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

[sledgehammer]

I don't understand the thought that it could be label fraud.

The man in the video says he got the original photo from the earlier sale of that cert number from gocollect.

The graders notes show a clearly different book, scanned in by cgc in the "revised" graders notes as that cert number.

The wrong book now has that cert number.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:35 PM, sledgehammer said:

I don't understand the thought that it could be label fraud.

The man in the video says he got the original photo from the earlier sale of that cert number from gocollect.

The graders notes show a clearly different book, scanned in by cgc in the "revised" graders notes as that cert number.

The wrong book now has that cert number.

If the graders Notes are truly different, that yay or nay confirms two different books? I know when regraded and sending in the old label they take the old label out of the census? Is it possible that those labels and certs taken out of the census, do they then get reused? Like cgc labeled a new book using a retired cert?

Edited December 17, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[sledgehammer]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:41 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

If the graders Notes are truly different, that yay or nay confirms two different books? I know when regraded and sending in the old label they take the old label out of the census? Is it possible that those labels and certs taken out of the census, do they then get reused? Like cgc labeled a new book using a retired cert?

The grade date stayed the same, june of '23.

There are no graders notes per say, on why it is a 9.8. All it now says is "Mark Jewelers Insert"

Which the scan of the label from the earlier sale of that cert number doesn't show.

[Dr. Balls]

On 12/17/2023 at 3:18 PM, sledgehammer said:

Yes.

You can see the difference clearly here.

 

 

The variances between the two books can be attributed to lighting or different settings in how someone took the picture. Granted, they appear different - and you can tell the difference between the red/orange color shifts on a book like NM87 in a digital photo - but that doesn't mean this particular book is a lock. Someone posted a NM98 Ebay listing of the sellers, and the same book in the registry has a photo, but it appears lighter. 

The copyright date on the spine can easily be turned towards the camera to make it appear there is more "spine" showing, when it's just the angle. You can see it in the two photos that the top one was taken at more of an angle than the bottom.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[sledgehammer]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:56 PM, Dr. Balls said:

The copyright date on the spine can easily be turned towards the camera to make it appear there is more "spine" showing, when it's just the angle. You can see it in the two photos that the top one was taken at more of an angle than the bottom.

There is BLACK on the spine of one of the books. You think you're seeing the edge of the spine where the white is, but you're not.

[Gaard]

I think a response by CGC is warranted here. Even a simple "We're looking into it" would be sufficient.

[sledgehammer]

Rear cover scan of the more recent label clearly shows the veering wrap

On 12/17/2023 at 5:02 PM, sledgehammer said:

There is BLACK on the spine of one of the books. You think you're seeing the edge of the spine where the white is, but you're not.

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/4277700004/

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 12/17/2023 at 2:56 PM, Dr. Balls said:

The variances between the two books can be attributed to lighting or different settings in how someone took the picture. Granted, they appear different - and you can tell the difference between the red/orange color shifts on a book like NM87 in a digital photo - but that doesn't mean this particular book is a lock. Someone posted a NM98 Ebay listing of the sellers, and the same book in the registry has a photo, but it appears lighter. 

The copyright date on the spine can easily be turned towards the camera to make it appear there is more "spine" showing, when it's just the angle. You can see it in the two photos that the top one was taken at more of an angle than the bottom.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[RockMyAmadeus]

[Dr. Balls]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:32 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

I see it now, I just looked at the staples, those stick out quite a bit as well as have pretty discernible bindery defects there.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[bc]

-bc

[WestcoastDAVEngers]

If you want to know a little more, feel free to tune in tonight...

 

[WolverineX]

so swapped during reholder and cgc did not catch...

[wombat]

Its probably bad, but this doesn't seem particularly shocking to me that CGC would miss something like this. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/17/2023 at 6:45 PM, WolverineX said:

so swapped during reholder and cgc did not catch...

If I'm to understand?

The one sending in for reholder, resealed a different book instead by buying and performing a sonic welder? Then sent it to cgc for the reholder? And cgc missed the difference in the book inside? Presumably becuse it is coming out of their holder and assumed or didnt then want to admit to "damage from the holder" and went ahead with the book and reholder?

Edited December 18, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[Tnexus]

Where the N lands in Spider-Man at the edge of the book is a dead giveaway it's a different book.

[Lightning55]

On 12/17/2023 at 8:07 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

If I'm to understand?

The one sending in for reholder, resealed a different book instead by buying and performing a sonic welder? Then sent it to cgc for the reholder? And cgc missed the difference in the book inside? Presumably becuse it is coming out of their holder and assumed or didnt then want to admit to "damage from the holder" and went ahead with the book and reholder?

Maybe.....

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/17/2023 at 7:37 PM, Lightning55 said:

Maybe.....

Lol 😅 it's a stretch, but would take the label printing scenario out of the equation. Food for thought