Possible Ewert book sold on Comiclink - ASM #4 CGC 9.4 $13,000

[deathlok]

If that ASM #4 9.4 copy is a VIA submission, then I would definitely have it checked. If I was the buyer, then I'm paying for CGC's seal of approval.......not Brulato's.

 

 

CGC's seal of approval?!? You mean the same company that missed all the trimming in the first place, and labeled the books as unrestored ? How confident are you of their seal of approval?

[ericc123]

Does VIA stand for Vintage Investment Associates? Sorry for my ignorance but I bought some books from them on ebay in the pre CGC days.

[skybolt]

If that ASM #4 9.4 copy is a VIA submission, then I would definitely have it checked. If I was the buyer, then I'm paying for CGC's seal of approval.......not Brulato's.

 

 

CGC's seal of approval?!? You mean the same company that missed all the trimming in the first place, and labeled the books as unrestored ? How confident are you of their seal of approval?

 

Perhaps one of these books should be sent to another restoration expert for a second opinion.

[goldust40]

Does VIA stand for Vintage Investment Associates? Sorry for my ignorance but I bought some books from them on ebay in the pre CGC days.

 

Yes, that's them.

[garthgantu]

If that ASM #4 9.4 copy is a VIA submission, then I would definitely have it checked. If I was the buyer, then I'm paying for CGC's seal of approval.......not Brulato's.

 

 

CGC's seal of approval?!? You mean the same company that missed all the trimming in the first place, and labeled the books as unrestored ? How confident are you of their seal of approval?

 

Exactly. CGC's 'seal of approval' must always appear in quotes now. It's only real guarantee is that the book is 'sealed' in plastic. If CGC is in fact simply taking Brulato's word for the fact that a VIA submission never passed through Ewert's hands, they're clearly in "sweep it under the rug" mode already.

 

And for what it's worth, if CGC had implemented the mandatory scanning idea that was bandied about on the boards a couple of years ago, they'd have caught this new trimming process much earlier. I predict that such a scanning step will be added to CGC's process in the near future, in an effort to ressurect customer confidence.

[JoeJoeJoe-migration]

If that ASM #4 9.4 copy is a VIA submission, then I would definitely have it checked. If I was the buyer, then I'm paying for CGC's seal of approval.......not Brulato's.

 

 

CGC's seal of approval?!? You mean the same company that missed all the trimming in the first place, and labeled the books as unrestored ? How confident are you of their seal of approval?

 

Exactly. CGC's 'seal of approval' must always appear in quotes now. It's only real guarantee is that the book is 'sealed' in plastic. If CGC is in fact simply taking Brulato's word for the fact that a VIA submission never passed through Ewert's hands, they're clearly in "sweep it under the rug" mode already.

 

And for what it's worth, if CGC had implemented the mandatory scanning idea that was bandied about on the boards a couple of years ago, they'd have caught this new trimming process much earlier. I predict that such a scanning step will be added to CGC's process in the near future, in an effort to ressurect customer confidence.

 

Wasn't really the only real guarantee that independent, informed graders ("experts" if you will) would review the book and give you thier opinion on the book? What I find disturbing from reading these threads - and I understand that I am a complete newbie and piecing this together as it goes along and don't know the indivduals involved - is how well that independent aspect is upheld. This all seems too cozy. I've read people talking about so-and-so being a stand-up guy or trustworthy, but I don't want to "trust" anyone and I don't want any independent group working on trust.

 

Mistrust is okay, however.

[divad]

Hi everyone,

 

I wanted to pass along word that Josh at Comiclink link has received confirmation from CGC that the ASM #4 CGC 9.4 was NOT a Jason Ewert submission, and have therefore given the book a clean bill of health. I don't have any additional information about the book other than to say it's not one that CGC is worrried about.

 

How can you even believe that a serial number that is only 2 numbers off isn't from the same submission. The difference means that the 9.4 was the first book on the form, and that the 003 was the third book. How can it not be? More smoke and mirrors.

 

Hey, I'm just relaying what CGC told Josh. My personal guess is that Tom Brulato subbed it, but I don't know for sure. If you still have doubts, call Steve Borock.

 

[thirdgreenham]

Last

 

 

 

 

 

 

.....for now.

[nik]

You bored or something today?

[Flee-Marquette]

Last

 

 

 

 

 

 

.....for now.

[thirdgreenham]

You bored or something today?

 

Just reading these threads for the first time.