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

[James J Johnson]

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Sad to say, but I believe CGC only have themselves to blame as they were the ones who really opened the can of worms and started to slide down the slipperly slope when they declared that certain forms of what were deemed to be restoration practices at the time were really sanctioned and spunned as nothing more than "maximization of potential" of a book. 

They really could have stopped this whole artifical manipulation of books before it could even get out of the starting blocks by declaring all of these practices (i.e. not just micro-trimming) as destruction of a comic book.  Then again understandably, CGC is a business and the objective of any business is to generate as many streams of revenue as possibe in order to maximize both their top line and their bottom line.    

I view it this way. CGC designates 3 levels of restoration, slight, medium, and extensive. If they were to grade this and classify the restoration (which is my belief to be re-creation when you paint over almost all or all of the entire cover), where exactly would it fall on their 3 level resto scale? Extensive being the highest degree of resto, would this even classify as extensive, that is, akin to the rest of the books they classify as extensive, or is the work beyond even that highest degree of the 3 levels at present? Would it be "very" extensive, a 4th degree of resto that currently and never existed? 

Looking at the images of similar unrestored books the re-creations (which is what I think of them as) look dissimilar enough that one might think that etther some type of projector was used, to put the image on the cover, which may hav strated blank, and then traced from the projected image, thus the infinitely subtle differences in the artwork. Or, again, starting with the blank cover (due to filler and reinforcing materials, the pant job is done freehand,  with an unresrtored original image side by side. I would tend to think the latter because a talented artist should be able to do this, glance back and forth, copy as you go, again that would account for the re-creation's artistic license, all the subtle differences in thickness, shape, distance, etc., etc. And as a disclaimer, this is my opinion based on educated observation. I have no precise knowledge on how they are actually executing these. 

In the end, CGC is a brand, it's the #1 trusted brand in comic grading, and I can well understand their reluctance to slab these, IMO a very sound and responsible decision that is worth standing by.

[mattn792]

38 minutes ago, MatterEaterLad said:

Thanks for posting the images. I hear what you're saying. I still want to see one up close. 

The insinuation has been that these are somehow fake covers, as in, complete fabrications. Which I've heard from others who have handled these books, that that's not the case. Joey Post said these are not frankenbooks, but have a high level of resto. I don't quite get the animus from CGC toward these books, which appear to me to be similar to books from the Restoration Lab. CBCS doesn't seem to have a problem with them. 

Is it possible that at some point, CGC said, "Tell us how you're doing this," and IGB said, "We'd love to, but since you have an in-house company doing similar work, we'd like to keep our techniques to ourselves?" That seems reasonable. 

IGB would certainly seem to have a case if that were true.

[lou_fine]

49 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Looking at the images of similar unrestored books the re-creations (which is what I think of them as) look dissimilar enough that one might think that etther some type of projector was used, to put the image on the cover, which may hav strated blank, and then traced from the projected image, thus the infinitely subtle differences in the artwork. Or, again, starting with the blank cover (due to filler and reinforcing materials, the pant job is done freehand,  with an unresrtored original image side by side. I would tend to think the latter because a talented artist should be able to do this, glance back and forth, copy as you go, again that would account for the re-creation's artistic license, all the subtle differences in thickness, shape, distance, etc., etc. And as a disclaimer, this is my opinion based on educated observation. I have no precise knowledge on how they are actually executing these. 

 

I believe you missed this very critical post here and especially with respect to the last sentence:  

12 hours ago, Aman619 said:

yes. however as I suggested, perfect overpainting has never been a criteria for grading demerits because it has always been crudely hand painted.  To me, if I had recreated the covers so well, Id be shocked and scratching my head if someone said " yeah -  but you missed a broken line by the inker, and didn't match up the webbing 100% perfectly!".  A forger has to be perfect, not a restorer.

Any bets that if you take a look at virtually all restored covers that involved the recreation of some of the artwork in the days prior to CGC and IGB, you would find that the artwork is a whole lot more crude and with even more subtle but very obvious differences if you matched it up against an unrestored original image side by side.  

[Gotham Kid]

No matter how you look at it, the market has spoken. These things no longer sell (as they did when they first appeared) and when they do, sell for less each time.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Gotham Kid

[MatterEaterLad]

37 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

No matter how you look at it, the market has spoken. These things no longer sell (as they did when they first appeared) and when they do, sell for less each time.

I think that's part of the lawsuit. That the books were considered high grade restoration by CGC and then later they changed their minds and stopped grading them, and by extension Heritage stopped selling them (since the co-chairman at Heritage owns part of CGC). If the market has been soured by CGC/Heritage saying things in the collecting community about IGB's work, without substantiated proof, it's going to be a long day in court for CGC. Especially if a jury can't tell the subtle differences between the work from IGB and CCS. 

[Gotham Kid]

19 minutes ago, MatterEaterLad said:

1 hour ago, Gotham Kid said:

No matter how you look at it, the market has spoken. These things no longer sell (as they did when they first appeared) and when they do, sell for less each time.

I think that's part of the lawsuit. That the books were considered high grade restoration by CGC and then later they changed their minds and stopped grading them, and by extension Heritage stopped selling them (since the co-chairman at Heritage owns part of CGC). If the market has been soured by CGC/Heritage saying things in the collecting community about IGB's work, without substantiated proof, it's going to be a long day in court for CGC. Especially if a jury can't tell the subtle differences between the work from IGB and CCS. 

When the first CBCS graded copies surfaced, sales were actually pretty healthy.

ComicConnect had them listed in practically all their auctions. The Meyers were putting out a lot of material.

Fast forward a couple years and prices have tanked. The copies that circulate seem to be the same ones over and over, with each new unsuspecting owner hoping to dump them soon after, even if that means at a loss.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Gotham Kid

[MatterEaterLad]

18 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

When the first CBCS graded copies surfaced, sales were actually pretty healthy.

ComicConnect had them listed in practically all their auctions. The Meyers were putting out a lot of material.

Fast forward a couple years and prices have tanked. And the copies that circulate seem to be the same ones over and over, with each owner hoping to dump them.

Sadly, I think the purple market in general is down. Probably because many restored books are in question. What happens if you have a high value key, restored by CCS, and the lawsuit shows that CCS and IGB are doing virtually the same thing? Does the value of IGB books go up? Or does the value of CCS books go down? I ask, because I've seen an AF15 that had been remaindered and later restored by someone well respected in the industry, with the entire top half of the front cover recreated, and the back ad replaced, so essentially that cover is 25% of the original, and CGC graded it no problem. For CGC to then not grade IGBs books seems hypocritical. And not a good place to be in court. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by MatterEaterLad

[mattn792]

1 hour ago, MatterEaterLad said:

I think that's part of the lawsuit. That the books were considered high grade restoration by CGC and then later they changed their minds and stopped grading them, and by extension Heritage stopped selling them (since the co-chairman at Heritage owns part of CGC). If the market has been soured by CGC/Heritage saying things in the collecting community about IGB's work, without substantiated proof, it's going to be a long day in court for CGC. Especially if a jury can't tell the subtle differences between the work from IGB and CCS. 

IGB would do well for themselves by using jury selection to exclude any potential juror with even the slightest bit of comic knowledge.

[James J Johnson]

Out of curiosity, how many CBCS 9.8 Hulk 1s (1962) are on the CBCS census at present? 

How many of them are IGB's handiwork? 

[MatterEaterLad]

1 hour ago, mattn792 said:

IGB would do well for themselves by using jury selection to exclude any potential juror with even the slightest bit of comic knowledge.

This is one trial I wouldn't mind watching in person, especially if there are expert witnesses from within the industry. 

Also would be interesting to see how the judge does the voir dire -- asking potential jurors if they collect comics, read comics, etc. 

[MatterEaterLad]

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Out of curiosity, how many CBCS 9.8 Hulk 1s (1962) are on the CBCS census at present? 

How many of them are IGB's handiwork? 

There are 7 listed. One is unrestored. Doesn't say who did the resto. 

[Domo Arigato]

 

54 minutes ago, MatterEaterLad said:

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

Out of curiosity, how many CBCS 9.8 Hulk 1s (1962) are on the CBCS census at present? 

There are 7 listed. One is unrestored. 

There's an unrestored CBCS 9.8 Hulk #1 in their census???

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Domo Arigato

[MatterEaterLad]

4 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

There's an unrestored CBCS 9.8 Hulk #1 in their census??

That was my reaction too. 

I just checked again. While the census doesn't note it as restored, there's a pic, and the label shows resto. 

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, MatterEaterLad said:

There are 7 listed. 

Seven of them! 9.8!! 

Ridiculous. 

Same with FF 1,  AF 15, and AS 1? I won't even take a stab at how many 9.8 X-Men 1s there are. 

 

 

 

[William-James88]

I get the gist of this, but the part I don,t know is what IGB wants out of this. Do they simply want CGC to grade their stuff again or do they want money for sales lost?

[William-James88]

4 hours ago, Gotham Kid said:

Fast forward a couple years and prices have tanked. The copies that circulate seem to be the same ones over and over, with each new unsuspecting owner hoping to dump them soon after, even if that means at a loss.

Makes sense. These arent comics that remained in great shape through all these years, they are art projects. 

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, William-James88 said:

I get the gist of this, but the part I don,t know is what IGB wants out of this. Do they simply want CGC to grade their stuff again or do they want money for sales lost?

The answer to that probably depends upon the question of just how many of these 9.8s they have sitting in boxes on their shelving, in wait for what they feel is "the right price". 

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, William-James88 said:

they are art projects. 

+100   the heart of the matter. 

[MatterEaterLad]

1 hour ago, William-James88 said:

Makes sense. These arent comics that remained in great shape through all these years, they are art projects. 

I get that. What I don't get is why aren't Restoration Lab books art projects? Or CCS books?

If it were Borock or Joey Post saying these were art projects, I'd believe them, especially since neither owns a resto company. But it's not them. It's the weird conflict of interest quagmire of CCS/CGC/Heritage. 

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, MatterEaterLad said:

(since the co-chairman at Heritage owns part of CGC).

A question indirectly related to this issue here, does anybody know approximately when Heritage started to include CBCS books in general as part of their ongoing auctions?  

Just wondering if this would have been after 2014 or was it possibly earlier since I believe Heritage didn't put CBCS books into their auctions from the get go?