• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

584 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, MatterEaterLad said:

*facepalm*

It was a hypothetical example. Not an accusation. 

Let me rephrasIf you posted on these boards that you feel someone is selling counterfeit books and they lose business, you'd better have proof or there could be legal recourse. It's the same thing.e: If you posted on these boards that you feel someone is selling counterfeit books and they lose business, you'd better have proof or there could be legal recourse. It's the same thing."If someone posted on these boards, without proof, that a certain dealer was selling counterfeit books, and that dealer's business was hurt by those posts, that dealer could have legal recourse against the poster."

That's a similar situation to this lawsuit. IGB says their business was hurt because of falsehoods, so they're seeking damages against the originator and perpetuators of those falsehoods.

Easier to understand?

 

Actually, you directed your accusation to me. You didn't direct it to "someone"; some non-specific member of the hobby. You specifically directed it to me:

Let's compare your 2 different renditions of this accusation sequentially: 

The first time, you stated, "If you", and as the post was in response to me, I can only take that to mean that we are specifically referring to me.

The second time you stated, "If someone". Someone non-specific. A huge difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some keep repeating that CGC REFUSED to grade the books.  It was written that was not the case. (shrug)

These books should be in YELLOW label holders and identify the Meyers as the artist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Actually, you directed your accusation to me. You didn't direct it to "someone"; some non-specific member of the hobby. You specifically directed it to me:

Let's compare your 2 different renditions of this accusation sequentially: 

The first time, you stated, "If you", and as the post was in response to me, I can only take that to mean that we are specifically referring to me.

The second time you stated, "If someone". Someone non-specific. A huge difference. 

I think I can be peace maker here-it seems to be a mere misunderstanding.
If I say to someone "If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer it will hurt" I am speaking in general about 'you', ie anyone who does that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Not the same thing. CGC knows that they're not original books. They simply can't tell where the original material begins and the "reproduction" begins. The books in question aren't authentic.

How do you feel about the leaf casting of comic books then?  hm

Since they are also made from new materials external from the original comic books themselves, would you also considered them to be recreated books then?  Or are they alright and good to go as CGC says, they are comic books that have been successfully conserved because they can tell where the original material ends and the recreated material begins?  (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

How do you feel about the leaf casting of comic books then?  hm

Since they are also made from new materials external from the original comic books themselves, would you also considered them to be recreated books then?  Or are they alright and good to go as CGC says, they are comic books that have been successfully conserved because they can tell where the original material ends and the recreated material begins?  (shrug)

We're getting into Heisenberg territory here.  The original Heisenberg, not that blue meth guy.

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lou_fine said:

How do you feel about the leaf casting of comic books then?  hm

Since they are also made from new materials external from the original comic books themselves, would you also considered them to be recreated books then?  Or are they alright and good to go as CGC says, they are comic books that have been successfully conserved because they can tell where the original material ends and the recreated material begins?  (shrug)

Valid question.

I can't speak for CGC, but to me, it depends on the extent of conservation/restoration. At least CGC can tell (as you say) to what extent leaf casting is/was performed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2020 at 4:30 PM, 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.

This, or even more simply they do what they are already doing (more or less) and document all the reasons why they slap a purple label on a given book in the first place.  That alone is enough to alert most collectors.  Painting with a broad brush here but I think once most people decide that they're buying the PLOD version of a given book, the AMOUNT of restoration probably doesn't matter.

I mean, it's great the CGC is trying to draw a line somewhere, but once you open the can of worms -- e.g. accepting restored books in the first place -- it can be hard to limit what comes out of the can.  Sooner or later you're going to encounter a case that pushes the envelope of reasonableness, and then lawsuits are a possible result.  

Would still love to see a layman's explanation of why CGC lost the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Timely said:

Sound like what many of you are really saying is that their work is so good that you can’t tell the difference between what is original and what is added on. You would think that would be a good thing! Interesting.

When you get into the ballpark of being able to buy a house for what an original of some of these books are worth, it becomes important to count on the fact that you are actually buying an original and not a restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lou_fine said:

How do you feel about the leaf casting of comic books then?  hm

Since they are also made from new materials external from the original comic books themselves, would you also considered them to be recreated books then?  Or are they alright and good to go as CGC says, they are comic books that have been successfully conserved because they can tell where the original material ends and the recreated material begins?  (shrug)

If we were talking about paintings, hard-bound books, or almost any other thing we can call "art", this wouldn't even be a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RonS2112 said:

This, or even more simply they do what they are already doing (more or less) and document all the reasons why they slap a purple label on a given book in the first place.  That alone is enough to alert most collectors.  Painting with a broad brush here but I think once most people decide that they're buying the PLOD version of a given book, the AMOUNT of restoration probably doesn't matter.

I mean, it's great the CGC is trying to draw a line somewhere, but once you open the can of worms -- e.g. accepting restored books in the first place -- it can be hard to limit what comes out of the can.  Sooner or later you're going to encounter a case that pushes the envelope of reasonableness, and then lawsuits are a possible result.  

Would still love to see a layman's explanation of why CGC lost the case.

CGC didn’t lose the case, It’s still undecided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RonS2112 said:

When you get into the ballpark of being able to buy a house for what an original of some of these books are worth, it becomes important to count on the fact that you are actually buying an original and not a restoration.

If it were not a real cover the label would read, “Cover is a color copy.”

 

Seems pretty easy to tell the difference when reading the label, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RonS2112 said:

Would still love to see a layman's explanation of why CGC lost the case.

I don’t think the case has been won or lost. CGC almost made a quick escape by getting the case dismissed, but IGB appealed the dismissal, and the appellate judge said “not so fast there, CGC; get back in here”. The parties have been returned to their original positions, and the lack of progress reflected on the court docket since then could mean each side is waiting for the other to blink first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

I don’t think the case has been won or lost. CGC almost made a quick escape by getting the case dismissed, but IGB appealed the dismissal, and the appellate judge said “not so fast there, CGC; get back in here”. The parties have been returned to their original positions, and the lack of progress reflected on the court docket since then could mean each side is waiting for the other to blink first.

Thanks for that....I had trouble pulling that level of nuance out of all the legalese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Timely said:

If it were not a real cover the label would read, “Cover is a color copy.”

 

Seems pretty easy to tell the difference when reading the label, correct?

Yes, I would agree with that.  And I think that for many collectors, a PLOD saying, "this comic is 75% restoration" (or whatever) would tell us all we need to know -- as I pointed out above.  At the same time, I respect CGCs right to draw a line somewhere.  Insofar as EVERYTHING CGC does is ultimately objective, even though they've become a standard of sorts, when you submit a book, you are paying for their opinion, and I think that "our opinion is that this book isn't worth a grade" is a valid OPINION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
11 11