InvstmntComcSuply

 

A more appropriate analogy is :

 

Say you are at a convention, and a dealer has a raw book on his wall that looks interesting. You ask to take a look, and he hands it to you. You say, "Can we take it out of the bag and inspect it?" For some reason, the dealer does not reply, maybe he is completing a separate transaction. and someone comes up behind you and says, "I'll buy it without even looking!"

 

You were first in line, with a conditional offer, but book is still on the wall and dealer made no commitment to you.

 

 

You've described a pretty solid dickmove right there.

I think most of us would agree with that. However, it was the closest I could get to the online equivalent without the two potential buyers waving flags of "I'll take that book over there if you let me look inside and everything looks great and I decide I am getting a hell of a deal" and the second with "I'll take that same book, as is"

99% of comic boxes are standard cardboard with a white exterior.

There is little or no chemical difference between them and the box you linked or even an all kraft (brown) cardboard box. Double wide boxes generally don't have the strength of comic boxes.

The "I'll take it, no conditions" after someone posted an "I'll take it pending scans" is a loser move.

 

If the seller says "first unconditional " it will probably go to the second guy. But if I were the seller, I'd consider giving the first guy right of first refusal.

 

This playing a trump card of "unconditional " is an example of the eBay mentality this place has taken on lately.

 

BS. Unconditional :takeit is a purchase. "Takeit" pending scans means nothing, it's another

negative situation created by sellers listing books without scans.

 

Seller lists book without scan.

"Potential buyer" posts takeit pending scans.

"Buyer" posts unconditional takeit.

 

I can understand that viewpoint, but let me ask you a question. Say you are at a convention, and a dealer has a raw book on his wall that looks interesting. You ask to take a look, and he hands it to you. You say, "Can we take it out of the bag and inspect it?" and someone comes up behind you and says, "I'll buy it without even looking!"

 

So, (1) is this acceptable behavior or a jerk move? And (2) should the dealer take it away from you and sell it to the new guy?

 

1) I don't think it's acceptable behavior.

 

2)The dealer can do whatever they want.

 

What the dealer does next is the most important piece of the puzzle.

The things that happened prior to this decision could not be avoided in the example you present.

 

Well, "2" is obvious, the question would be whether that is the acceptable thing for the dealer to do. It appeared from your viewpoint on the "pending scans" situation that you thought the second poster with the unconditional takeit was perfectly acceptable, but basically the same thing in person is not?

 

No, my answers differ because your analogy fails.

 

The two examples are not basically the same.

 

In most sales threads rules for claiming a book are usually in the first post.

 

Some sellers state a in thread or pm wins the book, trumping ongoing negotiations.

Books may be posted without scans, sellers states . pending scan is acceptable, but fail to clarify if that book is on "hold" pending scan. Because claiming a book pending a scan

is negotiating, a unconditional wins the book.

 

The situation in the thread can be avoided if the seller has clear rules for claiming books,

including books without scans.

 

The convention situation is completely different.

A more appropriate analogy is :

Say you are at a convention, and a dealer has a raw book on his wall that looks interesting. You ask to take a look, and he hands it to you. You say, "Can we take it out of the bag and inspect it?" For some reason, the dealer does not reply, maybe he is completing a separate transaction. and someone comes up behind you and says, "I'll buy it without even looking!"

You were first in line, with a conditional offer, but book is still on the wall and dealer made no commitment to you.

There were 2 issues in Rube's sale's thread..

 

1. The "Take It Pending Scan" - In all of these sales threads he has been posting no pictures. I find that lazy, but that's besides the point. He used the same rules in all of his OO sales threads; none of which addressed the issue of the Pending Scans Take It. So, I looked at his earlier OO sales threads and in the Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen thread ttfitz posted a Take It Pending Scan for #34. Rube subsequently quoted the take it and posted a picture; and ttfitz finalized the transaction by posting a follow up Take It. With that transaction a precedent was set; that precedent being that Take It Pending Scan was a valid placeholder, and effectively a first right of refusal to the person who posts it. If rube did not intend to create that precedent than he would have needed to state as such either in the Rules or in response to ttfitz's pending scan take it that the book was still available to an unconditional take it.

 

I just wanted to say I had asked rube in PM if posting "pending scans" was okay before I did it. And I had previously asked for scans in PMs. I only did in the thread that time, too, because I was pretty sure I would take it - I had a book from this most recent thread that I thought I might want, but thought there was a good chance I wouldn't, so once again I did the request via PM.

 

Which, I guess, was why I asked my questions here, wondering what the general mood was on the "pending scans" situation, whether I was staking a claim of some sort, or just letting my interest be known.

 

Normally pending scans is not the rule unless stated as a rule; however, as I mentioned earlier, the way your purchase was handled established a precedent within this series of Rube's sales that Pending Scans was a valid method for locking in the first opportunity to buy the book.

 

Ideally, rube would recognize this and address the rule explicitly going forward.

Rube made no mention that he was "holding" the book for ttfitz. He simply posted the scan,. then fitz confirmed. I am in the camp of "an unconditional take it would have ruled".

Those are not archival.

Comic boxes are very expensive to ship internationally, compared to other supplies.

To really show the books coming to CGC often, it would be better to show:

IM55 = 1236

ASM 121 = 1451

This would give a better idea of the "flow" of keys into CGC.

the point of having the CGC growth is to indicate which raw books are still coming to CGC versus those raw books which might be "tapering off".

 

But the ratio doesn't actually tell you that. The raw difference IS the indicator of which books are still coming to CGC.

I would eliminate the ratio number entirely, as I disagree that it is useful, other than as an indicator of "what heated up from 5 years ago"

It also complicates comparisons between the different books.

I like the 5-yr CGC growth data. Almost all graded Iron Man 55s are in that window - wonder why?

 

What is a little surprising (to me) is that seems to be true for ASM 121 as well. I'd have thought that book was significant enough pre movie hype. Evidently not.

 

The 5-yr CGC growth data on the chart is percentage based... it's a separate calculation from the black lines.

 

Orange is supposed to be compared to other orange, so that you can get a sense of which books are still coming to CGC often... I've edited the graph to put in some orange percentage gridlines.

 

Iron Man 55 grew from 600 submissions in 2010 to 1,836 submissions currently.

ASM 121 grew from 1,535 in 2010 to 2,986 currently.

Not really the books that are coming to CGC often, but the 5 yr census growth of each individual slabbed issue.

I think the raw numbers are of greater comparison value, than the relationship of individual issues slabbed in the past 5 years / number of same issue previously slabbed. We all know that NM98, IM 55, WD1 saw huge increases in their previously slabbed census numbers compared to the other books.

To really show the books coming to CGC often, it would be better to show:

IM55 = 1236

ASM 121 = 1451

This would give a better idea of the "flow" of keys into CGC.

New version of the chart...

 

 

 

 

Removes the comparison to ASM #300, because collectors may not wish to compare to ASM #300. That's a complication that isn't needed. (thumbs u

 

Statements from my previous post are still applicable:

 

Compare the first appearance of Punisher (ASM #129, 4.0 index) to the first appearance of Thor (JiM #83, 3.8 index)...

If Thor fans don't think Punisher should have a higher relative index for an average copy,

they are basically thinking that either an average ASM #129 is overpriced or an average JiM #83 is underpriced.

 

They might act accordingly. (thumbs u

I like it, but I can't really use the chart without knowing the average grades of the individual books

Looking for a solution to the ungraded copy (potential CGC supply) problem... what if I also include the 5-year growth of the CGC census?

 

Would it help if each book had an indication for how many additional copies have been CGC graded in the past 5 years?

 

too many variables that are not indicative of actual extant ungraded copies. I would pass.

We can't do anything with math about the raw books that aren't CGC graded. We don't have any numbers.

We can talk about it all day, but there's nothing to punch into the calculation.

 

So --- this is for CGC graded copies. If they're not CGC graded, I'm not talking about them.

There is a risk that someone will ignore how many ungraded copies exist, but that's not my problem.

We can't quantify unknown values, so we're left with: "Be careful, CGC hasn't graded every comic!"

 

Should I not do this work at all?

 

I've never been one to try to educate those who haven't already reached some minimum level of understanding about topics I enjoy. I'm not talking about you... I'm talking about whoever you're trying to protect from themselves.

As other math geeks, we probably just thought you needed a bigger disclaimer.

Now, done and done.

So, by all means, carry on.

Great Work!

Definitely... the biggest factor to consider is whether the CGC census has the potential to change drastically.

 

For the newest books, the CGC census could double in a month.

If the average market price doesn't drop as a result of the census doubling...

that's either a huge demand that is still increasing or a market price that's due for correction.

 

It's very hard to see the CGC census numbers changing drastically at the top of our list...

the first appearance of the Big 3, or even the Top 10... the numbers grow, but not overnight.

But for the hot new books that suddenly spike, if they push their own market cap too high...

the "invisible hand" may eventually provide a slap.

I was wondering if anyone would address the volume of raw books.

Thus, the caveat is that you are only measuring the slabbed market.

There are likely significant differences in the percentage of extant books which have been graded. Additionally, some books would likely see significant drops in average market price if the extant copies were slabbed, whereas others probably would not.

I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

 

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit?

 

So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern?

Tweaking my earlier example:

Seller offers a VF/NM bats #123 with "no returns" on ebay, no mention of restoration. Buyer finds restoration, files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

ebay accepts other payment methods, although I concede that they don't make much difference considering the behemoth that is paypal. I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

It has been my contention that the industry has always considered the delivery of a restored book to not meet the standard of fulfilling the original contract, when no restoration was mentioned in the original offer. I don't have a problem with a seller;s return policy trumping this consideration. However, I think there will be confusion with short return times that do not state any policy regarding undisclosed restoration. But, caveat emptor.

 

Will sellers return policy trump restoration detected after the return period has expired? Is this in the best interest of the community?

 

Seller offers a VG bats #123 with an unconditional 30 day guarantee, no mention of restoration. Day 31 CGC finds restoration. Buyer wants to return book. Seller refuses. Buyer files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

 

..... the buyer, after accepting the book and paying for it has agreed to the terms. The time to negotiate the contract is before you sign it, not after. I think most of us would still honor the return after only one day's difference..... I know I would...... but if the return policy is not acceptable, don't buy. It's really not that complicated. As for nominating the buyer to PL....... ? After breaking the terms of the agreement by forcing a "return" after the expiration ?.....I'd vote for inclusion. I'd like to be warned about a buyer like that. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we see an influx of sellers of $200 restored $1000 raw 30 day guarantee books from ebay where a buyer would have additional protection?

The thing is, what a seller's actual return policy is has nothing to do with the PL Rules. The PL would come into play if, for example, the seller stated a 2 week policy then refused, after a week, to make a refund.

 

So I again suggest adding this to the Usage Guidelines. For example, the Usage Guidelines state:

 

7. List scans or information about the grade of the offered books.

8. List estimated shipping costs, times, and methods.

9. List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal payment is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

Why not add:

10: List a return policy.

 

If a seller specifies No Returns, the buyer had better be very careful in communicating with the seller and save all PMs if an agreement beyond No Reeturns is reached. For example, over the course of PMing the buyer asks "OK - you say no return policy but what if there are coupons cut or missing pages?" The buyer responds, "then I will take the book back within x days."

 

Save that PM. If the book turns out to have missing pages etc. and the buyer tries to play the "No Return" card you can use the PMs as evidence to the contrary.

If the point of the probation list is to protect the members of this board from bad sellers I think we need to keep that in perspective.

 

Sure if a buyer takes a year or two to look over their books maybe they were negligent in honoring their part of the deal and perhaps are unworthy of a refund even if the book they received had undisclosed flaws including those that could be considered restoration.

 

Putting pressure on a seller to provide a refund or other forms of restitution (in order to be removed from the probation list) is only small part of what the probation list is about. The much, much, more important reason that the seller is on the list in the first place is not because we want him to do something nice for the buyer that was wronged but to keep him from screwing the rest of us over by blocking him or her from selling additional books.

 

If a seller is selling books with color touch, trimming, and missing pieces on a regular basis without disclosing any of it I do not think that any of us wants to buy books from such a person. Sure on one book out of a hundred or a thousand perhaps they missed the restoration. If selling such books without disclosing the restoration is happening more frequently perhaps they are the ones doctoring the books in the first place.

 

Forcing sellers to post a return policy in their threads is not the solution for this problem. If a seller intent on passing off restored book were to put up a thread with a 30 day return period and the seller had the skill to subtly restore the books so that the average buyer will not spot the restoration., the seller will be able to hide behind the return policy when the books all come back from CGC a few months later.

 

A typical buyer seeing a return policy that states anything other than as is / no returns will still think that if they got a restored book that it would be such a big deal that the seller would have to make an exception.

 

No one is arguing that a buyer lacks any responsibility to inspect their purchases in a timely manner (we could discuss what this entails). The real question is are we more concerned about making sure that lazy buyers do not get away with sitting on their books for a couple months before asking for a return or are we more concerned about dishonest / irresponsible sellers passing off restored books without disclosure and being free to continue doing so without being held accountable?

 

Giving buyers on this forum six months to a year to nominate a seller for the PL if they sell a restored book without disclosure and either refuse to compensate the buyer for the loss or ignore them completely seems reasonable to me.

 

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

Will sellers return policy trump restoration detected after the return period has expired? Is this in the best interest of the community?

Seller offers a VG bats #123 with an unconditional 30 day guarantee, no mention of restoration. Day 31 CGC finds restoration. Buyer wants to return book. Seller refuses. Buyer files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

In my case due to the length of time involved, I only felt I deserved compensation for expenses I wouldn't have incurred had I known the true nature of the book.

 

The price of the house in Poltergeist was a steal until the family found out it was constructed over the angry spirits of a never relocated graveyard.

 

If they remodeled, added a two car garage and had Big John's landscaping totally redo their front yard right before all hell breaks loose and little Hokie is sucked into the TV set... I would like to think their lawyer might be able to get them some damages on top of the cost of the house. I feel they would be owed something for the non disclosure.

 

I feel like I'm owed something for the non disclosure ... even though I'm not asking for a return on the "house".

 

My opinion is you were due compensation because the item you agreed to purchase was not what you received. You did not deserve compensation for expenses you chose to incur after you had the book in hand.

 

Agreed.

What are you drinking?

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

In my case due to the length of time involved, I only felt I deserved compensation for expenses I wouldn't have incurred had I known the true nature of the book.

 

The price of the house in Poltergeist was a steal until the family found out it was constructed over the angry spirits of a never relocated graveyard.

 

If they remodeled, added a two car garage and had Big John's landscaping totally redo their front yard right before all hell breaks loose and little Hokie is sucked into the TV set... I would like to think their lawyer might be able to get them some damages on top of the cost of the house. I feel they would be owed something for the non disclosure.

 

I feel like I'm owed something for the non disclosure ... even though I'm not asking for a return on the "house".

My opinion is you were due compensation because the item you agreed to purchase was not what you received. You did not deserve compensation for expenses you chose to incur after you had the book in hand.

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

I only include grading fees as an element in my case because had the true nature of the book (restored, married cover etc) been disclosed initially by the seller, then I would not have had the book graded in the first place. Or I probably would have not even purchased the book to begin with.

 

When I buyer incurs a loss due to seller negligence, I personally feel that seller who misrepresented his product (either by mistake or on purpose)... should bear the blame for that.

 

I understand all of the costs.

Your amount was very fair considering the value of the item you agreed to buy vs. the value of what was actually delivered. It should be left at that.

There are going to be a thousand permutations to go through in the thread. Compensatory damages are going to vary widely. For simplicity's sake, I think we need to limit the discussion to the actual cost of the item.

I also take the stand that the buyer of a raw book assumes the risk of submitting that book to CGC. If they don't want to assume that risk, buy it already graded.

Additionally, none of the major online markets will require a seller to refund more than what the buyer paid. An ebay transaction has no expectation of possible compensatory damages on the sellers part, board membership should not change that expectation.

The reason why it will present problems is because >65% of sellers won't state a clear return policy at all

I think it makes MORE sense to force SELLERS TO CLEARLY STATE THEIR RETURN POLICY

That right there is going to be a problem. especially the CLEARLY part.

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

Time frames become such a sticky wicket

Random thoughts:

Are all of the below created equal?

Missing pages, clipped coupon/MVS, interior tape (items neither buyer nor seller should miss with with a page count)

Amateur color touch to covers (should be evident to any regular seller and the majority of collectors)

Mustaches on random interior pages or other odd abnormal items that don't stand out on a cursory examination

Tear seals

Pieces added

Married pages

Trimming

Does it make a difference if the book was $10 or $1000? ie: does any responsibility shift

What about repeat offenders for cheapo books?

Should there be a sliding scale such as 100% for 6 months, 75% for 12, 50% to 18 and 25% to 24 months?

I'm not sure anyone has mentioned it but why not make return policy part of the rules for a sales thread similar to listing payment types

Examples

Return policy - none

Return policy - up to two weeks

etc

Even if you have that, half the people will still say "standard board rules apply"

You wouldn't be doing anything wrong by pointing out who it is.

 

Agreed.

That is the purpose of this "DISCUSSION" thread.

Everyone here realizes it may have sold via PM, so there is no reason not to link the thread.

Heck, he just may not like folks named ray and won't budge on the price to them. Anyone else, "Sure $1000 discount!!!!"

 

Also, ray, there is a little button at the bottom right of every post that says "Quote". It makes the conversation much easier to follow when quoting someone else.

 

I'm Roy. Maybe he hates Rays and Roys.

How could anyone hate Roys? That just doesn't make sense?

(It was just convenient to put the note to ray in the same post responding to your's, Roy. I am pretty sure you figured out the Quote function several thousand posts ago)

I really need to think more about postcount...

You wouldn't be doing anything wrong by pointing out who it is.

Agreed.

That is the purpose of this "DISCUSSION" thread.

Everyone here realizes it may have sold via PM, so there is no reason not to link the thread.

Heck, he just may not like folks named ray and won't budge on the price to them. Anyone else, "Sure $1000 discount!!!!"

Also, ray, there is a little button at the bottom right of every post that says "Quote". It makes the conversation much easier to follow when quoting someone else.