When will the other shoe drop with CGC and the 'crack, press, and resub' game? 3 3

[James J Johnson]

5 hours ago, comicwiz said:

I'm not sure I can agree with this statement at wholesale. When the Ewart scandal occurred, there were a number of us trying to compile all the before and after scans, which I in turn plugged into an open source registry. At one point, there were over 300 scans. I should also point out that while I attended a convention the very year the scandal happened, I overheard Ewart and Brulato brag that they had over 600 comics in with CGC. There were also a handful of books Ewart bought off me prior to the scandal, in which he significantly overpaid on, and which sounded some alarm bells in my mind, but until the scandal happened, I couldn't possibly fathom he might have done what he was found to be doing. Back to the registry I posted, it was publicly available for all to search and lookup, with serial numbers and identifying characteristics. That server was constantly bombarded with attempts to deep six it over an 8 month period, and finally I had to take it down. Unless you were there, and went through what I and others did to provide this information for the community, and the seemingly demented minds and motives of those who badly wanted this information to disappear, you can't diminish the comparison just with a few words as you have. In other words, the issue was far bigger then, and after CGC opened the floodgates for other "undetectable" work, there are far more aggressive and invasive procedures than you or I could wrap our heads around. As such, a comparison might not be as easily made, because many of us simply gave up the detective work efforts, no pay, openly criticized, and worse, that 8 month period to host that content was on my dime. Don't confuse my unwillingness (and many others who have been discredited over the years for doing the same) to stick my neck out to help raise awareness for a bunch of ingrates, as a hobby that's all hunky dory, and free from future scandals.

What's coming to light in the card hobby, started in 1998, with the thinly sliced T-206 Wagner, the first card ever graded by the major grading service, serial #00000001, continues today, and always will.  How long did it take for CGC to address how their system was gamed and take steps to ensure remedy? My guess is significantly less than 21 years.

[Bookery]

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

A proper conversation is a rare thing these days.

Yep.  For instance RMA and I have had disagreements in the past, and one conversation in particular got out of hand. And I now unabashedly and publicly apologize for my part in that.  This thread in particular reminds me why it is important to avoid making assumptions about others' intentions and motives.  Respond to what is said... not what one thinks might be behind what is said.  He and I are both stubborn and will butt heads again sometime.  But I think he has been very cordial and straight-forward in his positions throughout this thread, and so have you. Others who are making their disagreements personal about both of you are wrong in doing so.  As I said... I speak from experience.  Being churlish can give you that quick rush in the moment... but you end up regretting it for long after.  

[MatterEaterLad]

A related thought -- does anyone every wonder how far off the CGC census is from reality with all the re-subs?

Like if a major key shows 1,000 copies in the census, how many are the same book cracked and resubbed 2-3 times? 

Not sure if it affects the value by the perceived scarcity or abundance, but it make me wonder what use is a census that's off by XX% 

[DavidTheDavid]

50 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

I somehow doubt that any of those K-12 students were notorious public figures because of their own endless self-promotion. Which isn't to say that people can't sometimes go too far in their criticism or ridicule of Chuck, but they are not the same thing at all.

Well, if you know how social circles operate for adolescents, they have their de facto celebrities, and people become targets for any number of reasons.

My point was that I know what online bullying, harassment, and brigading look like from a professional perspective, and lots of people here engage in that.

How many newbs get railroaded off these boards for starting what others deem is a witless thread. Why leave something be when you can join the fun and dogpile the new guy who made the mistake of asking the wrong question?

[DavidTheDavid]

And I will add, I've seen several statements in this thread that come across as versions of, "But I have a black friend!"

Would you "tease" your black friend for being black? Would you "tease" your black friend for being black when your friend was not in the room to hear it?

No, you wouldn't. But it's okay if someone cross dresses?

"But I'm enlightened! I live in the Bay!" Do I really need to point out the problems with that kind of statement used as a whitewash for morally regrettable statements?

[VintageComics]

3 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

How many newbs get railroaded off these boards for starting what others deem is a witless thread. Why leave something be when you can join the fun and dogpile the new guy who made the mistake of asking the wrong question?

Hey, I was one of those noobs once and got dogpiled on.

3 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Well, if you know how social circles operate for adolescents, they have their de facto celebrities, and people become targets for any number of reasons.

Chuck has a long history of rubbing people the wrong way and it's hard to separate Bettie Pages from Chuck. They're still the same person.

But I agree more or less on what you say about bullying over all.

Certain personalities really open themselves up to it, though.

[DavidTheDavid]

Just now, VintageComics said:

Hey, I was one of those noobs once and got dogpiled on.

Chuck has a long history of rubbing people the wrong way and it's hard to separate Bettie Pages from Chuck. They're still the same person.

But I agree more or less on what you say about bullying over all.

Certain personalities really open themselves up to it, though.

They do, but are we blaming the victim now? Of course not.

"Well, he asked for it," is not an acceptable response.

Not attacking you, Roy. Just making a point.  

[VintageComics]

1 minute ago, DavidTheDavid said:

"Well, he asked for it," is not an acceptable response.

There's a difference between 'asking for it being' a huckster and 'asking for it' when you dress a certain way.

And people have trouble differentiating between Chuck being Chuck and Chuck being Bettie Pages, since Chuck has really been a sort of 'Bettie Pages' for as long as people have been reading his newsletters.

Some people will just see this new era of Chuck as the old Chuck with a new way to grab attention.

But again, I agree with you in principle.

[comicwiz]

2 hours ago, VintageComics said:

More - what are the words you used? - attempts to discredit someone. Is what is good for the goose also good for the gander? It appears so. Or you're just unable to stick to a polite discussion?

More sarcasm (and hyperbole)

More sarcasm (and hyperbole)

More sarcasm (and hyperbole)

Do you realize I quoted another member, saying that I agreed with his opinion, namely that the FBI knocking on CGC's door couldn't happen soon enough, and YOU came along and made an impolite remark towards me.

Stop playing the victim, and get your facts straight. If you feel the need to come to the defense of practices you may or may not partake in, which may be frowned upon, be prepared to be called out for it.

[Prince Namor]

3 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Well, if you know how social circles operate for adolescents, they have their de facto celebrities, and people become targets for any number of reasons.

My point was that I know what online bullying, harassment, and brigading look like from a professional perspective, and lots of people here engage in that.

How many newbs get railroaded off these boards for starting what others deem is a witless thread. Why leave something be when you can join the fun and dogpile the new guy who made the mistake of asking the wrong question?

Let me get this straight...

You start off making an inaccurate, but understandable misconception that we were mocking his lifestyle... which we explained we weren’t...

and then morph it into ‘online bullying’, which is no more online bullying than ‘Yelp’ is - and Chucky poo, if it was HIM making this assumption would be the blackest pot calling the kettle ever. 

Again it’s separated as his questionable business practices vs any lifestyle of his. I appreciate what he’s doing socially, but as a huckster businessman, I never will. 

So you then compare him to 12 year olds and how they’re bullied?

Wow. 

He’s a public figure, and HE created that persona, so it’s open to mocking. He’s not a private citizen, he’s a pseudo-celebrity. There’s pros and cons in that - he’s obviously a big boy and can handle it as he’s done for decades.

But he is NOT comparable to a 12 year old victim of online bullying. Not even close. 

 

[Prince Namor]

And no one is making fun of him dressing that way. Chuck was getting blasted here long before he got into cross dressing.

No one here is doing that.

[VintageComics]

2 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

Do you realize I quoted another member, saying that I agreed with his opinion, namely that the FBI knocking on CGC's door couldn't happen soon enough, and YOU came along and made an impolite remark towards me.

Uh, you might be misremembering.

You quoted me and then I simply posted this:

"You'll have to be a bit more clear because there's a lot of hyperbole in there"

I was simply trying to understand how you drew a correlation between pressing (which is out in the open and something everyone engages in) to what the article was about (which was many things outside of pressing).

If that's impolite then I guess you and I will disagree on what constitutes normal conversation.

6 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

be prepared to be called out for it.

Um, ditto?

How about sticking to the facts rather than the person.

[DavidTheDavid]

5 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Let me get this straight...

You start off making an inaccurate, but understandable misconception that we were mocking his lifestyle... which we explained we weren’t...

and then morph it into ‘online bullying’, which is no more online bullying than ‘Yelp’ is - and Chucky poo, if it was HIM making this assumption would be the blackest pot calling the kettle ever. 

Again it’s separated as his questionable business practices vs any lifestyle of his. I appreciate what he’s doing socially, but as a huckster businessman, I never will. 

So you then compare him to 12 year olds and how they’re bullied?

Wow. 

He’s a public figure, and HE created that persona, so it’s open to mocking. He’s not a private citizen, he’s a pseudo-celebrity. There’s pros and cons in that - he’s obviously a big boy and can handle it as he’s done for decades.

But he is NOT comparable to a 12 year old victim of online bullying. Not even close. 

 

What I wrote was this:

I worked with k-12 kids too long to turn a blind eye to internet bullying. I'm not sure how dissatisfaction around his business practices redeems the ridicule, if not derision, people here direct at Chuck. People here treat him as a pinata, and when challenged, they claim respect for the man, or that it's light teasing.

I really am not that interested in trying to explain it, but I think you can read it for yourself and get some clarity about my intent.

I think that calling him "Chucky poo" undermines your point. Lots of people here say that they won't do business with him and don't like his pricing, and they leave it at that. Others take potshots at him.

You seem to be saying that because he's a known figure in this hobby and that because he, in your estimate, is a "big boy and can handle it" that such behavior is excused?

That doesn't strike you as problematic?

[Prince Namor]

12 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

What I wrote was this:

I worked with k-12 kids too long to turn a blind eye to internet bullying. I'm not sure how dissatisfaction around his business practices redeems the ridicule, if not derision, people here direct at Chuck. People here treat him as a pinata, and when challenged, they claim respect for the man, or that it's light teasing.

I really am not that interested in trying to explain it, but I think you can read it for yourself and get some clarity about my intent.

I think that calling him "Chucky poo" undermines your point. Lots of people here say that they won't do business with him and don't like his pricing, and they leave it at that. Others take potshots at him.

You seem to be saying that because he's a known figure in this hobby and that because he, in your estimate, is a "big boy and can handle it" that such behavior is excused?

That doesn't strike you as problematic?

You’re upset that I referred to him as ‘Chucky poo?’ THAT is online bullying and is comparable to what 12 year olds go through?

What about the people who suffered from Hurricane Sandy? Shouldn’t THEY feel slighted by him? Didn’t Chuck Rozanski esq. use the internet to BULLY his customers into buying extra comics to make up for business he lost from the  ‘disruption’ (HIS adjective) of Hurricane Sandy?

You do realize that manipulation is also a form of bullying, as you’ve said your familiar with it. 

Isn’t that what Chuck does every week with his news letter? Use it to manipulate (i.e. bully) his readers into putting more money into his pocket?

Maybe you need to compare THAT to the abuse of 12 year old kids, as many of his customers are probably unaware they’re even being orchestrated in such a way as to buy the over priced, over graded, junk he sells - they’re youngsters in this hobby that don’t know any better.

 

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

What's coming to light in the card hobby, started in 1998, with the thinly sliced T-206 Wagner, the first card ever graded by the major grading service, serial #00000001, continues today, and always will.  How long did it take for CGC to address how their system was gamed and take steps to ensure remedy? My guess is significantly less than 21 years.

I don't think the timeline in cards should start before Mastro admitted to trimming the T-206 in 2013. All the suspicion and evidence stacked against him simply wasn't enough to convict him - until he came forward and admitted it. Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick reportedly didn't even care that it was trimmed after the revelation occurred. If the owner of the card didn't care, why should Mastro even be investigated? Because there was a long laundry list of shenanigans being discovered about Mastro's auction system, and of course later, his penchant for doctoring cards that had been brewing in online forums since the early 2000's. I remember when the FBI appeared at one of the sportscards shows, and a year later he was sentenced. At the most, we are talking 6 years in the making, prior to that, it was in the shadows, and brushed aside as something that's part of collecting graded sportscards, a lot like what's been going on with comics.

Edited July 23, 2019 by comicwiz

[Transplant]

19 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Are you typing this with your feet...? I could say more, but I'll get in trouble...

There may or may not have been some alcohol involved.  

[THE_BEYONDER]

1 hour ago, DavidTheDavid said:

 

How many newbs get railroaded off these boards for starting what others deem is a witless thread. Why leave something be when you can join the fun and dogpile the new guy who made the mistake of asking the wrong question?

If you can’t take a little ribbing from posters on a comic book chat board.... maybe the internet isn’t for you.

[DavidTheDavid]

1 minute ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

If you can’t take a little ribbing from posters on a comic book chat board.... maybe the internet isn’t for you.

Maybe so. But "a little ribbing" is putting it politely in my opinion.

[DavidTheDavid]

27 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

You’re upset that I referred to him as ‘Chucky poo?’ THAT is online bullying and is comparable to what 12 year olds go through?

What about the people who suffered from Hurricane Sandy? Shouldn’t THEY feel slighted by him? Didn’t Chuck Rozanski esq. use the internet to BULLY his customers into buying extra comics to make up for business he lost from the  ‘disruption’ (HIS adjective) of Hurricane Sandy?

You do realize that manipulation is also a form of bullying, as you’ve said your familiar with it. 

Isn’t that what Chuck does every week with his news letter? Use it to manipulate (i.e. bully) his readers into putting more money into his pocket?

Maybe you need to compare THAT to the abuse of 12 year old kids, as many of his customers are probably unaware they’re even being orchestrated in such a way as to buy the over priced, over graded, junk he sells - they’re youngsters in this hobby that don’t know any better.

 

I'm not sure what about my post made me seem upset. I said that you undermine your own point when you resort to name calling.

His appeal after Sandy may be repugnant to many. It's not bullying. There are plenty of resources online if you're interested in learning what that means.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

I think it is very easy to separate Chuck the crusader for LBGTQ rights, the person pushing for equality, and some other nice things from Chuck the huckster comic book salesman who has ridiculously high prices and has built his entire empire on hucksterism and separating fools from their money.

Chuck Rosanski the person is full of mess, but in a relatively good way, and, like I said in the other thread, is doing very good things for the LGBTQ community, most notably "at-risk" youths in the Denver area. He is going through some interesting personal "growth" which is his business and, like I said in the other thread, Chuck, you be you.

Chuck Rosanski the owner of Mile High Comics is a huckster and a used-car salesman who has ridiculously high prices on books, doesn't come off them, and denigrates and mocks people who question his pricing. Does Chuck and Mile High - it is nearly impossible to separate the two - provide a service by having nearly every book? Yes. Do you have to like their pricing and the way they do business? Absolutely not.

Exactly.

People are complex, contradictory, and dare I say it...hypocritical. It's human nature. You can praise someone for one aspect of their behavior, and condemn them for another. The people who try to make it all or nothing, to put everyone and everything in boxes...those people cause the most problems in life.

No one is worthy of no respect. No one is worthy of all respect. "Good" people do awful things, and bad people (which is all of us) do selfless, caring things...and even when they do those selfless, caring things for selfish motives, like to garner attention or praise, that doesn't mean the act itself can't be appreciated.

Edited July 23, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus