VintageComics

Not quite a 'guy trying something in his garage'. Apparently he's a chemist by trade? Most people don't even know what Xylene is, well they didn't until he posted that video publicly. I agree with the sentiment of most that CGC should be studying how to get around their win safeguards if they aren't already (and I'd be surprised if they weren't or hadn't done some R+D in this direction). I wonder if Blackstone looked into stuff like this before their purchase of the company?

But his method is reasonable, and is likely enough to get past a cursory check done during a reholder submission, especially ifthey arw claiming damage to the case as the reason foe the submission. That is all that matters. Plus, this person has only done this to a few slabs. The scammer may have a completely different method, but has also has done this many times and refined their methods with practice. Maybe. Maybe not. But what struck me the most, and that NOBODY has questioned is why he never shows a clear shot of the "properly" sealed edge. Sleight of hand to get YouTube views is probably the answer.

People wanting specific details about law enforcement, etc are now just being ridiculous. You can never feed the mob enough. You're skinny in real life, though, you should get first rations.

Diagnostic tech thinking hat on now: Is there a reason he DOESN'T how a clear shot of the side he sealed "properly" because I can see that it doesn't look as original as he makes people believe it does, just from the quick flashes we get of that spine edge. There's a little 'sleight of hand' going on there.

Sorry, I missed your edit. That's a mischaracterization of what I said. What I stated repeatedly to the people who keep stating that CGC should use AI to grade comics, is that the tech is likely available at the NASA level (software and hardware) but is not cost efficient or feasible at this time. NASA can likely accomplish it because they're at the leading edge of tech, and cost is not as large of a factor. Comic book grading is at the bottom of the totem pole, and so until the intersections of tech / cost / profitability make it feasible, it's a pipe dream. We've already seen from flyingdonut that the combo of software / hardware tech is limited. So if this is the cutting edge available to the public, we're still not there for all the reasons I outlined a few pages ago. The key here is that NASA doesn't need to worry about profit nearly as much as CGC does and that need for profit is the boundary that will limit how and when AI is used. Does that clarify my position better?

This is an exaggeration, as we differ in prior posts in the thread by some margin on the anticipated length of time it may take for the technology to become cost effective. No, I agree with your statement below. As I've repeatedly stated, I can see CGC using AI for some smaller aspects of grading, but I've generally been right about more things than you in the past so I'm willing to bet on myself again and take the over as to when CGC will use AI as a grading standard for grading it's books.

A key word search of PubMed for the term 'machine learning' finds 136,885 peer reviewed publications in professional scientific journals. So despite not being easy, it has become routine for those versed in the requisite programming and computer science aspects. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=machine+learning&sort=date&size=20 I'm not sure what your point is other than to confirm my point that it's not easy. If it was easy, they wouldn't need 136,000 peer reviewed articles (and counting) to figure it out. I can see the press release now...CGC welcomes it's newest grader:

No. The grader's notes are useless in this. The machine language would need to be manually trained by a grader. Even I know this and I'm just a lowly town crier. I don't know why you always need to throw shade at me to make it personal. It has nothing to do with waxing poetic. How the book feels and smells is a part of the grading process. Well preserved books feel differently than books that aren't. Some of the most distinctive characteristics of the most sought after Pedigrees are how they feel and smell. Grading is not 2 dimensional, it's 3 dimensional. 2 dimensional replies seem to be the norm though, so it's to be expected.

As JC25427N repeatedly stated, training the software is not as easy as most people think. and I can understand why. The "speck of dust" analogy is a perfect one, because a human has the experience to identify and move past it much quicker than a machine program for the same reason that a human and machine don't think the same way. As someone with extensive experience in neuroscience, you should know this. So while consistency is an easier goal, adaptability is probably the tougher one and this conversation needs to address both. It's not impossible, it's just a road filled with many obstacles, and how soon those obstacles are overcome is what this entire discussion has morphed into. This is where @JC25427N would be really beneficial in the conversation. Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with on on something I've been stating from the beginning. No, seriously. Thank you.

I don't think this has been clearly stated. A Private Investigator and "Outside Council" of some sort doesn't necessarily mean any law enforcement agencies are involved yet. I posted a question to CGC Mike asking to clarify this. @drotto You're already muddying the waters by leaving out the most important part of the line you quoted, which I BOLDED for you below. CGC has officially stated that this individual will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Which part of that did you miss?

Cards are much older than comics and much larger in scope, much like sports have always been more popular than comics. It stands to reason that there will be more card activity and the card hobby will be larger than comics. Coins are the same, meaning much older than cards and therefore the coin hobby is much larger than cards as well. Remember, million dollar coins have been the norm for some time. Million dollar comics are very recent.

Some of the perp's information will have to be shared for the searching to continue for slabs with bogus grades and for consumers to be able to evaluate the slabs in their collections and be made aware of suspect slabbed books going forward. Names/aliases and city locations used by the scammer to sell books at various venues must be spread clear and wide, at a minimum. And lists of certification numbers from all submissions to CGC by the perp must be compiled and released. While I don't disagree, for now, public social media handles like eBay and IG are enough for people to know if they've dealt with this person. Personal privacy laws these days in the overly litigious society we live in make the consequences of publicly sharing information a potentially messy thing, and can even be used by alleged defendants to counter-sue. The right people know ALL the details and a little trust is going to be necessary until an official statement is made.

No, you can speculate about things that are possibilities. but I countered your possibilities with facts we know so far because it's already been discussed it several times. You in turn, turned the conversation on me. Why? The problem with a thread this large is that some are perpetuating stories that have no basis in fact and it muddies the trail, making it harder to see clearly overall. In this particular instance, people have continually MISQUOTED and mischaracterized the statements of the two very people who started this entire investigation in the 1st YouTube , video, on the 1st page of this thread with stuff that isn't true. That misquoting and mischaracterization doesn't help anyone. As you can see, WestcoastDAVEngers, one of the people who made the 1st video, corrected everyone AGAIN last night. I get it. People are upset this happened. I'm upset. Everyone is upset. Even MORE reason for everyone need to stick to perpetuating facts once they've been established because perpetuating false information just makes the breadcrumb trail harder to follow for everyone.

Thank you. And be careful, someone may accuse you of waving CGC pom-poms for wanting to keep the story straight.

Nope. Some just continue to perpetuate false things. Speculating about possibilities is one thing. Stating false things as fact is an entirely different thing. Why is it that you have a problem with sticking to facts? Do you WANT the story filled with false information?

Peter, which one of my posts put me in anyone's corner? I simply am trying to stick to the facts, while some people prefer to stick to the speculation...and you're one of them. Stick to the facts.

Ah OK, so that's where the story came from. I re-listened to that video the other night,specifically looking for that info but I stopped around the 1:20:00 mark, being too tired (it was my 2nd time listening to it just for the answer we were looking for). So he has pics of the guy showing off books at a con. Sounds like the alleged seller was walking around, not set up at a show and that's very common. We see it all the time. There's no indication he was actually set up at the show.

160 pages into this thread, you're asking the most basic questions that are quickly answered on the very 1st page because you can't be bothered to read it, but you can take the time to troll people. Good job.

No.

Why are you getting defensive? Anyway, before you post another comment about being picked on, etc, etc...zzz I was just saying it was good that both the seller of the book...AND the company whose reputation is at stake...both said the book is fine. Because if they aren't honest, who is..? Because I went out of my way to notify Comiclink about the ASM #129 conversation here, asked them to look into it and then relayed the results back here and all you could reply to my post with was snark. You have NO IDEA how many people are working behind the scenes that aren't posting here and your snark shows a lack of appreciation for these efforts. A simple 'thank you' would have been much more appropriate.

Nothing to do with Bree or Briva. This could be an alias, family member or something else. The people who need to know the details are aware of them.

@comicwiz is doing great work with the help of a few others. Also, CGC Customer Service has stated they are following the thread as well as investigating.

Newsstand 9.9 knows who the original scammer is and said he has seen him selling on Instagram and at shows. Even if this was just one guy (and it’s not) it’s not limited to eBay. I don't think so. As far as I know, we've covered this already a few days ago. There was an unsubstantiated rumor that the scammer was showing his books off at a show and even that wasn't confirmed. The person that stated it ( @skybolt if I'm not mistaken) it never went back to the video confirm it. Has anyone else? If you have some proof otherwise, please share it. Post a clip of the video with a link to the time spot that it's being spoken about. There is no proof he was selling at shows yet, and I have spoken to a very prominent national dealer who would most likely recognize the name of this person if they were setting up at shows. So far, ALL we know points to eBay for sure, and possibly IG, so online sales only at this point. The important point being all of the online stuff will leave footprints and can be tracked. If you have anything that proves otherwise, I'm happy to be wrong.

So the seller of the book says "this one is fine". Whew.. good to know. No. I'll put in crayon for the kindergarten students. CGC looked into the book and said it was fine. I know you think you're doing all the heavy lifting with your one-liners but there are a LOT of people co-operating behind the scenes. They're just not making YouTube videos or posting here to announce it.

That's not an uncommon win/loss ratio for people who are very experienced with grading, and it's exacerbated when CGC is slightly on the loose side, which we all know happens, so that in and of itself isn't anything that raises eyebrows. I've regularly posted on here publicly over the years that if I get about 80% of my projected grades, I assume CGC is bang on down the center and if that percentage varies higher or lower, they're loose or tight, so not out of the ordinary to me.