CGC Files Lawsuit Against Employees 30 30

[I like pie]

On 2/5/2024 at 5:57 PM, valiantman said:

Cleaned and pressed was something that could be detected when the wrong types of cleaner (liquid, chemicals) were used, or when the "eraser" was obvious. Pressing as flat as a pancake (unnatural result) would also be detected.  I would bet that both would still be considered restoration today, but submitters now know not to do those things.

No doubt but there are a lot more experts in the pressing arena now than there were 20 years ago. A lot more amateurs too

[ttfitz]

On 2/4/2024 at 6:29 PM, jimjum12 said:

Right.

What is it then?

Not sure I understand your question - are you asking what it is if it is not mass production?

Don't know that there is really a term that is the opposite of "mass production". But first of all, "mass production" is, pretty much by definition, involved with a product. But CGC isn't (wholly) in the business of providing a product - they provide a service, which results in a product. And those products are not interchangeable - even if you look at the closest thing to a "mass production" product that they generate, a  9.8 graded modern book, people would not be satisfied if they received just any 9.8 graded copy of the book they sent in, they would want their copy back (discounting the cases where they might receive a book that they felt was "better" than their copy).

So whatever the term might be for "a service that produces an individually distinct product", that's what it is. And that is where the standards as to what is acceptable level of care comes, not from that of a mass produced item.

[lou_fine]

On 2/4/2024 at 11:16 PM, lou_fine said:

Then again, kudos should also be given to CGC for allowing us to voice our thoughts and opinions on THEIR boards here, whether they be positive or negative when it comes to these controversial issues.  

To offset some of the negativism of my earlier post on the previous page, even though this case might not be a sure fire win for CGC once you get lawyers and the courts involved, kudos should also be given to CGC for pursuing the perpetrators of these latest scandals to the fullest extent of the law if only to serve as a deterrent to discourage others from even thinking of attempting to do the same thing going forward.  

At the same time though, this also doesn't let them off the hook as it sounds like their internal control (or lack of it) and chain of custody of the submittors' books is pretty abysmal and leaves a lot to be desire.  

Edited February 6 by lou_fine

[Galen130]

On 2/5/2024 at 11:30 PM, lou_fine said:

At the same time though, this also doesn't let them off the hook as it sounds like their internal control (or lack of it) and chain of custody of the submittors' books is pretty abysmal and leaves a lot to be desire

Don't forget that apparently their new hire screening is abysmal...IMO. 👍👍

[godzilla43]

On 2/5/2024 at 9:16 AM, lou_fine said:

Then again, kudos should also be given to CGC for allowing us to voice our thoughts and opinions on THEIR boards here, whether they be positive or negative when it comes to these controversial issues.  

What function this board would have if there would be zero tolerance of commenting about CGC related stuff? 

[lou_fine]

On 2/5/2024 at 12:48 PM, Red Hook said:

Was the shift towards changing the definition of restoration over time part of some master plan on CGC's behalf from the beginning? I don't think it was.

Like some other boardies here at the time back then, greatly appreciated the masterful detective work you and others like @MasterChief did in flagging examples of books that had been "artfically manipulated" into higher grades at a time when it was still NOT the rampant and generally accepted practice that it is nowadays, and then also with the micro-trim jobs that Jason was performing on his books.  

Not sure about when this change started, but have been told by some here via PM's that they believe it probably started around the time that Heritage with their checkered or rather questionable history in the collectibles marketplace arrived on the scene back at the beginning of 2002.  

As for their undisclosed grading standards back then, that has clearly changed over time and sadly at least from my own personal POV, not necessarily for the better.  Especially with the current grading regime in place which is headed by somebody whose former expertise and background history was really all about pressing which can lead to a particular bias (whether intentional or not) when it comes to a case of undisclosed grading standards that seemingly change over time.  

I still remember getting about a dozen of my GA books graded when CGC first started up and in time for Greg Manning's big auction back in October of 2000 and every single one of them came back with a grade ranging from CGC 9.2 through to CGC 9.6.  Probably should have gotten my entire GA collection graded back then from a strict grading cost POV, but also from a punishment grading POV because there is zero and I mean absolutely zero chance that the books in my GA collection would grade out in this condition range today without some advanced prepartory "maximization of potential" work done on them prior to grading.   

 

On 2/5/2024 at 12:48 PM, Red Hook said:

I spent way too much time in the debates and in the end (2008 - when I got tossed from the boards for various reasons) was very happy to not deal with it anymore.

Definitely a very controversial time on the boards back then, but I found it kind of hilarious how CGC would eventually spin things so that they could rationalize what was taking place at the time.  

Of course, the signature line that was coined at the time was "maximization of potential", but the one that I found really hilarious was when Borock came out with the statement that "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book, in and of itself, does not constitute restoration" when he used it to justified how a book could go from CGC 4.0 and laddered its way up to CGC 9.0, all while residing in a blue unrestored Universal slab.    

Edited February 6 by lou_fine

[shadroch]

Matt Nelson is the President and is in charge of every aspect.  I know he came from a pressing background but the President shouldn't be grading books. 

[I like pie]

On 2/6/2024 at 3:03 AM, shadroch said:

President shouldn't be grading books. 

He's probably one of their best graders. Why do you think that?

[jimjum12]

On 2/5/2024 at 10:16 PM, ttfitz said:

Not sure I understand your question - are you asking what it is if it is not mass production?

Don't know that there is really a term that is the opposite of "mass production". But first of all, "mass production" is, pretty much by definition, involved with a product. But CGC isn't (wholly) in the business of providing a product - they provide a service, which results in a product. And those products are not interchangeable - even if you look at the closest thing to a "mass production" product that they generate, a  9.8 graded modern book, people would not be satisfied if they received just any 9.8 graded copy of the book they sent in, they would want their copy back (discounting the cases where they might receive a book that they felt was "better" than their copy).

So whatever the term might be for "a service that produces an individually distinct product", that's what it is. And that is where the standards as to what is acceptable level of care comes, not from that of a mass produced item.

I see your point, but I think expectations exceed the reality of this situation. They won't be taking "as long as it takes" to get it perfect. They;'e whacking them out, and when it's time for performance reviews, if a grader can't keep up, he will be getting a pink slip, not a trophy for participating. While it may be a service, it's sold by the unit. They're looking to set production records. It's more assembly than assessment. The slab and number is the focus. It's a business with the goal of profit. The fraud perpetrated really doesn't have anything to do with the definition of their process, anyway. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited February 6 by jimjum12

[Tec-Tac-Toe]

"Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab."

"Misplace" comic book.

"Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab."

"Oops."

"Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab. Grade, slab."

Edit:

 

Edited February 6 by Tec-Tac-Toe

[CJ Design]

Levity time

 

[buttock]

On 2/5/2024 at 6:00 AM, comicwiz said:

The CGC Rule was born out of this alleged internal deception, it was never allowed from the very beginning (1999 CBC article). It's still mentioned in an article right on CGC's own website. My analsysis on all this. 

As I said, I don't know when this rule was changed, but I think you can put a direct link to that change and this scandal.  It's absolutely unacceptable.  

I recognize that it will still happen, people can just use a proxy in all aspects.  But CGC needs to have a strict rule on hand to maintain some sense of propriety.  

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 2/6/2024 at 2:05 AM, godzilla43 said:

What function this board would have if there would be zero tolerance of commenting about CGC related stuff? 

 there would probably be more people using "Stu's" methods of board access. 

[comicwiz]

On 2/6/2024 at 12:07 PM, buttock said:

As I said, I don't know when this rule was changed, but I think you can put a direct link to that change and this scandal.  It's absolutely unacceptable.  

I recognize that it will still happen, people can just use a proxy in all aspects.  But CGC needs to have a strict rule on hand to maintain some sense of propriety.  

It isn't perfect, but it's the only chronology I've been able to ever gather on this matter.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:07 AM, buttock said:

As I said, I don't know when this rule was changed, but I think you can put a direct link to that change and this scandal.  It's absolutely unacceptable.  

I recognize that it will still happen, people can just use a proxy in all aspects.  But CGC needs to have a strict rule on hand to maintain some sense of propriety.  

 

[Aman619]

It’s weird so many think that a the title as President of only one of many separate divisions of a larger endeavor (that performs the same functions for the clients of each of the collectibles they grade and slab ) would or should be responsible for all aspects of his particular specialty. Like how and where to store or access client books. Or setting up his OWN methods for these things differently from the other collectibles. Matt has been at CGC for like 10 years. It was set up and run for ten years before he got there. They trust him to be head grader, oversee pressing, the Pedigree efforts, create new holders, launch more slab hobbies as well as numerous marketing efforts. etc   

My point is that if CCG has problems with their in-house systems etc  it will and has always been addressed at higher levels as a coordinated effort than the honorary title of “President” of ONE of CCGs many divisions is tasked with. Matt is a comics guy, not a suit. The suits are tasked with making changes necessary to prevent these abuses based on division heads’ input. There will always be some seeking to game the system. It’s how you deal with these things. No system will ever be foolproof. 

I know this is a chatboard and we can write what we want and vent and complain and scream bloody murder. But golly, I just shake my head reading so many comments here when these issues arise. 

[MasterChief]

On 2/5/2024 at 10:45 PM, lou_fine said:

On 2/5/2024 at 10:48 AM, Red Hook said:

Was the shift towards changing the definition of restoration over time part of some master plan on CGC's behalf from the beginning? I don't think it was.

Like some other boardies here at the time back then, greatly appreciated the masterful detective work you and others like @MasterChief did in flagging examples of books that had been "artfically manipulated" into higher grades at a time when it was still NOT the rampant and generally accepted practice that it is nowadays, and then also with the micro-trim jobs that Jason was performing on his books.  

Not sure about when this change started, but have been told by some here via PM's that they believe it probably started around the time that Heritage with their checkered or rather questionable history in the collectibles marketplace arrived on the scene back at the beginning of 2002.  

As for their undisclosed grading standards back then, that has clearly changed over time and sadly at least from my own personal POV, not necessarily for the better.  Especially with the current grading regime in place which is headed by somebody whose former expertise and background history was really all about pressing which can lead to a particular bias (whether intentional or not) when it comes to a case of undisclosed grading standards that seemingly change over time.  

I still remember getting about a dozen of my GA books graded when CGC first started up and in time for Greg Manning's big auction back in October of 2000 and every single one of them came back with a grade ranging from CGC 9.2 through to CGC 9.6.  Probably should have gotten my entire GA collection graded back then from a strict grading cost POV, but also from a punishment grading POV because there is zero and I mean absolutely zero chance that the books in my GA collection would grade out in this condition range today without some advanced prepartory "maximization of potential" work done on them prior to grading.   

 

On 2/5/2024 at 10:48 AM, Red Hook said:

I spent way too much time in the debates and in the end (2008 - when I got tossed from the boards for various reasons) was very happy to not deal with it anymore.

Definitely a very controversial time on the boards back then, but I found it kind of hilarious how CGC would eventually spin things so that they could rationalize what was taking place at the time.  

Of course, the signature line that was coined at the time was "maximization of potential", but the one that I found really hilarious was when Borock came out with the statement that "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book, in and of itself, does not constitute restoration" when he used it to justified how a book could go from CGC 4.0 and laddered its way up to CGC 9.0, all while residing in a blue unrestored Universal slab.    

Thanks for tagging me on this. I agree for the most part. Only difference being -- I do believe the disregard for industry accepted restoration standards was intentional and purposeful in order to facilitate James Halperin's “crack-out game” and drive the top-line. The conclusions drawn from the data collected indicate the institutionalization of manipulation began July 4, 2002, with Heritage Signature Auction #803. More than 150 lots were identified as targets of opportunity at an approximate cost of $460K. In as little as three months after #803 closed, Heritage began relisting the very same books sold during that auction. Reholderded with higher grades, they were liquidated with various forms of treatments applied. Unbeknown to the buyers of course. Wish I had more time to go into detail but currently on business travel. Maybe I’ll write a book someday about how a cabal of self-proclaimed, self-interested experts took a cut from the hobby at the expenses of collectors at large.

[comicwiz]

On 2/6/2024 at 4:03 PM, Aman619 said:

It’s weird so many think that a the title as President of only one of many separate divisions of a larger endeavor (that performs the same functions for the clients of each of the collectibles they grade and slab ) would or should be responsible for all aspects of his particular specialty. Like how and where to store or access client books. Or setting up his OWN methods for these things differently from the other collectibles. Matt has been at CGC for like 10 years. It was set up and run for ten years before he got there. They trust him to be head grader, oversee pressing, the Pedigree efforts, create new holders, launch more slab hobbies as well as numerous marketing efforts. etc   

My point is that if CCG has problems with their in-house systems etc  it will and has always been addressed at higher levels as a coordinated effort than the honorary title of “President” of ONE of CCGs many divisions is tasked with. Matt is a comics guy, not a suit. The suits are tasked with making changes necessary to prevent these abuses based on division heads’ input. There will always be some seeking to game the system. It’s how you deal with these things. No system will ever be foolproof. 

I know this is a chatboard and we can write what we want and vent and complain and scream bloody murder. But golly, I just shake my head reading so many comments here when these issues arise. 

I'm going to address the part I bolded from your comment. I have been waiting for someone to point this fact out. It is the raison d'etre for a third party grader, that is supposed to be impartial, and provide a service of authenticating and grading. Their role is to always be vigilant of someone trying to subvert their system.

As I'm reading through the lawsuit, there are aspects of it that left me scratching my head. Their explanation for "reholders" was absent of some critical information, and that was that even though they generally offer this service to manage issues with defects/cracks/damage from mishandling or shipping, there is a critical part of this process which is that they are in effect validating the book within their systems. Seeing the same book now showing-up in the "certification" look-up in two places, one under the green label cert (8.5) and one as the blue label (9.0) speaks somewhat to what I'm referring to as lacking the safeguards to realize a vulnerability in something like a verification check is what causes a barrier for the consumer to properly vet tampering for themselves.

That function of validating it through a reholder process in the manner I've described acts like a stamp of approval that all checks out, and who is going to contest what CGC says? That was at least until someone discovered the scam that was perpetrated. There is also the detail of missing certain data from the alleged sellers eBay accounts which caught me by surprise, but I am purposely being vague about this because I'm not on their payroll, and we've been told Kroll's got this. So I'll let them think that, despite finding some inaccuracies in the statements they filed. Ultimately though, this does cause me to wonder how they are making things foolproof for catching errors, and deception, when it's been left to the community to do. But even more importantly, when they can't seem to even explain the finer details of things after it's been practically done for them on these boards, especially when it's something as important as filing an injunction against the defendants, who they claim to want to do everything possible to arrest from continuing their alleged wrongdoing.

This "holder tampering" incident has allowed me to realize some things. Namely, that my memory of things that have happened in the past is extremely heightened and sharper than the average person. This may have something to do with the way they've been beleaguered with scandals which didn't instill confidence they would even know anything was happening unless the community here discovered it. Perhaps there's another reason, and other people's absence of memory relates to not worrying about the finer details, because their trust in CGC is implicit and unshakable. Those people may be comfortable with the systems of trust they've been led to believe keep them safe and protected. Maybe there are other reasons which relate to seeing themselves invested in an outcome that will not impact the worth of their collections or inventory. 

Memory is never a perfect recording of events that happen. It can change with time, and I might add that with the practice, priming and revising being helped by changes being made in accordance with each blip and scandal, it may not be possible for the things I see of concern being seen by others. Even if this is what is causing this gap in understanding what's at stake, I hope that people will expect from any grader that they must be prepared for the possibility of people exploiting and subverting their systems. It's not good enough to say not everything is foolproof.

CGC needs to do better. A lot better at leaving no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure.

Edited February 13 by comicwiz

[Aman619]

 

"CGC needs to do better. A lot better at leaving no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure."

sure. OK. Why is that a CGC problem? Tell every business that too. They you and everyone in business understand that reality: keep messing up and you risk failure. CGC may have an edge over you me and the mom and pop businesses or whatever, given their market dominance, but thats no guarantee to continue if they dont take care of business, every day. Nothing lasts forever.

But your statement as written,  I agree with you.  It's up to them to maintain our trust.  And on them if they fail through efforts to be better, or through negligence if they feel impervious to errors.  I for one feel they have a healthy handle on their role and business to keep going and tightening up. 

[Nick Furious]

On 2/6/2024 at 5:46 PM, comicwiz said:

CGC needs to do better. A lot better at leaving no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure.

 

On 2/6/2024 at 6:07 PM, Aman619 said:

But your statement as written,  I agree with you.  It's up to them to maintain our trust.  And on them if they fail through efforts to be better, or through negligence if they feel impervious to errors.  I for one feel they have a healthy handle on their role and business to keep going and tightening up.

As long as CGC owns the monopoly on public trust, they will be a magnet for opportunists who hope to misuse that trust for nefarious purposes.  Perhaps these two latest issues are just a matter of being duped.  If they had happened in a vacuum it would be reasonable enough to just chalk it up to a lack of anticipation on the part of CGC.  But there have been enough "bad look" situations in the past for the general public to start wondering just how committed CGC is to closing the door on those opportunists who wish to misuse their monopoly on public trust.  Can anyone really look at past shenanigans and conclude that CGC is committed, first and foremost, to protecting the hen house and preventing bad actors from gaining access it, regardless of the financial opportunity for CGC?