oops... 5 5

[Sigur Ros]

On 4/21/2022 at 2:45 PM, Qalyar said:

This one is an inherent problem in the way CGC labels these sorts of books, because they make the "Label Text" field do way too much heavy lifting with "REPRINT"; ideally, books such as this should be more clearly identified in via their title and publication date. That's only a real problem when you have a book that needs something else in the "Label Text" field -- here, signature series information. This isn't a grader or QA failure per se, it's more of a problem with the software that drives label printing. Which isn't to say it's not a problem...

None of which, however, remotely excuses the UF4 reprints. I thought, well, maybe they're just mislabeled because the stupid specialty labels screw up things on the regular. But, no. Label lookup shows these as real UF4s. This is 100% a failure of the grading team. Do I suspect the submitter submitted them as UF4 and not the reprint? Of course. But that shouldn't matter. CGC has not been doing super well, especially lately, at checking books -- perhaps especially moderns -- for variant printings. I suspect there's sort of a culture of "well, all these moderns are just what they appear to be". Maybe look up who did the cover art if they have to assign a CGC-official name to a new variant. But otherwise, I feel like they're taking moderns at face value. Unfortunately, sometimes, the books are trying to fool you, and very few try to trick you quite as hard as this one. Still, that's literally the CGC graders' job.

It's also CGC QA's job, but... well...

All they needed to do was put the correct publication date.

[Sigur Ros]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:10 PM, Catwomancomics said:

I curious to know if CGC would consider banning this submitter for fraudulent behavior such as this.

Despite all the accusations, no one here knows what the submission form said.

This is CGC... so it could have said "2021 FACSIMILE" in bright red Sharpie.... and they still got it wrong.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Sigur Ros

[Catwomancomics]

On 4/21/2022 at 3:57 PM, Sigur Ros said:

Despite all the accusations, no one here knows what the submission form said.

This is CGC... so it could have said "2021 FACSIMILE" in bright red Sharpie.... and they still got it wrong.

CGC should find that invoice and reach out to the submitter to request the books be returned for label correction.

 

edit: hopefully the submitter still has some.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Catwomancomics

[wombat]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:49 PM, Catwomancomics said:

On 4/21/2022 at 6:41 PM, wombat said:

There is a pretty big assumption being made here. 

Do you believe this person selling these books really thinks they are indeed 1st print from 2011?

No idea. Whoever they got them from could have incorrectly sold them as first prints. Or they could have been correctly identified as reprints in the forms and CGC just messed up. We have examples of that. 

[Randall Dowling]

On 4/21/2022 at 5:01 PM, 12:34 said:

It's the first sentence on the back of the old slabs:

I'd be curious to see if the language is still the same on very recently received slabs.  With TATs being what they have been and are, simplifying the grading process down to two or even one grader seems like the obvious thing to do.  

This would also explain the inconsistency of grading for the last couple years.  

[Randall Dowling]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:01 PM, wombat said:

No idea. Whoever they got them from could have incorrectly sold them as first prints. Or they could have been correctly identified as reprints in the forms and CGC just messed up. We have examples of that. 

Whatever the case, the real issue is once they're bought and sold, any knowledge of what they are is based purely on the CGC label.  Leaving it to each successive owner to correctly communicate what it is kind of defeats the point of certification and is sure to fail.  These books will be sold as legitimate copies at some point.  If CGC was smart, they'd move heaven and earth to get these back and fix them because the idea that there are 8 fake books in 9.6/9.8 slabs is an incredible blow to legitimacy.

Sure looks like a "buyer beware" situation to me.

[kav]

On 4/21/2022 at 3:20 PM, Catwomancomics said:

2nd paragraph, line 5

It is the duty of the buyer and seller of CGC-certified Collectible to examine the label for mechanical errors and return such Collectibles for correction when warranted.

um whats the point of slabbing then if you have to do the actual checkin?

[Galen130]

On 4/21/2022 at 5:22 PM, kav said:

um whats the point of slabbing then if you have to do the actual checkin?

 

[kav]

On 4/21/2022 at 4:23 PM, Galen130 said:

 

[wombat]

On 4/21/2022 at 7:21 PM, Randall Dowling said:

Whatever the case, the real issue is once they're bought and sold, any knowledge of what they are is based purely on the CGC label.  Leaving it to each successive owner to correctly communicate what it is kind of defeats the point of certification and is sure to fail.  These books will be sold as legitimate copies at some point.  If CGC was smart, they'd move heaven and earth to get these back and fix them because the idea that there are 8 fake books in 9.6/9.8 slabs is an incredible blow to legitimacy.

Sure looks like a "buyer beware" situation to me.

8 in this small example. I wouldn't bet a lot of money this isn't happening on a regular basis. 

[Randall Dowling]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:25 PM, wombat said:

8 in this small example. I wouldn't bet a lot of money this isn't happening on a regular basis. 

Completely agree.

[D84]

That's is PGX level  up.

[Domo Arigato]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:25 PM, wombat said:

8 in this small example. I wouldn't bet a lot of money this isn't happening on a regular basis. 

Obviously there's no way to prove it.  But there was a total of 8 books on this invoice that were graded on 3/22/2022.  All 8 were Ultimate Fallout #4 Facsimile editions.  All 8 were very high grade (9.8 except for one of them) and came back incorrectly labeled. 

I think the odds are pretty good that the submitter knew what he was submitting........and then realized what happened when he got them back......which is why one of them was listed for $2,900 on MySlabs.com.  But again, there's no way to prove it.  

 

[The Lions Den]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:53 PM, Sigur Ros said:

All they needed to do was put the correct publication date.

That would have been helpful...  

[D84]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:25 PM, wombat said:

8 in this small example. I wouldn't bet a lot of money this isn't happening on a regular basis. 

Say that to the person who paid $2900 for a mislabeled book.

CGC needs to get it together. We aren't talking about inconsistent grading. This is a major mess up.

[Domo Arigato]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:34 PM, D84 said:

Say that to the person who paid $2900 for a mislabeled book.

CGC needs to get it together. We aren't talking about inconsistent grading. This is a major mess up.

You might have misunderstood him.  He is saying he would not bet that this isn't happening on a regular basis.

[D84]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:38 PM, Domo Arigato said:

You might have misunderstood him.  He is saying he would not bet that this isn't happening on a regular basis.

Thanks. I was reading too quickly. Apologies to @wombat.

[wombat]

On 4/21/2022 at 7:44 PM, D84 said:

Thanks. I was reading too quickly. Apologies to @wombat.

 

[Domo Arigato]

I realize it's a "first appearance" of a new Spider-Man (and no offense to those who collect this sort of thing....I'm sure it's a lovely book).

But people are paying $3,000+ for this book in CGC 9.8 grade? 

I wonder what's going to happen when the first 9.9 or 10.0 shows up. 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Domo Arigato

[oakman29]

On 4/21/2022 at 8:02 AM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Shared this one before, but with the reprints getting the label of the original this deserves a repost. 

Wow! If that weren't the Masterpiece edition would go for a pretty penny.