ebay authentication isn’t passing these anymore so if his didnt hit the authentication center by the time this got out i think they will just send it back to him and refund the buyers anyway 
1 Like
In the watch situation you described if Rolex authenticated it then the seller in that situation will more than likely pin the blame on the company if someone bought it. You might not, but im sure most sellers arent as ethical.
If you sent a fake to a grading company Im pretty sure somewhere in the fine lines theyll say something like “We guarantee authentic” or something like that. The entire reason the prototypes sold was undoubtedly because they were graded. Which is a big deal.
I am in no way blaming CGC for this as the real culprit is an absolute horrible person. The fact that they have CGC as a leverage FOR selling it is a big issue. CGC kinda shot theirselves in the foot in otherwords.
3 Likes
I’m just going off what he said in the video. If he has added any info besides that elsewhere I didn’t know. So thanks for adding context. (screenshots or links would be much appreciated if you can find them again). So essentially the point remains, once he does right by the people he sold to, he has done the proper thing. The consignee is probably in hot water, but it remains with Z&G. He must decide what happens next. I don’t expect he simply wants to eat a 6 figure loss.
I mean, I’d probably be far more vindictive than him and stop accepting any further CGC slabs for consignment.
As much as I generally dislike consignment and encapsulation companies, I must say, if I must, I’d feel safe buying anything through him, knowing I’d be well taken care of if something went wrong.
1 Like
I can’t remember the term, but It makes it worse when the negligent party financially benefits (or intends to benefit) from their negligence.
For example, if a fake Charizard slipped through the cracks and CGC made a mistake and authenticated it that’s just an operational error.
In this particular case CGC used their authentication of these cards to market themselves as an ‘industry leader’, ‘trailblazer’, ‘insert zing word here’ (presumably to garner new customers which would be financially beneficial to them)
I’m not a legal expert but I used to work for a fortune 25 company that was sued for something similar. They had every resource available to defend themselves and still lost.
11 Likes
Exactly, there is nothing more definitive and objective than a number. If the year wasn’t on the label, we would be in big trouble.
2 Likes
Just read the statement from CGC myself.
Time to move on from them folks. It’s over. They’re by far the shadiest group of assholes in card grading.
They’re trying to downplay this by saying it’s 0.03% of all the cards they’ve ever graded as if they were not taking huge bulk deals from shady mystery box distributors to grade junk slabs
Fuck this company
10 Likes
It’ll be interesting to see what percentage of cards were affected based on sales value. Now that’ll be an interesting percentage.
2 Likes
Cant find the link, can u share it please?
1 Like
In my opinion, its always a letdown when someone has a decent response and then demands things that arent possible. Logically, Cgc isnt going to be refunding peoples auction prices but they may be liable for misrepresenting the authenticity of the cards which led to damages because the cards were bought with their guarantee of authenticity.
Taking a step back from the speculative card aspect and looking at the normal process of disputes,
Cgc put their guarantee up on an item.
Person A buys and later finds it is not authentic.
They ask cgc to confirm their guarantee.
Cgc dictates terms of the guarantee process, not clearly designated in the guarantee.
Person A can either agree or disagree with the terms.
If agreed, follow the terms, cgc follows their end, cgc determines fmv and payout happens.
If disagreed, Person A either submits new terms for cgc to agree or disagree to OR takes the process through legal process to try getting a more favorable outcome.
If a lawsuit is chosen then written notices, evidence, valuation receipts, etc, all come into play.
Remember that any legal outcome can create a precedence for future outcomes regarding cgc’s entire process (before they redefine their terms) so it is very likely cgc will either oppose strongly or settle out of court.
If you have any concerns with cgc’s response then you likely need to be speaking with legal counsel on your rights and options.
Best case scenario in my opinion is settle out of court since they may be liable for a lot more that will effect their authentication services as a whole. Worst case is someone puts forth a bad case and cgc is found not liable with the judgement effecting all lawsuits of the same issue.
7 Likes
Here you go https://www.cgccards.com/news/article/13730/
2 Likes
I understand that, objectively speaking, they have to complete their own investigation before they can be reasonably expected to commit to a specific resolution, but CGC rather boldly saying “we take these claims very seriously”, “0.03%” and, “We stand behind every card that we grade” in that statement doesn’t make them sound very…open to concession. It sounds incredibly defensive.
There’s absolutely nothing in those paragraphs that would give a prototype collector room for optimism. They could have said that they’re ‘prioritising customer interests through this investigation’ or ‘our commitment remains to our consumers and providing the best quality service’. But nope, yet again CGC’s attitude is proving incredibly revealing about their approach towards conducting business.
I just hope integrity prevails for the sake of all the people affected and their future comms are more conducive to resolution.
8 Likes
This has absolutely no comment on reimbursement whatsoever.
When you submit under holder review you must accept this terms and conditions:
ONLINE WAIVER AND CONSENT TO REMOVE COLLECTIBLES FROM HOLDERS
IMPORTANT!
-HOLDERS FOR COLLECTIBLES ARE DESIGNED TO BE TAMPER-EVIDENT AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO OPEN. EVEN WHEN DONE CAREFULLY, OPENING THE HOLDER MIGHT CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE COLLECTIBLE AND AFFECT ITS GRADE.
-HOLDERS CAN ALSO SOMETIMES MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DETECT PRE-EXISTING DAMAGE, ALTERATIONS, OR OTHER DEFECTS THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACT A COLLECTIBLE’S GRADE. IF A COLLECTIBLE IS SUBMITTED FOR THE “SAME GRADE OR BETTER” CROSSOVER SERVICE, THE COLLECTIBLE WILL BE REMOVED FROM ITS HOLDER ONLY IF CGC CARDS REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT THE COLLECTIBLE WILL RECEIVE A CGC GRADE THAT IS THE SAME OR HIGHER THAN THE GRADE ASSIGNED BY THE OTHER GRADING SERVICE. HOWEVER, CGC CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THE COLLECTIBLE WILL RECEIVE THE SAME GRADE OR A HIGHER GRADE, AND CGC ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE FINAL GRADE WILL BE LOWER THAN THE GRADE ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED OR IF THE COLLECTIBLE CANNOT BE GRADED OR ENCAPSULATED AT ALL.
-Customer Consent and Waiver
I consent to CGC removing the submitted collectible(s) from their holder(s) for purposes of authenticating and grading the collectible(s). I understand that this removal will likely void any guarantee that may have been provided by another grading company that encapsulated the card(s).
-Even if I select the “Same Grade or Better” CrossOver service, I understand that it is possible (although unlikely) that a collectible might still go down in grade due to defects that could not be detected until after it was removed from its holder.
-I understand that CGC’'s determination of grade (including sub-grades, if any), authenticity, and collectible attribution may differ from another grading company’s determination and that if the submitted collectible(s) are determined by CGC to be Not Genuine, Questionable Authenticity, or otherwise ungradable, the collectible(s) will be designated as such and will not be graded or encapsulated by CGC.
-I accept the risks associated with removing my collectible(s) from holders and agree to release, waive, and discharge Certified Guaranty Company, LLC (“CGC”) and its employees, agents, and representatives from all liability for loss or damage, whether caused by negligence or not, associated with my request to remove collectibles from their holders.
3 Likes
Hey all, I’m a reporter at the gaming site Kotaku covering this story and just wanted to share my contact info in case anyone who purchased cards that appear to be fakes wants to share their experience.
8 Likes
Ethan we are mad! Real mad!
14 Likes
Thanks for the link to this. It’s odd… my cert numbers aren’t on here. They actually skip the numbers in the list.