There’s confirmation, in writing from CGC, that these autos are witnessed by a CGC representative on the label date, along with chain of custody and video evidence.
2 Likes
I am also no lawyer but I would assume that there might be something to pin them on because they guaranteed their authenticity leading to people buying counterfeit items but then again I’m no lawyer so. Can we please get someone in here that knows real law does anyone have like a sibling or cousin or 5th uncle twice removed or just anyone who can answer this quickly
5 Likes
Minor detail, but worth noting the witnessing only applies with the “CGC Signature Series” Autos. Any CGCxJSA/Authentic Autograph were not witnessed by CGC and instead JSA authenticated the Auto after it was signed. This applies to a few examples that have the cut off sharpie like the zard previously discussed.
10 Likes
Yes this is a good distinction to make. But my example is meant to highlight a potential role that CGC played at large and not to specific cards – they were advertising these cards all over social media and their website (eg creating the market), sharing their back stories, origins, and provenance, ultimately hurting thousands of people who thought they were purchasing a piece of history. In my opinion, this potential evidence shows that CGC may have known that many of these cards were coming from uncut sheets and subsequently glued together in 2024, which is absolutely not a true “playtest” card from 1996.
I am sure there are also collectors who will seek emotional damages from this, given the amount of money involved and the stories of collectors parting with their collections to try to afford a playtest card.
2 Likes
Commenting because Better Call Saul mentioned. Great taste @mthursty
5 Likes
Im just wondering, but the person that made these fakes… Would they actually get in trouble since its on CGC to authenticate them? I know the culprit has done evil intentions, but some of the blame is also on CGC right? If they get involved wouldnt they be shooting themselves in the foot as well?
Edit: just caught up with the thread, and saw its been mentioned. XD
1 Like
Whatever happens, I’m in.
1 Like
They still would; yes they had CGC authenticate them, but they also sold them to people with the knowledge they were fake (I’m not insinuating everyone that sold them knew, just a few of the original sellers).
1 Like
In the chance they deny that they didnt know, what happens? Only asking because apparently CGC “DOES” know.
1 Like
Oh shit, I never saw this image before checking out this thread… is it possible the auto was just a scan?
1 Like
I’d like to say we could work with them, but their silence is telling.
1 Like
I’d imagine its beyond an opinion; they made a claim these cards were printed in 1996 and they weren’t. It’s one thing to hide behind an opinion on something subjective like condition. However, dating an item isn’t a subjective opinion. CGC made a definitive claim, “these were printed in 1996” when objectively they were not.
I don’t know what the exact angle would be, perhaps gross negligence? How did a lopunny collector provide a better answer by looking at scans on his computer than an entire authentication company, with every authentication tool at their disposal, who had years to figure this out. It’s so comically incompetent.
45 Likes
I’ll continue to do my part and refuse to buy CGC cards at trade shows 
17 Likes
Im in a complete agreement with this. If someone sends an obvious fake worth $1 to the company, and they didnt catch it its a simple mistake, but suddenly when its worth money CGC doesnt deserve to be criticized? Blasphemy! The person in charge clearly knew what they were doing is wrong, but in the off chance they actually say they bought them from someone else, or some excuse as a “victim” and the source cant be tracked; CGC will probably be held accountable for not doing their provenance.
1 Like
Personally I found it ok to good. Breaking Bad meanwhile…
1 Like
if I were in this situation, I would not want to be party to a class action. Everyone’s personal losses are not the same, and the lawsuit might not go in the direction I would personally desire. By now I’d have already begun looking for legal representation for my own personal lawsuit, and if possible have sent legal notice to CGC. I have no faith that they will just make things right, and I am more afraid that there won’t be any money left in the coffers to pilfer if I wait too long. I would want to get my payout before anybody else does and they have nothing left to give. A very real possibility is that they could simply declare bankruptcy and unable to pay compensation. The sums are large enough that I’d worry if they have the liquidity to pay out for millions of dollars.
I see that James from Z&G Emproium has covered all his customers, and so he is in the hole $144,000 and I would be curious to see what he does https://youtu.be/VOF-irRV4Ns?si=QEvLatjhnwnYH70D
I would say that its not just CGC that people should be looking at as well if bought via certain auctioning companies. I shall put that one out there.
Allowing CGC to control the process means they can and I’d exepct that they will, put the value of the fakes at whatever the last price comps sold at when clearly something fishy was going on and prices tanked when tons of the fakes flooded the market. I would expect them to fight against paying out the actual amount the particular transactions were at, but some assessed “market” price which they will consider all the sales of fakes to be part of. Imagine instead what the prices of sales would be if all the fakes weren’t made. Honestly, there are still many which we have yet to confirm being real or being fake which are in limbo because so many people are buying things and leaving them in the custody of “vaults”.
That is how I would look at things, were I victim to this massive fraud. I wouldn’t let the people victimizing me define the rules of engagement. I would be aggresively proactive and working hard to seek full compensation.
2 Likes
To clarify, the buyers have to first return the card to Z&G. I didn’t know that at first. So in theory, Z&G will get all the cards returned to him, he will issue the refunds, then go after CGC for that money. It makes sense having just a few people work with CGC rather than a bunch of individuals. It would be nice if all auction houses did this, but it won’t happen
7 Likes
Just thinking out loud here: Someone who bought forged prototypes on Alt, PWCC, etc never dealt directly with CGC. They dealt with the auction house which facilitated a transaction with some other party, and kept 15% or so. So most of the money lost went to the seller, and some went to the auction house.
So as far as standing goes, and the odds of successfully recovering the most damages: shouldn’t the seller be the target of a civil suit? Not to say CGC isn’t also liable. The seller was unfortunately likely also ripped off, and they would ideally recover their damages from the seller they purchased from.
I’m a complete layperson but this line of thinking makes sense to me. If I bought a fake watch off the street and sold it on eBay I would rightly owe the buyer a refund. If anyone is getting legal help, I would love to hear what they have to say on who should be the target of legal action.
2 Likes
absolutely. You can name multiple parties. Its not an either/or situation. But I’m no lawyer, they’d probably give better advice on who to sue, and in what manner. Even sending notice could cause an easy and painless payout before even having to file an actual lawsuit. This would be the preferable outcome.
2 Likes