CKB

Joe/Jduran1 (man, haven't said that board name in a long time) knew someone involved in the printing process, and she said there were around 80-100 copies that she knew of. I need to check in with him anyway to see how he is doing. I'll ask for more details. I just want to point out that this topic is not settled by any means. The platinum BS0 is still, in my opinion (and CGCs since they are certified as such), extremely likely to be a misprint of the gold edition. If the book's author, the EIC, and the Marketing guy didn't know about it, it was unintentional. Even if it was done on purpose by guys with access to the printing process, it still is not a Valiant released variant. It's akin the the guys at the US Mint who were making misprinted money on purpose to sell to coin dealers to supplement their income. So, until someone who was in Valiant upper management at the time says that he authorized, for promotional purposes, the printing of a number of gold books without gold foil, which is believed to be the only difference between the gold and the plat, I will not be convinced. 7-11 copies is definitely a book where RMA's comments about 'investability' apply. The 'float' is not large enough to make this a reasonable investment consideration. Actually, Valiantman made a great defense in 2007 (on the Valiant boards) that it's much more likely there are up to 300 of these than less than 30. But the number "found" is still under 20 at this point, as far as I know.

Joe/Jduran1 (man, haven't said that board name in a long time) knew someone involved in the printing process, and she said there were around 80-100 copies that she knew of. I need to check in with him anyway to see how he is doing. I'll ask for more details. I just want to point out that this topic is not settled by any means. The platinum BS0 is still, in my opinion (and CGCs since they are certified as such), extremely likely to be a misprint of the gold edition. If the book's author, the EIC, and the Marketing guy didn't know about it, it was unintentional. Even if it was done on purpose by guys with access to the printing process, it still is not a Valiant released variant. It's akin the the guys at the US Mint who were making misprinted money on purpose to sell to coin dealers to supplement their income. So, until someone who was in Valiant upper management at the time says that he authorized, for promotional purposes, the printing of a number of gold books without gold foil, which is believed to be the only difference between the gold and the plat, I will not be convinced.

no money, no time..just excuses that I am sick and tired of hearing...i hear these all the damn time and im getting fed up. I will drag him by his balls to the post office tomorrow if its the last thing I do. I dont want him ruining the boards for me Get Dan to make a pile of the books he needs to ship out, I'll meet you somewhere to get them, and I will ship them out. Seriously.

The 250 book mainly Golden Age lot originally available here: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4148083#Post4148083 is now available here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=320563677772 EDIT: Sold for $300. Thanks all.

Did he give you your money back and then make you pay $220 for the $180 DC?

Rick I'm late to the game here. But this guy has shown himself to be an A-#1 tool here on the boards. Clearly, he was not on such a hiatus that he couldn't come on to gloat after he quickly got the book graded and somehow managed the raw grade he had assigned, both of which are Generous to say the least. Now I know you to be pretty much devoid of ill intent. And you tend to be very forgiving of people's transgressions in the comic world (Silver Age Comics and bluechip come to mind). That's your nature. But frankly (pun intended) you got played here. The only reason he had you post is that he's grasping for credibility straws. Seroiusly. Have you looked at Frankie's raw listings on eBay??? I'd have a hard time shaking the guy's hand if he was my brother. He's the personification of the problems this hobby has had for the last 30 years.

That's enough for the ignore button. Bye, scammer.

I tend to agree. This entire argument is circular at this point. People who want the letter of the probationary list law upheld are on one side. People who want the spirit of the list upheld on the other. I really believe we can have both, and we can make it as simple and as clear as possible. We don't have to try and squeeze these people into an existing list if they don't fit. We certainly DON'T have to let them off the hook entirely because they technically don't fit either. We can call it the HIGH PROFILE FAILED TRANSACTIONS/BOARD DEBACLE LIST. The Yannis thing is a straight up board debacle and a massive failed transaction. The difference between Yannis failed transaction and many others is that the full length and breadth of the failure was brought to the board's attention. That should not be forgotten, swept under the rug, or denied. I know some people would deal with the devil for the right books but for the folks that won't do that a story like this needs to be recorded and future board members need something to help them out when making decisions. I see more use for the HoS if it is limited to people who have a pattern of acting maliciously, causing other hobbyists some sort of loss. While the return of the deposit was unfortunate and the circumstances behind it appear to be greed....bad business in general...the bottom line is that there was no loss, no scam, no deception that caused monetary loss. So, in my opinion, no matter what list someone gets put on, it would be useful to have a short summary of what transpired along with the listing.

I'm not trying to egg you on in this situation. But last time something blew up, you threatened people, promised to F their mothers, and all sorts of irrational challenges. I'd recommend not going down that path again, and threatening fellow board members. Especially sending emails demanding someone's personal info, which CGC would never expose themselves like that without a court order. Just go the path of truth, and if anything after looking this book over you felt CGC made a mistake. It is very clear this is the same book. The only mistake was not revealing in the sales thread this was formly graded by CGC and pressed. I think that is what has folks up in arms, and rightly so. Bosco...Thanks for taking a rational approach here with this comment. You are right about "last time" I did blow up and I shouldn't have. I am not making any threats here....I am simply stating the facts....Krypto has defamed me publicly, if I have legal recourse I will in fact be taking that path. No threats....just hoping he is ready to back up his very big mouth . I have done nothing wrong here. Just because I have sold the books doesn't make me guilty, also have done nothing to him personally . I should know by tomorrow what recourse I have of a legal sort.I also have a call into someone that actually witnessed me selling the CGC 8.5 at WonderCon. I can see the way this is going down now.... Sold the book at Wondercon, then later bought a collection that included the now deslabbed Avengers 57 without knowing it was the same book. Then listed it here. There is no doubt it is the same book. What are the chances? It's an enigma wrapped in a paradox.

That doesn't seem to be the major issue. Grade is subjective. Leaving out it was formerly a pressed CGC 8.5 and it appears the back cover has been cleaned is the problem.

Shocking!

Classic. Worth $20 all by itself! Thanks Marc!

Nuff Said not Neat Stuff Oops. Sorry about that. Brain fart...I just woke up from a nap. Will fix my post. What about the rest of them? Baby steps...

This is a ridiculous complaint by the seller regardless of the impression he was under when he sent them in. High grade CGCd Spideys are as liquid as comic books get. I would completely let the whole thing roll right off your back. There's no need to lose a customer over that. If it was a less desiriable run that would never had been graded otherwise, at least I could see his side. So now he feels he was "stuck" with a bunch of high grade spideys? I wish I had such problems. He should have gotten payment up front if he was slabbing them specifically for a customer. And the content of the exchange is inexcusable regardless of the circumstances. IMHO.

More importantly, my understanding is that the person who files the claim is the only one who can check up on it with the USPS. The buyer filed, so the buyer has to follow up and ask about what the status is on this claim.

Oh I think it is completely necessary.

Well i hope a search changes your mind. If not your a sucker or a shill or both. It definitely reads like a guy writing his own marketing blurbs! I was going to say "puff piece", but I thought better of it.... That's silly - there are numerous board members who've never had problems with comic supply, including myself. Are you going to call me a shill as well? I don't order from them anymore because I don't want to support a company that's on the probation list, but pretending that every single transaction (or even a majority of the transactions) with CS is going to be an epic fail is ridiculous. I disagree proudly with you. As do I. It's one thing to have problems with customers and deal with them. It's another thing to have problems and ignore them while keeping their money.

That is the silliest thing I've heard in a long time - can't believe he'd say that to you with a straight face. I don't disagree... ....but I've heard it multiple times, from multiple USPS clerks. One of the reasons a package can be declared "undeliverable" is "Minimum criteria for mailability not met." A media package that fails inspection does not meet the "mailability" requirement. Its all here right up top and in section 1.5.3. So, the claim by the clerks is valid. In practice, they get sent back to you, sometimes postage due, sometimes not. But the package could be disposed of at the post office's discretion. No, they are treated as an under-stamped letter or package, and get delivered to the recipient with postage due (my brother-in-law works for USPS - I just called & asked him directly about this). As I posted, this is what happens in practice but the regulations say otherwise. Don't take my work for it - read them - I linked them for everyone. The postal workers are trained to dissuade customers from using Media Mail services by truthfully quoting the regulations. edit: Oops, I see the "No" was probably about the "sent back to you" part. I've seen it both ways - sent to ther destination with postage due and I've gotten a few back as well.

That is the silliest thing I've heard in a long time - can't believe he'd say that to you with a straight face. I don't disagree... ....but I've heard it multiple times, from multiple USPS clerks. Postal regulations for "Standard Mail", of which Media Mail is a service, say that items that are undelvierable and bear no "endorsement" will be "disposed of" by the post office. By the book, in order to get a Media Mail package forwarded or returned you must write "return/forwarding service requested" on it. In practice, they return it anyway. But, also by the book, they can make you pay for the return trip. One of the reasons a package can be declared "undeliverable" is "Minimum criteria for mailability not met." A media package that fails inspection does not meet the "mailability" requirement. Its all here right up top and in section 1.5.3. So, the claim by the clerks is valid. In practice, they get sent back to you, sometimes postage due, sometimes not. But the package could be disposed of at the post office's discretion.

With that guarantee I would buy the BSFUC books. Except there's no price...

That's about the best you could hope for. (thumbs u Agreed. Who are you going to buy all those books from now, though???

I think I would have stated this a bit more diplomatically (although "forking" was a nice touch), but I am with you in spirit. It seems very short-sighted to me to stop selling to someone who buys a lot and sells you books at 1/4 market....

I can see that, too. Sounds like it's off the table, though, if some of the books are sold already. With Buddy laying down the "take whatever action you want but the $100 cash is all you are getting" law.... I can see wanting to take some action.

The difference is, when I agreed to trade with them, I was offered $200 to spend in their store (so I could get $200 worth of stuff). Now they only want to give me $100 in cash, which means I can only get $100 worth of stuff elsewhere. I would never have traded them the books I did for $100. I felt like I was giving them away at $200. It isn't the contract we had. Lone Star was the one who decided they no longer wanted to do business, so why whould I be penalized another $100 because they decided to breach the contract. All my contracts state payment in dollar amounts to be issue 100% as store credit. Paying me half of the agreed upon amount in cash is not the contract I agreed to. I'm still not sure how you got your $200 credit. If you got your credit by returning books you purchased from Lone Star, you should be screaming your head off. If you got your credit by sending your books to Lone Star, i.e. selling books to Lone Star in return for store credit, $0.50 on the dollar sounds right to me. I would try solve this issue (given the second option is correct) by offering to use your store credit at the full $200 and agreeing ahead of time that you will not return anything. If you have the first situation just about anything would be on the table - that's fraud. What's stopping them from having people return all the books they want and when they need cash, ban them and take half their money. I sold Lone Star some comics books I owned. They issue me store credit for them, which is what we agreed to. I then bought some books from them, and returned a few, and they put the credit back on my account. But now they don't want to do further business, so they want to pay me $100 cash and delete the $200 credit from my account, and then close it. However, I would never have traded the same books for $100 cash. So my position is that I want my books back (which several have already sold), or I want the full amount of credit issued as cash, since they are the ones deciding to close my account or let me place further orders. Even with the second situation, I think it is fraud. What if you agree to trade them a ASM #1 for $5000 trade, knowing they had another book you would buy with the $5000. Then as soon as they received your item in the mail, sent you a check for $2500 and told you not to come back. Is that fair? I'd go with "let me make one last $200 order, no returns, and avoid all the other hassle.". Then if Buddy messes with you by filling your order for NM books with VGs, post them all here and put him through the ringer. I agree with you in principle, but they never expected to pay cash for the books you sent them. Banning you with this type of credit is a bum deal, certainly.

The difference is, when I agreed to trade with them, I was offered $200 to spend in their store (so I could get $200 worth of stuff). Now they only want to give me $100 in cash, which means I can only get $100 worth of stuff elsewhere. I would never have traded them the books I did for $100. I felt like I was giving them away at $200. It isn't the contract we had. Lone Star was the one who decided they no longer wanted to do business, so why whould I be penalized another $100 because they decided to breach the contract. All my contracts state payment in dollar amounts to be issue 100% as store credit. Paying me half of the agreed upon amount in cash is not the contract I agreed to. I'm still not sure how you got your $200 credit. If you got your credit by returning books you purchased from Lone Star, you should be screaming your head off. If you got your credit by sending your books to Lone Star, i.e. selling books to Lone Star in return for store credit, $0.50 on the dollar sounds right to me. I would try solve this issue (given the second option is correct) by offering to use your store credit at the full $200 and agreeing ahead of time that you will not return anything. If you have the first situation just about anything would be on the table - that's fraud. What's stopping them from having people return all the books they want and when they need cash, ban them and take half their money.