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

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/22/2023 at 12:23 PM, thehumantorch said:

While CGC deserves blame for selling a service that can be manipulated it's not all on CGC.  Let's share some blame for this POS seller for manipulating the system and knowingly ripping off collectors for quick gain.

No worries, I've been posting plenty of negative things on his chatboard

[Stefan_W]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:44 PM, VintageComics said:

What I am having trouble understanding is how someone gets SO MANY REHOLDERS without anyone raising an eyebrow internally.

 

Interesting question. If I had to guess it would be simply because that sort of thing was never tracked. Thousands of people submit many thousands of comics per year and each submission is basically like a grain of sand on a beach. Unless they specifically track this sort of things (which may happen in the future) they may simply not have looked at that type of pattern. 

Having said this, they will be perfectly able to look back through the records and find every slab # associated with this person's submissions including re-holders. The question I have is what CGC will land on in terms of a way forward, which is probably linked with what types of things insurance will cover. Best case scenario is a listing of slab numbers and a free recall where those books are re-graded, re-slabbed, and sent back to the current owner with restitution if the book was notwhat is said on the case (lower grade, missing something, etc). I doubt the resolution will be that extensive though since that can run into astronomical costs. We will just have to see how everything shakes out. 

[sledgehammer]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:30 PM, VintageComics said:

CGC's former head of security was a Police Detective from the North East, and that was many years ago. 

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:04 PM, sledgehammer said:

 

Funnily enough, I've met him more than once and IIRC, he kinda looked like that. 

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/22/2023 at 1:01 PM, comicwiz said:

On 12/22/2023 at 12:58 PM, sledgehammer said:

Wow.

 

Great job.

Thanks, but honestly, if this seller did not make his feedback private, we would be finding WAY more! 

@agamoto deserves mad props for doing that screengrab, because it's the only thing we got now to peak back into what he's sold.

great job, now send it to that Youtube guy

[Stefan_W]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:04 PM, VintageComics said:

That's because a significant portion of the population is detarded and falls for it. If these people were starved out they wouldn't be popular. 

I think it is just how the You Tube algorithms work. The original videos breaking the story did well. Once that passed, ones from the original folks following up are doing well along with those that have fancier titles intended to hype people into clicking. For perspective, I put out a video yesterday that just added a couple of things based on my experiences with cracking and re-subbing books and that did about the same as any other video I put out (i.e., watched by a few dozen of my friends). You Tube is not going to send that type of thing into people's searches. The other factor is videos on this topic are outdated really fast. People are starting to go for the most recent update with the flashiest title. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Stefan_W

[Superman2006]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:03 PM, brute_nm said:

As we approach 75 pages, I'm worried that the details of the seller and the scam will get lost in all the side conversations and bickering.  Here's my attempt at summarizing what we know right now.

I know this is a rapidly-evolving situation, and stuff will likely change in coming days/weeks, but hopefully this helps distill the thread down to a digestible level.

That's a great looking visual, etc.  In the visual, you say Book C is Book B raw with Book A's cert #. Technically I think the speculations is that "Book C = (Book B inner well + Book A label) slipped together into an outer well and then sealed as best as possible, and sent back to CGC for a reholder (typically with a custom label)"; of course for a visual maybe "Book C = Book B inner well + Book A label" is close enough

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/22/2023 at 1:46 PM, thehumantorch said:

Agreed, we don't know how deep this iceberg goes.  CGC certainly deserves blame here, it's their job to design and sell a product that we can trust.  But honestly, how foolproof and perfect can a $50 mass produced plastic sleeve be?  If there's enough money on the line don't you think that someone with enough time and motivation will experiment with  CGC cases and look for loopholes in their processes until they find a way to pull this off?  I suspect there's no such thing as a foolproof CGC case.

We can all proportionate the blame where we want and CGC certainly deserves some of the blame but let's not forget that this POS seller is breaking the law and deliberately ripping off comic book fans for an easy buck. 

I think as someone said earlier, mistakes will happen, opportunities for fraud will occur and someone will try to take advantage

it's up to CGC to put systems in place to catch those occurrences, so that is the issue that I have

someone (probably the head of QA) should have seen that there was a potential risk for someone to take advantage of this process and made the proper adjustments to the procedure to at least catch it or be alerted

but it never occurred to them and there is where CGC has always been consistent

they operate like a mom and pop shop, it's scary that so much money passes through this operation and more of this stuff hasn't happened before

 

[MAR1979]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:15 PM, jsilverjanet said:

they operate like a mom and pop shop, it's scary that so much money passes through this operation and more of this stuff hasn't happened before

 

Almost positively there is zero chance of that being a correct statement.

My apologies janet, it's nothing personal

[uncannyjames]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:15 PM, jsilverjanet said:

I think as someone said earlier, mistakes will happen, opportunities for fraud will occur and someone will try to take advantage

it's up to CGC to put systems in place to catch those occurrences, so that is the issue that I have

someone (probably the head of QA) should have seen that there was a potential risk for someone to take advantage of this process and made the proper adjustments to the procedure to at least catch it or be alerted

but it never occurred to them and there is where CGC has always been consistent

they operate like a mom and pop shop, it's scary that so much money passes through this operation and more of this stuff hasn't happened before

 

CGC's #1 priority should have ALWAYS been to protect the integrity of their label. This means having a fraud department to continually analyze their own processes for holes along with staying on top of techniques for detecting fraud at the book level. The fact they have overlooked the reholder process as a weak point indicates either apathy or ineptitude. Either way you slice it, that's bad -- real bad.

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:22 PM, MAR1979 said:

Almost positively there is zero chance of that being a correct statement.

My apologies janet, it's nothing personal

sorry I'm a CGC cheerleader

give me a C...

 

[Iconic1s]

Not that anyone cares, but my final thoughts as I leave this conversation (it’s honestly just too much of a bummer at this point!).  I think there is one of two explanations for ALL of these wild examples of craziness popping up as you guys dig.

1) CGC suffered from a number of VERY loose policies.  They perhaps valued expediency over accuracy, and let a lot of this through intentionally because they simply decided that verification/accuracy/suspicion of shenanigans wasn’t as important as speed (particularly during high value reholders) as the hot market was sitting there waiting for these books!

or

2) there is a person or persons on the inside working with this guy.  I think this would be tough because I don’t know how much autonomy each employee has as books move through the process. If there’s supervision I think it’d be hard for any one employee to pull this off for too long.  Also, if it is more than one seller that’d be tough to keep secret for long (loose lips sink ships!).

Anyways, hope you guys have Happy Holidays!

P.S. looks like the 9.9newsstand guy is doing some type of live update video tonight around 7:00.

Take care 

[WestcoastDAVEngers]

On 12/22/2023 at 1:26 PM, Iconic1s said:

Not that anyone cares, but my final thoughts as I leave this conversation (it’s honestly just too much of a bummer at this point!).  I think there is one of two explanations for ALL of these wild examples of craziness popping up as you guys dig.

1) CGC suffered from a number of VERY loose policies.  They perhaps valued expediency over accuracy, and let a lot of this through intentionally because they simply decided that verification/accuracy/suspicion of shenanigans wasn’t as important as speed (particularly during high value reholders) as the hot market was sitting there waiting for these books!

or

2) there is a person or persons on the inside working with this guy.  I think this would be tough because I don’t know how much autonomy each employee has as books move through the process. If there’s supervision I think it’d be hard for any one employee to pull this off for too long.  Also, if it is more than one seller that’d be tough to keep secret for long (loose lips sink ships!).

Anyways, hope you guys have Happy Holidays!

P.S. looks like the 9.9newsstand guy is doing some type of live update video tonight around 7:00.

Take care 

That stream was last night, just to clear up the confusion!

 

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:49 PM, Superman2006 said:

I mentioned a few pages back that CGC used to seal the label to the inner well. Some boardie(s) may know the approximate date when they stopped doing that...

They stopped sealing the certification label inside the inner well when they changed to this newest outer case roughly circa early 2017?

These newest cases (I call them Gen 3) initially had the "creep engine" problem, but shortly after that problem, the solution was to use the older (previous Gen 2) style inner well structure, but they needed to cut the top off it off those older wells to fit inside the latest style outer holders. 

The newer style holders had no room in the design for the taller, older inner well with the label at the top, because the label already had a designated area within the newest outer holder. 

The label AND outer holder were redesigned for 2 specific reasons:

1) to both replace the top label sticker (which always used to come off over time and annoy people) so this is why the new CGC label folds over the top of the book and is visible from outside and

2) to prevent swapping labels out between books the way some of the older inner labels used to allow.

The entire design rested on the premise that the outer case was the final deterrent and that any tampering would be clearly evident. 

I am fairly certain that the inner well is roughly the same or similar design that has been used from the previous Gen 2 cases. 

[MAR1979]

^ You forgot; 3) Demand for Newton's Rings

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:42 PM, AbsoluteCarnage said:

On 12/22/2023 at 3:24 PM, namisgr said:

I don't think the matter of loose slabs relates to changing whether or not the label is tethered to the top part of the inner well.

Perhaps not. I'm not sure how the changes took place 100% or what exactly was melded together in the inner well with regards to the top and bottom of the case. Never cracked a slab to really look. They definitely had some slab changes around that time that may have been when the change transpired I guess. Was my best guess on that timeframe.

For the latest, Gen 3 holder, the label sits by itself in a cavity at the top part of the holder very snugly and even bends over the inside of the holder to make the top of the label visible from the top. 

The inner well sits by itself in a cavity in the bottom part of the holder. 

There is a formed demarcation, or an edge between the two that actually separates the top from the bottom, or the label at the top from the inner well at the bottom.

The two don't even touch each other. The bottom of the label rests on that edge in the top cavity, the top of the inner holder bumps against that edge in the lower cavity. 

They are completely separated in different cavities. 

EDIT: The tiny bit of movement is entirely irrelevant. It's like complaining that someone has a few hairs out of place. You have to have a millimeter of play / tolerance between the outer and inner labels so that they don't bind. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:43 PM, MAR1979 said:

^ You forgot; 3) Demand for Newton's Rings

 

No I didn't. I specifically was addressing the discussion and the problems only associated with the label and outer shell because that's what people were discussing.  

[Superman2006]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:41 PM, VintageComics said:

On 12/22/2023 at 2:49 PM, Superman2006 said:

I mentioned a few pages back that CGC used to seal the label to the inner well. Some boardie(s) may know the approximate date when they stopped doing that...

They stopped sealing the certification label inside the inner well when they changed to this newest outer case roughly circa early 2017?

These newest cases (I call them Gen 3) initially had the "creep engine" problem, but shortly after that problem, the solution was to use the older (previous Gen 2) style inner well structure, but they needed to cut the top off it off those older wells to fit inside the latest style outer holders. 

The newer style holders had no room in the design for the taller, older inner well with the label at the top, because the label already had a designated area within the newest outer holder. 

The label AND outer holder were redesigned for 2 specific reasons:

1) to both replace the top label sticker (which always used to come off over time and annoy people) so this is why the new CGC label folds over the top of the book and is visible from outside and

2) to prevent swapping labels out between books the way some of the older inner labels used to allow.

The entire design rested on the premise that the outer case was the final deterrent and that any tampering would be clearly evident. 

I am fairly certain that the inner well is roughly the same or similar design that has been used from the previous Gen 2 cases. 

Thanks, man. That's consistent with my recollection about the various iterations of the slabs over the years. I was thinking it had been roughly 5 years since Gen 3 was introduced, which isn't far off from your 2017 estimate. So I guess Gen 2 and earlier slabs (from roughly around 2016/2017 and prior) should be safe from this particular scam since the label was sealed to the inner well.

[MAR1979]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:51 PM, VintageComics said:

No I didn't. I specifically was addressing the discussion and the problems only associated with the label and outer shell because that's what people were discussing.  

Good to see your sense of humor is intact [/sarcasm]

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:53 PM, Superman2006 said:

On 12/22/2023 at 3:41 PM, VintageComics said:

On 12/22/2023 at 1:49 PM, Superman2006 said:

used to seal the label to the inner well. Some boardie(s) may know the approximate date when they stopped doing that...

They stopped sealing the certification label inside the inner well when they changed to this newest outer case roughly circa early 2017?

These newest cases (I call them Gen 3) initially had the "creep engine" problem, but shortly after that problem, the solution was to use the older (previous Gen 2) style inner well structure, but they needed to cut the top off it off those older wells to fit inside the latest style outer holders. 

The newer style holders had no room in the design for the taller, older inner well with the label at the top, because the label already had a designated area within the newest outer holder. 

The label AND outer holder were redesigned for 2 specific reasons:

1) to both replace the top label sticker (which always used to come off over time and annoy people) so this is why the new CGC label folds over the top of the book and is visible from outside and

2) to prevent swapping labels out between books the way some of the older inner labels used to allow.

The entire design rested on the premise that the outer case was the final deterrent and that any tampering would be clearly evident. 

I am fairly certain that the inner well is roughly the same or similar design that has been used from the previous Gen 2 cases. 

Expand  

Thanks, man. That's consistent with my recollection about the various iterations of the slabs over the years. I was thinking it had been roughly 5 years since Gen 3 was introduced, which isn't far off from your 2017 estimate. So I guess Gen 2 and earlier slabs (from roughly around 2016/2017 and prior) should be safe from this particular scam since the label was sealed to the inner well.

Just fyi clarification it was specifically June 2016