It is not realistic to expect CGC to catch all things all of the time when it comes to restoration detection. The back of their CGC label clearly states this as they will only only make a good faith effort to detect restoration. They will not warrant this process or the results of this check.

I understand the costs involved. Heck, there could be a fund set up to help CGC ofset some of this. The bottom line (for CGC) is the bottom line...I'd prefer a bit more information to help the consumer here.

Heads up and reminder:

There appears to be some CGC books on the next Pedigree Grand Comic Auction that have not been reviewed yet...

Reminder: My no frills utility is available at: http://ftp.datazap.net/ftp/sterlingcomics/cgccheck.htm

Great points raised by some folks here. But they are not the point of this thread.

CGC has notified the community that they suspect someone who submitted books to them did so after trimming the books. They've acknowledged that some of the books trimmed and submitted received blue labels.

The point of this thread was to point out in the insufficiency and of CGC's response so far. Questions remain as to:
1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?
2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?
3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?
4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

This is not a thread to discuss whether CGC can detect all resto work or whether there is a better alternative or whether more education is needed for collectors. Discussing it here is OT and contributes to the idea that CGC can just ignore the reasonable questions posed to them.

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

Brian: Thank you for relaying some information. I hope you'll understand that I don't consider an official response from CGC on the matter but at least something is out there.

However, the responses on 1 & 2 just don't make any sense. I deal in contracts and federal law/regs on private health information all day long. To my knowledge, there is nothing that would cover the information at issue here: linking a CGC # with the identity of the submitter. I always defer to not being aware of some state or other statute/reg. But I have not seen anything in the submission form that would create an obligation on CGC's part to hold this information as protected. Therefore, at the risk of being blunt, it's either BS, paranoid or I'm an *spoon* b/c I've forgotten something.