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

[Mikey C]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:21 AM, drotto said:

for the following reasons as best as I can guess

1. whatever method he is using to swap books does some visible damage to the case

2. by preserving the inner well, he needs to at least submit the now swapped book for grading

3. he wants a valid registry number at CGC, and the information in the registry at least needs to look close to the original book in case a buyer is checking. This makes a buyer more confident to pay large some of money. 

Unfortunately for him, it’s been pretty easy to see when the books have been swapped. The copies he’s using haven’t been close to the same. 

[ThothAmon]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:33 AM, Mikey C said:

Unfortunately for him, it’s been pretty easy to see when the books have been swapped. The copies he’s using haven’t been close to the same. 

So true. Comics are like snowflakes. Each one is unique. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by ThothAmon

[sledgehammer]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:28 AM, drotto said:

Sorry was just trying to clarify. 

Absolutely no worries.

[sledgehammer]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:31 AM, Sigur Ros said:

I don't know what he was doing for sure but it's a lot easier to crack just enough to swap labels.  

In other words, maybe the inner well never leaves the case.

A small crack to slide a label in and out of may be less obvious than a crack to slide a book in and out of. 

You're absolutely right. It would be, but the holder still needs to be securely closed, right?

[sledgehammer]

By the way, the label now acts for what the glue on piece for the first holder used to do at the top.

The label has an angle in it, to be seen at the top of the slab.

Actually, I never noticed it comes back down  for the backside of the label.

Edited December 21, 2023 by sledgehammer

[VintageComics]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:59 AM, Lightning55 said:

On 12/21/2023 at 1:31 AM, Changer said:

Agreed, they could be using AI to do a quick scan to confirm the books is the same - especially since they now have scans, but then again it won't happen if there isnt some heat.   

 

 

They've always had scans, but kept for their own internal use.

@Changer They've already confirmed that they are using 'some AI' but not for grading. AI is still too primitive for that and will never be able to replace a human eye IMO.

@Lightning55 How can you confirm they've always had scans? I don't know if this is true, because adding scans to your order used to delay your order regularly whereas not scanning your order expedited it. 

[drotto]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:26 AM, sledgehammer said:

Yea, that's not what I was saying. I'm saying that when it arrives at CGC, we still don't know why they didn't recognize that a new inner well was inside of an old slab.

Apparently, if it's not an inside job, it raised no red flags.

They appear to be using current generation or at least making sure the outer and replaced inner are consistent with each other. There is not enough data to confirm this however.

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:29 AM, Microchip said:

They'd need some kind of supporting evidence to act.   

Sending them a link to this thread isn't going to cut it 

Lets see what CGC come up with... 

The comics were sold on eBay. That involves eBay. The guy who spotted the IH 181 w/ missing MVS is evidence. That is plenty.

[MAR1979]

On 12/20/2023 at 10:38 PM, Timed said:

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but in this livestream (timestamp 18:06) the guy that originally brought this to light mentions something very interesting... the fraudster said to him in DM's that he had "relationships with higher ups at CGC" and "calls in favors from time to time". For context, he had talked with the guy before this exposure - it was by sheer dumbness that the culprit exposed himself by providing conflicting info in desperation, when the house of cards had begun to collapse.

This may explain how this has transpired. 

“criminals are a cowardly lot.”

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:51 AM, Prince Namor said:

It's not going to happen like that at all. 

Not that you have any idea, but great guess.

[MAR1979]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:24 AM, Sigur Ros said:

We're saying in the eyes of eBay it is perfectly legit.

The guy is selling sealed, untampered, guaranteed CGC slabs.

It's not their job to determine if everything sold on their site has a shady history to it.

They (kind of/sort of/pretty much) have with above $250 trading cards for  2 years now.  Although at time they instituted their new process and policy for those, as I understand it, cards were the single largest sales category on their platform.

Interestingly enough CGC is an authenticity partner of eBay's

https://pages.ebay.com/authenticity-guarantee-tradingcards-seller/

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by MAR1979

[darkstar]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:08 AM, Sigur Ros said:

No.

CGC isn't a pass-through company (except in these cases 😉).  They create the product.

You should have said "US Mint" instead of "bank". 🤷

Then you'd have understood the point.

The creation of the product is irrelevant. The point is that successfully deceiving an authority of the product in question does not in any way legitimize a fake as being authentic. The scammer here has made CGC an unwitting co-conspirator in his ongoing fraud scheme. The scammer can't claim ignorance of his fraud and point to CGC as being at fault when his actions were done repeatedly to deceive CGC and the buyers of his books. 

[drotto]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:40 AM, sledgehammer said:

By the way, the label now acts for what the glue on piece for the first holder used to do at the top.

The label has an angle in it, to be seen at the top of the slab.

You are correct.  I suspect removing the bent label without damaging the case or visibly altering the label is nearly impossible, because of that fold. Swapping the book is easier. 

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 4:49 AM, Sigur Ros said:

No. These guys are selling legit CGC slabs.  EBay has no need to get in on this.  If CGC or the buyer can prove these slabs were tampered with, that's a different story.  But they can't because CGC approved these books and called them 9.8's, despite the fact that they aren't, and re-slabbed them.

Nothing about these slabs is fraudulent in the eyes of eBay.  The fraud was on the submitter and also CGC.  After they leave CGC they are legit, approved, "guaranteed" slabs.  Period.

  

Despite your emphatic use of the powerful word, "Period," I believe you are mistaken. These comics are essentially forgeries. They are real comics, but not the right comics, and that is the problem. This is also the kind of thing the FBI gets involved in because of counterfeit/forgery issue plus interstate commerce. The buyers do not have to wait on CGC to get action here. This involves too many other interests for that.

[VintageComics]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:15 AM, darkstar said:

On 12/21/2023 at 8:10 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

I meant the sports card case. And you are missing the subtlety of what is happening here by a country mile. 

The irony of using an avatar with an exposed brain here is off the charts. 

I think I understand what you're saying here, and it is that if you can prove intent to deceive that's a different ball of wax than absolving him through CGC's certification process. 

We have lots of lawyers here, but they're remaining awfully silent.

Edited December 21, 2023 by VintageComics

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:27 AM, drotto said:

The simplest definition of fraud is any person who knowingly attempts to misrepresent an item or service with the hope of monetary gain. This guy is clearly doing that.  It does not matter if he is using  third party to do it or not.  It does not matter if he spends money in the process of doing that or not. Yes, you could argue that CGC is guilty of complacency as is Ebay, but they are not guilty of criminal intent. They may be guilty in a civil case for allowing the event to occur, because their services are supposed to protect against such acts, but not of fraud. 

again, to be criminally fraudulent, the devil is in the details.  

• If I crack, press,and clean an old blue label 9.0 Hulk #181 and resub and get back a 9.6 is that fraud? No.
  • If I sell the above, is that fraud? No.
  • if the pressed book shrinks back to it's original imperfections and it no longer appears as a 9.6 and I sell it, is that fraud? No.
• If I send in a Hulk #181 with a missing MVS and by some miracle they don't catch it and I get a blue label 9.6 is that fraud? No.
  • If I sell the Blue label hulk #181 with the missing MVS on ebay is that fraud? Depends.
    • If I listed it as a blue labelCGC 9.6  Hulk 181,well that's what it is. Says so right on the label. NOT FRAUD
    • If I listed it as a a blue labelCGC 9.6  Hulk 181 and stated in the listing that the MVS is intact. THAT'S FRAUD.
• If I send in a Hulk #181 with a missing MVS that I slipped into another blue labeled slab for a reholder or custom label and I get a blue label 9.6 is that fraud? Maybe? I contend no, because you aren't selling it to them, you are paying for a service from them. If you trick them into giving you a better grade that it deserves you're a bad person, it might violate some CGC terms of use, but it's not criminal.
  • If I sell the Blue label hulk #181 with the missing MVS on ebay is that fraud? Depends.
    • If I listed it as a blue labelCGC 9.6  Hulk 181,well that's what it is. Says so right on the label. NOT FRAUD
    • If I listed it as a a blue labelCGC 9.6  Hulk 181 without a missing MVS. THAT'S FRAUD

[sledgehammer]

There you go. Contact the seller and ask him if the blue label Hulk 181 has the marvel value stamp.

[Axelrod]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:44 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

uh huh. SO the book he sold was 100% as it was delivered to him from CGC. IF he had not had it re-holdered and sold the swapped book inside the original holder to anyone, that's is 100% fraudulent.  It's not his fault CGC didn't catch on to the subterfuge.

You do not seem to understand what constitutes the fraud here.  

This is saying that if you defraud someone and get away with it, it's not your fault because the person you defrauded didn't catch it....

Hey man, you had every opportunity to catch me, and you didn't.  Not my fault?  

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 5:16 AM, Prince Namor said:

Yep.

And eBay isn't going to 'sue' CGC either. What for?

What happened between the buyer and seller, who both signed eBay agreements to be able to buy and sell, is a private sale on a hosted website. It'd be no different than if he'd bought a counterfeit slab at NYCC. The buyer and seller had a transaction - used the provided wifi - to use their merchant of choice to transfer money - NYCC isn't RESPONSIBLE for that sale.

The first thing eBay will do, if they decide he's doing something illegal, is FREEZE all of his scheduled payments. It wouldn't surprise me if they charged him a certain amount, without asking, as a HOLD. I'm pretty sure they have it in their agreement to be able to do that. (Someone here is more of an expert on eBay for sure...)

CGC? I'm not even going to speculate, on THEIR forum, what they need to do or what could happen but... I'm pretty sure they're scrambling right now to see what the damage is. This could get ugly...

The seller? I know what I'D be doing right now if I was him. Changing my underwear. It could get REAL ugly for him.

The problem with your argument is the same that allowed my case against Fox to set a precedent: the buyers are not parties to any agreements between eBay, CGC, and sellers. Therefore, those agreements cannot be used to indemnify against harm. Here is a case where eBay was ordered to pay $61M for allowing the sale of counterfeits in France: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/technology/01ebay.html

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 5:36 AM, Buzzetta said:

 

If eBay is smart they will maintain their indifference and distance.  If that avenue is travelled, it would lead to exploration of their liability in other incidents of potential fraud by the sellers it hosts and that would open a Pandora's box for eBay. 

Already happened: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/technology/01ebay.html