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

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 2/14/2024 at 7:36 PM, silent06 said:

Agreed. Outside of the validation of the certification number via the CGC verification site, CGC does not provide or outline any procedure or guidance for the consumer to inspect and discern or detect if the CGC holder or the contents within the holder have been tampered with, counterfeited or the contents of the book within the holder are in any way incomplete. Prior to this tampering incident, there wasn't even any statement regarding how a consumer or purchaser should take action if they suspected tamper or the contents of the holder had been altered in any way. The consumer or purchaser was standing on CGC's guarantee that the contents of the holder were authentic and alteration based on the conveyance and trust of CGC's grading, holder and certification process. 

Well that is at least brainstorming, but I don't see it as possible, any outside verification is just going to make it that much easier for scammers to duplicate it.

As in house as this whole cgc thing feels, that's the way it's going to be for a while.

I feel they should offer a look over for free, but if found to be tampered, they're then supposed to say tough noogies? Or hold them indefinitely until litigations are found?

Brainstorming is nice though.

 

[MAR1979]

On 2/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

How would you suggest PR handle it?

The trees fiddy are under the guarantee and the others aren't, they explained why.

I suppose offering a free or inexpensive review or look over wouldn't be unreasonable, but they aren't legally obligated to compensate if something happens, as that rewards the criminals, legitimizes their operation, and undermines just as bad.

Again it's easy to point fingers. I'd guess that CGC wishes they "could do more", but to not legitimize the tampering.

 

 

 

By and by they didn't deny the thousands of slabs, what y'all said is already true, just nothing cgc specifically can do about it. I would struggle to see how it is cgc fault that scammers found a way, I'd just be happy if they find a fix. And given this thread any fix is only temporary, along with inevitable. It is what it is, not saying you're wrong.

What do you expect cgc to do? Rather than point "out the obvious". 

I do agree with you but my comment about purchasing slabbed carrying greater risk than raw totally applies. Certainly not an endorsement or selling point for any grading company! 

Myself since scandal hit have suspended any CGC slab purchase above $300, I am contemplating lowering that threshold to $200 shortly. Oh well at least eliminating the slab purchases does boost my Original Art "war chest"

Edited February 15 by MAR1979

[awakeintheashes]

On 2/14/2024 at 8:36 PM, silent06 said:

Agreed. Outside of the validation of the certification number via the CGC verification site, CGC does not provide or outline any procedure or guidance for the consumer to inspect and discern or detect if the CGC holder or the contents within the holder have been tampered with, counterfeited or the contents of the book within the holder are in any way incomplete. Prior to this tampering incident, there wasn't even any statement regarding how a consumer or purchaser should take action if they suspected tamper or the contents of the holder had been altered in any way. The consumer or purchaser was standing on CGC's guarantee that the contents of the holder were authentic and unaltered based on the conveyance and trust of CGC's grading, holder and certification process. 

Yeah, some education is going to need to be done based on that statement Mike was told to post. Without it, I can see the uptick in people with buyers remorse crying counterfeit, and the seller with nothing to reference in refuting the claims.  

[grendel013]

It's going to be up to Dealers and Sellers to offer tamper insurance.

[awakeintheashes]

On 2/14/2024 at 8:50 PM, grendel013 said:

It's going to be up to Dealers and Sellers to offer tamper insurance.

That tamper insurance should be CGC’s tamper evident case and its guarantee. Instead that guarantee is a Tommy Boy guarantee. 

Until the market favors a different service/product, that’s the new reality. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 2/14/2024 at 7:42 PM, MAR1979 said:

I do agree with you but my comment about purchasing slabbed carrying greater risk than raw totally applies. Certainly not an endorsement or selling point for any grading company! 

Myself since scandal hit have suspended any CGC slab purchase above $300, I am contemplating lowering that threshold to $200 shortly. Oh well at least eliminating the slab purchases does boost my Original Art "war chest"

I totally agree and agreed with what your saying. I don't blame you. That was the reality pretty much from the onset, but it confirms with each individual at certain levels. This is the only the beginning is what I was getting at, and I have onky decided not to spin wheels based on every announcement.

That said, I don't want to discourage the conversation as I don't want it lost to memory nor swept under the rug.

For the record not being a cgc cheerleader, I always felt the had a certain level of precaution that seemed satisfactory , now with these results and people getting back slabs sealed all the way around that takes a hammer to open?

I was building back confidence, even though there is 20 years + of service and nearly 10 of which under my belt or in my collection alone.

It is no small deal. I'm just trying to be constructive, as it had been, not meaning to derail you nor others from discussing!

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 2/14/2024 at 7:45 PM, awakeintheashes said:

Yeah, some education is going to need to be done based on that statement Mike was told to post. Without it, I can see the uptick in people with buyers remorse crying counterfeit, and the seller with nothing to reference in refuting the claims.  

On ebay? Didn't cgc use to have an option before buying that would verify or grade the book?

It only lasted mere months

But it makes me wonder if this has been a long time coming, or what was the ramifications if not in place now to be reinstated?

There are a lot of options cgc has tried in the past that not everyone has mentioned like the ebay thing. Rather than cgc carping out, I'm sure they will, we'll Lord willing, come up for a solution to pandoras box. Either the best they can whether in house or public, they have more to lose than us, believe me, but they've perhaps made a lot of $$ (the higher ups?)

I havent given a lot of thought to it, to not spin wheels, and yet, I do want to be constructive for popping in remembering to breathe

Edited February 15 by ADAMANTIUM

[ADAMANTIUM]

It all sounds temporary given what older boardies have said in the past.

Given that info, life went on someway somehow. I can't predict the future, but I know when I'm locked and can't fathom a solution myself.

Glad we finally asked the right question to get an answer

I'm sure this thread will be here a year from now though.

 

Edited February 15 by ADAMANTIUM

[sledgehammer]

On 2/14/2024 at 7:42 PM, MAR1979 said:

I do agree with you but my comment about purchasing slabbed carrying greater risk than raw totally applies. Certainly not an endorsement or selling point for any grading company! 

Myself since scandal hit have suspended any CGC slab purchase above $300, I am contemplating lowering that threshold to $200 shortly. Oh well at least eliminating the slab purchases does boost my Original Art "war chest"

about 16 years ago, I gave up on one of their competitors.

Two midgrade amazing Spider-Man books, after removing them from the slabs, were missing wraps.

I also made the mistake of purchasing an incredible Hulk 181, from comic link, in one of their slabs. I resubmitted it to CGC, and it did not come back in a blue label.

I never bought one of their slabs again.

 

 

[comeaux]

On 2/13/2024 at 7:04 PM, HighGrade said:

What is this garbage??? this is part of the defense? LOL

To prevail on a trademark infringement and counterfeiting claim, CGC must establish that
its marks are protected and that Mr. Zanello’s “use of the allegedly infringing mark would likely
cause confusion as to the origin or sponsorship.” Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc.,
588 F.3d 97, 114 (2d Cir. 2009). “‘The crucial issue in an action for trademark infringement’ is
whether there is a ‘likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are
likely to be misled’ or ‘confused’ as to a product source.”

 

What? This is not even close, scammer was not producing his own holder and trademark and calling it say CeGeCe It's absolutely nothing like the Charbucks case NOTHING, they were not using actual "Starbucks" containers, is this a joke? of course the people thought is was CGC graded book and of course they were misled!, it was in the actual CGC holder!! are they serious I could drive a truck through this attempt. Nobody thought yeah, this is not a CGC book, this just Zanello's book, like they did with Charbucks, most people actual did not think they were buying Starbucks coffee...lol, EVERYONE thought they were buying the actual graded CGC book...EVERYONE, complete 100% misled.

Scammer was stealing the actual real product from the actual case and passing off his own book in it! He is not some entrepreneur making something "like" the product and maybe confusing people with it, the scammer confused everyone. 

He USED the actual CGC Trademark LOL, and the actual CGC holder...let me see, it's like going into Starbucks getting a coffee and replacing the coffee with his own coffee after drinking the original coffee, then selling his coffee in the actual Starbucks cup calling it Starbucks coffee, which it is not.  He's not making a holder or even using his own label with a name close to CGC, he's using the actual product to sell his product!

Cause confusion? it's the exact same trademarked CGC name and the actual CGC holder! LOL nothing even close to this......Plaintiff Starbucks sued defendant Black Bear to enjoin it from using its "Mister Charbucks," "Mr. Charbucks," and "Charbucks Blend" marks 

Maybe If the defendant here actually used the name Starbucks, and actually used the Starbucks container, then it would have been the same.

If CGC loses this one..

 

The problem is that CGC is the entity who held these books in their hands, then reholdered these books after looking at them with their employees, then CGC shipped these books back to alleged scammer. All of this in itself creates several issues for CGC. Defendants attorney has a lot of ammunition other than what I just mentioned. 

CGC is not in a favorable position and if I was the scammer I would flip the scrip and counter the CGC complaint with a malicious prosecution lawsuit. I’m sure counsel for defendant is preparing to file a Motion for Summary Judgement fairly soon.

[comeaux]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:06 PM, paqart said:

FYI: A strong motion, like the one filed by Zanello, is no guarantee of success

No it’s no guarantee but ZANELLO attorney appears MUCH more prepared. The CGC attorney cannot even get a document filed with the court without it being rejected. 

I may be wrong in the end but I don’t think CGC will win this case, why you think they went civil and not criminal? CGC allowed this to happen, their incompetence and greed exposed dumbassery on the highest level.

[comeaux]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:29 PM, Silver Surfer said:

So I'm just skimming through the the latest developments but this seems to be getting worse by the week. This will never make it to discovery. Maybe CGC thought they could bury these guys in legal bills but at a glance it looks like he had probably made so much on this scam that he has lawyered up and is punching back. Seems like an out of court settlement with non disclosures are the only way out of this now. That way they will never have to explain how and why they were duped. 

1000% THIS !!! 

[comeaux]

On 2/14/2024 at 9:36 AM, sledgehammer said:

Here is another book from that submission https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/1393412001/

Why would I possibly consider buying that comic, when 2 of the books in that submission were put on the list?

I think you’ve had other examples like this but yea I completely agree and it’s extremely perplexing as to the CGC methodology in this situation. If 2 books from a submission are on the list but a 3rd book from the same submission is not on the list, seems CGC is opening themselves up to additional liability, I can’t figure out this madness. 

[comeaux]

On 2/14/2024 at 8:22 AM, sledgehammer said:

Why is this only Zanello's lawyer, and why is there no mention of Riva

I’m thinking there may soon be a Motion for Severance submitted wherein ZANELLO will request a separate trial in which ZANELLO & RIVA will have separate trials. 

[sledgehammer]

On 2/14/2024 at 8:46 PM, comeaux said:

I’m thinking there may soon be a Motion for Severance submitted wherein ZANELLO will request a separate trial in which ZANELLO & RIVA will have separate trials. 

agreed. It does still leave me laughing, that one of his attorneys wrote this, and stated that he is willing to stop selling CGC product.

[grendel013]

On 2/14/2024 at 9:09 PM, sledgehammer said:

I also made the mistake of purchasing an incredible Hulk 181, from comic link, in one of their slabs. I resubmitted it to CGC, and it did not come back in a blue label.

Hopefully yellow after you sent in for Herb Trimpe Signature Series!

 

Too soon?

[comeaux]

On 2/14/2024 at 7:37 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I would struggle to see how it is cgc fault that scammers found a way, 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 2/14/2024 at 9:08 PM, comeaux said:

Well

I know right?

I dont expect any entity on this earth to be perfect, but that grain of salt post would be easier to swallow, if there wasnt a qc thread started and continued since about 2016. When i joined mind you.  maybe I'm disencitized

 

[BrashL]

So based on Mike’s statement, a CGC guarantee is worth exactly zero. Good luck out there, hope nobody messed with our easily exploited cases! The sudden change to the word counterfeit to align with the lawsuit is hilarious too. Now that’s the word of the day instead of crappy process and case design. Got it. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

Let me clarify that post.

"I struggle to see how it is cgc fault that scammers found a way"

Obviously the reholder should have been caught. Fault laid at the door

Hindsight, that brought about some recompense now to individuals, as the guarantee provides.

However

It's been proven that the scammers didn't need to reholder, that specifically I don't totally blame cgc, within reason that it was "fine" for a time.

At least the reholder caused some to Lord willing to be compensated.

That said. I place the blame on the scammer 1st cgc 2nd.

To clarify and "so far" 

 

Edited February 15 by ADAMANTIUM