Embedding disabled by request??

Un-freaking-real...!

Thx for posting that, Aaron, I had not seen it before.

BEWARE-PGX Returns Wrong Printing of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle #1 First Printing

Very interesting indeed. Thank you Conner and Aaron!

So why is it that I can see the embedded video and, I think, Marnin you could earlier but now Marnin can't but I still can?

I recall reading about this video elsewhere. In the interest of fairness, there were some legitimate doubts cast upon the person who shot the video... it may have been a frame job of PGX.

Sorry, but I can't recall any other details or where I read about this.

...did you hear the guy hyperventilating ?

I'll tell you.... if that guy was acting, he deserves an Oscar. I really felt his pain and outrage coming through my computer screen.

It just goes to show you ... when someone starts piling up a bad track record....

STAY AWAY! AVOID!


PGX
ComicSupply
etc.

I was never able to see it here Aaron. Maybe Mitch has an explanation?

The ability to embed the video file on external websites (outside of youtube) was disabled at the request of the content owner. This is an option YouTube provides its membership and content owners for what ever reason I don't know... maybe it has something to do with creator rights.

There are workarounds for this roadblock; however they are best left to those interested in thwarting YouTube protocols.

I was able to view Aaron's initial post because I clinked twice on the video image. On the second click I was redirected to the video posting on the YouTube website.

Thanks Mitch, I was aware of all this because I often post the embedded code from videos on YouTube to my hi5.com page. What I didn't understand was why the url process you created would also result in blocking it being posted externally.

One again, you've taught me something new.

This guy is actually a member of the CPG forum and, if I am not mistaken, he has documented this ordeal there. Here is the latest.

http://www.comicspriceguide.com/boards/Topic50003-20-1.aspx

True or an elaborate scam people should still be warned that people should stay far away from PGX.

I'm sure I probably missed this, but what did this collector originally pay for this book?

I think mentions that in that thread link I posted ... $67 in '87 or something like that.

BTW I got the same error message on the video but like Mitch says if you click the embedded video again it will take you straight to the YouTube page the video is on. I think in this case it isn't a bad thing because then you can read the blurb he has on the side.

The video was discusses on CPG too and some people called it into question and at least one person recant their claim that the video was questionable.

The one thing I keep wondering is the guy clearly had issues with them before. So why the hell did he keep with PGX? Heck why do people still send them books?

If I recall correctly, on the CGC Boards, more than one person questioned why the person was taping himself opening a slab unless it was a set-up.

The response was that the person tapes himself opening all of his slabs.

Ooooooookay.

Ok, let's be clear, I am not here to defend PGX. That said, despite their past history we should be fair. I finally watched the entire video... several things stand out:

* The taper fixates on the grade and first printing. He focuses the camera on this information several times and keeps repeating it and repeating it... MORE times than would be necessary in my view. Almost like he expects it NOT to be the first printing inside. He protests too much...

* What's with repeatedly documenting the time and date before the slab is opened? Again, like he is expecting there to be a problem. (Not that the date and time prove anything.)

* Upon opening the slab, he immediately notices a minor flaw on the front cover and says he didn't recall that being there before. Yet, the book has significant bends and markings on the back cover... in 3 years he never noticed these flaws before?!?!? Did his 1st printing copy have the same exact damage on the back cover? This strains credulity.

* PGX inserts the microchamber paper between the first and second page spreads, NOT between the cover and first spread. So, this is a false argument to somehow demonstrate the book was "processed quickly."

* The book goes out of the frame several times after we see the "7.0 1st printing" label. It could have been switched.

Again, not here to "defend" PGX, but the credibility of this video is in doubt. The videographer seemed a bit too prepared for it NOT to be the first printing.

Magic Dan apparently had some issues before regarding PGX and that is why he documents cracking all his slabs. The book going out of frame is an issue until you watch it a few times and see that it is in fact the same book coming out of the sealed inner holder. There are defects you can see on the book through the holder on the book he extracts from the holder on camera.

The biggest problem I have with this whole case is that if the guy has had problems before why the hell did he bother using PGX again and again. Why get your precious TMNT to PGX if you are only going to crack it and send it to PGX. IMO There is no proof in this case that what was sent in was a first print (no documentation) and I KNOW that PGX really isn't good at verifying submission data. They mislabeled a book I sent in despite what I put on the submission form and what was in the interior indicia.

Anyway, the reason I put this up was not to accuse PGX of stealing it is a simple warning that PGX QC is awful and likely they got themselves into this situation from not paying attention to something alone the line and that is not what a legitimate company should be doing.

I suspect you are correct. The guy probably submitted a 3rd print and it came back with a 1st print label due to a QC issue. Hence, he saw his opportunity to "make a case."

Sorry, but he was just way too ready for something other than a 1st print to come out of the slab. I was not convinced at all by the "acting." To me, it came through as staged and not a natural reaction.

Dan really set himself up for this one.

Didn't think of that. Okay, no Oscar.


Maybe a SAG?

This fellow does seem more than a bit obsessed with the whole situation, no?

Yeah, but he also kinds brought it on himself by not doing the research and certainly not documenting his books before sending them in. I remember him sending in that oversize book and debating it when it came back without and outer holder. I don't know what he was expecting since it was very well known and documented that PGX only had ONE size of outer holder. This one holder was/is also an issue when submitting early silver and all golden age books ... namely it wasn't thick enough.

Which further supports the point... if there was a book switch at PGX 3 years ago, why did he just notice it now when he cracked it? It's not like a NM book that can easily be mistaken for another NM book with a similar wrap. 7.0s have an accumulation of noticible flaws and should be quite distinctive from each other.

Given this guy's apparent fixation with this book, hard to imagine he didn't know every single tick and mark on the book he submitted, and the slab wasn't carefully scrutinized the moment it came back from PGX. Even harder to believe it took him 3 years to notice that his precious grail wasn't his precious grail.

Yep. IMO this is a case of an idiot duping an idiot. Who is duping who really doesn't matter. It just serves as another example of why not to trust PGX or what is on the label if you are a buyer.

all of the 'he's out to scam someone' stuff makes sense, except as far as i've been able to ascertain, he's never actually tried to make any money off of this.

you're saying he waits three years to go about dragging pgx's name through the muck on a couple internet message boards?


hey, ockham's on the phone. i think it's for you, steve

He made $700+ off of a 3rd print worth $10



I think PGX making a labeling error in 2005 and the guy trying to capitalize on it now is a lot simpler explanation than thinking PGX would switch out a 1st print and 3rd print (with a GIANT crease on the back) and all the other things that had to go perfectly right for PGX for an obvious switchout to go unnoticed for 3 years.



Add to that the horrible acting, the constant unnatural repeating of 1st print... from a logical perspective, his story doesn't hold water.

I agree Steve and many on the CGC forum do too.

let's just say i find the idea that someone getting a book back from PGX and filing it away after a cursory glance only to find out later - after additional problems with the company - that the book is in fact not what he sent in to be equally - if not more - likely as a guy waiting three years to get $700 out of the company.

i mean, that's a pretty long tail amortized over time. would have been a lot easier to just sell the book anonymously through a shill account on eBay any time over the last 3 years as a 1st print if money was all he was after