ASM #252 CGC 9.8 Record Sale - something fishy going on? - Holder Tampering Incident confirmed by CGC 50 50

[Prince Namor]

I'm not saying this is the issue, but are we not yet at the point where we DON'T give CGC the benefit of the doubt concerning their QC?

The number of mistakes I see - in not even really following this topic anymore - is CRAZY... 

[ThothAmon]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:16 PM, VintageComics said:

Sorry, what specifically didn't happen that I'm missing?

Not sure that you’re aware that the graders notes show that when the book was reslabbed the previous serial number was kept, the date of grade remained the same and Mark Jewelers was added to the label. Given the apparent grade of the book that’s now in the slab it’s obvious the reholdering/custom label process needs revamping. When I worked in his factory grandpa called it fast and sloppy. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:25 PM, ThothAmon said:

On 12/19/2023 at 4:16 PM, VintageComics said:

Sorry, what specifically didn't happen that I'm missing?

Not sure that you’re aware that the graders notes show that when the book was reslabbed the previous serial number was kept, the date of grade remained the same and Mark Jewelers was added to the label. Given the apparent grade of the book that’s now in the slab it’s obvious the reholdering/custom label process needs revamping. When I worked in his factory grandpa called it fast and sloppy. 

OK, now I understand.

My use of the word "regraded" rather than reholdered was confusing, and I understand that. I used that word because I was conflating two separate things into one word.

CGC obviously REHOLDERED the book (I've been aware that the serial number stayed the same from the 1st page), but every reholder IS SUPPOSED to have a grader inspect and eye the book for quality control before it leaves CGC, to make sure the grade on the label matches the book. At least that's how I understood the process in the past.

That's why I used the word 'regraded' but in hindsight I shouldn't have. I should have just said reholdered and re-inspected.

Apologies. 

I still maintain that keeping the same serial number shouldn't prevent the book from being inspected because books DO get damaged from shipping, handling, slabbing, etc and I believe that CGC still inspects outgoing books (even just reholders) to make sure they match the grade. 

--------------------------------

So it seems that for whatever reason, this inferior book was slipped through QC and the theories so far seem to be

i) outer well may have been successfully opened in a way to avoid detection and not throw any flags upon reholder and either the book or label were swapped out

ii) outer well may have been resealed in a way to avoid detection and not throw any flags upon reholder and either the book or label were swapped out

iii) the resubmission for a new type of label with a swapped book or label managed to get around QC checks and balances because that specific process may be different than a straight reholder

iii) inside job (highly unlikely in my books)

Does that sum it up?

Edited December 19, 2023 by VintageComics

[JC25427N]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm not saying this is the issue, but are we not yet at the point where we DON'T give CGC the benefit of the doubt concerning their QC?

The number of mistakes I see - in not even really following this topic anymore - is CRAZY... 

The raw number of mistakes being reported here is pretty large, but what if the actual QC error rate is 1% of total submissions? To me that seems like an acceptable margin of error, and considering the total number of submissions CGC probably gets 1% would still be a large number. I don't know that's the case it's just a hypothetical, but my point just is that basing a conclusion on a raw number seems fallible. 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by JC25427N

[VintageComics]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:49 PM, JC25427N said:

The raw number of mistakes being reported here is pretty large, but what if the actual QC error rate is 1% of total submissions? To me that seems like an acceptable margin of error, and considering the total number of submissions CGC probably gets 1% would still be a large number. I don't know that's the case it's just a hypothetical, but my point just is that basing a conclusion on a raw number seems fallible. 

 

CGC has graded over 10 MILLION comics. 

You can have 10,000 errors and it's still only a tiny percentage.

That means with 10,000 mistakes you'd have an error margin of 0.001%

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:55 PM, VintageComics said:

CGC has graded over 10 MILLION comics. 

You can have 10,000 errors and it's still only a tiny percentage.

That means with 10,000 mistakes you'd have an error margin of 0.001%

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/19/2023 at 3:58 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

On 12/19/2023 at 3:55 PM, VintageComics said:

CGC has graded over 10 MILLION comics. 

You can have 10,000 errors and it's still only a tiny percentage.

That means with 10,000 mistakes you'd have an error margin of 0.001%

 

Sure that many for 0.001% in what twenty or more years? What is the new rate of failure if we sized that down to the date at the start of this thread...

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 12/19/2023 at 5:13 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Sure that many for 0.001% in what twenty or more years? What is the new rate of failure if we sized that down to the date with the start of this thread...

 

Do the math

[ADAMANTIUM]

What did I just snap into a slim Jim? 

Forgot to quote

 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[Mikey C]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:55 PM, VintageComics said:

CGC has graded over 10 MILLION comics. 

You can have 10,000 errors and it's still only a tiny percentage.

That means with 10,000 mistakes you'd have an error margin of 0.001%

The issue I have is they're supposed to be the 'experts. They're clearly overextended and it shows, especially with this seemingly book swap scam. Pieces of plastic floating around cases, book slabbed upside down/backwards, mislabeling books, completely wrong labels on books, 'gift' 9.8 grades, spelling mistakes on labels, blue label books that have been found to NOT have the MVS, books with MJs not labeled as such, books with torn inner pages that still get 9.8s, crooked printing on labels....I'm def missing much more of their QC issues and this is just scratching the surface.

[AbsoluteCarnage]

The first video of the 2 posted, "It came from the Newsstands" was quite a good breakdown of the situation albeit a tad lengthy but still a good watch with regards to the topic. After watching a couple hours of that i never checked the 2nd one out but could be good as well.

[Mikey C]

On 12/19/2023 at 5:23 PM, AbsoluteCarnage said:

The first video of the 2 posted, "It came from the Newsstands" was quite a good breakdown of the situation albeit a tad lengthy but still a good watch with regards to the topic. After watching a couple hours of that i never checked the 2nd one out but could be good as well.

Agreed. Really good breakdown. The only info that came out between the 1st and 2nd videos was the 'true' 9.8 that was replaced was sent back to CGC by the buyer raw, graded a 9.8 newsstand in September and then resold on eBay on 10/3 for just below $2k. The buyer double-dipped. 

[musicmeta]

On 12/19/2023 at 3:55 PM, VintageComics said:

CGC has graded over 10 MILLION comics. 

You can have 10,000 errors and it's still only a tiny percentage.

That means with 10,000 mistakes you'd have an error margin of 0.001%

Whew! I didn't think they would ever finish grading these. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

I will say the mess ups haven't been a lot as of late, that we know of or at least reported here.

Well compared to the past couple of years.

 

[Gator Guru]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:56 PM, WolverineX said:

The biggest travesty of this thread is that somebody out there actually bought a MJ for 15k... geez.  with that money go for the ASM 1

That to me is the biggest issue. What a waste of money!

 

CGC does not need to respond, yet. Also, no definitive proof that this was not the same book. A jury would not be convinced as issues happen quite often with the encapsulation process. I have personally had CGC give me a credit for damaging a book when reholdering and another time tell me a reholder would not get the same grade so I had to pay for a press. They do inspect, trust me.

Sorry but knowing the issues CGC has given me with reholders I am not convinced this is a different book but then again I am more experienced with reholders and the overall CGC process then the “witch-hunters”

[Mikey C]

On 12/19/2023 at 5:52 PM, Gator Guru said:

That to me is the biggest issue. What a waste of money!

 

CGC does not need to respond, yet. Also, no definitive proof that this was not the same book. A jury would not be convinced as issues happen quite often with the encapsulation process. I have personally had CGC give me a credit for damaging a book when reholdering and another time tell me a reholder would not get the same grade so I had to pay for a press. They do inspect, trust me.

Sorry but knowing the issues CGC has given me with reholders I am not convinced this is a different book but then again I am more experienced with reholders and the overall CGC process then the “witch-hunters”

The wrap on the 252s are completely different. The space above the corner box is completely different. The space from the N in Spider-Man on the trade dress to the right edge is completely different. It's 100000% a different copy of the book. This is indisputable. Look closer.

[GDN]

On 12/19/2023 at 10:00 AM, sledgehammer said:

I don't need to see what book he used. I don't have access to go collect, can you put up the photo that shows what this certification number Looked like, when it was sold on July 11.

I'm talking about the new mutants 98, that I found.

thanks.

I've attached a few of the images from GoCollect.  This is the 9.8 Newsstand with same cert # 0180388004

[jsilverjanet]

its funny that's its easier to believe the seller has a machine that can reseal but not believe CGC has an error in the way that they inspect/QC their books despite multiple threads/examples of CGC failures over the past 2-3 years

[GDN]

On 12/19/2023 at 2:52 PM, Gator Guru said:

That to me is the biggest issue. What a waste of money!

 

CGC does not need to respond, yet. Also, no definitive proof that this was not the same book. A jury would not be convinced as issues happen quite often with the encapsulation process. I have personally had CGC give me a credit for damaging a book when reholdering and another time tell me a reholder would not get the same grade so I had to pay for a press. They do inspect, trust me.

Sorry but knowing the issues CGC has given me with reholders I am not convinced this is a different book but then again I am more experienced with reholders and the overall CGC process then the “witch-hunters”

I don't see how you can look past the differences in the wrap and where the right edge of the book is cut when comparing the "N" in Spider-man.  How could that have changed during a reholder??

[GDN]

On 12/19/2023 at 3:00 PM, jsilverjanet said:

its funny that's its easier to believe the seller has a machine that can reseal but not believe CGC has an error in the way that they inspect/QC their books despite multiple threads/examples of CGC failures over the past 2-3 years

No one knows if the seller can reseal.  He doesn't need to.  Just damage the case (smash up a corner), claim it partially popped open when dropped and send it in.