General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean

29 29

Ahh, much better. Now if Sky will go back and edit a line into HER post...

Sharon, look at this 3.5 copy from HA two years ago. This is listed in the Previous Prices of that HA auction of the Action 36 you are discussing. It was cleaner and nicer with just glue on it, selling for $239 then.

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=19042&Lot_No=12001

Well, since he's talking on his sales thread, but suggesting we talk here...

these are my issues.

John said he had a "presumption" that there was restoration. He posted it in the forum here, with a definitive statement, saying it was not restored.

He posted it on eBay 3 times, with a definitive statement saying it's not restored. I'm not even worried about the grade as much as that "definitive" statement.

Now in this thread, he mentions that it MIGHT have a tear seal.

If he had a "presumption" that it was restored, why not mention that "presumption" the first 4 times...instead of making a definitive statement that it was not.

I'm sorry if he's angry at me...or thinks I'm terrible for bringing it up,but this is something we need to address...

Someone just sent me a great quote..."honesty cuts the bottom line" ...well, it does...but...it is, what it is...

This happened once before ...probably more than once, but once that I remember.

 

A seller lists something here as a lower grade than they do on eBay...they also say on eBay that there is NO resto on a book....yet, when they come here, there "might be a tear seal"...

 

I remembered the book very well, because I had been considering buying it, I knew it was from a boarder (couldn't remember which one, but I knew the ID), and it's a book that I have but keep thinking of upgrading.

 

Someone else just posted a link to a heritage sale.

 

Now it seems that the book, was from Heritage, CLEARLY marked as restored, but the seller says on his thread, that he bought it from another dealer in-between....and when I suggested that he should be annoyed that the other seller did not disclose...he now says he had a clue.

 

Here is one of his listings on eBay, the book is in the market place now...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=320661984374&nma=true&rt=nc&si=2rgweQmEUFGpu0p8ogzS8084w7c%253D

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&rt=nc&nma=true&item=320671137789&si=2rgweQmEUFGpu0p8ogzS8084w7c%253D&viewitem=

 

I'm really sad that people think they can come here, and act differently on eBay....not sure if this belongs here, but I didn't want to make a whole hullabaloo in comics general....as a matter of fact, if had not had this very book on my own watch list several times, I wouldn't have known anything. I don't mind restored books, but I do mind non disclosure.

 

I'm posting this here, rather than on his thread (again) so Yannis can explain himself....btw, I believe the book was posted here, before it was on eBay, but I couldn't find the link easily...and it's been on eBay at least 3 times, each time with the same "not restored" disclaimer.

 

It also seems the book sold on eBay :shrug:

I hear you Sharon. I usually stay out of this stuff but this isn't the first time there have been issues here with this seller. I recall a story about an early Tec that was sold through time payments and then revoked because he got a higher price elsewhere. My own personal history with this seller has been one book a couple of years ago. A TTA that I specifically asked if an area had a tear seal on or was it a printer's crease. I was told it was a crease and there was no resto/tear seal. When I got the book I opened it, looked on the inside front cover and there is was, a tear seal...clear as day. Since it was a reader copy (and it took a long time for the seller to even ship the book) I didn't bother to return it but it definitely left a bad taste.

Just my 2 cents, I hope this is the right place for this discussion. I don't usually venture onto this area of the boards.

I'm sorry if he's angry at me...or thinks I'm terrible for bringing it up,but this is something we need to address...

definitely needs to be addressed

Well, since he's talking on his sales thread, but suggesting we talk here...

 

these are my issues.

 

John said he had a "presumption" that there was restoration. He posted it in the forum here, with a definitive statement, saying it was not restored.

 

He posted it on eBay 3 times, with a definitive statement saying it's not restored. I'm not even worried about the grade as much as that "definitive" statement.

 

Now in this thread, he mentions that it MIGHT have a tear seal.

 

If he had a "presumption" that it was restored, why not mention that "presumption" the first 4 times...instead of making a definitive statement that it was not.

 

I'm sorry if he's angry at me...or thinks I'm terrible for bringing it up,but this is something we need to address...

 

Someone just sent me a great quote..."honesty cuts the bottom line" ...well, it does...but...it is, what it is...

This definately belong here Sha. Thanks for bringing it up. This doesn`t seem like an honest listing and I seem to recall past problems with this seller that put him on my no buy list.

If he doesn`t want you thread crapping perhaps he could come here and straighten out the problem.

Well, he pmed me telling me not not to pm him, I answered his PM and I just suggested he apologize and not take it further, but he responded by saying this is "my fault" and

then said he has "big time boardies" backing him and "what goes around comes around" so I suppose that is a threat.

He's scared me...

I think...?

and "big time boardies" frighten me to death...:shrug:

So, I'll let him post here and repeat how this is my fault...

Or maybe I'm too old to play in his school yard ...I think all the boardies are "big time"

I don't get why people can't just say..."hey, you know, MAYBE I made a mistake...I was not thinking how that would look, I apologize and I will be more careful."

I guess when you hang with the "big time boardies" ya got clout.

If you cannot tell I find this response childish and annoying, well, I find this whole response childish and annoying.

I do remember the exit last year, after he made a deal, accepted funds and sold the book to someone else.

He sounds like a big time tool. (thumbs u Mayhap this tool should go back to the toolbox and spend his time with his big time friends.

Well, he pmed me telling me not not to pm him, I answered his PM and I just suggested he apologize and not take it further, but he responded by saying this is "my fault" and

then said he has "big time boardies" backing him and "what goes around comes around" so I suppose that is a threat.

 

He's scared me...

 

I think...?

 

and "big time boardies" frighten me to death...:shrug:

 

So, I'll let him post here and repeat how this is my fault...

 

Or maybe I'm too old to play in his school yard ...I think all the boardies are "big time"

 

I don't get why people can't just say..."hey, you know, MAYBE I made a mistake...I was not thinking how that would look, I apologize and I will be more careful."

 

I guess when you hang with the "big time boardies" ya got clout.

 

If you cannot tell I find this response childish and annoying, well, I find this whole response childish and annoying.

 

I do remember the exit last year, after he made a deal, accepted funds and sold the book to someone else.

 

If I qualify as a "big time boardie" I'm behind you Sharon 100%.

Since I am atwork and can't be on here to defend myself. No Sharon I didn't threaten you , what I meant is people always get shot in the foot when they attack for no reason. Meaning one day you will be taken out of context (for example) and will be on the defensive.You come on all innocent but you are sneaky in the way you use your innocence.

Oh and by the way, that person who attacked me last year has been ousted. so you can go and back him up if you like.

You could have pmd me from the start if there was something bothering you or had a question but you chose to go on my thread and "be nice".

I stand to correct before I'm taken out of context.... I can't be on here for too much longer because of work.

I stand to correct before I'm taken out of context.... I can't be on here for too much longer because of work.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This is the second go around for you on a very questionable incident with your sales and a mountain of evidence behind it.

That said, as with Roy, my feeling is not to make more out of it than it is, lay out the facts, and let people draw their own opinions.

If people want to still buy from your threads with the information presented, that's their call.

I stand to correct before I'm taken out of context.... I can't be on here for too much longer because of work.

 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This is the second go around for you on a very questionable incident with your sales and a mountain of evidence behind it.

 

That said, as with Roy, my feeling is not to make more out of it than it is, lay out the facts, and let people draw their own opinions.

 

If people want to still buy from your threads with the information presented, that's their call.

Even if it is a beaver that quacks like a duck I`m concerned that Yannis can`t seem to detect and declare obvious restoration.

Foolkiller, I have to go soon but I will say this for now. Like I said before. Between the ebay listing and now I had a discussion with the person from ebay. Up to thatpoint I wasn't sure if it had a tear seal or not. But I didn't think it was a big deal since the questionable spot was at the bottom front cover I thought that if it turned out to be a tear seal thenit could be removed. Now some boardie felt as if they had to make an issue out of this. The book is still in my possesion. I listed it here with mentioning the tear seal even though I bought the book as a 4.5 an unrestored. Therefore I don't believei wronged anyone here. Especially after listing it with the tear seal being mentioned. And I wasn't still sure till after a boardie linked the heritage site. So where am I wrong here?

And Sharon, if you come on my thread saying you don't want to start something then why can't youpm me first to explain myself ? By posting you are starting something.

Since I am atwork and can't be on here to defend myself. No Sharon I didn't threaten you , what I meant is people always get shot in the foot when they attack for no reason. Meaning one day you will be taken out of context (for example) and will be on the defensive.You come on all innocent but you are sneaky in the way you use your innocence.

 

Oh and by the way, that person who attacked me last year has been ousted. so you can go and back him up if you like.

 

You could have pmd me from the start if there was something bothering you or had a question but you chose to go on my thread and "be nice".

German fan posted a link. I asked you a question, based on your response. YOU answered, and the foot was yours.

The person who you sold the book to, has not left, he was innocent.

Deflecting blame, does not solve problems.

What is a tear seal, for anyone who isn't clear on that? I thought that a sealed tear is restoration, unlike tape which CGC doesn't mind.

If a tear seal is restoration, can it be removed and ever be CGC graded as unrestored?

That's a big part of this unless I do not understand a tear seal. I have a restored ASM 1 with a few tear seals, can I have those removed and get a blue label from CGC? I hope this is a rhetorical question.

What is a tear seal, for anyone who isn't clear on that? I thought that a sealed tear is restoration, unlike tape which CGC doesn't mind.

 

If a tear seal is restoration, can it be removed and ever be CGC graded as unrestored?

 

That's a big part of this unless I do not understand a tear seal. I have a restored ASM 1 with a few tear seals, can I have those removed and get a blue label from CGC? I hope this is a rhetorical question.

Tear seals are considered restoration.

If you have a book that is a 2.0 because it has 3 or 4 tears, if you use "tear" seals,and it appears to be a higher grade, let's say a 3.5, it's not really that grade, it's an "apparent" 3.5 with restoration. .

If a professional does the tear seal, then presumably, it's done using something that can be easily removed and the book will just have the tears, no trace of glue, and be graded with the tears .If it's done by an amateur, then the seal might have to be cut to remove the glue, and you might lose some of the paper.

If the work was done by a professional and it is removed, then you SHOULD in theory have a blue 2.0, if paper has to be removed, to remove the glue, ti might be a blue 1.5...I'm using hypothetical grades.

I don't think tear seals are so horrid, personally, but I price them differently when I buy something, because I know the going rate for restored books is less.

What is a tear seal, for anyone who isn't clear on that? I thought that a sealed tear is restoration, unlike tape which CGC doesn't mind.

 

If a tear seal is restoration, can it be removed and ever be CGC graded as unrestored?

 

That's a big part of this unless I do not understand a tear seal. I have a restored ASM 1 with a few tear seals, can I have those removed and get a blue label from CGC? I hope this is a rhetorical question.

A tear which is sealed with glue or some other adhesive is considered a restored tear seal by CGC. These types of tear seals can be reopened and, depending on the amount of glue or adhesive used, get a blue label and/or notes. A tear which is sealed with tape is not considered restoration by CGC, thus a blue label. The tape does garner a significant downgrade. Most tape can be removed.

My impression of the book in question was that there were possible tear seals with adhesive and color accompanied with tape. If the tape is applied in such a way that the underlying tear can't be viewed properly it can be very difficult to ascertain whether or not a restorative tear seal has occurred. And for most folks color touch is difficult to spot. Heritage obviously thought there was restoration, but they could have been covering all bases. The seller probably should have covered all bases as well. He seems to have with the listing here but obviously not with the eBay listing. Maybe that is why it did not sell on eBay.

I'm a little confused. Is the issue that he was honest in his sale here, but dishonest in several attempted sales on ebay a while back? Did you say he tried to sell it here previously? If so, was he honest about resto then?