CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[comicdonna]

39 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

This is a very good way to describe the finished product, IMO. I've seen some of these books and they are the next step beyond what we tend to think of as Frankenbooks. To me, it looks more like a clone. More like if Frankenstein started with just the fingernail of a corpse and then cloned the rest of the monster wearing that finger nail. The designation should be 10X extensive, a new category, as the designation "extensive" restoration falls short to describe what these are. Great call by CGC to decline grading these, IMO. Not just good, but a great call. They strike ma as being in the same category as when an artist draws a recreation of a cover, the original vs. the recreation.. How many CBCS 9.8 Hulk 1s now exist?  

I don't follow GA that much these days but, didn't the market respond some to these replicas with lower prices?

[kav]

I dont think judges should rule based on what laypersons think otherwise there would be virtually no lawsuits/appeals.  "Sorry I am a layperson about oil rigs so your lawsuit/appeal is dismissed.  Sorry I dont know squat about Magic the Gathering so your lawsuit/appeal is dismissed-"

Edited September 15, 2020 by kav

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

I dont think judges should rule based on what laypersons think otherwise there would be virtually no lawsuits.  "Sorry I am a layperson about oil rigs so your lawsuit is dismissed.  Sorry I dont know squat about Magic the Gathering so your lawsuit is dismissed-"

Gee, so much to unpack here.  Personally, I don't think of anybody here with a 10k plus post count as a layperson.  I think this board is populated by experts, and I mean that seriously.  

I think what we are missing are the facts

[comicdonna]

1 minute ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Gee, so much to unpack here.  Personally, I don't think of anybody here with a 10k plus post count as a layperson.  I think this board is populated by experts, and I mean that seriously.  

I think what we are missing are the facts

Hopefully, Mark will come here and explain the facts in detail.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Gee, so much to unpack here.  Personally, I don't think of anybody here with a 10k plus post count as a layperson.  I think this board is populated by experts, and I mean that seriously.  

I think what we are missing are the facts

No I was referring to james comment about possibly why the appeal was dismissed as it was all too hard to understand for a judge/layperson.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

4 minutes ago, kav said:

No I was referring to james comment about possibly why the appeal was dismissed as it was all too hard to understand for a judge/layperson.

Oh, i see.  Well, I've been in front of judges that are whip smart, and I've been in front of judges who aren't.  So who knows

[kav]

1 minute ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Oh, i see.  Well, I've been in front of judges that are whip smart, and I've been in front of judges who aren't.  So who knows

Judge Judy could unravel this in minutes.

[Jimmy Linguini]

I thought the lawsuit was based on CGC having the Meyer's comics removed from Heritage and having them black listed from other comic consignment sites...

[seanfingh]

6 hours ago, MatterEaterLad said:

When asked to prove those feelings or assumptions, they couldn't. 

Not true. They prevailed by a summary proceeding.  The Court of Appeals stated that decision by summary proceding was improper. They basically go back to the beginning and both sides will have the opportunity to present proof.

[mattn792]

38 minutes ago, kav said:

Judge Judy could unravel this in minutes.

Never know, it could end up being a two part episode...

[kav]

9 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

Never know, it could end up being a two part episode...

She did handle that Hulk 181 case in short order.

[mattn792]

1 minute ago, kav said:

She did handle that Hulk 181 case in short order.

There was a 181 dispute in front of Judge Judy?  

[kav]

Just now, mattn792 said:

There was a 181 dispute in front of Judge Judy?  

Yep.  Some dude misrepresented the condition on ebay.

[James J Johnson]

3 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

Not true. They prevailed by a summary proceeding.  The Court of Appeals stated that decision by summary proceding was improper. They basically go back to the beginning and both sides will have the opportunity to present proof.

Shouldn't the Meyers' real argument about CGC refusing to grade these be centered around the question of "how much of the original comic must be there to still be considered a comic?" Where's the cut-off? 10%? 25%? 50%? more? The Meyers appear to me to be very talented artists and paper mechanics, but personally, I've never seen this level of resto on anything before, and I'm talking about even books that Sue C. worked for many hours on, starting with sub-2.0 quality material and bringing it back up to Fine or above, apparently. If you can leaf cast a page, conveivably, you can leaf cast all of the pages, and I guess the cover too, right? How much of the original book has to be there for CGC to consider it a comic? That was always in the back of label text on CGC labels. "CGC guarantees that this is a comic.... etc." If their work falls below the CGC threshold for that grading qualification, "we guarantee this is a comic", that's the rules and them's the breaks.

[kav]

 

[seanfingh]

12 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Shouldn't the Meyers' real argument about CGC refusing to grade these be centered around the question of "how much of the original comic must be there to still be considered a comic?" Where's the cut-off? 10%? 25%? 50%? more? The Meyers appear to me to be very talented artists and paper mechanics, but personally, I've never seen this level of resto on anything before, and I'm talking about even books that Sue C. worked for many hours on, starting with sub-2.0 quality material and bringing it back up to Fine or above, apparently. If you can leaf cast a page, conveivably, you can leaf cast all of the pages, and I guess the cover too, right? How much of the original book has to be there for CGC to consider it a comic? That was always in the back of label text on CGC labels. "CGC guarantees that this is a comic.... etc." If their work falls below the CGC threshold for that grading qualification, "we guarantee this is a comic", that's the rules and them's the breaks.

Here is where the real problem lies - we (high end comic collectors and CGC customers) understand these concepts almost subconsciously - we know what wraps, leafcasting, restoration, near mint etc. mean.  It is quite an art to get a trier of fact (can be a judge or a jury)  to understand an industry with as much arcane terminology and tenuous connection to real life as comic collecting.  Whether this is tried to a judge or a jury, it will be difficult to present and difficult to educate them. It's hard enough in construction or manufacturing disputes, but the esoterica in this suit is almost unbelievable. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by seanfingh
open parenthetical

[James J Johnson]

3 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

Here is where the real problem lies - we (high end comic collectors and CGC customers) understand these concepts almost subconsciously - we know what wraps, leafcasting, restoration, near mint etc. mean.  It is quite an art to get a trier of fact (can be a judge or a jury)  to understand an industry with as much arcane terminology and tenuous connection to real life as comic collecting.  Whether this is tried to a judge or a jury, it will be difficult to present and difficult to educate them. It's hard enough in construction or manufacturing disputes, but the esoterica in this suit is almost unbelievable. 

CGC resolved every possible argument, pro and con, from all angles, by deciding not to slab them. After all, it is their company, they are allowed to establish under their terms, what qualifies for and what doesn't qualify for encapsulation under a CGC label. That label bears their brand. They have every right to decline branding an item with their brand name, if it's not applicable. They decide what is and isn't, not the ones using the invaluable service they provide. Not their customers. It's CGC's decision. Just theirs, and IMO, it's a pragmatically valid one; a sound business decision based solely on their brand and their ethics. 

[James J Johnson]

28 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

Here is where the real problem lies - we (high end comic collectors and CGC customers) understand these concepts almost subconsciously - we know what wraps, leafcasting, restoration, near mint etc. mean.  It is quite an art to get a trier of fact (can be a judge or a jury)  to understand an industry with as much arcane terminology and tenuous connection to real life as comic collecting.  Whether this is tried to a judge or a jury, it will be difficult to present and difficult to educate them. It's hard enough in construction or manufacturing disputes, but the esoterica in this suit is almost unbelievable. 

I see this as if I drove into a tire center  on April 1st with a square "wheel", asked them to mount a tire on it, to which they asked me, "This is a joke, right? Did our sales manager, Andy, put you up to this?", and I told them, "No. I need a tire for it", they responded, "we can't mount a tire on this rim", and I went straight to my lawyer to sue. It is what it is. They don't mount a tire on a square wheel. 

[MatterEaterLad]

1 hour ago, seanfingh said:

Not true. They prevailed by a summary proceeding.  The Court of Appeals stated that decision by summary proceding was improper. They basically go back to the beginning and both sides will have the opportunity to present proof.

Perhaps this is a better breakdown. https://casetext.com/case/meyers-v-certified-guar-co

"Several employees of Heritage took part in an email chain in which they wrote to each other that the Meyers were "reprinting" comic books and that CGC would no longer be grading them. Because of these suspicions, Heritage made a decision not to auction any of the Meyers' restorations. Yet during discovery in the ensuing litigation, none of those Heritage employees could verify the truth of those assertions..." The implication is that this rumor began with CCS/CGC, also unsubstantiated. 

[MatterEaterLad]

41 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

CGC resolved every possible argument, pro and con, from all angles, by deciding not to slab them. After all, it is their company, they are allowed to establish under their terms, what qualifies for and what doesn't qualify for encapsulation under a CGC label. That label bears their brand. They have every right to decline branding an item with their brand name, if it's not applicable. They decide what is and isn't, not the ones using the invaluable service they provide. Not their customers. It's CGC's decision. Just theirs, and IMO, it's a pragmatically valid one; a sound business decision based solely on their brand and their ethics. 

That makes perfect sense. I think the allegation is that they didn't just stop grading them, they told Heritage that the Meyers' books were essentially fabrications, without actual proof, and this was when Matt Nelson was both a grader and president of CCS, so that conflict of interest just makes it messier.