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

[paqart]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:42 PM, comicwiz said:

It may be easier to understand for "joe public", but it is not accurate to the nuanced aspect of the deception. 

That's fine, and my comment isn't meant to take anything away from your work. It's just that an exhibit in a lawsuit is not the same as proving something forensically. I'm going through something like this right now with a book agent. I did some research over the last two years that gained some noteriety, hence the agent. The work was very detailed and involved capturing every nuance of what I found. For the book I'm writing about it, I have to remove almost all the detail so that general readers will understand what I found without having to earn a PhD first. It's frustrating to write this way because I feel like it requires leaving out important details. However, the agent has shown me clear examples why it has to be done this way, not the least of which is a comparison of books with forensic detail that don't do well compared to the extremely simple versions of similar stories that perform extremely well. It comes down to the audience.
Now that I think of it, I have a better example. When I was a kid, a friend broke into my house and stole about 30 comics from my collection. I recognized them at his house because of the priice labels on the bags, which were handwritten by a particular dealer at the DeAnza flea market in San Jose.
I described this in great detail to the judge, who did not believe I could tell the difference between two identically manufactured comics. The thief's family had their insurance agent at the trial. Though I lost because the judge didn't believe I could distinguish between my comics and someone else's, the insurance agent was persuaded and I got paid through the family's homeowner's insurance.

[paqart]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:47 PM, agamoto said:

I'm not so sure about that. Let me play devil's advocate for a second...

We know this much: Zanello, allegedly, purchased two CGC graded books, one of higher grade, one of lower grade. We still have no clear picture if he had been swapping labels or swapping the CGC sealed inner sleeve containing the comic, but the end result was a frankenstein that ended back up on the desk of someone at CGC. CGC then opened the case AND the inner sleeve, performed some level of examination of the book, reinserted the book into a new inner sleeve and then encapsulated the comic with a new label certifiying the book as legit, anew.

Did Zanello violate CGC's terms by doing this? I believe not by their own definition, as their terms only stipulate material changes to the comics themselves as tampering when that didn't happen here. Did Zanello misrepresent what he was sending in to CGC? Clearly, but CGC's main business is in authentication of the collectible. They bear some responsibility here. Seems to me it's on CGC to make sure the book sent in is the book they say it is on the label, even if they don't guaranty the grade.  

The way the complaint is presented, Zanello was stuffing just any ol' lower grade comic stuck into a higher-grade CGC case/label. That's not what happened. Someone needs to explain to me like I'm five how Zanello is guilty of trademark infringement when he played no role whatsoever in the company's process for reauthentication and encapsulation of books submitted to them?

Is he supposed to be guilty simply because he alone is aware that the book inside the case CGC sent back to him isn't the original comic that CGC had graded? How is Zanello supposed to know that CGC did NOT review the condition of his submitted books outside of their case and inner sleeve, like CGC says they do?

 

That is a fair argument and may correctly anticipate Zanello's defense. However, Zanello misrepresented to CGC that the comic in the holder was the same as was originally graded. CGC was sloppy not to check, but Zanello was intending to defraud and made CGC into an unwitting participant, possibly because he was aware of laxity in their reholdering process. That still makes Zanello guilty of counterfeiting, even if he used a third party to do it. Also, regardless of CGC's actions, the result is a counterfeit with a false designation of origin because the comic inside the case is not the comic the grade label belongs to.

[paqart]

I hate to do this, but who will be the first on page 400 of this thread?

[agamoto]

On 2/7/2024 at 11:49 AM, paqart said:

I described this in great detail to the judge, who did not believe I could tell the difference between two identically manufactured comics. The thief's family had their insurance agent at the trial. Though I lost because the judge didn't believe I could distinguish between my comics and someone else's, the insurance agent was persuaded and I got paid through the family's homeowner's insurance.

Hold on a second... You're saying that despite losing your case in court, the accused's family insurance company was so moved by your testimony that they paid you for your loss anyway? 

What season and episode of the Twilight Zone was this again? 

[comicwiz]

Here's one. An error? Perhaps. However, it's a good example of the nuanced aspects of grading.

Here we have a SS book that fails to remark Shooters sig in both the label and cert look-up. I'm going to say just a few things about this, because I already know the people more steeped in SS will say it's an error they've seen happen. Maybe so. But I hope they'll agree that it's weird, AND given what we've learned from the lawsuit, worthy of examining under a magnified lens of scrutiny, so please hear me out. This is one of the books sold by the employee at the center of the allegations, through one of the eBay accounts named in the lawsuit. There is already a pattern revealing of books that appear to be of lesser condition, possibly other issues, as shown with the ASM 20 I posted earlier. 

In this instance, the label should at the very least be a two-tone green/yellow. In the signed memorabilia/poster/whatevs world, having an unverified sig is something that can impact the value, and actually be a deal-breaker for certain collectors. I highly doubt CGC will be reviving the unremarked sig as being witnessed, and if they do, that is some miracle work, because I know I had photos of a book prior to being damaged showing it was double-signed, that arrived to me with a cracked holder, and they in no uncertain terms told me that if the well was breached, they would not be able to validate either of the sigs. Even though I had scans showing the label, the sigs, their placement.  

So all we have here is an example of a book that for some strange reason was sold with just a witnessed/remarked Beatty sig, no correct two-tone green/yellow label, AND no way an unwitnessed sig of that size and placement would allow this to have received anything higher than an 8.0. And yet, we see a 9.2 on the snappy SS single tone yellow label.

Doubtful someone like Kroll would be able to pick-up on any of these nuanced aspects, or be able to understand why this is a problem book as it sits, out there in circulation. And before anyone points out that a Shooter sig isn't going to add much, that has nothing to do with the issue - rather, that this is not an accurate assessment, sold for too much, had too high a grade assigned given the context I've explained above, and because a two-tone green/yellow would have had a more detrimental impact on it's value. 

Certification: 4233221001

Seller: terrazas-the-collector Cert: 4233221001 [06/24/2023] - $275

 

Edited February 7 by comicwiz

[paqart]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:57 PM, agamoto said:

Hold on a second... You're saying that despite losing your case in court, the accused's family insurance company was so moved by your testimony that they paid you for your loss anyway? 

What season and episode of the Twilight Zone was this again? 

Not Twilight Zone. They paid me full guide for the comics, which at the time was around $500. I used part of the proceeds to buy a Thun'da #1 for $375 (appx 8.0) from Comics and Comix in Palo Alto. Also, I thought I'd won the case and that's why I got paid. My mom told me no, it was the insurance company that decided to pay me. I should also mention that when the police searched the kid's house for my comics, they found a lot of other suspicious comics he likely stole. They couldn't confiscate them because they weren't on my list, but they were a lot more valuable than the stuff he took from me, all Golden Age early Action, Superman, and Captain America. 

Sometimes, people do the right thing even when they don't have to.

[agamoto]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:35 PM, paqart said:

Not Twilight Zone. They paid me full guide for the comics, which at the time was around $500. I used part of the proceeds to buy a Thun'da #1 for $375 (appx 8.0) from Comics and Comix in Palo Alto. Also, I thought I'd won the case and that's why I got paid. My mom told me no, it was the insurance company that decided to pay me. I should also mention that when the police searched the kid's house for my comics, they found a lot of other suspicious comics he likely stole. They couldn't confiscate them because they weren't on my list, but they were a lot more valuable than the stuff he took from me, all Golden Age early Action, Superman, and Captain America. 

Sometimes, people do the right thing even when they don't have to.

People do the right thing sometimes, but insurance companies? 

Lol. 

[paqart]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:39 PM, agamoto said:

People do the right thing sometimes, but insurance companies? 

Lol. 

It happens. Insurance companies don't exist to rip people off, no matter how many people think so. Their brand is closely connected to the way they treat claimants. They have no problem destroying scammers when the need arises, but honest claimants are treated differently, even if they have to jump through a few hoops first.
A good friend of mine is a senior manager at one of the largest medical insurance companies in the world. According to him, they sometimes prefer to pay for more expensive treatment than requested because their doctors have determined it is better than whatever is asked for. In the long run, they find that better solutions lead to fewer claims and happier customers.

[agamoto]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:03 PM, comicwiz said:

Here's one. An error? Perhaps. However, it's a good example of the nuanced aspects of grading.

By my reckoning of that lawsuit, it seems those employees apparently had free reign throughout the facility to print whatever they wanted, manipulate records, encapsulate with abandon, etc. So anything goes!

[agamoto]

whoops!

Edited February 7 by agamoto
double post

[agamoto]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:42 PM, paqart said:

It happens. Insurance companies don't exist to rip people off, no matter how many people think so. Their brand is closely connected to the way they treat claimants. They have no problem destroying scammers when the need arises, but honest claimants are treated differently, even if they have to jump through a few hoops first.
A good friend of mine is a senior manager at one of the largest medical insurance companies in the world. According to him, they sometimes prefer to pay for more expensive treatment than requested because their doctors have determined it is better than whatever is asked for. In the long run, they find that better solutions lead to fewer claims and happier customers.

[agamoto]

On 2/7/2024 at 11:54 AM, paqart said:

That is a fair argument and may correctly anticipate Zanello's defense. However, Zanello misrepresented to CGC that the comic in the holder was the same as was originally graded. CGC was sloppy not to check, but Zanello was intending to defraud and made CGC into an unwitting participant, possibly because he was aware of laxity in their reholdering process. That still makes Zanello guilty of counterfeiting, even if he used a third party to do it. Also, regardless of CGC's actions, the result is a counterfeit with a false designation of origin because the comic inside the case is not the comic the grade label belongs to.

Ok, well is that not CGC's guaranty? Is it not their job in all of this to guaranty that two sets of eyes looked at a book and deemed it to be an authentic book? I still fail to see how claims of counterfeiting or false designation of origin can stand up when CGC themselves are the ones who are supposed to the be verifying and guaranteeing and slapping their new sleeve, label and holder on the book.

1. If Zanello was indeed just swapping books and then selling them directly representing them as the book on the label, w/o "step 4", ie resubmit to CGC, then I'd agree with you.

2. If CGC never said they pull the book out of the case and the inner well and evaluate it before reencapsulation, I'd also agree with you. 

[awakeintheashes]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:42 PM, paqart said:

On 2/7/2024 at 3:39 PM, agamoto said:

People do the right thing sometimes, but insurance companies? 

Lol. 

It happens. Insurance companies don't exist to rip people off, no matter how many people think so. Their brand is closely connected to the way they treat claimants. They have no problem destroying scammers when the need arises, but honest claimants are treated differently, even if they have to jump through a few hoops first.
A good friend of mine is a senior manager at one of the largest medical insurance companies in the world. According to him, they sometimes prefer to pay for more expensive treatment than requested because their doctors have determined it is better than whatever is asked for. In the long run, they find that better solutions lead to fewer claims and happier customers.

I was hoping this thread would bring about a @dgarthwaite-migration appearance, but instead we get this…

[paqart]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:56 PM, agamoto said:

Ok, well is that not CGC's guaranty? Is it not their job in all of this to guaranty that two sets of eyes looked at a book and deemed it to be an authentic book? I still fail to see how claims of counterfeiting or false designation of origin can stand up when CGC themselves are the ones who are supposed to the be verifying and guaranteeing and slapping their new sleeve, label and holder on the book.

1. If Zanello was indeed just swapping books and then selling them directly representing them as the book on the label, w/o "step 4", ie resubmit to CGC, then I'd agree with you.

2. If CGC never said they pull the book out of the case and the inner well and evaluate it before reencapsulation, I'd also agree with you. 

It sounds to me like you agree the slabbed comics in question are counterfeits. Not counterfeit comics, holders, or labels, but counterfeit products that are not what they are purported to be.
Your quibble seems to be with CGC's responsibility in this. My impression is that CGC can't argue that Zanello made counterfeits when it was CGC that actually put the counterfeits together. Is that what you are saying? In other words, they are counterfeits but you think it makes no sense to accuse Zanello of making them when CGC put the elements together?
If that is your argument, and it wouldn't surprise me if this is exactly what Zanello is thinking also, it doesn't work for me. By submitting the wrong comic to CGC, he is clearly committing fraud. CGC appears to have unwittingly helped produce the counterfeits, but only because they were defrauded by Zanello. CGC's guarantee creates an obligation to "certify" the contents of the holder, and that is where Zanello hurt them the most, by exposing that they seem to have skipped that step. It doesn't change the fact that the counterfeits wouldn't exist if not for Zanello's actions.
 

[sledgehammer]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:56 PM, agamoto said:

2. If CGC never said they pull the book out of the case and the inner well and evaluate it before reencapsulation, I'd also agree with you. 

Where did you get this from?

Did you see somewhere that they said they remove comics from the inner sleeve on every re holder/custom label, or at least their employees are supposed to?

This is all that I saw in the complaint:

"Because reholdering does not involve grading, the grade does not change (except in rare instances not applicable here)."

[agamoto]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:15 PM, sledgehammer said:

Where did you get this from?

Did you see somewhere that they said they remove comics from the inner sleeve on every re holder/custom label, or at least their employees are supposed to?

This is all that I saw in the complaint:

"Because reholdering does not involve grading, the grade does not change (except in rare instances not applicable here)."

Check it out...

 

[valiantman]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:59 PM, awakeintheashes said:

I was hoping this thread would bring about a @dgarthwaite-migration appearance, but instead we get this…

Somewhat off-topic, but I believe the real-world person behind the dgarthwaite account did pass away.

[comicwiz]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:03 PM, paqart said:

but counterfeit products that are not what they are purported to be.

This is a very interesting direction your taking this. Let's say I send an item of jewellery, let's say a ring, to Van Cleef & Arpels (VCA) to be rejoined with a proper VCA ring box, as the one I originally had for it was damaged. What I receive back is not what I originally sent in, but VCA insists that they returned what I sent to them. It's later determined that an employee was stealing/swapping out customers property and selling it. To be clear, this is a hypothetical, and hasn't happened. I'm just using it for comparison on what occurred at CGC.

In the hypothetical scenario I describe, the ring was sent in to the manufacturer, processed as an original, but what was returned to me was not the original ring I sent in. The only thing they needed to do is rebox it in a correct VCA box, and someone internally deceptively intervened with that request. They may have swapped my ring with someone else's that was very similar. Real, but not mine. Or they may have altered the ring in a manner that I notice is different. Or they may have swapped mine with another customers that was similar enough to fool someone that may not have been as attentive. They may also have access to internal tooling that allows them to replicate the rings to the exact standards and specifications, and only after they were caught, did my case for being sent something else suddenly have merit. 

Explain to me how my original ring is now a counterfeit? Or that any of the real parts in this scandal - the holders, the label, the cert look-ups meshing with it all, the comics inside being genuine article, but of lesser condition or incomplete - how are they counterfeits? 

When I think of a counterfeit, I'm thinking a guy in Lima in a storage locker with a Heidelberg printing press that has replicated a US $100 bill to an exactness that is near impossible to distinguish between real and fake. A counterfeit is not some insider at the US Mint, who runs notes while no one is looking, or strikes builion on planchets he snags when no one is looking.  One is an imitation, the other is not.

Edited February 7 by comicwiz

[awakeintheashes]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:23 PM, valiantman said:

Somewhat off-topic, but I believe the real-world person behind the dgarthwaite account did pass away.

Thanks for the update. He sure had some tales. 

[sledgehammer]

Something weird.

On the pressing site, before and after examples, a 4.5 FF book, becomes a 5.0 book.

Both slabs are yellow. Signature is exactly the same.

The after slab is custom Stan label. 

Cream OW becomes OW.  Not that big of a deal.

The weird thing is that the date Stan signed it changes from  11/23/2013, to  4/22/2017.

Probably a mistake?  Just seems very weird to be a mistake

Before  https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/1196041008/.

After  https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/1393257001/