Heritage/ CGC Fraud?!

[comicwiz]

If this is true, then I'd say "lessons" is a mild term, and it's more like gross misrepresentation.

 

That is, IF they manipulated the comic's appearance through some sort of graphics package

 

I'm not condoning this type of activity, but we've all seen the purple labels that were enhanced to appear blue. Some say this is a calibration issue with their scanners. Are you saying that image manipulation is an activity that should be regarded as fraud?

[nochips]

Anyone who sends a lot of books in to CGC knows they miss things. We have all had books overgraded by them and it equals out for the books they undergrade.

 

If I pulled that book out of the holder, sent it off for a cleaning and sent it back in, they may never know, as is the case here. They look at thousands of books each month, they do not compare issues, unless it's for a pedigree certification. Having Nick Cage on the label does not means anything to me, especially if I am sending in a "cleaned and pressed" book that I want them to miss.

 

I think that happened here. As far as CGC was soncerned they were two differnet books, until now that is.....

[fantastic_four]

Are you saying that image manipulation is an activity that should be regarded as fraud?

It is fraud if you do it in such a way that it makes the book look better than it otherwise would in person. However, Heritage's scans used to be horrible-looking; the scans were worse than the books actually looked in person. I would hope that what they learned was to adjust or replace their scanner software and not to run it through a post-scan image editing app.

[comicwiz]

It is fraud if you do it in such a way that it makes the book look better than it otherwise would in person. However, Heritage's scans used to be horrible-looking; the scans were worse than the books actually looked in person. I would hope that what they learned was to adjust or replace their scanner software and not to run it through a post-scan image editing app.

 

From an efficiencies standpoint, it would make sense to have the settings on the scanner configured to achieve the best results. I do however know that the settings on most scan capture applications are far too rigid for universal application. It is in my experience that that default settings on a scan capture interface may work well with 80% of the books, but on the higher premium material, I would think that image enhancing such cover brightening, and faded defects would be best served through a post-production graphics design application.

[joe_collector]

>>Are you saying that image manipulation is an activity that should be regarded as fraud?

 

For a high-dollar comic book offered by a reputable auction house, certainly. These ain't yer grampa's funny books, and are worth serious cash, and shouldn't be immune to the same criteria that other businesses must adhere to.

[joe_collector]

I don't know why I even get into these endless Heritage threads, as I'd have to be recently lobotomized and high on crack, to even contemplate bidding on one of their auctions.

[comicwiz]

 

You are preaching to the converted...

[PovertyRow]

as if it was lightened digitally. This would also explain the change in the hue/saturation of the yellows in the cover.

 

The whole scan is a lot lighter than the oold Cage one. Just compare the blue of the CGC label from the old to the new. I too the old one into Photo Editor and just played with lightening and I got pretty close to the values of the newer, lighter scan. Now was it done intentionally? Did they change their scanner or scanning technique? Who knows for sure? Only their hairdresser!

[PedigreeMan]

I took the old one into Photo Editor and just played with lightening and I got pretty close to the values of the newer, lighter scan

 

Did the lightening cause the stain in the portion of the 10-cent circle to fade away?

[BronzeBruce13]

... and if you'll allow the compliment JR, I (and many others I'm sure) thank you for your objectivity and also for spending the time you do to thoroughly research issues that are important to us. And just as importantly, without forming an opinion prematurely and giving every side of an issue a fair shake. Often you bring relevant information to the table that no one else does and/or raise the questions necessary to put the discussion on the path that will lead to the truth.... kudos.

 

Following your example, I "try" not to jump the gun too quickly anymore, which I was more apt to do previously and was/is my inclination too often still... like many others. Now I'd rather look into things myself, do a little research, make a few calls, etc. I think its a much better way to get the answers and get closer to finding the truth (sometimes in less time).

 

The CGC forum is full of great minds, bright ideas and revealing discussions, but sometimes we proceed on the wrong path, conclusions are jumped to and accepted as fact, research is overlooked in lieu of a strong, convincing opinion/personality, right or wrong.

 

As far as this CGC / Heritage conspiracy, initially I was VERY skeptical and followed the threads with serious interest and concern. I wanted answers too and hoped to hear from CGC and/or Heritage directly. Since then, I've talked to several CGC focussed dealers and collector/investors who I noticed seem to resubmit quite often. I also called CGC a few times and spoke to MH and SB and other graders and just asked questions.

 

My take/opinion on all this for what its worth is I don't feel CGC is compromising grades or overlooking restoration they see for anyone. Not Heritage, not big, powerful dealers, not me... or anyone on this board. Here's why I don't think so...

 

1. Firstly, to say this you have to be openly questioning the reputation and honesty of at least 2 very respected individuals in the field long before CGC was around as I understand. I'm not pretending to know more than anyone else about the staff, but I've asked enough people that would have a good idea and never heard anything negative... has anyone? Try and find anyone in this hobby/business that has known Mark Haspel and Steve Borock and questions their honesty or ethics. I understand MH and SB were selected primarily for their grading skills, reputations and the respect they earned from their peers. Also, if you feel restoration was missed intentionally, then you are questioning Chris Friesen's character too. I don't know much about him, but I've never heard anyone raise doubts about him specifically. This may be a small point to some, and call me naive if you want, but any person who has earned a solid reputation over time is not someone I want to accuse of anything without proof and facts. If you question CGC's ethics, fine, but try putting name(s) to who you're doubting and see if that changes your perspective a little when its a person not a faceless company. For wrongdoing to be happening, the primary grader, senior grader and/or restoration expert would have to be on the take as they touch nearly all the books and certainly the valuable ones in question. Based upon what we know, do they get the benefit of the doubt, or not? Am I too trusting? probably... but I don't think I'm wrong for not jumping to a unsubstantiated conclusion either. I would hope for the same treatment were I in their shoes.

 

2. I've listened to more than a few heavy submitters cursing and bitc*hing about CGC (both on the phone or via Email) for grades lower than expected... and its fairly often and sometimes over a 'resub" too. A couple are bigger names that have been brought up in the past as those that may be getting "favorable" treatment. I had my doubts too in the beginning, but it just does not add up in my mind. I guess they all could have been "acting" like this to a bunch of people hoping they would say something like I am now... but that's a stretch?

 

3. This is a point that has been discussed previously and here again by Rob_react. There are several ways to make money CGCing. Sending in raw gems you have, buying already CGC'd books on the cheap and flipping them, speculating and selling at the right time (movie hype opps) ...OR... identifying resub candidates on major/valuable keys (for various reasons) and resubmitting them. For a long time I only thought that this was being done for books observant buyers were willing to roll the dice on as they considered them undergraded. What I, and many of us did not realize until recently, is that for quite a while now there are apparently a decent amount of bigger dealers/collectors/speculators/auction houses/risk takers "in the know" that have been identifying books with "CGC legally" reversible defects. Simply put, there are several instances that amateurs and those with more skills (Matt Nelson, Restorers) can improve the condition of a book.

>Amateurs that "knew" the deal could "press" a book with spine roll with heavy dictionaries. They could also remove some dirt/soiling with wonder bread. Some can even carefully push out minor indentations and unbend minor bends.

>Skilled hands can (and have, for fees) been able to do even more without the work being classified as restoration. I don't know these details as well as some, so I won't comment. I still have to visit MN's site and see what he claims.

 

However, I know for a fact that the several of these bigger dealers/collectors/speculators/auction houses/risk takers "in the know".. that I have spoke with have been "Resubbing CGC Legally Improved Comics" with a decent rate of success for quite a while. I recently went "fishing" and put one such individual on the spot and he admitted to having sent plenty of books out to those capable of improving them "CGC legally". Both CGC books cracked out and raw books that were candidates. I also know they DON'T want this getting popular or a widespread consideration as its a profit making advantage. One dealer, that admitted doing this told me to keep it quiet. Now that its somewhat out in the open ...screw it. Now consider if those profiting from this "option" don't want anyone to know... that they also don't want CGC to be openly sharing of these details. Borock, in limited detail, did mention this on the first Heritage conspiracy thread. I get the feeling (I don't know as fact) that CGC would like to say more but some of the bigger submitters have some clout as in any business situation. Observe the label notes issue, other modifications made prior and even the upcoming label style change to make the numbers bigger. I'm not supporting the decision for the limited CGC response, only offering some insight. I would have liked more direct commentary too, but I'm not sure it would have been very productive in this environment, with some of the personalities here. Some forumites seem to make up their minds in advance and have no interest in hearing facts. Others are anti-CGC in principal and are very willing to jump on anything negative that is suggested. If you're character is basically being questioned on a daily basis, I would guess its easy to build an acceptance of it, and an avoidance of the need to defend yourself as it will always be there on some level.

 

With all this said, don't assume I'm OK with everything I see/hear. I'm still left with some questions I would like answered and I intend to just ask when I get the chance... it beats guessing.

I still want to know..

 

a, how pencil can be removed without either being considered restoration or damaging the surface of the paper?

b. how can a stain be removed (if it was) without being considered restoration?

c. how much of a deduction can a spine roll earn?

 

 

4. The business is built on trust, reputation and ethics. Without it, they're done. Why on Earth would they destroy themselves?

 

5. CGC is just one part of a larger corporation. The Certified Colelctibles Group... there's SGC and NGC too. Impropriety from one arm/division would impact and reflect on the others too, making it less likely to happen IMHO.

 

 

 

Like JR, I'm on record with questioning several issues with CGC... "Label Notes Removal" (which I still don't like as a bronze enthusiast but realize I'm in the minority and will have to adapt) and more recently, the "Microchamber 7 year tune up" (which I'm less concerned with after researching it.) So, have no doubt that my comments are my own.

 

 

BTW... manipulating a scan to remove or reduce a defect is deception if you are selling the item. Using Photoshop to increase the contrast and sharpen the image a bit to make up for deficiencies in the scanned image is OK to a point IMHO. The point would be to approximate the actual look of the book. Often the scanner on its own is less than effective in representing the actual real time comic... at least on my monitor, and that's another issue.. quality of the monitor.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Did the lightening cause the stain in the portion of the 10-cent circle to fade away?

 

Nope - I took pains with that and it was always very visible, but if you look, the stain is about the same color as that orangish color on the cover. The real key to knowing this is a lighter scan is simply to compare the color of the CGC blue labels. The newer one is much lighter.

[BronzeBruce13]

doesn't the label color vary with the amout of ink in the inkjet printers they use too? I seem to remember varying shades of blue in the same order? am I losing my eyesight? I'm not saying newer labels are not lighter, I have not noticed, but this may be something to consider.

[PovertyRow]

doesn't the label color vary with the amout of ink in the inkjet printers they use too?

 

It might but not to this extent. It is definitely a lighter scan than the previous.

[BronzeBruce13]

I was only talking about the label in general

[PovertyRow]

I was only talking about the label in general

 

Well without knowing what printers they use cannot answer beyond my original. Wish I could but I cannot.

[blowout]

I was only talking about the label in general

 

Its almost impossible to make any kind of CGC label 'shade' comparison from earlier/ later books when you also factor in things like storage conditions, exposure to sunlight etc.

Also with the two books in question different types of scanners may have been used, the books really need to be seen in person to make any kind of objective comparison IMO.

[BronzeBruce13]

I've been misunderstood. That's what I was trying to say.

I feel I've seen variation in label color in person from books that were graded about the same time, maybe even on the same order.

 

Forget it... its not an important point... just a random thought.

I don't want to derail the focus of your discussion about the scans.

[Aman619]

listen---all this speculation about the two scans is heading into guesswork. The newer scan is a lower resolution which alone answers most of this speculation. Its more pixelated. And the colors are brighter for one of a variety of technical reasons: a new scanner guy. New scanning settings that required a bad scan to be rebalanced, inadvertantly ending up with different shades of color (its only when comparing the two scans made months apart that you see differences---something the scanner didnt do and noone was supposed to ever do...Both look like the comic book, so why would anyone compare them? The poor scanning dept has to get through a thousand scans!! scan it and move on to the next one). An imperative from the systems guy to make all scans smaller since they are adding up to too many mega/gigabytes of data on the server. etc etc etc

 

But, this does not change the apparent fact that the book somehow got a higher grade on resubmission. thats fishy. Im just trying to head off the various tangents about the scans.

 

And I dont think they retouched anything on the book. You have to believe that Heritage would not be THAT stupid! Its not worth it. Especially since that doesnt actually improve the actual book---something they seem to have BETTER methods of accomplishing!!!

[PovertyRow]

Its almost impossible to make any kind of CGC label 'shade' comparison from earlier/ later books when you also factor in things like storage conditions, exposure to sunlight etc.

 

I agree with this but check out the side by side (actually top/bottom scans. Compare the color not only of the label but of the plastic holder itself. And the black inks.

 

Compare here

 

Also with the two books in question different types of scanners may have been used

 

 

Yes - I THINK I mentioned that but not sure and am too lazy to look.

 

But either way, the scan of the new is SO much lighter and different colored than the old just by comparing the colors of the cgc slab's plastic, that I would really have to see this one in person to consider it (which I wouldn;t cause it is not my genre but it IS a nice book but it IS also out of my price range so there you go!)

 

[Aman619]

But either way, the scan of the new is SO much lighter and different colored than the old just by comparing the colors of the cgc slab's plasti

 

Pov---its just two different scans at different settings made months apart. Anyone with Photoshop skill and 2 minutes could rebalance the colors in either one to look exactly like the other...

 

....except of course for the actual changes to the comic book in between scans....

 

Im not privy to what standards and rules they have setup in-house for all scans (if any). They may just leave it to the scanning guy/expert who working to his own muse as the "master of his own 'specialized technically savvy' hands-off dept and just does what he thinks is best....