Trim JIM in Heritage Auction

[THE_BEYONDER]

Doing what, for whom?

 

I never got an invite...so I couldn't tell you. I'm sure CGC would be willing to answer your questions.

 

 

I always liked your sense of humor.

 

[Aman619]

We will of course look back and question our choices and buying decisions, sure, and the blame will be essentially our own collective gullibility. But as inevitible as this often sounds around here, do any of us (except JC) really want this? I for one want CGC to do all it can to PREVENT this from coming, and not blithely keep steaming toward the iceberg that they either dont think is out there, or can be avoided later on.

 

 

You want the insane multiples for .2 increments to continue?

 

not for the books I bought in this time of course!

 

but no. thats been an overreaction... that will slow down and back off from a slavish formulaic basic on multiples approach to pricing.

[jbud73]

Doing what, for whom?

 

He's currently helping Heritage Inventory (personal or consigned) reach its "Full Potential" -

[Red Hook]

Doing what, for whom?

 

He's currently helping Heritage Inventory (personal or consigned) reach its "Full Potential" -

 

 

Aaaaaah.

[lou_fine]

It would be a lot easier for all of us if we just accepted trimming. We wouldn't have to worry about crooked dealers or about CGC's reliabiity. And all of our books would look a lot nicer and be worth more money.

 

 

Hell, why not? The comics are trimmed on all three edges at the bindery, aren't they? What's a little more off?

 

Well, since this argument worked so well for CGC with the majority of collectors when it came to the issue of pressing, I guess they can always try it with trimming.

 

Let's see here, CGC can always claim that "micro-trimming if done properly is not consider to be restoration since it cannot be detected with any reasonable level of assurance. If done incorrectly, damage will be done to the book and CGC will be able to spot this and downgrade accordingly for this damage to the book. Micro-trimming is a practice that has always been in place way before CGC and nobody cared about it if it could not be detected. After all, don't all books get trimmed at the printing plants anyways, and why would anybody care if they can't tell anyways."

 

Hmmm.....now where have I heard this silly rationale before.

[mica]

Let's see here, CGC can always claim that "micro-trimming if done properly is not consider to be restoration since it cannot be detected with any reasonable level of assurance. If done incorrectly, damage will be done to the book and CGC will be able to spot this and downgrade accordingly for this damage to the book. Micro-trimming is a practice that has always been in place way before CGC and nobody cared about it if it could not be detected. After all, don't all books get trimmed at the printing plants anyways, and why would anybody care if they can't tell anyways."

 

Hmmm.....now where have I heard this silly rationale before.

I can almost visualize this text being cut and pasted into some official looking document.

[Captain Tripps]

Tim,

 

They're only human beings and have obviously missed detecting the trimming on some books, including the JIM 92 at least 2 times. That was one of the reasons I didn't think that the JIM 92 was trimmed, it had come back (once again) in a universal, blue label. Ewert had to submit it after getting it bumped (pressed?) from Brent's 9.2 into the 9.4 plus my resubmission in September makes at least 2 times they missed it. Who knows if Jason or anyone else before me tried as well.

 

In all fairness to CGC, I had looked at that book when Brent initially contacted me for the first time about it and it did not looked trimmed. Tom also didn't think it was trimmed (it was still up on my site as sale pending at that time). I'm no expert at detecting restoration or trimming but I usually have a decent guess. This was one of Jason's best jobs as I had no clue plus CGC missed it at least twice!!

 

You can't kill CGC as they are looking at thousands of books each day, etc. Had I alerted them to the fact it was an Ewert suspect when I resubmitted it, then things probably would have turned out different. I accept blame in not doing that but that was not to launder the book, etc. I don't look to scam collectors with a trimmed book (ask Keith Contarino). Everyone in the hobby who knows me will attest to that. I'm a collector as well and would never want to put a trimmed book into the marketplace. I just screwed up when I submitted it on Sept 12th as not having remembered it as an Ewert suspect.

 

Anyway, I hope all is well, Tim. I haven't heard from you or posted to you in a while so I took the liberty to do so here!

 

Doug

 

 

 

Doug

[jkc313]

What Doug's referring to is a 9.2 FF 14 I bought on his site last year. He deleted the sale and contacted me because it was an Ewert book. Mind you he didn't say it was trimmed. Just being one of Jason's books made him not want to sell it and I appreciate it and continue to do business with him

keith

[tth2]

Tim,

 

They're only human beings and have obviously missed detecting the trimming on some books, including the JIM 92 at least 2 times. That was one of the reasons I didn't think that the JIM 92 was trimmed, it had come back (once again) in a universal, blue label. Ewert had to submit it after getting it bumped (pressed?) from Brent's 9.2 into the 9.4 plus my resubmission in September makes at least 2 times they missed it. Who knows if Jason or anyone else before me tried as well.

 

In all fairness to CGC, I had looked at that book when Brent initially contacted me for the first time about it and it did not looked trimmed. Tom also didn't think it was trimmed (it was still up on my site as sale pending at that time). I'm no expert at detecting restoration or trimming but I usually have a decent guess. This was one of Jason's best jobs as I had no clue plus CGC missed it at least twice!!

 

You can't kill CGC as they are looking at thousands of books each day, etc. Had I alerted them to the fact it was an Ewert suspect when I resubmitted it, then things probably would have turned out different.

Doug, believe me, I'm not one of the people who have an unrealistic expectation of CGC's ability to detect resto. As you say, at the end of the day they're human and will make mistakes.

 

Having said that, when the fraudsters raise their game, then CGC has to do the same. It's obvious that whoever was doing the trimming on the Ewert books was doing a fantastic job, maybe virtually impossible to detect without a before scan. Well, then CGC needs to start incorporating some sort of process involving scan comparison to at least avoid these really embarassing cases.

 

The fact that they are supposed to be on the alert, because they know this new micro-trimming technique exists, and are STILL missing it, gives me serious pause, and you know I'm not one of the people here who sees a conspiracy under every bush. That they only have a chance at detecting this trimming when they're TOLD it might be a trimmed book does not fill me with confidence. With all the money at stake in this business these days, is there any question that whoever was doing the trimming will continue to trim and even worse, teach others how to do so.

 

Hopefully the lawsuit against Ewert will help to identify who did the trimming. But Doug, if there's one thing you could do to help restore your reputation around here, and show that you have the best interests of the hobby at heart, not just in words but in deed, it would be to use your connections and influence in the hobby to do the following:

 

1. Help identify and "out" the trimmer.

 

2. Help make it clear to CGC, who apparently place great weight on opinions from big collectors and dealers such as yourself, that there are serious concerns about their ability to detect this new micro-trimming. The "we're only human" excuse doesn't fly if CGC haven't proactively taken steps to raise their game. If they're still using the same old detection techniques they always used, notwithstanding that they know they cannot consistently detect this new trimming with those old techniques, I would call that gross negligence.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Tim,

 

They're only human beings and have obviously missed detecting the trimming on some books, including the JIM 92 at least 2 times. That was one of the reasons I didn't think that the JIM 92 was trimmed, it had come back (once again) in a universal, blue label. Ewert had to submit it after getting it bumped (pressed?) from Brent's 9.2 into the 9.4 plus my resubmission in September makes at least 2 times they missed it. Who knows if Jason or anyone else before me tried as well.

 

In all fairness to CGC, I had looked at that book when Brent initially contacted me for the first time about it and it did not looked trimmed. Tom also didn't think it was trimmed (it was still up on my site as sale pending at that time). I'm no expert at detecting restoration or trimming but I usually have a decent guess. This was one of Jason's best jobs as I had no clue plus CGC missed it at least twice!!

 

You can't kill CGC as they are looking at thousands of books each day, etc. Had I alerted them to the fact it was an Ewert suspect when I resubmitted it, then things probably would have turned out different.

Doug, believe me, I'm not one of the people who have an unrealistic expectation of CGC's ability to detect resto. As you say, at the end of the day they're human and will make mistakes.

 

Having said that, when the fraudsters raise their game, then CGC has to do the same. It's obvious that whoever was doing the trimming on the Ewert books was doing a fantastic job, maybe virtually impossible to detect without a before scan. Well, then CGC needs to start incorporating some sort of process involving scan comparison to at least avoid these really embarassing cases.

 

The fact that they are supposed to be on the alert, because they know this new micro-trimming technique exists, and are STILL missing it, gives me serious pause, and you know I'm not one of the people here who sees a conspiracy under every bush. That they only have a chance at detecting this trimming when they're TOLD it might be a trimmed book does not fill me with confidence. With all the money at stake in this business these days, is there any question that whoever was doing the trimming will continue to trim and even worse, teach others how to do so.

 

Hopefully the lawsuit against Ewert will help to identify who did the trimming. But Doug, if there's one thing you could do to help restore your reputation around here, and show that you have the best interests of the hobby at heart, not just in words but in deed, it would be to use your connections and influence in the hobby to do the following:

 

1. Help identify and "out" the trimmer.

 

2. Help make it clear to CGC, who apparently place great weight on opinions from big collectors and dealers such as yourself, that there are serious concerns about their ability to detect this new micro-trimming. The "we're only human" excuse doesn't fly if CGC haven't proactively taken steps to raise their game. If they're still using the same old detection techniques they always used, notwithstanding that they know they cannot consistently detect this new trimming with those old techniques, I would call that gross negligence.

 

Putting all personal differences aside for a moment......great post.

[batman_fan]

I think this is what we should be discussing, not what Doug did or didn't do since it will be impossible to work out what happened to everyones satisfaction. Lets focus on this trimming issue and what can be done to put a stop to it.

 

[shadroch]

How did Doug look at a book that he claims was at CGC when Brent contacted him?

[Flaming_Telepath]

In all fairness to CGC, I had looked at that book when Brent initially contacted me for the first time about it and it did not looked trimmed.

 

I can only assume that you looked at scans of the book to detect the trimming, because according to you, the book was 'at CGC'.

 

Remember?

[awe4one]

In all fairness to CGC, I had looked at that book when Brent initially contacted me for the first time about it and it did not looked trimmed.

 

I can only assume that you looked at scans of the book to detect the trimming, because according to you, the book was 'at CGC'.

 

Remember?

 

The whole timeline doesn't make sense...either Brent or Doug is lying...

 

I know which of the two I believe...people are going to have to make their own determination on which timeline to accept...

 

Jim

[Ze-man]

 

The whole timeline doesn't make sense...either Brent or Doug is lying...

I know which of the two I believe...people are going to have to make their own determination on which timeline to accept...

 

Jim

 

Thanks for that startling revelation! Now I can turn off the internet.

 

Ze-

[panhandlefool]

You can't kill CGC as they are looking at thousands of books each day, etc.

I agree with most of your statements, but I don't buy the fact that CGC has thousands of books to look at somehow lessens their responsibility for detecting restoration, or giving a book the care, treatment and examination it deserves. I pay my $49 (or whatever $) to have a book graded, and I expect it to be examined properly and thoroughly, whether they have zero books or 100,000 piled up after mine to look at. The fact that they have a lot of books to be graded means nothing to me.

 

If they are rushing through books because they are backlogged, then they need to hire more graders, lenghten turnaround times, increase prices (I know that sounds bad, but it would reduce submissions) or do whatever they have to do. IMO, rushing through the grading process is the last thing they should do.

 

I know you didn't directly say that's what they are doing, but I just wanted to add my two cents worth. The fact that CGC has a lot of books to grade does nothing to lessen my concerns about this issue, and doesn't get them off the hook one iota.

[Captain Tripps]

Tim,

 

In response to your post, you do make some very keen points. I have been a verey big supporter of CGC from the beginning and I was one of a handful of collectors invited to their start-up meeting in 1999 (I remember Joe Serpico and Jon Burk were also there, but can't recall who else). Anyway, I have as much influence on them as any other dealer, collector, etc. To respond to your questions/points:

 

1. I am under the belief the trimmer is/was Ewert himself. I don't believe his story that he sent the books to be pressed and the guy decided to trim them on his owen, etc. as i've heard this mentioned (where, I don't remember but he could have said it to me). However, I have no proof at all nor does anyone else that Jason trimmed the books or someone did it on his behalf. The only thing we do know is that he resubmitted prior untrimmed books that later came book obviously trimmed.

I also had heard a suspicion that Chris Friesen trimmed the books or some, etc. That is absolutely insane!! Why would he trim someone else's books, etc. That accusation really threw me for a loop. Let's just hope that all the trimmed books are or will soon be identified as I'm under the impression that no new ones have been found since Ewert's ouster. I had previously asked Tom Brulato if he has any knowledge he he emphatically say's he had no idea what Jason was doing. I believe him as I know Tom and he likes to take a more financial role in buying collections or books at shows, etc., while Jason liked to go through the boxes. Plus, Tom is a collector and actually cares about the "sanctity" of the books and the state of the hobby.

 

2. This is an excellent suggestion and I will 100% do this as its kind of weak that a book (i.e. JIM 92) could be trimmed and come back at least twice through the CGC's hands as untrimmed. If other dealers (and collectors as well, as we are the ones who would end up with the books if undetected) will join together to pressure CGC as well as try to weed out the phony, fraudulent dealers (I had a long talk with Brent about this yesterday in fact), then I think the hobby will benefit greatly. There has been a lot of loss of faith in dealers lately and we need to do something to make sure this trend doesn't continue. I realize the news of my disbarment was viewed as a scandal, etc. and it came on the heels of the whole Ewert fiasco, but I'm talking about serious dealer issues of today (my disbarment was a result of events that occurred in 1999 and I have had nothing but honest dealings with every dealer, customer, consignor since doing comics full time). I'm only bringing this up because a few people told me it was reacted to like a scandal due to the timing of it, etc. on the heels of the whole pressing then trimming issues. I realize that, but was expecting a decision from the appellate Division since 2004!! The news would have hopefully been way in the past by now instead of a the latest scandal!

In any event, count me in for calling Steve Borock and co. and imploring them to try to crack down even harder/inproving their detection techniques. I just hope all other dealers who say the same thing will actually do it.

Good post, Tim.

 

Doug

[THE_BEYONDER]

Tim,

 

In response to your post, you do make some very keen points. I have been a verey big supporter of CGC from the beginning and I was one of a handful of collectors invited to their start-up meeting in 1999 (I remember Joe Serpico and Jon Burk were also there, but can't recall who else). Anyway, I have as much influence on them as any other dealer, collector, etc. To respond to your questions/points:

 

1. I am under the belief the trimmer is/was Ewert himself. I don't believe his story that he sent the books to be pressed and the guy decided to trim them on his owen, etc. as i've heard this mentioned (where, I don't remember but he could have said it to me). However, I have no proof at all nor does anyone else that Jason trimmed the books or someone did it on his behalf. The only thing we do know is that he resubmitted prior untrimmed books that later came book obviously trimmed.

I also had heard a suspicion that Chris Friesen trimmed the books or some, etc. That is absolutely insane!! Why would he trim someone else's books, etc. That accusation really threw me for a loop. Let's just hope that all the trimmed books are or will soon be identified as I'm under the impression that no new ones have been found since Ewert's ouster. I had previously asked Tom Brulato if he has any knowledge he he emphatically say's he had no idea what Jason was doing. I believe him as I know Tom and he likes to take a more financial role in buying collections or books at shows, etc., while Jason liked to go through the boxes. Plus, Tom is a collector and actually cares about the "sanctity" of the books and the state of the hobby.

 

2. This is an excellent suggestion and I will 100% do this as its kind of weak that a book (i.e. JIM 92) could be trimmed and come back at least twice through the CGC's hands as untrimmed. If other dealers (and collectors as well, as we are the ones who would end up with the books if undetected) will join together to pressure CGC as well as try to weed out the phony, fraudulent dealers (I had a long talk with Brent about this yesterday in fact), then I think the hobby will benefit greatly. There has been a lot of loss of faith in dealers lately and we need to do something to make sure this trend doesn't continue. I realize the news of my disbarment was viewed as a scandal, etc. and it came on the heels of the whole Ewert fiasco, but I'm talking about serious dealer issues of today (my disbarment was a result of events that occurred in 1999 and I have had nothing but honest dealings with every dealer, customer, consignor since doing comics full time). I'm only bringing this up because a few people told me it was reacted to like a scandal due to the timing of it, etc. on the heels of the whole pressing then trimming issues. I realize that, but was expecting a decision from the appellate Division since 2004!! The news would have hopefully been way in the past by now instead of a the latest scandal!

In any event, count me in for calling Steve Borock and co. and imploring them to try to crack down even harder/inproving their detection techniques. I just hope all other dealers who say the same thing will actually do it.

Good post, Tim.

 

Doug

 

One question:

 

Will you continue to employ the services of PCS to manipulate the structural integrity of comic books through the practice of pressing?

[tth2]

In any event, count me in for calling Steve Borock and co. and imploring them to try to crack down even harder/inproving their detection techniques. I just hope all other dealers who say the same thing will actually do it.

Well, you're the first dealer who has said he will do this. So if you do this, and you get two influential friends to do it, and so on and so on, maybe CGC will start to get the message.

[BronzeBruce13]

This was about to be a return PM to John Scheradon regarding his simple question on whether or not I thought he was wrong to still have doubts about the conflicting JIM 92 timeline comments. I thought about the matter again intently and some new thoughts came to mind explaining how one could make conflicting remarks without actual intent to lie, deceive, or harm another. As with my previous comments, I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is what happened, only to consider the relevance of these comments as they relate to your own persona experiences and interaction with others…

 

John,

 

I have not posted this but I've come the conclusion that since people are not expecting their remarks (especially ones that they don't consider important at the time) to be compared and scrutinized against one another, that they often say different things to different people about the same event/topic for several reasons. I think "variations" are likely to happen even more when they are questioned around the same time frame by multiple people about an event/topic that may have not be resolved or decided upon completely.

 

Other thoughts on "how" this could happen…

 

1. Momentary confusion, distraction, and/or lack of concentration about one's remarks regarding a event/topic that they may not consider significant enough to be stated as accurately or concisely as others.

For instance: when Doug at one point mentions that the JIM 92 is "his book to sell again" now because the consignor backed out and also contradicted himself around the same time this by telling another "he'd contact the buyer to let him know"... both things were true within a short amount of time and it may have not been clear-cut when Doug determined that the buyer was officially "not going to follow through" in his mind. If the buyer never said so, or didn't reply yet, it would be up to Doug to make that determination in his mind and perhaps this issue was open and closed several times as he considered it. Also, Brulato's willingness to accept the book back sans proof was something he explored and then had to factor in to his decision-making before proceeding. So, to me, that fact that there were varying responses on this topic is not really surprising. He may have felt even though he concluded that the buyer would was not going to follow through, that he was going to contact him "anyway" to explain the situation. This would be the right thing to do and perhaps Doug (from a business perspective) wanted to let the buyer "off the hook" and still allow him the opportunity to still buy other items off Pedigree. Otherwise, the delinquent buyer was likely to avoid buying again from embarrassment.

 

When Doug stated that a buyer "still existed" (when in his mind he may have recently decided that the buyer was not a going to be buyer)... he may have started to realize almost instantly his comments really did not reflect his newly formed view but saw no need to stop or amend his statement. It was a meaningless point of distinction at the time. In my experience, I've found that many people make these types of inaccuracies in their explanations from time to time and I bet most have personally done this as well? I have caught myself doing it knowing I had no motivation or intent to deceive for any benefit. I just said what came to mind first and just didn't see the need to stop and correct myself on an unimportant issue. It happens. I've also given shorter, less complete answers to different people based on their experience or understanding of the topic at hand.

 

2. They may want certain individuals to know less about the situation than others for a myriad of reasons. I don't think this really applies in Doug's case, but clearly from just a competitive or business perspective, stories or details can vary widely. I'm not going to tell a fellow bronze collector/competitor about a lead I have on a some books I need for instance, but I'd tell Brian (Foolkiller) every last detail if I had the time.

 

3. Poor memory and quicker tongue. Not everyone has this problem, but I suffer from it occasionally. I was worse when I was younger.

 

4. To "avoid" having to take the time to relay a longer explanation if you are pressed for time.

 

Just some food for thought and perhaps Doug could respond? I'm curious if others find these statements to be accurate in their own lives and with their dealing with other fellow collectors.

 

Is it common for a people to contradict themselves, yet essentially have no ulterior motives or unethical intent at the same time?