Verified now yellow labels?12314

Originally Posted by Joosh
Quote:

Originally Posted by mediaslave
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
The answer quite simply is that it did not happen. The book was purchased by a board member who did the entire thing on video and confirmed the inside signature was indeed printed . Steve Borock himself looked into the entire affair and was able to determine that someone had accidentally marked the wrong box on the form, which allowed the book to receive the incorrect label, if I understood correctly. It was a simple mistake , that was quickly and easily explained. Bottom line is the printed signature was not verified, it was human error in the I believe, the form or paperwork. I cannot remember the exact specifics, but I do know I watched this entire thing carefully.
I think if someone is going to challenge a companys credibility and do so publicly that the facts should be well established prior to doing so, to avoid possible legal ramifications. Just saying....

OR, and I'm just throwing this out there, they got busted and came up with a good cover story.

We'll never really know either way to be honest. And I can appreciate that everyone makes mistakes, they are only human. But it happened.

The only thing that would be worse is if somebody purposefully tested them with fake sigs and passed.

I am that board member who live-streamed the case cracking on Facebook. Steve Borock explained to me how it happened and apologized. As stated above it was a clerical error; the verification of the printed sig on inside front cover failed. The physical evidence being the label held no notation as to the signature location. All books with signatures not on outside cover have notation of signature location. This book has default base notation. CBCS made right by me so it’s all good.

BTW, I like the yellow label, it’s a good move for CBCS.

Originally Posted by Joosh
Quote:

Originally Posted by mediaslave
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
The answer quite simply is that it did not happen. The book was purchased by a board member who did the entire thing on video and confirmed the inside signature was indeed printed . Steve Borock himself looked into the entire affair and was able to determine that someone had accidentally marked the wrong box on the form, which allowed the book to receive the incorrect label, if I understood correctly. It was a simple mistake , that was quickly and easily explained. Bottom line is the printed signature was not verified, it was human error in the I believe, the form or paperwork. I cannot remember the exact specifics, but I do know I watched this entire thing carefully.
I think if someone is going to challenge a companys credibility and do so publicly that the facts should be well established prior to doing so, to avoid possible legal ramifications. Just saying....

OR, and I'm just throwing this out there, they got busted and came up with a good cover story.

We'll never really know either way to be honest. And I can appreciate that everyone makes mistakes, they are only human. But it happened.

The only thing that would be worse is if somebody purposefully tested them with fake sigs and passed.

I am that board member who live-streamed the case cracking on Facebook. Steve Borock explained to me how it happened and apologized. As stated above it was a clerical error; the verification of the printed sig on inside front cover failed. The physical evidence being the label held no notation as to the signature location. All books with signatures not on outside cover have notation of signature location. This book has default base notation. CBCS made right by me so it’s all good.

BTW, I like the yellow label, it’s a good move for CBCS.

Originally Posted by mediaslave
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
(silly soapbox gibberish

Are you serious? Like, actually serious? SO you expect me to go and spend time building a comparison for something any collector that isn't trying to be a cbcs-fanboy forum hero already knows?


OK, here's a super easy example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SPIDER-MAN-1-CBCS-VERIFIED-SIGNATURE-STAN-LEE-9-8/353053454181?hash=item5233a02f65:g:RIAAAOSwJRRemSee


https://www.ebay.com/itm/SPIDER-MAN-1-CGC-9-8-8-90-SS-STAN-LEE-SILVER-EDITION-MCFARLANE-APP-OF-LIZARD-/114246512350?hash=item1a999f6ede%3Ag%3AZpEAAOSwnD1dnw2I&nma=true&si=JfZ5JvJTKYcd9tsDlSyxViNuRhk%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557


You done with this silly distraction? Yeah I know CGC vs CBCS, but its hard as hell to find verified signature books that have a) living artists and b) CBCS copies. On a side note, I had no idea how much CGC dominated on ebay.

Anyone that collects knows that a witnessed sig will command more than a verified one, assuming both options are available. Anyone that watches a title regularly knows a Yellow label beats red. I have a Dark Knight Returns #1 red, and I know it will sell for less than a comparable yellow. Just how it is. Are you going to try and argue that the CGC premium on price doesn't exist next?

Originally Posted by flanders
I like the new case and that Evil Ernie but my god, why does it say "verified sigs" it's supposed to fully state signature(s) since "sigs" has been determined to be annoying and CBCS said they would fix this issue. It didn't annoy me until someone pointed it out and now it's a pet peeve. Can @Jesse_O or someone from CBCS comment on this?

Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town
umm why would you even consider trying to buy slabbed comics from ten feet away? Lets also try it underwater, at the north pole and perhaps on the largest moon of mars for effect....if you are spending your cash, you should be looking directly at the slab, examining the BOOK, since that's what you are purchasing, and then the slab and label.
Honestly this seems like some butt hurt you have for them rejecting your possible label suggestions more than anything logical , sensible or even useful.

Originally Posted by Siggy
LOGIC AND A CLEAR GRASP OF REALITY