mintcollector

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments. You are wrong about this. Re holder is only the outer shell. If they have to open the inner well it gets regarded. Once again what is 'regarded?' You are incorrect, as they do remove the book and change the micro chamber paper. You are welcome to call CGC to confirm or you can continue on your 'suicide crusade of misinformation' against me. If you say it enough times it still does not make it true.

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments. You are wrong about this. Re holder is only the outer shell. If they have to open the inner well it gets regarded. How is it regarded? The inner well, along with the micro chamber paper; are replaced via a reholder. I asked this question long ago before I started sending books in for reholder; which would have been between 2008-2009. Seanfingh is wrong, just ask CGC. To change the micro chamber paper they have to take the book out of the inner well fully.

During a reholder they also replace the inner well and the micro chamber paper as well. It is true that there would be no point in getting a reholder if they have yet to correct the issue. I made this quite clear in several previous comments.

After deciding to respond to my original comment more than 35 days after I posted it; and only after I originally made a statement unrelated to what you mentioned, you now state that you have no idea what we are arguing about? Your statement above already perfectly clarifies that you don't know what we are discussing. My simple question is then why did you respond to begin with? Obviously, both the original intent and resolution have escaped your grasp. (1) Who cares? (2) You don't get to decide who does and doesn't respond to your posts, no matter how old they are. (3) This ridiculous bulldog-like tenacity to try and get Beyonder to engage you about what his "agenda" is takes away from the real discussion, and it is dumb. (4) THIS WILL NOT BE A RE-HOLDER ISSUE. They will either have to regrade the books, or change their entire stance about re-grading books when they have to remove them from the inner well. You do understand that I am NOT the one who is trying to engage him? Had he not engaged me to begin with, we would not be having this conversation. Also, note that I am by no means upset that he or anyone chooses to respond to my statements, otherwise I would not post here. The reason I bring this up is because not only after 35 days and numerous other posts did he choose to respond, but he waited until I specifically commented on something that had nothing to do with the original inquiry he responded to. You are welcome to go back a few pages and see that he engaged me, not the other way around. I am merely responding to his and other forum members continual questions. If they do not remember why they started their own discussions I cannot help them.

I don't allow returns on slabs I sell on eBay. Not sure why I would. The risk is much greater of flaky buyers, returns with magazines in the box instead of the slab, people deciding they don't like the price they paid, etc. Here, I'll let people return within a reasonable time. But eBay is a different story. Plus, as someone said, would you expect auction houses to also allow returns? For that matter, I usually sell by BIN one eBay, but what about auctions? Allow returns there? I just don't get it. I guess I've been spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long. I haven't sold on EBay in almost a decade. I don't consign to auction houses. Buying & selling has been much more personal for me. Colour me insulated.... So you now have changed your position after another forum member offers the same view I have? Or by your own admission of 'being spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long' you now admit that you had no idea as to what proper position is outside this forum? I am just curious because it is ironic that after I chose to post in this thread for the first time in over thirty plus days and comment on another topic entirely, you chose to 'bump' a statement I made more than two pages back and a month prior; just to go against the views that have now given you second thought. Again, this is not the fault of the seller and even if you bought something like this from our own forum, what restitution other than a refund could the seller possibly offer you? A reholder would currently subject the book to the same defect in question without the original problem being resolved. Again I ask, why blame the seller? I'm still not sure after all this back and forth whether you agree that a seller should disclose this defect in the slab. That's the key point. If a buyer purchases a slab where the defect has been disclosed, that's on the buyer. If the buyer purchases a slab where the defect has not been disclosed, that's on the seller. You may well be correct that major dealers or auction houses will likely ban a buyer who complains after receiving a defective slab, but if enough buyers refuse to accept these slabs, pressure on CGC to correct the problem will increase. In the end, CGC is much more likely to respond to the big dealers and auction houses than to any of us. In any event, my guess is that when this problem is resolved, it will probably be done silently. There are far too many of these slabs out there now for CGC to admit they are defective and to agree to reholder them without charge. Actually, I responded to this same statement twice. One of my posts even starts with this: 'Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is a different situation entirely.'

After deciding to respond to my original comment more than 35 days after I posted it; and only after I originally made a statement unrelated to what you mentioned, you now state that you have no idea what we are arguing about? Your statement above already perfectly clarifies that you don't know what we are discussing. My simple question is then why did you respond to begin with? Obviously, both the original intent and resolution have escaped your grasp.

I don't allow returns on slabs I sell on eBay. Not sure why I would. The risk is much greater of flaky buyers, returns with magazines in the box instead of the slab, people deciding they don't like the price they paid, etc. Here, I'll let people return within a reasonable time. But eBay is a different story. Plus, as someone said, would you expect auction houses to also allow returns? For that matter, I usually sell by BIN one eBay, but what about auctions? Allow returns there? I just don't get it. I guess I've been spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long. I haven't sold on EBay in almost a decade. I don't consign to auction houses. Buying & selling has been much more personal for me. Colour me insulated.... So you now have changed your position after another forum member offers the same view I have? Or by your own admission of 'being spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long' you now admit that you had no idea as to what proper position is outside this forum? I am just curious because it is ironic that after I chose to post in this thread for the first time in over thirty plus days and comment on another topic entirely, you chose to 'bump' a statement I made more than two pages back and a month prior; just to go against the views that have now given you second thought. Again, this is not the fault of the seller and even if you bought something like this from our own forum, what restitution other than a refund could the seller possibly offer you? A reholder would currently subject the book to the same defect in question without the original problem being resolved. Again I ask, why blame the seller? I haven't changed my position. I accept returns on CGC books, just like I would accept returns on anything I sell if the buyer is unsatisfied. It's not about assigning blame, it's about Customer Service. That still matters in the 'real world'....no? In the case of a cratered inner well...I would refund the buyer upon return of the item. First, auctions are legally binding. Customer service is all fine and well as long ALL particants understand the terms and conditions for which they are bidding. Second, this is about how other sellers choose to conduct their own business. I fully support any seller who does not wish to offer a return on a CGC graded book. As one can tell, I too get a lot of books on this forum and not o ce have I asked for a partial refund or ever returned a book. I have asked for scans before buying, which is expected. In conclusion, attempting to force sellers and auction houses to make concessions due to this issue (that is no fault of their own) accomplishes nothing. It is CGC who needs to fix this plain and simple. I can tell you right now had I bought a book that had this issue I would not be emailing the seller. I also would not ge podtimg about on open forums. there are far greater issues that my fellow forum members have to deal with. They didn't encapsulate the book. I would be emailing CGC to see when te problem is resolved so I can send the book in for reholdering at my own expense...just like I do when I receive a scratched graded coin from a top notch dealer. Why on earth would I risk future deals over something this futile?

I don't allow returns on slabs I sell on eBay. Not sure why I would. The risk is much greater of flaky buyers, returns with magazines in the box instead of the slab, people deciding they don't like the price they paid, etc. Here, I'll let people return within a reasonable time. But eBay is a different story. Plus, as someone said, would you expect auction houses to also allow returns? For that matter, I usually sell by BIN one eBay, but what about auctions? Allow returns there? I just don't get it. I guess I've been spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long. I haven't sold on EBay in almost a decade. I don't consign to auction houses. Buying & selling has been much more personal for me. Colour me insulated.... So you now have changed your position after another forum member offers the same view I have? Or by your own admission of 'being spoiled by having access to our own marketplace for so long' you now admit that you had no idea as to what proper position is outside this forum? I am just curious because it is ironic that after I chose to post in this thread for the first time in over thirty plus days and comment on another topic entirely, you chose to 'bump' a statement I made more than two pages back and a month prior; just to go against the views that have now given you second thought. Again, this is not the fault of the seller and even if you bought something like this from our own forum, what restitution other than a refund could the seller possibly offer you? A reholder would currently subject the book to the same defect in question without the original problem being resolved. Again I ask, why blame the seller?

I don't allow returns on slabs I sell on eBay. Not sure why I would. The risk is much greater of flaky buyers, returns with magazines in the box instead of the slab, people deciding they don't like the price they paid, etc. Here, I'll let people return within a reasonable time. But eBay is a different story. Plus, as someone said, would you expect auction houses to also allow returns? For that matter, I usually sell by BIN one eBay, but what about auctions? Allow returns there? I just don't get it. to be honest, they all might as well stop taking credit card or paypal payment on all their slab sales. as long as no disclose up front about the indentation, buyer decide open a case with paypal or credit card company, seller will never win, even with the no return policy in place. just think about the time and shipping cost lost in long term, in the end seller will have to decide is continuing submitting books worth the trouble or not. If they do this with a major auction company they can be banned for life. Businesses also have a right to protect their own self interests and determine who they wish to do business with. In fact, I know several high profile auction houses that will ban you over one simple chargeback or dispute. This preserves the integrity of the auction as a place of said business per binding legal contract. In almost every auction I have every participated in (most notably high end sales as well); all items are noted as is and sales final; even those that have a 'condition report.' This is expressly communicated in both the auction catalog and the website where an agreement is made before bids are accepted. This is why terms and conditions of any sale are listed on the website or on display as dictated per policy. As someone who spends an awful lot at auctions, I don't want someone being able to undermine the auction by getting caught up in a bidding frenzy and not being able to afford the item; paying for it anyway with their rent or mortgage money, then needing to claim it wasn't 'as described' so they can return it to make their financial obligations. As someone who learned the antiques and collectibles trade through 'hard knocks'; this does nothing but undermine the process and is completely unfair to those who play by the rules. Therefore, if it is worth undergoing a major dispute with a well respected dealer or auction house due to something they have no control over; so be it. Just don't complain when you can't simply click the BUY IT NOW price or place a bid on that item that is selling for $500 under current market value in their next auction or sale because it was listed wrong or the sale was at a bad time. I really don't want to hear it at that point.

Do you also feel that auction houses should be or forced to take returns as well? This ideology under minds the auction industry and I am thankful that most high end auction companies stand firm on this principle.

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting. In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely. We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it." Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer. No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it. If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it? If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question? If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller. Let me guess..... You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling. My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry. Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved. My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out if the case and send it to them raw? No control? Of course they do. Sellers just need some incentive to bite the hand that feeds. That incentive will come when buyers start returning slabs because of these craters. The inner well is defective. Sellers need to DEMAND that CGC reholder these books for free. If CGC refuses, Timely just pointed out the legal recourse to force them to. I really wish you luck on this. As I stated above, the minute someone comes here complaining that someone refused a return on a CGC slab that is defective and demands resolution; I certainly hope you are willing to help. Even if the said seller is a well known forum member or dealer of 'ethical traits.' I for one, aside from a full refund and return; would know of no other way of handling the issue. The question then becomes how bad will this hurt the hobby and will prices start to fall as a result? CGC is responsible for bringing confidence to the marketplace. Personally, without CGC; I would not collect to the point I have. I can name other collectors this applies to as well.

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting. In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely. We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it." Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer. No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it. If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it? If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question? If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller. Let me guess..... You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling. My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry. Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved. My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out if the case and send it to them raw? You are clearly incorrect to state the problem affects 100% of slabs. Even now when the incidence of the problem has increased, not every slab is affected. I own at least one hundred slabs without this defect. Since: 1. Most people consider this problem a defect (including you, apparently, because you have stopped submitting), and 2. Some slabs have it and some don't, I'm still puzzled by your position that sellers need not disclose that they are selling a slab with this defect or accept returns if the buyer objects. It hardly seems too much to ask that sellers disclose defects in the products they sell. 'Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is a different situation entirely.' I wrote this in the same chain of quotes you choose to include in your statement. Once again, I am not talking about undisclosed defects on a case that holds a graded product. Just to be clear however, I can bump threads where a newbie has come hear asking why he received a CGC graded book with micro chamber paper hanging out on a book he got off of eBay and certain members of this forum think that the individual shoud just 'chill out.' In my opinion, the buyer has a right to a defect free slab, because this is something that can be solved hy a simple reholder. I am quoted on this in this regard. It is amazing how certain rules only apply to certain individuals and dealers. I can nearly guarantee that a buyer is eventually going to buy a 'defective' slab off of one of the well known dealers on this forum and once again, people will forget this thread and say 'why shoud the dealer or auction house be responsible?' Rest assured, this thread will be bumped and linked to that inquiry quicker than a bid being placed on an AF # 15 in the midst of a speculative bubble. Remember, a lot of well known dealers have a no return policy on CGC graded books. Please ask some of them how this issue would be handled. I am sorry but I have seen buyers and bidders 'burn bridges' with well known dealers and auction houses for things they have no control over. Once they get banned though they immediately throw temper tantrums thinking that these policies they clicked the 'agree to' button for don't apply to them.

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting. In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely. We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it." Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer. No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it. If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it? If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question? If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller. Let me guess..... You have a stack of cratered slabs you need to sell? If not, your stance here is puzzling. My original statement you quoted was made on September 1, 2013. You are just responding to it now; ironically right after I post a completely unrelated anecdote to someone else's inquiry. Once again, I do not sell CGC books, I only collect them. The collection is just about complete and I have no real interest in pursuing too many more books. Ironically, I do have books that I would like to get reholdered that are sitting awaiting the day this issue is resolved. My pont is how do you fault a seller or an auction house for something they have no control over? A third party is directly responsible for this. How you would like the seller to handle it; crack the book out of the case and send it to them raw?

Yep, it was mine. It was removed because it was the truth. Name me one other business that can still charge full price for a defective product. Any business that is either a monopoly (or has monopolistic characteristics) or in certain situations, an oligopoly. Now there are other options to CGC...however, CGC is in the service industry, not the business of providing a product. This is a misconception. Without a comic book to start with, CGC can do nothing for you. They don't sell anything tangible in that sense. A prime example that most can relate to is Microsoft (as someone already said). Remember the Xbox 360 and the red ring of death? Want to play Halo? How about Gears of War? Guess you have to have an Xbox 360. Does it matter that it is defective? Nope. If you want to play you will just have to pay.

Personal opinion: I disliked it thus far. Great way for Disney to cash in on the Marvel superhero boom, but unless it gets better quick I will pass. I agree very SLOW and boring. Spoiler alert: I was expecting to see the 'hooded avenger' at least turn out to be the Black Panther or Luke Cage...then we would have had something; alas as it is; it is very generic.

About that time again! BUMP PS: I should have bumped this sooner as most of my same commentary in the WD #1 vs NM # 98 is in here as well... I am sure this applies to several other forum members as well, as this is a long thread full of lots of discussion....among other things. .

I agree fully with what you are saying...and then some. My point was that by either holding individual resellers or auction companies liable would NOT solve the problem. If CGC refuses to fix the issue then there would be no point in issuing refunds or offering a free reholder as the product would come back as the same as before. It is sad that some unethical buyers will find a way to profit from this at the expense of those who are not directly responsible for the issue. In conclusion, I am all for CGC finding a solution. However, I do not and will not support ethical dealers and auction houses taking the blame for something they cannot control. I have gotten a lot of great deals right here on these forums. For some of these sellers to continue to offer buyers like myself below market prices they should not be forced to handle a problem that is completely out of their control.

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting. In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely. We can go around and around on this but I find your position very odd. A seller has an obligation to disclose material problems with the item being sold. If you received a book with an undisclosed missing centerfold or clipped coupon would you accept the seller telling you: "If it was important to you that the centerfold be present and no coupons are clipped, you should have asked before buying it." Of course, ultimately the fault is with CGC for continuing to use defective inner wells. But it's beyond me how you can maintain that a seller who receives a defective slab is not to be questioned if he passes the defective slab on to an unsuspecting buyer. No, they are not the same. A coupon or something missing from a book is something entirely different than a slab that is going to have the same issue even if it is reholdered by the third party who originally 'encapsulated' it. If it is already 'defective' and the company who is doing this is already aware how can you blame a seller who had absolutely nothing to do with it? If I buy a high grade book from any well known dealer or auction house why should I have a right to return it due to a known problem that is affecting 100% of the product coming from the grading company in question? If anything, it is up to the company who is grading the product to take issue NOT the reseller.

This was my favorite Transformer as a kid. Great find!

To be clear this is CGC's issue. Blaming a reseller who may be making as little as $25 on the sale of a book is just plain unethical in m opinion. This goes double or those scammers that will attempt to use this to attempt to justify a discount on an item 'after the hammer falls.' For those of you that want to discuss legal specifics, ask any lawyer what happens after a legal binding bid is placed and the item is declared sold in an auction setting. In conclusion, I will not blame any third party other than CGC for this defect and the quality issue it creates. Now if a seller fails to disclose said defects after being asked; that is another situation entirely.

No it would not. It would just force a problem on an innocent third party that has no control of the situation at hand. CGC is responsible for this issue and NOT any reseller of their books. Why should an eBay reseller or an auction house be responsible for someone else's mistake? When you agree to buy an item at auction the merchandise transfers ownership to you in 'as is' condition unless otherwise noted. It is unethical and completely unfair to blame a seller for something they have no control over. I disagree. If the seller receives defective merchandise it hardly seems proper to pass it along to the buyer with the excuse that the seller didn't cause the damage. If you buy a shirt online from LL Bean, say, and it arrives with a tear in it, I doubt you would accept the excuse that the tear was caused by the manufacturer and isn't LL Bean's fault. Of course Heritage has control over the problem. Heritage should not accept defective slabs from CGC. If it does accept defective slabs it should be willing to accept a return from a dissatisfied customer. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that a credit card company would be willing to back the buyer should it come to that. I don't see how the "as is" condition holds when the buyer was unable to see the defect because the back of the slab wasn't shown in the listing. Edited to fix typo. Giving resellers the task of fixing this problem is not a long term solution. You really cannot compare limited collectibles to the likes of overly produced manufactured goods. What if that 'shirt' in your example was a Detective Comics #27? It isn't as easy as refusing the item and asking for a replacement. You are buying the book, not the holder. By this logic we should all stop buying graded books if this is the current mentality. I routinely buy four figure coins that come in scratched and damaged holders that I have to pay to send in to be reholdered. As long as it does not affect the grade, I can live with it. Why on earth would I hold a dealer responsible for this? Again, the grade of the item is not compromised. CGC has stated a similar sentiment in regards to its current quality issue that it is working to resolve. First off, I normally get these items at a significant discount because dealers want my repeat business. Second of all, most of the dealers who sell me such coins only make one hundred dollars in profit or less. I am sure they would be happy if I would I complain because, to cite your example again; these are not 'shirts' that can easily be replaced. Someone else would LOVE to have the item in question at a reduced cost. In conclusion this is CGC's issue and not any reputable dealer's fault. I would hope that Heritage and C-Link would have procedures in place to block certain buyers that routinely complain about the items they receive. I know that several local well known auction houses have these kind of procedures in place, so I am confident the top players in the industry do as well.

No it would not. It would just force a problem on an innocent third party that has no control of the situation at hand. CGC is responsible for this issue and NOT any reseller of their books. Why should an eBay reseller or an auction house be responsible for someone else's mistake? When you agree to buy an item at auction the merchandise transfers ownership to you in 'as is' condition unless otherwise noted. It is unethical and completely unfair to blame a seller for something they have no control over.

Here it goes: The Business of Antiques by Wayne Jordan The Art Hunters Handbook by Les & Sue Fox The Official Price Guide to Mechanical Banks by Dan Morphy (yes, of Morphy Auctions fame - about time I read his book!). It is highly recommended if you collect mechanical antique banks. I honestly wish I had time to read for 'fun.' Most of the books I read center around antiques and collectibles research, business, or politics. I miss the days when I could read a Stephen King novel or an awesome classic like The Great Gatsby (my favorite book of all time) or Ethan Frome... What can I say...I'm truly the life of the party (yes, I am being sarcastic!)

I actually get asked this a lot so I will gladly answer. I started in the antiques and the collectibles business at a fairly young age. I was always a very passionate collector who placed quality (i.e. near mint to mint condition items) over quantity. As I started to gong to auction galleries I developed the nick name 'mint' as a result (I am still known by this name to this day). Over time a select few individuals who are also highly active in the business started to refer to me as 'the mint collector' due to not only my love of quality, but also because of the fact I collect coins as well. The name 'mint' stuck with me with only those who know me very well calling me 'mintcollector.' Thus with this, the name 'mintcollector' was born. I have actually had this nick name since the 1990's. Kind Regards, 'Mint'

Nope, dude backed out claiming "butt buy." Did GPA correct the sale listed for the 9.9? I find this to be of grave concern. This happens a lot on eBay and is why you cannot judge a safe price to pay for a book based on past auction results. Buyers are able to manipulate the market just by clicking a high BIN price and the price still shows up in past listings in most cases. This whole process needs to be reviewed and refined as it is happening all too often across all collecting fields. Yup. Not showing up on GPA anymore. (thumbs u Thanks, as I have not had a chance to check! Glad to see this has been corrected. Very high marks for GPA. Unfortunately, those collectors who only have access to completed eBay auctions are in trouble should they use this info to gauge the market for this book. 'Mint'