGC completely 100% responsible for knowing every possible way to manipulate a book. Certainly most people WILL hold them responsible, no doubt about that, and they're certainly responsible for keeping up with that state of the art to the best of their ability, and it seems to me they've done that at least reasonably well over the course of the years by taking these situations quite seriously and publicly commenting on their focus on improving their detection techniques, but to blame CGC and hold the people pulling off the shenanigans blameless is Bizarro World backwards thinking. Restoration isn't a crime, but it's still akin to blaming the police for not catching a criminal and holding the criminal blameless--something that's also not reasonable and something that plenty of people also do every day.