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

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:02 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Conversely or by and by...

Look up the cert numbers corresponding to those individual cert numbers in the verification tool, from the base number of ########01 all the way to ########25...

And you can see all the books in each submission to question them. Alternatively to also looking up the pics to see inserted books, that given his most recent submission being ones with cgc scans on the verification tool then you also might see scans of those additional submissions in CGC scans from #01-25

It's a lot of work and I don't have the time, but maybe the YouTubers will

[Prince Namor]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:04 PM, paqart said:

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

I know eBay was appealing the French ruling... trying to find how all of that played out... as far as in the U.S. (where this is taking place with CGC books), it looks like...

Judge Richard Sullivan, a U.S. District Judge in New York, said that Tiffany and other companies are responsible for policing their trademarks if and when they appear on eBay, and that eBay’s generalized knowledge that some of the goods for sale on its site might be fake is not sufficient to impose contributory liability.

https://softwarenegotiation.com/ebay-wins-trademark-tangle-with-tiffany-co/

[alwaysbronze]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:22 PM, Point Five said:

Guys, CGC has finally posted their official response. This comes from the top,
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

is there really a response? what is the link?

[Point Five]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:09 PM, alwaysbronze said:

is there really a response? what is the link?

No.

 

[skybolt]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:02 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Conversely or by and by...

Look up the cert numbers corresponding to those individual cert numbers in the verification tool, from the base number of ########01 all the way to ########25...

And you can see all the books in each submission to question them. Alternatively to also looking up the pics to see inserted books, that given his most recent submission being ones with cgc scans on the verification tool then you also might see scans of those additional submissions in CGC scans from #01-25

I see what you're saying. Even if he submits the original books he swapped out for regrading, at least we'll know which books he was trying to swap and work back from there.

[Bo1983]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:04 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

It's a lot of work and I don't have the time, but maybe the YouTubers will

You sound mad why cause slabs have always been a scam?

[mephistopheles]

On 12/21/2023 at 4:09 PM, alwaysbronze said:

is there really a response? what is the link?

https://r.mtdv.me/blog/posts/httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvdQw4w9WgXcQkx

[mrd160]

The problem is, anyone that thinks this is just this one guy is nuts. If he has done it, chances are others have as well….just wow. disaster

Edited December 21, 2023 by mrd160

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:13 PM, Bo1983 said:

You sound mad why cause slabs have always been a scam?

not mad, just busy  

[trademarkcomics]

Folks, I know I just said that the silence is deafening, but there could be another possibility(however remote) for the lack of response by CGC:

 

Spoiler

It's Christmas??? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nahhhh! Let the carnage continue!!! 

 

[skybolt]

Unfortunately, it doesn't even need to involve taking the bold move of re-holdering books through CGC. If someone has figured out a way to remove inner wells without damaging the slab, they can technically buy an ASM #1 CGC 4.0 and an ASM CGC 3.0 restored. Do the whole switcheroo thing, and make a couple of grand just like that.

[drotto]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:04 PM, Heronext said:

I imagine they are just reholdering it and not, say, doing a page count or checking for cut-outs.

What it appears is happening is when books are being sent for re-holder, if the inner well is intact and shows no tampering or damage CGC is just re-slabbing, and not touching the inner well.  They are not really taking more then a cursory look at the books themselves. They have been assuming the book in the slab is the book they had put in that holder. They are also assuming that tampering with a case would be obvious by its appearance.  It now is clear that is not the situation.

 

This goes along with what I understand is a long term policy that re-holder does not mean regrade, and in fact the book would keep its old grade as long as there was not obvious damage. I may be wrong, but that was always my understanding. 

[trademarkcomics]

On 12/21/2023 at 12:47 PM, skybolt said:

Unfortunately, it doesn't even need to involve taking the bold move of re-holdering books through CGC. If someone has figured out a way to remove inner wells without damaging the slab, they can technically buy an ASM #1 CGC 4.0 and an ASM CGC 3.0 restored. Do the whole switcheroo thing, and make a couple of grand just like that.

I think the pertinent issue here is that they are doing this to make sure the grader notes match up so there's no question as to the "validity" of the issue they are selling. 

[brute_nm]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:47 AM, MAR1979 said:

yep.

They will follow their tried, true and only playbook; 
1) Say Nothing
2) Do Nothing.
3) Take in money hand-over fist knowing even those chattering in this very thread will continue to submit.

Don't expect any comment from Mike or anyone else in this thread. I'd suspect they have been told allow topic to continue until it fizzles out, which it will.

 

I know it's futile but I'll throw up another bat signal to @CGC Mike @mnelsonCGC. I would be fine with the ol' "we can't comment on an ongoing investigation" or "we're looking into it" canned response - at least some type of acknowledgment would be nice.

The absence of communication churns the rumor mill.

You would think a $500M company could afford the salary of a single PR person or a Crisis Management seminar 

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:08 PM, paqart said:

It's even more than that. In this case, CGC isn't just an "expert." They are performing the same function as an assayer. This is a very serious problem for them. The heart of it is that buyers are in a position where CGC is the ultimate authority, with no way to check that authority. I just spoke with a friend of mine in the medical insurance business about this. He runs into fraud all the time and had a name for this. Unfortunately, I forgot what it was, but it means what I just wrote. When you have one authority and they have a financial incentive to commit fraud, there will almost certainly be fraud. Also, this can be used in insurance fraud as well. Our guy doesn't have to sell the comics to get money. If they are insured, he can file an insurance claim as well. This is the kind of thing that can cause market failure.

The term is "The independent agent problem."

[trademarkcomics]

On 12/21/2023 at 12:50 PM, brute_nm said:

I know it's futile but I'll throw up another bat signal to @CGC Mike @mnelsonCGC. I would be fine with the ol' "we can't comment on an ongoing investigation" or "we're looking into it" canned response - at least some type of acknowledgment would be nice.

The absence of communication churns the rumor mill.

You would think a $500M company could afford the salary of a single PR person or a Crisis Management seminar 

Due to the holidays they might have only one dude manning the whole operation and he's like...WTF???? 

[skybolt]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:48 PM, trademarkcomics said:

I think the pertinent issue here is that they are doing this to make sure the grader notes match up so there's no question as to the "validity" of the issue they are selling. 

Unfortunately, half the grader notes I get from CGC make no sense (albeit for much cheaper books). I would agree that 9.6/9.8 candidates are the best for these shenanigans since they have no grader notes to compare to.

[drotto]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:47 PM, skybolt said:

Unfortunately, it doesn't even need to involve taking the bold move of re-holdering books through CGC. If someone has figured out a way to remove inner wells without damaging the slab, they can technically buy an ASM #1 CGC 4.0 and an ASM CGC 3.0 restored. Do the whole switcheroo thing, and make a couple of grand just like that.

Personally, I suspect their process does cause some damage to the slab, but it does not look like tampering. We all know slabs with damage do not sell as well. So the individual needs the resubmission. Second, now that CGC is posting scans of graded books, if they can get the now re-slabbed book scanned and listed in the registry with the new image, it gives them more backing that this is the original and valid book. It also looks like CGC is backing their copy.

[jason4]

On 12/21/2023 at 12:47 PM, MAR1979 said:

yep.

They will follow their tried, true and only playbook; 
1) Say Nothing
2) Do Nothing.
3) Take in money hand-over fist knowing even those chattering in this very thread will continue to submit.

Don't expect any comment from Mike or anyone else in this thread. I'd suspect they have been told allow topic to continue until it fizzles out, which it will.

 

Only part of number 3 is not true. I'm done grading books. Sorry but now I want to see everything inside a raw book. How can someone just open old cases and put other books in them and say oh now it's a mark jewelers and cgc doesn't even check that?!?!

Edited December 21, 2023 by jason4

[paqart]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:30 PM, Prince Namor said:

That's not what I'm saying. I don't see eBay suing CGC over it. 

I still don't see eBay suing CGC over it.

 

I can accept that as a possibility (eBay doesn't sue CGC). I can also see CGC getting sued by eBay. It's up to eBay, but they'd certainly be in a good position to do it. For insurance reasons, they may not have a choice. Refunding buyers for a scam like this might be paid out of eBay's liability insurance. If that happens, then eBay's insurance company would (or could) sue CGC on eBay's behalf for the loss.