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

[mycomicshop]

On 1/22/2024 at 1:25 PM, sledgehammer said:

This is what I see as the problem with not knowing a timeline on when we will hear "who" CGC believes is behind this:

It seems to me to be an extreme example of a coincidence, that @mycomicshop would list 3-  9.8 ASM Newsstands right now, all from the same submission

I brought it up earlier that I would now be viewing submissions on books listed with a lot more scrutiny. The listing prices are quite high for the current market, but offers are being accepted

Here is what I see.

This cert, of a 9.6 newsstand, sold for the highest price (by quite a bit) of a 9.6 in 2023.  4144955001 sold on June 19th, 2023

I think that's intriguing ( and please, somebody check the sale if possible ) , considering the speculation on shill bidding in many of "scamboy's" auctions, when you consider this:

Here are the other books in that submission of 12/12/22:

4144955002  9.8  ASM  300 newsstand   https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_ii/originalimage/7181147.jpg

4144955003  9.8  ASM  300 newsstand  https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_ii/originalimage/7181145.jpg

4144955004  9.8  ASM  300 newsstand  

4144955005  9.6  ASM  300 newsstand

My opinion is, cert #s 002 and 003 seem to have some funky things going on to be considered 9.8.

They could also be post slabbing issues, I'm sure.

The 3- 9.8s were just listed. and I'm not saying @mycomicshop is doing anything wrong, make me curious if the consignor is from NY?

On your website, the consignor is Ironside Comics, of Texas. Are they possibly consigning for someone else?

I'm assuming the answer is MOST PROBABLY NOT, but do you guys have clarity, on who "scamboy" is, from CGC?

Until we get clarity, on exactly why this is limited to reholders/custom labels, it seems like it wouldn't be advisable to do business with "scamboy", if there's any doubt about the legitimacy of comic books that he owns??

Until we get clarity, and an understanding on how books were delivered to CGC in a way that this got past them?

Oh yea, curious what the second highest price was on a 9.6 newsstand in 2023??  It was this one, on January 1st 2023.  4140765015

That submission was on  11/11/2022, and included the following 3-ASM 300, 9.8s.

 4140765016, 4140765017 and 4140765018.

All 3 have the "very light spine stress lines to cover" grading notes.

There is going to be a big fog over this, until light is shown.

The three items you're referring to have been in stock with us since September 2023 and gone through a few price reductions since then. When you ask why they were listed "right now", I'm guessing you mean new listing on eBay, because the listings on MCS have been there since last September.

The last time those three items got a price reduction was December 22, and I think all you're seeing is that our code is reposting the listings once they pass 30 days old.

The sale you're talking about on June 19 2023 looks like a normal sale to a buyer that doesn't look suspicious. The buyer bought that one comic from this consignor, and one other comic from a different consignor. No pattern of other buying activity from the same consignor or anything suspicious.

The consignor of those slabs is indeed from Texas and I have no reason to be suspicious of the consignor.

[NewWorldOrder]

@BrashL

When you say "CGC Needs a New Holder."

Do you mean like from scratch or a slight modification?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you also say CGC should stop all grading till then and have a complete recall of all previous holders?

Edited January 22 by NewWorldOrder

[BrashL]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:44 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

@BrashL

When you say "CGC Needs a New Holder."

Do you mean like from scratch or a slight modification?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you also say CGC should stop all grading till then and have a complete recall of all previous holders?

No, I don't think I ever said that but it's another great straw man for you to line up and knock down.

I don't know why I even bother with you, it's very clear that your livelihood is inextricably linked with CGC's reputation, to the point that if they ran one of your submissions through a  paper shredder Banksy style you'd praise them for the uniform size of the strips. The rest of us can admit that the holder is substandard and needs to be replaced.

[Ares]

On 1/22/2024 at 2:19 PM, toro said:

The competitors put out an email today that basically said our cases are better than the other guys. 

Kinda Cheeky but it was expected

[NewWorldOrder]

On 1/22/2024 at 4:13 PM, BrashL said:

No, I don't think I ever said that but it's another great straw man for you to line up and knock down.

I don't know why I even bother with you, it's very clear that your livelihood is inextricably linked with CGC's reputation, to the point that if they ran one of your submissions through a  paper shredder Banksy style you'd praise them for the uniform size of the strips. The rest of us can admit that the holder is substandard and needs to be replaced.

Many millions of dollars are linked to CGC's business.  I am no different than the many others in the hobby.

I asked you a question how is that a straw man argument to which you brought up?    I will ask again.

When you say "CGC Needs a New Holder."

Do you mean like from scratch or a slight modification?

Cause if you mean a brand new holder then that can not happen over night.  1-2 years or longer, slight modification is possible sooner.

So I am asking you and others what do want them to do before then just stop grading comics in regards to their current case?

They are obviously reading all posts here so what do you think is the best solution to start tomorrow morning.

 

[NewWorldOrder]

On 1/22/2024 at 4:21 PM, Ares said:

Kinda Cheeky but it was expected

Where does it say that if a dealer, collector, and re-sellers use them that they will be rewarded with the highest market value in the hobby?

Still wanting on that...

[comicjel]

On 1/22/2024 at 7:22 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Many millions of dollars are linked to CGC's business.  I am no different than the many others in the hobby.

I asked you a question how is that a straw man argument to which you brought up?    I will ask again.

When you say "CGC Needs a New Holder."

Do you mean like from scratch or a slight modification?

Cause if you mean a brand new holder then that can not happen over night.  1-2 years or longer, slight modification is possible sooner.

So I am asking you and others what do want them to do before then just stop grading comics in regards to their current case?

They are obviously reading all posts here so what do you think is the best solution to start tomorrow morning.

 

Add a scan of the ungraded book to the label - not really a new holder, but a change that will make purchasing such graded books safer and easier to verify - will have a good deterrent factor as well. 

[NewWorldOrder]

On 1/22/2024 at 4:48 PM, comicjel said:

Add a scan of the ungraded book to the label - not really a new holder, but a change that will make purchasing such graded books safer and easier to verify - will have a good deterrent factor as well. 

Interesting

So do you mean like on label it self?  or do you mean available to see online once you put in the cert#?

[MAR1979]

On 1/22/2024 at 6:31 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Yes they are failures because they failed time and time again to make any real strides to become a legitimate threat when CGC has allowed them to come in.  CGC is WWE and they are WCW.  Eventually WCW went under, and bought by WWE.  Heck even WCW put up a valiant fight.  So that Voldey has been useless.  I would love a true comic grading company WAR!  Like we did with the Monday Night Wars of the late 90's.  Consumer wins when that happens!

No major dealer uses them to sell big books on a consistent basis.

Their verified signature program has proven to not-trustworthy.

That 10-20% gap has been that way since they opened up shop so let me know when they close that gap and I will gladly start submitting to them as well.

Everyone can agree competition is good thing, I am just waiting for a real company to actually show up to challenge them. So far nothing in 24 years.

Yep, Lack of true competition is never a good thing! Well folks it had to happen eventually, the first post NewWorldOrder post in this thread I agree with!  

Edited January 23 by MAR1979

[NewWorldOrder]

On 1/22/2024 at 4:57 PM, MAR1979 said:

Well folks it had to happen eventually, the first post NewWorldOrder post in this thread I agree with!   Lack of true competition is never a good thing!

Curious what is the major viewpoint I have said that you do disagree with me on?

Because it depends on what day I am posting.  Today I am in a serious mood, and most days on the boards its vodka on the rocks.

Edited January 23 by NewWorldOrder

[bc]

On 1/22/2024 at 7:56 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Interesting

So do you mean like on label it self?  or do you mean available to see online once you put in the cert#?

Putting an image anywhere on the label (front/back) does nothing if the outer case (and therefore the label) can be compromised with limited tamper evidence.

Why do you think they started putting hardware-based chips on all credit & debit cards? Why do you have to type in a secret code that your bank text messages on your personal smartphone in order to login? It's all a way to increase authentication via a secondary criteria  and reduce fraud (which reduces liabilities and operating costs and preserves the brand's reputation).

CGC needs to add an additional metric to authenticate the chain of custody. Hence my suggestions about embedding a microchip into the seal of the inner well.

-bc 

[agamoto]

On 1/22/2024 at 3:31 PM, comicjel said:

As "maybe" this thread winds down, I find an aspect of the scam, as I believe we think it happened, to still not make sense to me so much.

The original "discovered" swap that started all this (i.e. the reholder to get the ASM 252 9.8 MJI).  To accomplish this scam, we think the guy had 2 books - a newstand 9.8 and a MJI 9.4 (or was it 9.2??), and that he sent in the MJI 9.4 with the Newstand 9.8 label and ended up with a reholdered MJI 9.8.

What really still bugs me about this specific swap is how the scammer "ever" would have felt confident enough to try to get CGC to both reholder this book (that presumably had a tampered outer holder) "and" to get them to effectively admit that they missed the MJI when originally graded "and" to feel confident enough that they would not go back and look at the original scan of the book.  To me that seems like adding multiple levels of risk to a scam that was working pretty seamlessly.  The scammer is going to take all that "extra" risk for what would effectively be a one-time benefit?? It's not like you could claim that they missed the MJI multiple times and not draw attention to yourself, right?  if adding this wrinkle causes CGC to go back and compare to the original scan, EVERYTHING is blown up!! - this money printing machine just seizes up!

I know you guys are going to say "crooks are dumb" and "crooks get careless"... but it is just an aspect of this scam that I can not shake! - I guess it is what makes me think that this is much bigger than it appears to us.   

Well, if you ask 9.9Newstand, he'll tell you how the person who sold the dirty 252 MJ Variant told him of his connections with higher-ups at CGC regarding how they determined together there are 7 MJ copies of X-Men 266.

But it's ok, Matt Nelson also told 9.9 that no one internally at CGC is connected to this scam, and they've got Kroll investigators hot on the case, so it's all good.

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 1/22/2024 at 7:26 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Where does it say that if a dealer, collector, and re-sellers use them that they will be rewarded with the highest market value in the hobby?

Still wanting on that...

 

[CGC Mike]

On 1/22/2024 at 4:24 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

@CGC Mike I'm not sure if it's something you did -- regardless, I thank you -- but I just received the following email from CGC:

I just got the ball rolling.  I am glad to hear that your book was not affected by this.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:06 PM, bc said:

Putting an image anywhere on the label (front/back) does nothing if the outer case (and therefore the label) can be compromised with limited tamper evidence.

Why do you think they started putting hardware-based chips on all credit & debit cards? Why do you have to type in a secret code that your bank text messages on your personal smartphone in order to login? It's all a way to increase authentication via a secondary criteria  and reduce fraud (which reduces liabilities and operating costs and preserves the brand's reputation).

CGC needs to add an additional metric to authenticate the chain of custody. Hence my suggestions about embedding a microchip into the seal of the inner well.

-bc 

That would all depend on the cost basis. 

Let's face it 50% and its probably more of the books submitted are not even worth case cost to begin with.  So most are not even worth being tampered with by the criminals.

Maybe with higher tier books only?

[bc]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:12 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

That would all depend on the cost basis. 

Let's face it 50% and its probably more of the books submitted are not even worth case cost to begin with.  So most are not even worth being tampered with by the criminals.

Maybe with higher tier books only?

From a capital cost, it's pennies per unit.

From an operational cost, it's seconds of labor.

From a brand integrity perspective, it's priceless.

One way to "leapfrog" the competition.

-bc

EDIT: The same solution authenticates a multi-billion dollar Italian cheese industry:

https://wired.me/technology/parmesan-cheese-microchip/

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by bc

[NewWorldOrder]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:16 PM, bc said:

From a capital cost, it's pennies per unit.

From an operational cost, it's seconds of labor.

From a brand integrity perspective, it's priceless.

One way to "leapfrog" the competition.

-bc

Then that's not a bad idea then if the cost would be basically be what you said. 

I cant agrue with that.

 

Edited January 23 by NewWorldOrder

[Sigur Ros]

On 1/22/2024 at 3:57 PM, BrashL said:

Can anyone say with a straight face at this point that they're wrong?

Of course not. But this isn't news.

On 1/22/2024 at 3:57 PM, BrashL said:

I'd still like to hear CGC admit there is a problem and commit to bringing out a world class case

They should use this as an opportunity to find a supplier for clearer, sturdier, tamper-evident cases with no Newton rings.

Obviously they exist elsewhere.  Not sure why they haven't pursued it by now.

[bc]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:19 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Then that's not a bad idea then it the cost would be basically what you said.  I cant agrue with that.

 

All good man 

And to take it one step further, ALL submissions should be added to the submitter account as a Custom Registry set. 

The submitter can move them to any other Competitive of personal Custom Set anytime they want or they can leave them there.

That would then add another point in the chain of custody cycle and add a value-added service to differentiate from the competitors.

-bc 

[buttock]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:21 PM, Ares said:

Kinda Cheeky but it was expected

Boy, given some of the things I've heard and seen from CBCS that's a bold move.